text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: |
For Majorana or Dirac neutrinos, using Fritzsch-like texture 4 zero mass matrices with parallel texture structures for the charged leptons and the Dirac neutrino mass matrix ($M_{\nu D}$), detailed predictions for cases pertaining to normal/inverted hierarchy as well as degenerate scenarios of neutrino masses have been carried out. The inverted hierarchy as well as degenerate scenarios seem to be ruled out at $3 \sigma$ C.L. for both Majorana and Dirac neutrinos. For normal hierarchy, Jarlskog’s rephasing invariant parameter $J$, the CP violating Dirac-like phase $\delta$ and the effective neutrino mass $ \langle m_{ee}
\rangle$ have been calculated. For this case, lower limits of $m_{\nu_1}$ and $\theta_{13}$ would have implications for the nature of neutrinos.
author:
- |
Gulsheen Ahuja$^{1}$, Sanjeev Kumar$^{2}$, Monika Randhawa$^{3}$,\
Manmohan Gupta$^{1,}$[^1], S. Dev$^{2}$\
\
[$^1$ *Department of Physics, Centre of Advanced Study, P.U., Chandigarh, India.*]{}\
[$^2$ *Department of Physics, H.P.U., Shimla, India.*]{}\
[$^3$ *University Institute of Engineering and Technology, P.U., Chandigarh, India.*]{}
title: '$~~~~~~~~$Texture 4 zero Fritzsch-like lepton mass matrices'
---
In the last few years, impressive advances have been made in understanding the phenomenology of neutrino oscillations through solar neutrino experiments [@solexp], atmospheric neutrino experiments [@atmexp], reactor based experiments [@reacexp] and accelerator based experiments [@accexp]. At present, one of the key issues in the context of neutrino oscillation phenomenology is to understand the pattern of neutrino masses and mixings which seems to be vastly different from that of quark masses and mixings. In the case of quarks the masses and mixing angles show distinct hierarchy, whereas in the case of neutrinos neither the mixing angles nor the neutrino masses show any distinct hierarchy. In fact, the two mixing angles governing solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations look to be rather large, the third angle may be very small compared to these. Further, at present there is no consensus about neutrino masses which may show normal/inverted hierarchy or may even be degenerate. Furthermore, the situation becomes complicated when one realizes that neutrino masses are much smaller than charged lepton and quark masses.
Taking clue from the success of texture specific mass matrices in the context of quarks [@quarkstex], several attempts [@neuttex; @leptex] have been made to consider similar lepton mass matrices for explaining the pattern of neutrino masses and mixings. In the absence of sufficient amount of data regarding neutrino masses and mixing angles, it would require a very careful scrutiny of all possible textures to find viable structures which are compatible with data and theoretical ideas so that these be kept in mind while formulating mass matrices at the GUT (Grand Unified Theories) scale. In this context, most of the attempts to understand the pattern of neutrino masses and mixings have been carried out using the seesaw mechanism [@seesaw] given by M\_=-M\_[D]{}\^T(M\_R)\^[-1]{}M\_[D]{}, \[seesaweq\] where $M_{\nu D}$ and $M_R$ are respectively the Dirac neutrino mass matrix and the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix. In this context, it should be noted that the predictions are somewhat different, on the one hand when texture is imposed only on $M_{\nu D}$ and $M_R$ and on the other hand when $M_{\nu}$ and $M_{\nu D}$ have the same texture by imposing ‘texture invariant conditions’ [@xingtexinv; @matsuda]. Similarly, as compared to the Majorana case, the predictions are different for Dirac neutrinos even if $M_{\nu D}$ has the same texture as that of $M_{\nu}$.
Texture 4 zero mass matrices are known to explain the pattern of quark masses and mixings [@t4quarkstex] as well as are known to be compatible with specific models of GUTs [@quarkstex; @neuttex] and these could be obtained using considerations of Abelian family symmetries [@grimus]. Assuming normal hierarchy of masses as well as imposing texture 4 zero structure on $M_{\nu
D}$ and charged lepton mass matrices, Xing [*et al.*]{} [@xingtexinv] have not only shown the compatibility of these with neutrino oscillation phenomenology but have also shown the seesaw invariance of these structures under certain conditions. Very recently, Matsuda [*et al.*]{} [@matsuda] have reiterated the success of texture 4 zero mass matrices in the case of quarks by showing that these mass matrices can accommodate the present value of sin$2\beta$. Also, for normal hierarchy they have shown that texture 4 zero lepton mass matrices can accommodate large values of mixing angle $s_{13}$. In particular, by imposing texture invariant conditions they have shown that $M_{\nu}$ can be texture 2 zero when one assumes Fritzsch-like texture 2 zero structure for $M_{\nu D}$, $M_R$ as well as for charged lepton mass matrix.
In view of the success of texture 4 zero mass matrices in the context of quark mixing phenomenology, it would be interesting to carry out an exhaustive and detailed analysis of these in the case of leptons. In particular, for both Majorana and Dirac neutrinos it would be interesting to investigate the compatibility of texture 4 zero lepton mass matrices with the inverted hierarchy and degenerate scenario of neutrino masses. In the case of Majorana neutrinos due to the absence of any guidelines for $M_R$, to keep the number of independent parameters under control, it would perhaps be desirable to keep its structure as simple as possible. It would also be desirable to study the implications of these mass matrices when texture is imposed only on $M_{\nu D}$ and not on $M_{\nu}$.
Considering Fritzsch-like texture 4 zero lepton mass matrices, with neutrinos and charged leptons having parallel texture structures, the purpose of the present communication is to investigate in detail the implications of these for normal/inverted hierarchy as well as ‘different’ degenerate scenarios of neutrino masses. In particular, for the inverted hierarchy and degenerate scenarios, the implications of these structures have been carried out for both Majorana and Dirac neutrinos by exploring the parameter space available to any of the two mixing angles found by giving full variation to other parameters and phases. In the case of normal hierarchy, we have calculated several phenomenological quantities such as Jarlskog’s rephasing invariant parameter $J$, the CP violating Dirac-like phase $\delta$ and the effective neutrino mass $ \langle m_{ee}
\rangle$, related to neutrinoless double beta decay $(\beta\beta)_{0 \, \nu}$.
To begin with, we define the modified Fritzsch-like matrices, e.g., M\_[l]{}=( 0 & A \_[l]{} & 0\
A\_[l]{}\^[\*]{} & D\_[l]{} & B\_[l]{}\
0 & B\_[l]{}\^[\*]{} & C\_[l]{} ), M\_[D]{}=( 0 &A \_ & 0\
A\_\^[\*]{} & D\_ & B\_\
0 & B\_\^[\*]{} & C\_ ), \[frzmm\] $M_{l}$ and $M_{\nu D}$ respectively corresponding to Dirac-like charged lepton and neutrino mass matrices. The above matrices are texture 4 zero type with $D_l$ and $D_{\nu}$ being non-zero along with $A_{l(\nu)} =|A_{l(\nu)}|e^{i\alpha_{l(\nu)}}$ and $B_{l(\nu)} = |B_{l(\nu)}|e^{i\beta_{l(\nu)}}$, in case these are symmetric then $A_{l(\nu)}^*$ and $B_{l(\nu)}^*$ should be replaced by $A_{l(\nu)}$ and $B_{l(\nu)}$, as well as $C_{l(\nu)}$ and $D_{l(\nu)}$ should respectively be defined as $C_{l(\nu)}
=|C_{l(\nu)}|e^{i\gamma_{l(\nu)}}$ and $D_{l(\nu)}
=|D_{l(\nu)}|e^{i\omega_{l(\nu)}}$.
To fix the notations and conventions as well as to facilitate the understanding of inverted hierarchy case and its relationship to the normal hierarchy case, we detail the formalism connecting the mass matrix to the neutrino mixing matrix. The mass matrices $M_l$ and $M_{\nu D}$ given in equation (\[frzmm\]), for Hermitian as well as symmetric case, can be exactly diagonalized. Details of Hermitian case can be looked up in our earlier work [@mon], the symmetric case can similarly be worked out. To facilitate diagonalization, the mass matrix $M_k$, where $k=l, \nu D$, can be expressed as M\_k= Q\_k M\_k\^r P\_k \[mk\] or M\_k\^r= Q\_k\^ M\_k P\_k\^, \[mkr\] where $M_k^r$ is a real symmetric matrix with real eigenvalues and $Q_k$ and $P_k$ are diagonal phase matrices. For the hermitian case $Q_k=
P_k^{\dagger}$, whereas for the symmetric case under certain conditions $Q_k= P_k$. In general, the real matrix $M_k^r$ is diagonalized by the orthogonal transformation $O_k$, e.g., M\_k\^[diag]{}= [O\_k]{}\^T M\_k\^r O\_k , \[mkdiag\] which on using equation (\[mkr\]) can be rewritten as M\_k\^[diag]{}= [O\_k]{}\^T Q\_k\^ M\_k P\_k\^ O\_k . \[mkdiag2\] To facilitate the construction of diagonalization transformations for different hierarchies, we introduce a diagonal phase matrix $\xi_k$ defined as $ {\rm diag} (1,\,e^{i \pi},\,1)$ for the case of normal hierarchy and as $ {\rm diag} (1,\,e^{i
\pi},\,e^{i \pi})$ for the case of inverted hierarchy. Equation (\[mkdiag2\]) can now be written as \_k M\_k\^[diag]{}= [O\_k]{}\^T Q\_k\^ M\_k P\_k\^ O\_k , \[mkdiag3\] which can also be expressed as M\_k\^[diag]{}= \_k\^ [O\_k]{}\^T Q\_k\^ M\_k P\_k\^ O\_k . \[mkdiag4\] Making use of the fact that $O_k^*=O_k$ it can be further expressed as M\_k\^[diag]{}=(Q\_k O\_k \_k)\^ M\_k (P\_k\^ O\_k),\[mkeq\] from which one gets M\_k=Q\_k O\_k \_k M\_k\^[diag]{} O\_k\^T P\_k.\[mkeq2\]
The case of leptons is fairly straight forward, for the neutrinos the diagonalizing transformation is hierarchy specific as well as requires some fine tuning of the phases of the right handed neutrino mass matrix $M_R$. To clarify this point further, in analogy with equation (\[mkeq2\]), we can express $M_{\nu D}$ as M\_[D]{}=Q\_[D]{} O\_[D]{} \_[D]{} M\_[D]{}\^[diag]{} O\_[D]{}\^T P\_[D]{}.\[mnud\] Substituting the above value of $M_{\nu D}$ in equation (\[seesaweq\]) one obtains M\_=-(Q\_[D]{} O\_[D]{} \_[D]{} M\_[D]{}\^[diag]{} O\_[D]{}\^T P\_[D]{})\^T (M\_R)\^[-1]{} (Q\_[D]{} O\_[D]{} \_[D]{} M\_[D]{}\^[diag]{} O\_[D]{}\^T P\_[D]{}). On using $P_{\nu D}^T
= P_{\nu D}$, the above equation can further be written as M\_=-P\_[D]{} O\_[D]{} M\_[D]{}\^[diag]{} \_[D]{} O\_[D]{}\^T Q\_[D]{}\^T (M\_R)\^[-1]{} Q\_[D]{} O\_[D]{} \_[D]{} M\_[D]{}\^[diag]{} O\_[D]{}\^T P\_[D]{}. Assuming fine tuning, the phase matrices $Q_{\nu D}^T$ and $Q_{\nu D}$ along with $-M_R$ can be taken as $m_R ~{\rm diag} (1,1,1)$ as well as using the unitarity of $\xi_{\nu D}$ and orthogonality of $O_{\nu D}$, the above equation can be expressed as M\_= P\_[D]{} O\_[D]{} O\_[D]{}\^T P\_[D]{}. \[mnu\]
The lepton mixing matrix, obtained from the matrices used for diagonalizing the mass matrices $M_l$ and $M_{\nu}$, is expressed as U =(Q\_l O\_l \_l)\^ (P\_[D]{} O\_[D]{}). \[mix\] Eliminating the phase matrix $\xi_l$ by redefinition of the charged lepton phases, the above equation becomes U = O\_l\^ Q\_l P\_[D]{} O\_[D]{} , \[mixreal\] where $Q_l P_{\nu D}$, without loss of generality, can be taken as $(e^{i\phi_1},\,1,\,e^{i\phi_2})$, $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ being related to the phases of mass matrices and can be treated as free parameters.
To understand the relationship between diagonalizing transformations for different hierarchies of neutrino masses as well as their relationship with the charged lepton case, we first consider the general diagonalizing transformation $O_k$, whose elements can be written as O\_k(11) & = & [ ]{}\
O\_k(12) & = & [ ]{}\
O\_k(13) & = & [ ]{}\
O\_k(21) & = & [ ]{}\
O\_k(22) & = & [ ]{}\
O\_k(23) & = &\
O\_k(31) & = &\
O\_k(32) & = & [ ]{}\
O\_k(33) & = & , \[diaggen\] where $m_1$, $m_2$, $m_3$ are eigenvalues of $M_k$. In the case of charged leptons, because of the hierarchy $m_e \ll m_{\mu} \ll m_{\tau}$, the mass eigenstates can be approximated respectively to the flavor eigenstates as has been considered by several authors [@neuttex; @fuku]. Using the approximation, $m_{l1} \simeq m_e$, $m_{l2} \simeq m_{\mu}$ and $m_{l3} \simeq m_{\tau}$, the first element of the matrix $O_l$ can be obtained from the corresponding element of equation (\[diaggen\]) by replacing $m_1$, $m_2$, $m_3$ by $m_e$, $-m_{\mu}$, $m_{\tau}$, e.g., O\_l(11) = [ ]{} .
For normal hierarchy defined as $m_{\nu_1}<m_{\nu_2}\ll
m_{\nu_3}$, as well as for the corresponding degenerate case given by $m_{\nu_1} \lesssim m_{\nu_2} \sim m_{\nu_3}$, equation (\[diaggen\]) can also be used to obtain the first element of diagonalizing transformation for Majorana neutrinos. By replacing $m_1$, $m_2$, $m_3$ by $\sqrt{m_{\nu 1} m_R}$, $-\sqrt{m_{\nu 2}
m_R}$, $\sqrt{m_{\nu 3} m_R}$ in the equation, we get O\_(11) = [ ]{} \[omajnh\], where $m_{\nu_1}$, $m_{\nu_2}$ and $m_{\nu_3}$ are neutrino masses. The parameter $D_{\nu}$ is to be divided by $\sqrt{m_R}$, however as $D_{\nu}$ is arbitrary therefore we retain it as it is.
In the same manner, one can obtain the elements of diagonalizing transformation for the inverted hierarchy case defined as $m_{\nu_3} \ll m_{\nu_1} < m_{\nu_2}$ as well as for the corresponding degenerate case given by $m_{\nu_3} \sim m_{\nu_1}
\lesssim m_{\nu_2}$. By replacing $m_1$, $m_2$, $m_3$ in equation (\[diaggen\]) with $\sqrt{m_{\nu_1} m_R}$, $-\sqrt{m_{\nu_2}
m_R}$, $-\sqrt{m_{\nu_3} m_R}$, we obtain O\_(11) = [ ]{} \[omajih\]. The other elements of diagonalizing transformations in the case of neutrinos as well as charged leptons can similarly be found. The above formalism has been presented for Majorana neutrinos, for the Dirac case the mixing matrix can easily be derived from diagonalizing transformation of $M_l$ and $M_{\nu D}$.
It may be of interest to mention that in the case of normal hierarchy, the formulation of Matsuda [*et al.*]{} [@matsuda] can easily be obtained from the present case. For example, their element $O_{11}$ can be obtained from our $O_k(11)$ by replacing ‘$d_f$’ by ‘$m_1 +m_2 +m_3 + D_{l(\nu)}$’, similarly their other elements can be derived from the elements of our $O_k$. Further, it should also be noted that they have treated the $3 \times 3$ element of the mass matrix as free parameter whereas in the present case we have treated $2 \times 2$ element as a free parameter. Furthermore, we have not put any conditions so as to obtain a particular texture for $M_{\nu}$.
Before discussing the results, we would like to mention some of the details pertaining to various inputs. For the purpose of our analysis we have used the results obtained by a recent global analysis carried out by Valle [@valle], incorporating solar [@solexp], atmospheric [@atmexp], reactor [@reacexp] and accelerator based experiments [@accexp]. The 3$\sigma$ values of the neutrino mass and mixing parameters so obtained are m\_[12]{}\^[2]{} = (7.1 - 8.9) 10\^[-5]{} [eV]{}\^[2]{}, m\_[23]{}\^[2]{} = (2.0 - 3.2)10\^[-3]{} [eV]{}\^[2]{}, \[solatmmass\]\^2\_[12]{} = 0.24 - 0.40, [sin]{}\^2\_[23]{} = 0.34 - 0.68, [sin]{}\^2\_[13]{} 0.040. \[s13\] These values are quite compatible with those obtained very recently by a global analysis carried out by Garcia and Maltoni [@recgar]. It may be mentioned that the present upper bound on ${\rm sin}\,\theta_{13}$ is somewhat lower than the CHOOZ bound [@chooz]. Further, for the purpose of calculations, we have taken the lightest neutrino mass, the phases $\phi_1$, $\phi_2$ and $D_{l, \nu}$ as free parameters, the other two masses are constrained by $\Delta m_{12}^2 = m_{\nu_2}^2 - m_{\nu_1}^2 $ and $\Delta m_{23}^2 = m_{\nu_3}^2 - m_{\nu_2}^2 $ in the normal hierarchy case and by $\Delta m_{23}^2 = m_{\nu_2}^2 -
m_{\nu_3}^2$ in the inverted hierarchy case. It may be noted that lightest neutrino mass corresponds to $m_{\nu_1}$ for the normal hierarchy case and to $m_{\nu_3}$ for the inverted hierarchy case. For all the three hierarchies, the explored range of the lightest neutrino mass is taken to be $10^{-8}\,\rm{eV}-10^{-1}\,\rm{eV}$, our conclusions remain unaffected even if the range is extended further. In the absence of any constraint on the phases, $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ have been given full variation from 0 to $2\pi$. Although $D_{l, \nu}$ are free parameters, however, they have been constrained such that diagonalizing transformations $O_l$ and $O_{\nu}$ always remain real. This implies, for leptons $-(m_{l_2}
- m_{l_1})<D_{l}< (m_{l_3} + m_{l_2})$, for Dirac neutrinos $-(m_{\nu_2} - m_{\nu_1}) < D_{\nu}
<(m_{\nu_3} - m_{\nu_2})$ for normal hierarchy and $-(m_{\nu_2} - m_{\nu_1}) < D_{\nu}
<(m_{\nu_1} - m_{\nu_3})$ for inverted hierarchy. Similarly, for Majorana neutrinos $-(\sqrt{m_{\nu_2}} -\sqrt{m_{\nu_1}}) <
D_{\nu}
<(\sqrt{m_{\nu_3}} - \sqrt{m_{\nu_2}})$ for normal hierarchy and $-(\sqrt{m_{\nu_2}} - \sqrt{m_{\nu_1}}) < D_{\nu}
<(\sqrt{m_{\nu_1}} - \sqrt{m_{\nu_3}})$ for inverted hierarchy. The calculations pertaining to the case when charged leptons are in flavor basis can easily be deduced from the above calculations for both Majorana and Dirac neutrinos.
Considering Majorana or Dirac neutrinos, we have carried out detailed calculations pertaining to texture 4 zero lepton mass matrices for the possibilities of neutrino masses having normal/inverted hierarchy or being degenerate. To begin with, we consider the inverted hierarchy case for both types of neutrinos. In this context, it may be mentioned that for both the possibilities texture is imposed only on $M_{\nu D}$, with no such restriction on $M_{\nu}$ for the Majorana case. In figures 1a, 1b and 1c, for Majorana neutrinos we have plotted the parameter space corresponding to any of the two mixing angles by constraining the third angle by its values given in equation (\[s13\]) while giving full allowed variation to other parameters. Also included in the figures are blank rectangular regions indicating the experimentally allowed $3\sigma$ region of the plotted angles. Interestingly, a general look at these figures reveals that the case of inverted hierarchy seems to be ruled out. A closer look at these figures brings out several interesting points. From figure 1a showing the plot of angles $\theta_{12}$ versus $\theta_{23}$, one can immediately conclude that the plotted parameter space includes the experimentally allowed range of $\theta_{23}=35.7^{\circ}-55.6^{\circ}$, however it excludes the experimentally allowed range of $\theta_{12}=29.3^{\circ}-39.25^{\circ}$. This clearly indicates that at 3$\sigma$ C.L. inverted hierarchy is not viable. It may be noted that while plotting this figure, $\theta_{13}$ is restricted by the bound given in equation (\[s13\]), while $\Delta
m_{12}^2$ and $\Delta m_{23}^2$ are constrained by the experimental limits given in equation (\[solatmmass\]). It may also be mentioned that although the 3$\sigma$ upper limit of angle $\theta_{12}$ is not included in the plotted parameter space, yet it lies very near to the boundary, therefore the above conclusions needs to be checked further.
The conclusions arrived above can be further checked from figures 1b and 1c wherein we have plotted $\theta_{12}$ versus $\theta_{13}$ and $\theta_{23}$ versus $\theta_{13}$ respectively by constraining angles $\theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{12}$. Both the figures indicate that the plotted parameter space does not include simultaneously the experimental bounds of the plotted angles, e.g., $\theta_{12}$ in the case of figure 1b and $\theta_{13}$ in figure 1c. Here it needs to be mentioned that similar to figure 1a, in figure 1b also the 3$\sigma$ upper limit of angle $\theta_{12}$ lies very near to the boundary of the plotted parameter space, however in figure 1c the 3$\sigma$ upper limit of angle $\theta_{13}$ is well below the plotted parameter space.
For Dirac neutrinos, again inverted hierarchy seems to be ruled out as can be easily checked from figures 2a, 2b and 2c, plotted in a manner similar to the Majorana case by constraining one mixing angle by its experimental limits and plotting the parameter space for the other two angles. Again, these figures reveal that the plotted parameter space does not overlap with the experimental limits of at least one of the plotted angles, thereby indicating that inverted hierarchy is ruled out at 3$\sigma$ C.L. for Dirac neutrinos as well.
For Majorana or Dirac neutrinos the case of neutrino masses being degenerate, characterized by either $m_{\nu_1} \lesssim m_{\nu_2}
\sim m_{\nu_3} \lesssim 0.1~\rm{eV}$ or $m_{\nu_3} \sim m_{\nu_1}
\lesssim m_{\nu_2} \lesssim 0.1~\rm{eV}$ corresponding to normal hierarchy and inverted hierarchy respectively, is again ruled out. Considering degenerate scenario corresponding to inverted hierarchy, figures 1 and 2 can again be used to rule out degenerate scenario at 3$\sigma$ C.L. for Majorana and Dirac neutrinos respectively. It needs to be mentioned that while plotting these figures the range of the lightest neutrino mass is taken to be $10^{-8}\,\rm{eV}-10^{-1}\,\rm{eV}$, which includes the neutrino masses corresponding to degenerate scenario, therefore by discussion similar to the one given for ruling out inverted hierarchy, degenerate scenario of neutrino masses is ruled out as well.
Coming to degenerate scenario corresponding to normal hierarchy, one can easily show that this is ruled out again. To this end, in figure \[th12vm-md\], by giving full variation to other parameters, we have plotted the mixing angle $\theta_{12}$ against the lightest neutrino mass $m_{\nu_1}$. Figure \[th12vm-md\]a corresponds to the case of Majorana neutrinos and figure \[th12vm-md\]b to the case of Dirac neutrinos. From the figures one can immediately find that the values of $\theta_{12}$ corresponding to $m_{\nu_1} \lesssim 0.1~\rm{eV}$ lie outside the experimentally allowed range, thereby ruling out degenerate scenario for Majorana as well as Dirac neutrinos at 3$\sigma$ C.L..
The presence of a few isolated points near the experimentally allowed 3$\sigma$ regions shown in figures 1 and 2 may raise doubts about our conclusions. In order to check whether there are any solution points within the experimentally allowed 3$\sigma$ region of plotted angles, we have attempted to obtain a common parameter space pertaining to the three mixing angles simultaneously. Interestingly, we find that all possible cases considered here pertaining to inverted hierarchy and degenerate scenario are again ruled out. It may also be added that in the case when charged leptons are in the flavor basis, one can easily check that inverted hierarchy and degenerate scenarios for the texture 4 zero mass matrices are again ruled out, in agreement with the conclusions of [@sanjeev]. The results pertaining to this case can easily be derived from our earlier cases.
After ruling out the cases pertaining to inverted hierarchy and degenerate scenario, we now discuss the normal hierarchy cases. For the charged lepton mass matrix $M_l$ being Fritzsch-like or in the flavor basis, for Majorana as well as Dirac neutrinos, in table (\[tab1\]) we have presented the viable ranges of neutrino masses, mixing angles $\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{13}$, Jarlskog’s rephasing invariant parameter $J$, CP violating phase $\delta$ and effective neutrino mass $ \langle
m_{ee} \rangle$. The parameter $J$ can be calculated by using its expression given in [@fuku], whereas $\delta$ can be determined from $J=s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}c_{12}c_{23}c_{13}^2\, {\rm
sin}\,\delta $ where $c_{ij} = {\rm cos}\theta_{ij}$ and $s_{ij} =
{\rm sin}\theta_{ij}$, for $i,j=1,2,3$. The effective Majorana mass, related to neutrinoless double beta decay $(\beta\beta)_{0
\, \nu}$, is given as m\_[ee]{} = m\_[\_1]{} U\_[e1]{}\^2 + m\_[\_2]{} U\_[e2]{}\^2 +m\_[\_3]{} U\_[e3]{}\^2. \[mee\]
Considering the texture 4 zero case when $M_{\nu D}$ and $M_l$ both have parallel texture structures, a close look at table (\[tab1\]) reveals several interesting points. For both Dirac or Majorana neutrinos, the viable range of the lightest neutrino mass $m_{\nu_1}$ is quite different, in particular the range corresponding to Dirac neutrinos is much wider at both the ends as compared to the Majorana neutrinos. Similar conclusions can be arrived at by studying the implications of the well known mixing angle $\theta_{12}$ on the lightest neutrino mass $m_{\nu_1}$ through a closer look at the figures 3a and 3b. Therefore, a measurement of $m_{\nu_1}$ could have important implications for the nature of neutrinos. Somewhat constrained range of $m_{\nu_2}$ for the Majorana case as compared to the Dirac case is also due to the constrained range of $m_{\nu_1}$ for the Majorana case. Also, from the table one finds that the lower limit on $\theta_{13}$ for the Dirac case is considerably lower than for the Majorana case, therefore a measurement of $\theta_{13}$ would have important implications for this case. It must be noted that the calculated values of $\langle m_{ee} \rangle$ are much less compared to the present limits of $\langle m_{ee} \rangle$ [@heidel], therefore, these do not have any implications for the texture 4 zero cases considered here. However, the future experiments with considerably higher sensitivities, aiming to measure $\langle
m_{ee} \rangle \simeq 3.6\times
10^{-2}~\rm{eV}$ (MOON [@moon]) and $\langle m_{ee} \rangle \simeq 2.7\times
10^{-2}~\rm{eV}$ (CUORE [@cuore]), would have implications on the cases considered here. The different cases of Dirac and Majorana neutrinos do not show any divergence for the ranges of Jarlskog’s rephasing invariant parameter .
It may be of interest to construct the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) mixing matrix [@pmns] which for Majorana neutrinos is U=( 0.7599 - 0.8701 & 0.4797 - 0.6294 & 0.0199 - 0.1994\
0.1673 - 0.5715 & 0.3948 - 0.7606 & 0.5720 - 0.8224\
0.1854 - 0.5912 & 0.3549 - 0.7363 & 0.5540 - 0.8094 ), \[mmaj\] wherein we have given the magnitude of the matrix elements. Similarly, for Dirac neutrinos, the PMNS matrix is U=( 0.7604 - 0.9213 & 0.3887 - 0.6317& 0.0015 - 0.1993\
0.1475 - 0.5552 & 0.4049 - 0.8170 & 0.4154 - 0.8244\
0.1830 - 0.6022 & 0.3648 - 0.7441 & 0.5546 - 0.9095 ). \[mdir\] A general look at the two matrices reveals that the ranges of the matrix elements are more wider in the case of Dirac neutrinos as compared to those in the case of Majorana neutrinos. A comparison of the two matrices shows that the lower limit of the element $U_{\mu 3}$ show an appreciable difference, which seems to be due to the nature of neutrinos, hence, a further precision of $U_{\mu
3}$ would have important implications. Also, it may be mentioned that both the above mentioned matrices are fully compatible with a very recent construction of a mixing matrix by Bjorken [*et al.*]{} [@bjorken] assuming democratic trimaximally mixed $\nu_2$ mass eigenstate as well as with the one presented by Giunti [@giunti].
For the sake of completion pertaining to normal hierarchy, in table (\[tab1\]) we have also presented the results when charged leptons are in the flavor basis which can be easily deduced from the case when $M_l$ is Fritzsch-like. Interestingly, from the table one immediately finds that in this case both $J$ and $\delta$ are vanishingly small for the wide range of parameters considered here, which can easily be understood by examining the corresponding mixing matrix. Also, the range of angle $\theta_{13}$ is much narrower compared to the case when $M_l$ is Fritzsch-like, particularly for the Majorana case the predicted range is very narrow, therefore a measurement of $\theta_{13}$ would have an immediate impact on this case. It may also be added that for the Majorana case, the range of $\theta_{23}$ is compatible only with the lower part of the present admissible range, however for the Dirac case there is no such restriction. These conclusions are broadly in agreement with those of [@sanjeev].
To summarize, detailed calculations have been carried out for different hierarchies in the case of Fritzsch-like texture 4 zero mass matrices with parallel texture structures for charged leptons and for Dirac neutrino mass matrix ($M_{\nu D}$) using latest 3$\sigma$ input values of neutrino mass and mixing parameters. For the inverted hierarchy, pertaining to both Majorana and Dirac neutrinos, parameter space available to any two of the mixing angles has been explored while considering wide ranges of free parameters available. Similarly, the viability of ‘different’ degenerate scenarios has been examined. Interestingly for both types of neutrinos, inverted hierarchy as well as degenerate scenarios seem to be ruled out at $3\sigma$ C.L. and hence strongly disfavored. It may also be added that the results when charged leptons are in the flavor basis can easily be deduced from the present calculations and these lead to similar conclusions.
For the normal hierarchy case, several phenomenological quantities such as Jarlskog’s rephasing invariant parameter $J$, the CP violating Dirac-like phase $\delta$ and the effective neutrino mass $ \langle m_{ee} \rangle$ have been calculated. The different cases of Majorana and Dirac neutrinos do not show any divergence for the ranges of $J$ and phase $\delta$. In the case of $m_{\nu_1}$ and $\theta_{13}$, the Dirac case seems to accommodate a larger range of these parameters. In particular, a measurement of the lower limits of these parameters would have implications for the nature of neutrinos. Also, the PMNS matrices constructed for Majorana as well as Dirac neutrinos, by giving full variation to the parameters, are compatible with a very recent construction of a mixing matrix by Bjorken [*et al.*]{} [@bjorken] assuming democratic trimaximally mixed $\nu_2$ mass eigenstate.
0.2cm [**Acknowledgements**]{}\
M.G. and G.A. would like to thank DAE, BRNS (grant No.2005/37/4/BRNS), India, for financial support. S.K. acknowledges the financial support provided by CSIR, India. M.R. would like to thank the Director, UIET for providing facilities to work.
[99]{} R. Davis, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 32, (1994) 13 ; B. T. Cleveland [*et al*]{}., Astrophys. J. 496, (1998) 505 ; J.N. Abdurashitov [*et al.*]{}, SAGE Collaboration, Phys. Rev. C60, (1999) 055801; C. M. Cattadori, GNO Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 110, (2002) 311 ; W. Hampel [*et al.*]{}, GALLEX Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B447, (1999) 127; S. Fukuda [*et al.*]{}, Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B539, (2002) 179 ; Q. R. Ahmad [*et al.*]{}, SNO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, (2002) 011301; S. N. Ahmad [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, (2004) 181301.
Y. Fukuda [*et al.*]{}, SuperKamiokande Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, (1998) 1562; A. Surdo, MACRO Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 110, (2002) 342; M. Sanchez, Soudan 2 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D68, (2003) 113004.
K. Eguchi [*et al.*]{}, KamLAND Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, (2003) 021802; Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, (2005) 081801.
M. H. Ahn [*et al.*]{}, K2K Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, (2003) 041801.
H. Fritzsch, Z. Z. Xing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 45, (2000) 1, and references therein.
H. Fritzsch, Z. Z. Xing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. J. C36, (2004) 227, and references therein.
K. Kang, S.K. Kang, Phys. Rev. D56, (1997) 1511; H. Nishiura, K. Matsuda, T. Fukuyama, Phys. Rev. D60, (1999) 013006; K. Matsuda, T. Fukuyama, H. Nishiura, Phys. Rev. D61, (2000) 053001; K. Kang, S.K. Kang, C.S. Kim, S.M. Kim, Mod. Phys. Lett. A16, (2001) 2169; C. Giunti, M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. D66, (2002) 113006; M. Frigerio, A.Yu. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B640, (2002) 233; P.F. Harrison, W.G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B547, (2002) 219; E. Ma, Mod. Phys. Lett. A17, (2002) 2361; E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D66, (2002) 117301; P.H. Frampton, S.L. Glashow, D. Marfatia, Phys. Lett. B 536, (2002) 79; Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B 530, (2002) 159; Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B 539, (2002) 85; A. Kageyama, S. Kaneko, N. Simoyama, M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B 538, (2002) 96; W.L. Guo, Z.Z. Xing, hep-ph/0211315; M. Randhawa, G. Ahuja, M. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D65, (2002) 093016; M. Frigerio, A.Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D67, (2003) 013007; K.S. Babu, E. Ma, J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B552, (2003) 207; W.L. Guo, Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D67, (2003) 053002; S. Kaneko, M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B551, (2003) 127; B.R. Desai, D.P. Roy, A.R. Vaucher, Mod.Phys.Lett. A18, (2003) 1355; K. Hasegawa, C.S. Lim, K. Ogure, Phys. Rev. D68, (2003) 053006; M. Honda, S. Kaneko, M. Tanimoto, JHEP 0309, (2003) 028; G. Bhattacharyya, A. Raychaudhuri, A. Sil, Phys. Rev. D67, (2003) 073004; P.F. Harrison, W.G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B594, (2004) 324; Z.Z. Xing, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19, (2004) 1; M. Bando, S. Kaneko, M. Obara, M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B580, (2004) 229; O.L.G. Peres, A.Yu. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B680, (2004) 479; C.H. Albright, Phys. Lett. B599, (2004) 285; J. Ferrandis, S. Pakvasa, Phys. Lett. B603, (2004) 184; S.T. Petcov, W. Rodejohann, Phys. Rev. D71, (2005) 073002; S.S. Masood, S. Nasri, J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D71, (2005) 093005; R. Dermíšek, S. Raby, Phys. Lett. B622, (2005) 327 ; F. Plentinger, W. Rodejohann, Phys. Lett. B625, (2005) 264.
P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B67, (1977) 421; T. Yanagida, in Proc. of Work-shop on Unified Theory and Baryon number in the Universe, eds. O. Sawada, A. Sugamoto, KEK, Tsukuba, (1979); M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, R. Slansky, in Supergravity, eds P. van Niewenhuizen, D. Z. Freedman (North Holland, Amsterdam 1980); P. Ramond, Sanibel talk, retroprinted as hep-ph/9809459; S. L. Glashow, in Quarks and Leptons, Carg‘ese lectures, eds M. L´evy, (Plenum, 1980, New York) p. 707; R. N. Mohapatra, G. Sen- janovi´c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, (1980) 912.
Z. Z. Xing, H. Zhang, Phys.Lett. B569, (2003) 30; Z. Z. Xing, S. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B606, (2005) 145.
K. Matsuda, H. Nishiura, Phys. Rev. D74, (2006) 033014, and references therein.
D. Du, Z. Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D48, (1993) 2349; L.J. Hall, A. Rasin, Phys. Lett. B315, (1993) 164 ; P. Ramond, R. G. Roberts, G. G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B406, (1993) 19; H. Fritzsch, D. Holtmansp$\rm\ddot{o}$tter, Phys. Lett. B338, (1994) 290; H. Fritzsch, Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B353, (1995) 114; M. Gupta, P. S. Gill, Pramana 45, (1995) 333; P.S. Gill, M. Gupta, J. Phys. G: Nuc. Part. Phys. 21, (1995) 1; H. Lehmann, C. Newton, T. T. Wu, Phys. Lett. B384, (1996) 249; P. S. Gill, M. Gupta, Jol. Phys. G23, (1997) 1; P. S. Gill, M. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D56, (1997) 3143; Z. Z. Xing, J. Phys. G23, (1997) 1563; T. Kobayashi, Z. Z. Xing, Mod. Phys. Lett. A12, (1997) 561; [*ibid.*]{} Int. J. Mod. Phys. A13, (1998) 2201; P. S. Gill, M. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D57, (1998) 3917; J. L. Chkareuli, C. D. Froggatt, Phys. Lett. B450, (1999) 158; A. Mondrag$\rm\acute{o}$n, E. Rodriguez-J$\rm\acute{a}$uregui, Phys. Rev. D59, (1999) 093009; M. Randhawa, V. Bhatnagar, P. S. Gill, M. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D60, (1999) 051301; G. C. Branco, D. Emmanuel-Costa, R. Gonz$\rm\acute{a}$lez Felipe, Phys. Lett. B477, (2000) 147; S. H. Chiu, T. K. Kuo, G. H. Wu, Phys. Rev. D62, (2000) 053014; H. Fritzsch, Z. Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D61, (2000) 073016; [*ibid.*]{} Phys. Lett. B506, (2001) 109; R. Rosenfeld, J. L. Rosner, Phys. Lett. B516, (2001) 408 ; R. G. Roberts, A. Romanino, G. G. Ross, L. Velasco-Sevilla, Nucl. Phys. B615, (2001) 358; J. L. Chkareuli, C. D. Froggatt, Nucl. Phys. B626, 307 (2002); H. Fritzsch, Z. Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B555, (2003) 63; Z. Z. Xing, H. Zhang, J. Phys. G30, (2004) 129.
W. Grimus, hep-ph/0511078.
See M. Randhawa [*et al.*]{} from [@t4quarkstex].
M. Fukugita, M. Tanimoto, T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 89, (1993) 263; [*ibid.*]{} Phys. Lett. B562, (2003) 273.
J. W. F. Valle, hep-ph/0608101; [*ibid.*]{} hep-ph/0612251.
M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, arXiv:0704.1800v1.
M. Appolonio [*et al.*]{}, CHOOZ Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C27 (2003) 331.
S. Dev, S. Kumar, S. Verma, S. Gupta, hep-ph/0612102.
H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus [*et al.*]{}, Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. A12, (2001) 147; [*ibid.*]{} Phys. Lett. B586, (2004) 198, and references therein.
H. Ejiri, R. Hazama, P. Krastev, N. Kudomi, R. G. H. Robertson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, (2000) 2917.
R. Ardito, [*et al.*]{}, CUORE Collaboration, hep-ex/0501010; C. Arnaboldi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2005) 142501.
B. Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. (JETP) 33, (1957) 549; [*ibid.*]{} 34, (1958) 247; [*ibid.*]{} 53, (1967) 1771; Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 28, (1962) 870.
J. D. Bjorken, P. F. Harrison, W. G. Scott, Phys. Rev. D74, (2006) 073012.
C. Giunti, hep-ph/0611125.
-------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Dirac case Majorana case Dirac case Majorana case
$m_{\nu_1}$ 5.73 $\times 10^{-5}$ - 0.012 2.47 $\times (1.63 - 6.28) $\times 10^{-3}$ (.402 - 2.06) $\times 10^{-3}$
10^{-4}$ - 0.006
$m_{\nu_2}$ 0.0084 - 0.0149 0.0084 - 0.0108 0.0086 - 0.0113 0.0084 - 0.0096
$m_{\nu_3}$ 0.0456 - 0.0577 0.0455 - 0.0575 0.0446 - 0.0576 0.0455 - 0.0573
$\theta_{12}$ 29.30$^{\circ}$ - 39.20$^{\circ}$ 29.30$^{\circ}$ - 39.20$^{\circ}$ 29.30$^{\circ}$ - 39.20$^{\circ}$ 29.30$^{\circ}$ - 39.04$^{\circ}$
$\theta_{23}$ 35.70$^{\circ}$ - 55.60$^{\circ}$ 35.70$^{\circ}$ - 55.60$^{\circ}$ 35.70$^{\circ}$ - 55.59$^{\circ}$ 35.70$^{\circ}$ - 40.15$^{\circ}$
$\theta_{13}$ 0.084$^{\circ}$ - 11.50$^{\circ}$ 1.14$^{\circ}$ - 11.50$^{\circ}$ 3.60$^{\circ}$ - 11.15$^{\circ}$ 8.43$^{\circ}$ - 11.50$^{\circ}$
$J$ $-$0.0462 - .0448 $-$0.0459 - .0463 $\sim 0$ $\sim 0$
$\delta$ $-90^{\circ}$ - 90.0$^{\circ}$ $-90^{\circ}$ - 90.0$^{\circ}$ $\sim 0^{\circ}$ $\sim 0^{\circ}$
$\langle m_{ee} \rangle$ - .00086 - .0173 - .0032 - .0075
-------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
: Calculated ranges for neutrino mass and mixing parameters obtained by varying $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ from 0 to 2$\pi$ for the normal hierarchy case. Inputs have been defined in the text. All masses are in $\rm{eV}$.[]{data-label="tab1"}
=2.8in
=2.8in
=2.8in
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Planar wave trains are traveling wave solutions whose wave profiles are periodic in one spatial direction and constant in the transverse direction. In this paper, we investigate the stability of planar wave trains in reaction-diffusion systems. We establish nonlinear diffusive stability against perturbations that are bounded along a line in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and decay exponentially in the distance from this line. Our analysis is the first to treat spatially nonlocalized perturbations that do not originate from a phase modulation. We also consider perturbations that are fully localized and establish nonlinear stability with better decay rates, suggesting a trade-off between spatial localization of perturbations and temporal decay rate. Our stability analysis utilizes pointwise estimates to exploit the spatial structure of the perturbations. The nonlocalization of perturbations prevents the use of damping estimates in the nonlinear iteration scheme; instead, we track the perturbed solution in two different coordinate systems.\
**Keywords.** Nonlinear stability, pointwise estimates, nonlocalized perturbations, planar reaction-diffusion systems, periodic travelling waves
author:
- 'Björn de Rijk[^1]'
- 'Björn Sandstede[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'transverse8.bib'
title: 'Diffusive stability against nonlocalized perturbations of planar wave trains in reaction-diffusion systems'
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we investigate the stability of spatially periodic planar travelling waves. Consider a planar reaction-diffusion system of the form $$\label{2D}
u_t = D(u_{xx}+u_{yy}) + f(u), \quad (x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^2, \quad t \geq 0, \quad u\in\mathbb{R}^n,$$ where $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $D \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$ is a symmetric, positive-definite matrix, and $f \colon {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a $C^2$-smooth nonlinearity. We are interested in planar travelling-wave solutions to of the form $u(x,y,t)=u_\infty(kx-\omega t)$, where the profile $u_\infty(\zeta)$ is periodic in $\zeta$ with period $1$, $k \in {\mathbb{R}}$ denotes the spatial wave number, and $\omega \in {\mathbb{R}}$ is the temporal frequency of the travelling wave. From now on, we use the term *wave train* to refer to spatially-periodic travelling waves. We note that the terms “rolls” and “stripes” are also used in literature to refer to planar wave trains.
Our goal is to determine whether, and in what sense, the planar wave train $u(x,y,t)=u_\infty(kx-\omega t)$ is stable under perturbations of the initial condition $u(x,y,0)=u_\infty(kx)$. Part of our motivation stems from the case of planar spiral waves that resemble planar wave trains in the far field: understanding the stability of wave-train solutions to is a first step towards any nonlinear stability analysis of planar spiral waves.
Before discussing the nonlinear stability of wave trains for the planar system , we review the relevant results for the spatially one-dimensional case. Note that the function $u(x,t)=u_\infty(kx-\omega t)$ is also a wave-train solution to the one-dimensional version $$\label{1D}
u_t = D u_{xx} + f(u), \quad x\in\mathbb{R}, \quad t \geq 0, \quad u \in {\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ of . Throughout, we will assume that the wave train is spectrally stable and refer to §\[s2.1\] for details on what this assumption entails. We then consider initial conditions of the form $$\label{e3}
\tilde{u}(x,0) = u_\infty(kx+\phi_0(x)) + v_0(x), \qquad \phi_0(x)\to\phi_\pm\mbox{ as }x\to\pm\infty,$$ where the perturbation $v_0$ is sufficiently small in an appropriate function space, so that we change the phase, but not the wave number, of the wave train at time $t=0$. Let $\tilde{u}(x,t)$ denote the associated solution to : we may then ask whether $\tilde{u}(x,t)$ converges in an appropriate sense to $u_\infty(kx-\omega t)$, or a translate, as time $t$ goes to infinity.
More generally, we can attempt to write the solution in the form $$\label{e4}
\tilde{u}(x,t) = u_\infty(kx+\phi(x,t)-\omega t) + \mbox{ terms that decay at least pointwise in time}.$$ For the case $|\phi_+-\phi_-| \ll 1$, it was shown in [@SAN3] that holds for a function $\phi(x,t)$ that has an asymptotically self-similar profile as $t \to \infty$: indeed, $\phi(x,t)$ converges to a moving Gaussian if $\phi_+=\phi_-$ and to a moving error function with amplitude $\phi_+-\phi_-$ in the case where $0<|\phi_+-\phi_-|\ll1$. Similar results, though without the explicit asymptotics, were also shown in [@JONZNL; @JONZ; @JUN; @JUNNL; @WUS] using different methods – see Remark \[litoverview\] below for more details. We remark that the restriction that $|\phi_+-\phi_-|$ is small was recently removed in [@IS]. We emphasize that, although the initial phase off-set $\phi_0$ can be nonlocalized, the perturbation $v_0$ in has to be localized in all the aforementioned papers, that is, we need to assume that $v_0(x) \to 0$ sufficiently rapidly as $x \to \pm \infty$.
In this paper, we examine the nonlinear stability of planar wave trains $u(x,y,t)=u_\infty(kx-\omega t)$ that satisfy . We note that increasing the spatial dimension from one to two improves the decay properties on the linear level: for instance, the solutions to the heat equation $$u_t = \Delta_{{\bf{x}}} u, \quad {\bf{x}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^d, \quad t \geq 0, \quad u \in {\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ decay pointwise with rate $t^{-d/2}$ so that increasing the spatial dimension $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$ yields faster decay in time. This leads to the natural question whether the additional decay can be exploited to allow for a larger – or different – class of initial conditions. In this paper, we answer this question in the affirmative by proving that planar wave trains are stable against a class of nonlocalized perturbations $v_0(x,y)$ rendering our initial conditions complementary to those considered in the literature for one spatial dimension – see Remark \[complement\] below for more details.
More specifically, given initial conditions of the form $$\label{e23}
\tilde{u}(x,y,0) = u_\infty(kx) + v_0(x,y),$$ we prove that the resulting solution $\tilde{u}(x,y,t)$ to decays pointwise with rate $t^{-1/2}$ like a diffusive Gaussian if $v_0(x,y)$ is bounded along an arbitrary, but fixed, line in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and decays exponentially in the distance from this line. We note that the obtained decay is optimal for this class of perturbations – see Remark \[optimality\] below – although it is slower than one would intuitively expect suggesting a trade-off between spatial localization of the initial perturbation and temporal decay rate. Indeed, our second result recovers the expected pointwise decay with rate $t^{-1}$ provided $v_0(x,y)$ is sufficiently localized in all spatial directions in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Although this second theorem provides an expected result, it seems not to be present in the literature at the moment – see Remark \[litoverview2\] below.
The proofs of our main results depend on pointwise estimates that allow us to exploit the specific spatial structure of the perturbations. Therefore, we extend the pointwise Green’s function estimates for wave trains proved in [@JUN] in one spatial dimension to the planar case. However, the nonlinear stability analysis in [@JUN] – which is, in turn, based on [@JONZ] – does not extend to our planar case: the $L^2$-localization of the initial perturbation is utilized in [@JONZ; @JUN] in a crucial way in their nonlinear damping estimates, which are necessary to close the nonlinear iteration arguments presented in [@JONZ; @JUN]. The main challenge in our proof is to replace these damping estimates: we rely instead on tracking the perturbed solution in two different coordinate systems, where one of these coordinates is used to correct for the phase shift of the solution relative to the original wave train.
We now comment briefly on open problems. A major open problem in the one-dimensional case is the long-time dynamics of initial conditions of the form $\tilde{u}(x,0) = u_\infty(k_0(x)x)$, which correspond to perturbations of the wave number instead of just the phase. In the planar case, not much is known about the linear and nonlinear stability of spiral waves. Moreover, it is unexplored whether, and in what form, planar wave trains are stable against an initial change in phase, that is whether, and in what form, stability holds for initial conditions of the form $\tilde{u}(x,y,0) = u_\infty(kx + \phi_0(x,y)) + v_0(x,y)$ with $v_0$ possibly nonlocalized. Finally, one expects even higher decay rates in the stability analysis of wave trains in spatial dimensions $d \geq 3$, and one could therefore attempt studying even larger classes of initial conditions in this setting.
\[litoverview\] There are various methods to prove nonlinear stability results of wave-train solutions to reaction-diffusion systems in one spatial dimension. The proofs in [@IS; @SAN3] are based on a decomposition of phase and amplitude variables as in [@DSSS], mode filters to separate critical (translational) modes from noncritical exponentially decaying modes, and on the renormalization group techniques developed in [@BKL; @SCH2]. On the other hand, in [@JONZNL; @JONZ], $L^p$-estimates on the Green’s function (again obtained by separating critical from noncritical modes) are applied in a nonlinear iteration scheme that was originally devised in shock-wave theory. The set-up in [@JUN; @JUNNL] follows [@JONZNL; @JONZ], but employs pointwise Green’s function estimates instead. The use of pointwise Green’s function estimates was introduced in [@ZUH] and further extended in [@OHZUM] to the setting of wave trains: it has the advantage of resulting in detailed information on both temporal and spatial decay. Finally, in [@WUS], a normal form about the wave train was constructed that arises as a conjugation of the reaction-diffusion system with a lattice dynamical system of discrete phase equations. The normal form exhibits a conservation law associated with the translational symmetry, which can be exploited to gain additional decay in the nonlinear stability argument.
\[litoverview2\] Although this paper seems to be the first to consider the nonlinear stability of wave trains in planar reaction-diffusion systems , the methods for proving nonlinear stability in one spatial dimension – see Remark \[litoverview\] – have been applied in higher space dimensions to different systems. For instance, the renormalization approach from [@SCH2] is used in [@UECR] to prove that the planar Swift-Hohenberg equation admits nonlinearly stable wave-train solutions. In addition, the methods in [@JONZNL; @JONZ] are applied in higher space dimensions in [@JONZVD12; @OHZVD3] to prove nonlinear stability results for wave trains in viscous systems of conservation laws. We emphasize that, unlike in the current paper, localized perturbations were considered in these references.
\[complement\] In this paper, we consider initial conditions of the form , where the perturbation $v_0(x,y)$ is bounded along a line in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and decays exponentially in the distance from this line. All initial conditions for one spatial dimension considered in the literature – see [@JONZNL; @JONZ; @JUN; @JUNNL; @WUS; @SAN3] – are of the form , where the perturbation $v_0(x)$ is sufficiently localized and the initial phase off-set $\phi_0(x)$ satisfies $\phi_0(x) \to \phi_\pm$ as $x \to \pm \infty$. This implies that, in the limit $x \to \pm \infty$, the initial condition $\tilde{u}(x,0)$ converges to the translate $u_\infty(kx + \phi_\pm)$ of the wave train. In our case, the initial condition does not (necessarily) converge to a translate of the wave train when letting $|(x,y)| \to \infty$ over some line in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Indeed, we allow for instance for the perturbation $v_0(x,y) = \epsilon e^{-y^2}$ with $0 < \epsilon \ll 1$. Thus, the nonlocalization of the perturbations in this paper does not originate from a phase modulation, and our class of initial conditions is therefore complementary to those present in literature.
Main results {#mainresults}
============
In this paper, we establish nonlinear diffusive stability of the planar wave-train solution $u(x,y,t) = u_\infty(kx-\omega t)$ to against a class of spatially localized perturbations and a class of spatially nonlocalized perturbations under the assumption that the wave train is spectrally stable. Our nonlinear stability results and the associated spectral assumptions are most naturally formulated by switching to a co-moving frame $\xx = kx - \omega t$, which yields a *stationary* wave-train solution $u(\xx,y,t) = u_\infty(\xx)$ to $$\begin{aligned}
u_t = D\left(k^2 \partial_{\xx\xx} + \partial_{yy}\right)u + \omega \partial_\xx u + f(u), \quad (\xx,y) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2, \quad t \geq 0, \quad u \in {\mathbb{R}}^n, \label{comove}\end{aligned}$$ Before stating our nonlinear stability results, we disclose what spectral stability entails.
Spectral stability {#s2.1}
------------------
The linearization of about $u(\xx,y,t) = u_\infty(\xx)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
u_t = {\mathcal{L}}u, \qquad {\mathcal{L}}u = D\left(k^2 \partial_{\xx\xx} + \partial_{yy}\right) u + \omega \partial_\xx u + f'(u_\infty(\xx)) u, \label{lin}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{L}}$ is a sectorial operator on $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ – see [@HEN; @LUN] and note that ${\mathcal{L}}$ is elliptic as $D$ is a symmetric positive-definite matrix. We apply the Fourier transform $\hat{ \ }$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\uu(\xx,\nu_y) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} e^{-i\nu_y y} u(\xx,y)dy,\end{aligned}$$ in the transverse coordinate $y$ to the linearization and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\uu_t = {\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y} \uu, \qquad {\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y} \uu = D\left(k^2 \partial_{\xx\xx} - \nu_y^2\right) \uu + \omega \partial_\xx \uu + f'(u_\infty(\xx)) \uu, \label{Fourier}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y}$ is a sectorial operator on $L^2({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ for each $\nu_y \in {\mathbb{R}}$. The solution operator is represented via the inverse Fourier transform as $$\begin{aligned}
[e^{{\mathcal{L}}t} u](\xx,y) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} e^{i\nu_y y} e^{{\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y} t} \uu(\xx,\nu_y)d\nu_y. \label{interm}\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y}$ is a periodic differential operator on $L^2({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{C}}^n)$, we can apply the Bloch transform to – see [@DSSS; @REE]. The composition $\check{ \ }$ of the Bloch and Fourier transforms is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\ub(\xx,{\pmb \nu}) = \sum_{j \in {\mathbb{Z}}} e^{2\pi i j \xx} {\mathcal{F}}_2(u)(\nu_x + 2\pi j,\nu_y), \qquad {\mathcal{F}}_2(u)({\pmb \nu}) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} e^{-i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \varsigma}} u(\xx,y)d\xx dy,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{F}}_2$ is the Fourier transform on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, $\cdot$ denotes the dot product, ${\pmb \nu} = (\nu_x,\nu_y)$ and ${\pmb \varsigma} = (\xx,y)$. Applying the Fourier-Bloch transform to yields $$\begin{aligned}
\ub_t = L_{{\pmb \nu}} \ub, \qquad L_{{\pmb \nu}} \ub = D\left(k^2 \left(\partial_{\xx} + i\nu_x\right)^2 - \nu_y^2\right) \ub + \omega (\partial_\xx + i\nu_x) \ub + f'(u_\infty(\xx)) \ub, \label{Bloch2}\end{aligned}$$ where $L_{\pmb \nu}$ is a sectorial operator on $L_\per^2([0,1],{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ with compact resolvent for each ${\pmb \nu} \in \Omega := [-\pi,\pi] \times {\mathbb{R}}$. The solution operator is represented via the inverse Fourier-Bloch transform as $$\begin{aligned}
[e^{{\mathcal{L}}t} u](\xx,y) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\Omega} e^{i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \varsigma}} e^{L_{{\pmb \nu}} t} \ub({\pmb \nu},\xx)d{\pmb \nu}. \label{Bloch} \end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we obtain the spectral decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma({\mathcal{L}}) = \bigcup_{{\pmb \nu} \in \Omega} \sigma(L_{\pmb \nu}), \label{specdecomp}\end{aligned}$$ where the spectra $\sigma(L_{\pmb \nu})$ are discrete for each ${\pmb \nu} \in \Omega$ as $L_{\pmb \nu}$ has compact resolvent.
Since $u_\infty'$ is a solution to , $0$ is an eigenvalue of $L_0$. Now, provided $0$ is simple as an eigenvalue of $L_0$, the implicit function theorem provides a surface $\lambda_0 \colon U \to {\mathbb{C}}$, where $U \subset {\mathbb{C}}^2$ is a neighborhood of $0$, such that $\lambda_0(0) = 0$ and $\lambda_0({\pmb \nu})$ is a simple eigenvalue of $L_{\pmb \nu}$ for any ${\pmb \nu} \in U$. By symmetry of the spectrum of the real operator ${\mathcal{L}}$ and the decomposition , the surface $\lambda_0[\Omega] \subset \sigma({\mathcal{L}})$ touches the imaginary axis generically quadratically. So, even in the most stable scenario, where the spectrum of ${\mathcal{L}}$ is bounded away to the left of the imaginary axis except for a quadratic touching at the origin, there is no spectral gap. This leads to the following definition.
The planar wave train $u(x,y,t)=u_\infty(kx-\omega t)$ to is *spectrally stable* if there exists $\eta,\epsilon > 0$ such that
- $L_0$ has no spectrum in $\Re(\lambda) \geq -\eta$ besides a simple eigenvalue $\lambda = 0$;
- It holds $\Re(\sigma(L_{\pmb \nu})) \leq -\eta |{\pmb \nu}|^2$ for all ${\pmb \nu} \in \Omega$ with $|{\pmb \nu}| \leq \epsilon$;
- It holds $\Re(\sigma(L_{\pmb \nu})) < -\eta$ for all ${\pmb \nu} \in \Omega$ with $|{\pmb \nu}| \geq \epsilon$.
Throughout this paper we require the spectral stability assumptions (D1)-(D3) to hold true. Similar spectral assumptions are made in one spatial dimension – see [@JONZ; @JUN; @SAN3]. We emphasize that spectrally-stable planar wave trains to can be generated from spectrally-stable wave trains to – see §\[specasscon\]. Examples of such wave trains in one spatial dimension can be found in [@BDR2; @SAS]. Note that by Sturm-Liouville theory wave-train solutions to can only be spectrally stable if $n > 1$, i.e. if is a proper *system* of reaction-diffusion equations.
Statement of results {#sec:statres}
--------------------
Our results concern nonlinear diffusive stability of spectrally-stable planar wave-train solutions $u(x,y,t)=u_\infty(kx-\omega t)$ to against classes of spatially localized and spatially nonlocalized perturbations. In our first result, we take a unit vector ${\pmb w} \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ and consider nonlocalized $W^{1,\infty}$-perturbations that are bounded, when restricted to the family of lines $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{{\pmb z} \in {\mathbb{R}}^2 \colon {\pmb w} \cdot {\pmb z} = a\right\}, \qquad a \in {\mathbb{R}}, \label{lines}\end{aligned}$$ but that are exponentially localized in any other spatial direction. We establish diffusive Gaussian-like decay of the perturbation and its derivatives with rate $t^{-1/2}$. In addition, the perturbation stays bounded for all times $t \geq 0$ on lines of the form and exponentially localized in any other spatial direction. If we account for translational invariance and allow for a phase shift, it is possible to obtain decay with rate $\log(t)/t$. Thus, our result is as follows.
\[maintheorem\] Assume (D1)-(D3) hold true and let $(\beta,\gamma) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a unit vector. There exists constants $E_0>0$ and $C,M > 1$ such that for all $v_0 \in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{\xx, y \in {\mathbb{R}}} e^{\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y|^2}{M}} \left(\left\|v_0(\xx,y)\right\| + \left\|\partial_\xx v_0(\xx,y)\right\|\right) \leq E_0, \label{v01}\end{aligned}$$ there exists a solution $\ut(t)$ to , with initial condition $\ut(0) = u_\infty + v_0$, for all time $t \geq 0$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\ut(\xx,y,t) - u_\infty(\xx)\right\| \leq C\frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{1+t}}, \qquad \left\|D_{\xx,y}^{\mathfrak{c}}\left(\ut(\xx,y,t) - u_\infty(\xx)\right)\right\| \leq C\frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{t}},\end{aligned}$$ for $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $t \geq 0$, where $\alpha$ is as in Lemma \[Lem1\] and $\mathfrak{c} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^2$ is a multi-index with $|\mathfrak{c}| = 1$. In addition, there exists a function $\psi \colon {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0} \to W^{3,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}})$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\ut(\xx + \psi(\xx,y,t),y,t) - u_\infty(\xx)\right\| &\leq C\frac{\log(2+t)}{1+t} e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}},\\
\left\|\psi(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq \frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{1+t}}, & \qquad \left\|D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{b}} \psi(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq \frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{1+t},\end{aligned}$$ for $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, t \geq 0$ and $\mathfrak{b} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^3$ with $1 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 3$.
Next, we study the stability of the planar wave-train solution $u(x,y,t)=u_\infty(kx-\omega t)$ to against exponentially localized perturbations. We obtain diffusive Gaussian-like decay of the perturbation and its derivatives with rate $t^{-1}$, which can be improved to $t^{-3/2}$ by tracking the phase shift. Moreover, the perturbation stays exponentially localized for all time $t \geq 0$. This leads to the following result.
\[maintheorem2\] Assume (D1)-(D3) hold true. There exists constants $E_0>0$ and $C,M > 1$ such that for all $v_0 \in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{\xx, y \in {\mathbb{R}}} e^{\frac{\xx^2 + y^2}{M}} \left(\left\|v_0(\xx,y)\right\| + \left\|\partial_\xx v_0(\xx,y)\right\|\right) \leq E_0, \label{v02}\end{aligned}$$ there exists a solution $\ut(t)$ to , with initial condition $\ut(0) = u_\infty + v_0$, for all time $t \geq 0$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\ut(\xx,y,t) - u_\infty(\xx)\right\| \leq C\frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{1+t}, \qquad \left\|D_{\xx,y}^{\mathfrak{c}}\left(\ut(\xx,y,t) - u_\infty(\xx)\right)\right\| \leq C\frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{t}\sqrt{1+t}},\end{aligned}$$ for $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $t \geq 0$, where $\alpha$ is as in Lemma \[Lem1\] and $\mathfrak{c} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^2$ is a multi-index with $|\mathfrak{c}| = 1$. In addition, there exists a function $\psi \colon {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0} \to W^{3,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}})$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\ut(\xx + \psi(\xx,y,t),y,t) - u_\infty(\xx)\right\| &\leq C\frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{(1+t)\sqrt{1+t}},\\
\left\|\psi(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq C\frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{1+t}, & \qquad \left\|D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{b}} \psi(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq C\frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{(1+t)\sqrt{1+t}},\end{aligned}$$ for $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, t \geq 0$ and $\mathfrak{b} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^3$ with $1 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 3$.
To prove Theorems \[maintheorem\] and \[maintheorem2\] we decompose the temporal Green’s function associated with the parabolic operator $\partial_t - {\mathcal{L}}$ and we obtain pointwise bounds on each of the components of the Green’s function. These pointwise Green’s function estimates are given in Section \[sec:pointwise\]. In Section \[secitscheme\], we perturb the planar wave-train solution $u(\xx,y,t) = u_\infty(\xx)$ to and establish nonlinear equations for the perturbation and its derivatives. We track the perturbed solution in two different coordinate systems, where one of these coordinates is used to correct for the phase shift of the solution relative to the original wave train. This leads to a closed nonlinear iteration scheme. We apply the pointwise Green’s function bounds to this nonlinear iteration scheme in Section \[sec:nonstab\] to prove Theorems \[maintheorem\] and \[maintheorem2\].
The pointwise nonlinear stability analysis of wave-train solutions in one spatial dimension presented in [@JUN; @JUNNL] assumes only that perturbations are algebraically localized. More precisely, perturbations $v_0 \in H^2({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ need to satisfy only that $|v_0(x)| \leq E_0(1+|x|)^{-r}$ for $x \in {\mathbb{R}}$ with $0 < E_0 \ll 1$ and $r > 2$. The associated perturbed solution then exhibits both algebraic decay and diffusive Gaussian-like decay. By transferring the estimates in [@JUN; @JUNNL] to our setting, we expect that the exponential weights in our main results can be replaced by algebraic weights. However, since the estimates in [@JUN; @JUNNL] are technically quite involved and the main point of our analysis is the possibility of nonlocalized perturbations rather than their precise decay properties, we chose to work with exponential weights in this paper for clarity of exposition.
Green’s function decomposition and pointwise estimates {#sec:pointwise}
======================================================
In this section, we show that assumptions (D1)-(D3) on the spectrum of the linearization ${\mathcal{L}}$ of about the wave train $u(\xx,y,t) = u_\infty(\xx)$ lead to a decomposition of the associated temporal Green’s function. We obtain pointwise bounds on each of the components of the Green’s function by following the (by now seminal) approach, which was introduced in [@ZUH] and further extended in [@JUN; @OHZUM] to the setting of wave trains in one spatial dimension. The decomposition of and the pointwise estimates on the Green’s function are the starting point of our nonlinear stability analysis, which is performed in the §\[sec:nonstab\].
Consequences of spectral assumptions {#specasscon}
------------------------------------
We apply the implicit function theorem to expand the spectrum of ${\mathcal{L}}$ about the origin. The obtained control on the spectrum is crucial for the decomposition of the temporal Green’s function.
\[Lem1\] Assume (D1). We complexify ${\pmb \nu}$ and consider the family $L_{\pmb \nu}, {\pmb \nu} \in {\mathbb{C}}^2$ of operators on $L_\per^2([0,1],{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ given by . There exists a neighborhood $U \subset {\mathbb{C}}^2$ of $0$ and an analytic function $\lambda_0 \colon U \to {\mathbb{C}}$ such that the spectrum of $L_{\pmb \nu}$ in $\Re(\lambda) \geq -\eta$ consists of the simple eigenvalue $\lambda_0({\pmb \nu})$ only. In addition, we have the expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_0({\pmb \nu}) &= i\alpha\nu_x - \theta \nu_x^2 - d_\perp \nu_y^2 + {\mathcal{H}}({\pmb \nu}), \qquad {\pmb \nu} = (\nu_x,\nu_y) \in U, \label{eigenexp}\end{aligned}$$ with residual ${\mathcal{H}}\colon U \to {\mathbb{C}}$ satisfying $|{\mathcal{H}}({\pmb \nu})| \leq C|{\pmb \nu}|^3$ for some constant $C>0$ and coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha &= 2k^2\langle \tilde{u}_\ad, D \tilde{u}_\infty''\rangle_2 + \omega \in {\mathbb{R}}, \quad d_\perp = \langle \tilde{u}_\ad, D \tilde{u}_\infty'\rangle_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}, \quad \theta \in {\mathbb{R}}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{u}_\infty \in \ker(L_0)$ is the restriction of the $1$-periodic wave train $u_\infty$ to $[0,1]$, $\tilde{u}_\ad$ is contained in $\ker(L_0^*)$ such that $\langle \tilde{u}_\ad, \tilde{u}_\infty'\rangle_2 = 1$ and $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_2$ denotes the $L_\per^2([0,1],{\mathbb{C}}^n)$-inner product.
Moreover, for all ${\pmb \nu} \in U$ the kernels of $L_{\pmb \nu} - \lambda_0({\pmb \nu})$ and its adjoint $\left(L_{\pmb \nu} - \lambda_0({\pmb \nu})\right)^*$ are spanned by analytic eigenfunctions $q \colon U \to L_\per^2([0,1],{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ and $q_\ad \colon U \to L_\per^2([0,1],{\mathbb{C}}^n)$, respectively, satisfying $\langle q({\pmb \nu}), q_\ad({\pmb \nu})\rangle_2 = 1$, $q(0) = \tilde{u}_\infty'$ and $q_\ad(0) = \tilde{u}_\ad$. Finally, the associated derivative maps $U \to L^2_\per([0,1],{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ given by ${\pmb \nu} \mapsto \partial_\xx q({\pmb \nu})$ and ${\pmb \nu} \mapsto \partial_\xx q_\ad({\pmb \nu})$ are also analytic.
Since (D1) is satisfied, it follows from standard perturbation theory [@KAT] that for ${\pmb \nu}$ in some neighborhood $U \subset {\mathbb{C}}^2$ of $0$ the spectrum of $L_{\pmb \nu}$ in $\Re(\lambda) \geq -\eta$ consists of a simple eigenvalue $\lambda_0({\pmb \nu})$ only, which depends analytically on ${\pmb \nu}$. The fact that the associated eigenvectors $q({\pmb \nu})$ and $q_\ad({\pmb \nu})$ and their derivatives $\partial_\xx q({\pmb \nu})$ and $\partial_\xx q_\ad({\pmb \nu})$ are also analytic in ${\pmb \nu}$ follows by writing the eigenvalue problem $(L_{\pmb \nu} - \lambda) u = 0$ as a first order system $(\partial_\xx - A(\xx,\lambda))\phi = 0$ with $\phi = (u,u_\xx)$ and applying perturbation results from [@KAT].
Since $\lambda_0({\pmb \nu})$ is algebraically simple and $L_0$ is Fredholm of index $0$ by (D1), the inner product of $q({\pmb \nu})$ and $q_\ad({\pmb \nu})$ cannot vanish by the Fredholm alternative for any ${\pmb \nu} \in U$. Therefore, we can assume without loss of generality that $\langle q({\pmb \nu}), q_\ad({\pmb \nu})\rangle_2 = 1$ and $q(0) = \tilde{u}_\infty'$ for any ${\pmb \nu} \in U$. We define $\tilde{u}_\ad = q_\ad(0)$. The derivative $\partial_{\nu_x} q$ satisfies the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\left(L_{\pmb \nu} - \lambda_0({\pmb \nu})\right) [\partial_{\nu_x} q]({\pmb \nu}) = [\partial_{\nu_x} \lambda_0]({\pmb \nu}) q({\pmb \nu}) - 2k^2 i D (\partial_\xx + i \nu_x) q({\pmb \nu}) - \omega i q({\pmb \nu}), \quad {\pmb \nu} \in U.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the inner product with $q_{\ad}({\pmb \nu})$ on both sides and evaluating at ${\pmb \nu} = 0$ yields $[\partial_{\nu_x} \lambda_0](0) = \alpha i$. Similarly, one obtains $[\partial_{\nu_y} \lambda_0](0) = 0$, $[\partial_{\nu_x\nu_y} \lambda_0](0) = 0$ and $[\partial_{\nu_y\nu_y} \lambda_0](0) = -2d_\perp$. Since ${\mathcal{L}}$ is a real operator, its spectrum in ${\mathbb{C}}$ is symmetric in the real axis. Therefore, the decomposition yields that $\theta := -[\partial_{\nu_x\nu_x}\lambda_0](0)/2$ must be real. The expansion now follows by analyticity of $\lambda_0 \colon U \to {\mathbb{C}}$.
The spectral control about the origin obtained in Lemma \[Lem1\] reduces the verification of assumption (D2) to checking the signs of two Melnikov-type integrals.
Assume (D1) is satisfied, then assumption (D2) is satisfied if and only if $d_\perp,\theta > 0$.
Notice that the linearization of the reaction-diffusion system in one spatial dimension about the wave train solution $u(x,t)=u_\infty(kx-\omega t)$ is given by the operator ${\mathcal{L}}_0$ – see . Spectral stability of $u(x,t) = u_\infty(kx-\omega t)$ as a solution to , in the sense of [@JONZ; @JUN; @SAN3], entails that $0$ is a simple eigenvalue of $L_0$ and that the spectrum of ${\mathcal{L}}_0$ lies to the left of the imaginary axis, except for a quadratic touching at the origin. This leads to the following result.
\[cor:stab1D\] Assume the wave train $u(x,t)=u_\infty(kx-\omega t)$ is spectrally stable as solution to , in the sense of [@JONZ; @JUN; @SAN3]. If it holds $d_\perp > 0$, then (D1)-(D2) are satisfied. Moreover, if $n = 1$ or $D = {\mathbb{I}}_n$, then the planar wave train $u(x,y,t)=u_\infty(kx-\omega t)$ is spectrally stable as solution to .
Pointwise Green’s function estimates
------------------------------------
We follow [@JUN; @OHZUM] and decompose the temporal Green’s function associated with the parabolic operator $\partial_t - {\mathcal{L}}$ in a translational mode and a residual. We obtain pointwise estimates for each of these components of the Green’s function.
\[theope\] Assume (D1)-(D3) hold true. Let $\chi \colon {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0} \to [0,1]$ be a smooth cut-off function such that $\chi(t) = 0$ for $0 \leq t \leq 1$ and $\chi(t) = 1$ for $t \geq 2$. The temporal Green’s function $G(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ associated with the operator $\partial_t - {\mathcal{L}}$ in can be decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
G(\xx,\xt,y,t) &= u_\infty'(\xx)e(\xx,\xt,y,t) + \widetilde{G}(\xx,\xt,y,t),\\
e(\xx,\xt,y,t) &= \frac{\chi(t)}{4 \pi t\sqrt{d_\perp \theta}}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt+\alpha t|^2}{4\theta t} - \frac{|y|^2}{4d_\perp t}} u_{\ad} (\xt)^*,
\end{split} \quad \xx,\xt,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, t \geq 0, \label{decomp}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha,\theta$ and $d_\perp$ are as in Lemma \[Lem1\] and $u_\ad \colon {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is the periodic extension of the eigenfunction $\tilde{u}_\ad \in L^2_\per([0,1],{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ of the adjoint $L_0^*$ (see also Lemma \[Lem1\]). There exists $C,M > 1$ such that we have the pointwise estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|{\widetilde{G}}(\xx,\xt,y,t)\right\| &\leq Ct^{-1}(1+t)^{-\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},\\
\left\|D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{a} {\widetilde{G}}(\xx,\xt,y,t)\right\| &\leq Ct^{-\frac{3}{2}}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},\\
\left\|D_{\xx,y,t}^\mathfrak{b} \partial_\xt^j e(\xx,\xt,y,t)\right\| &\leq C(1+t)^{-1-\frac{|\mathfrak{b}|}{2}}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},
\end{split} \qquad \xx,\xt,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, t \geq 0, \label{pointwiseestimates}\end{aligned}$$ where $j \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$, $\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^3$ are multi-indices with $|\mathfrak{a}| = 1$ and $|\mathfrak{b}| \geq 0$.
To prove Theorem \[theope\] we employ similar methods as in [@JUN], where pointwise Green’s function estimates are obtained for wave-train solutions to reaction-diffusion systems in *one* spatial dimension. To account for an additional spatial direction, we combine the methods in [@JUN] with those from [@HOF], where pointwise bounds are established for spatially multidimensional viscous shock fronts. Since the proof of Theorem \[theope\] follows, by and large, the nontrivial, but by now classical, approach introduced in [@ZUH], we decided to include the proof of Theorem \[theope\] in Appendix \[proofpointwise\].
Nonlinear iteration scheme {#secitscheme}
==========================
In this section, we perturb the planar wave-train solution $u(\xx,y,t) = u_\infty(\xx)$ to and we establish nonlinear equations for the perturbation and its derivatives. To account for translational invariance and exploit the decomposition of the Green’s function, we introduce a phase function that tracks the shift of the perturbed solution in space relative to the original wave train. Our goal is to obtain a closed nonlinear iteration scheme for the perturbation and the phase function, which will be employed in §\[sec:nonstab\] to prove the nonlinear stability results in §\[sec:statres\].
Perturbation equations
----------------------
We consider the perturbed solution $$\begin{aligned}
\ut(\xx,y,t) = u_\infty(\xx) + {\tilde{v}}(\xx,y,t),\end{aligned}$$ to . The perturbation ${\tilde{v}}$ and its derivative ${\tilde{v}}_\xx$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left(\partial_t - {\mathcal{L}}\right){\tilde{v}}= {\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_1, \qquad & {\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_1 := f(u_\infty+{\tilde{v}}) - f(u_\infty) - f'(u_\infty) {\tilde{v}}, \\
\left(\partial_t - {\mathcal{L}}\right){\tilde{v}}_\xx = {\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_2, \qquad & {\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_2 := \left(f'(u_\infty+{\tilde{v}}) - f'(u_\infty)\right)\left({\tilde{v}}_\xx + u_\infty'\right),
\end{split}\label{pertbeq2}\end{aligned}$$ where we suppress the argument $(\xx,y,t)$ of ${\tilde{v}}$ and ${\tilde{v}}_\xx$ and the argument $\xx$ of $u_\infty$ and $u_\infty'$ for notational convenience. Using Taylor’s Theorem, one observes that ${\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_1$ is a quadratic nonlinearity in ${\tilde{v}}$, whereas ${\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_2$ contains a linear term in ${\tilde{v}}$. More precisely, there exist constants $B,C > 1$ such that as long as $\|v(t)\|_\infty \leq B$, we have the bounds $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|{\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_1(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq C\left\|v(\xx,y,t)\right\|^2, &\qquad
\left\|{\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_2(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq C\left(1 + \left\|v_\xx(\xx,y,t)\right\|\right)\left\|v(\xx,y,t)\right\|,\end{split}\
\label{nonlest3}\end{aligned}$$ for $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $t \geq 0$, where $\|\cdot\|_\infty$ denotes the $L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$-norm. To account for translational invariance – see Remarks \[cancel\] and \[remtranslational\] – we introduce another coordinatization for the perturbed solution $\ut$ to . As in [@DSSS], we write $$\begin{aligned}
\ut(\xx + \psi(\xx,y,t),y,t) = u_\infty(\xx) + v(\xx,y,t),\end{aligned}$$ where the phase function $\psi \colon {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0} \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is to be determined later. The mean value theorem yields the estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|\left(v - {\tilde{v}}\right)(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq&\ \left(\left\|u_\infty'\right\|_{\infty} + \left\|{\tilde{v}}_\xx(t)\right\|_{\infty} \right) \left\|\psi(\xx,y,t)\right\|,\\
\left\|\left(v_\xx - {\tilde{v}}_\xx\right)(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq&\ \left(\left\|u_\infty''\right\|_{\infty} + \left\|{\tilde{v}}_{\xx \xx}(t)\right\|_{\infty}\right)\left\|\psi(\xx,y,t)\right\| + \left(\left\|u_\infty'\right\|_{\infty} + \left\|{\tilde{v}}_\xx(t)\right\|_{\infty} \right) \left\|\psi_\xx(\xx,y,t)\right\|,
\end{split}
\label{conversion}\end{aligned}$$ for $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $t \geq 0$. Our next step is to derive an equation for the perturbation $v$, the phase $\psi$ and their derivatives. We introduce $$\begin{aligned}
w(\xx,y,t) := \ut(\xx + \psi(\xx,y,t),y,t) = u_\infty(\xx) + v(\xx,y,t).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $w$ into , while using that $\ut$ solves , leads to the residue induced by the phase $$\begin{aligned}
w_t - D(k^2 w_{\xx\xx} + w_{yy})& - \omega w_\xx - f(w) =\\
&-\ut_t\psi_\xx + \ut_\xx\psi_t + D\left(\ut_{yy}\psi_\xx - \ut_{\xx y}\psi_y - (\ut_\xx \psi_y)_y - k^2 (\ut_\xx \psi_\xx)_\xx\right) + f(\ut)\psi_\xx,\end{aligned}$$ which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left(\partial_t - {\mathcal{L}}\right)v =& \ f(u_\infty + v) - f(u_\infty) - f'(u_\infty)v\\
&- \ut_t\psi_\xx + \ut_\xx\psi_t + D\left(\ut_{yy}\psi_\xx - \ut_{\xx y}\psi_y - (\ut_\xx \psi_y)_y - k^2 (\ut_\xx \psi_\xx)_\xx\right) + f(\ut)\psi_\xx,
\end{split} \label{veq}\end{aligned}$$ where we suppress the argument $(\xx,y,t)$ of $v,\psi$ and their derivatives, the argument $(\xx+\psi(\xx,y,t),y,t)$ of $\ut$ and its derivatives and the argument $\xx$ of $u_\infty$ and its derivatives. In order to obtain a closed system in $v$ and $\psi$, we need to eliminate the $\ut$-terms from the right-hand side of . Therefore, we express $\ut_\xx$, $\ut_y$ and $\ut_t$ in terms of $v$, $\psi$ and their derivatives as follows. First, we calculate $$\begin{aligned}
u_\infty' + v_\xx = w_\xx = \ut_\xx(1+\psi_\xx), \quad v_t = w_t = \ut_t + \ut_\xx\psi_t, \quad v_y = w_y = \ut_y + \ut_\xx\psi_y,\end{aligned}$$ yielding the identities $$\begin{aligned}
\ut_\xx = \frac{1}{1+\psi_\xx}\left(u_\infty' + v_\xx\right), \quad \ut_t = v_t - \frac{\psi_t}{1+\psi_\xx}\left(u_\infty' + v_\xx\right), \quad \ut_y = v_y - \frac{\psi_y}{1+\psi_\xx}\left(u_\infty' + v_\xx\right), \label{exprveq}\end{aligned}$$ where we suppress the arguments again. By employing the identities $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\partial_t - {\mathcal{L}}\right)\left[u_\infty' \psi\right] =&\ {\mathcal{L}}[u_\infty'] \psi - D\left(k^2 (u_\infty' \psi_\xx)_\xx + u_\infty' \psi_{yy}\right) - \left(D k^2 u_\infty'' + \omega u_\infty'\right) \psi_\xx + u_\infty' \psi_t\\
=&\ - D\left(k^2 (u_\infty' \psi_\xx)_\xx + u_\infty' \psi_{yy}\right) + f(u_\infty)\psi_\xx + u_\infty' \psi_t,\\
\left(\partial_t - {\mathcal{L}}\right)\left[v\psi_\xx\right] =&\ v_t \psi_\xx + v\psi_{\xx t} - D\left(k^2\left(v_{\xx\xx} \psi_\xx + 2v_\xx\psi_{\xx\xx} + v \psi_{\xx\xx\xx}\right) + v_{yy} \psi_\xx + 2v_y\psi_{\xx y} + v \psi_{\xx yy}\right)\\
& \qquad - \omega\left(v_\xx \psi_\xx + v\psi_{\xx\xx}\right) - f'(u_\infty) v \psi_\xx,\end{aligned}$$ and substituting into the right hand side of , we obtain the perturbation equation $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\partial_t - {\mathcal{L}}\right)\left[v - u_\infty' \psi\right] = {\mathcal{N}}- \left(\partial_t - {\mathcal{L}}\right)\left[v\psi_\xx\right], \label{pertbeq}\end{aligned}$$ where the nonlinearity ${\mathcal{N}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
{\mathcal{N}}:=& \left(f(u_\infty+v) - f(u_\infty) - f'(u_\infty) v\right)\left(1+\psi_\xx\right) + v_\xx\psi_t + v\psi_{\xx t} - \omega\left(v_\xx \psi_\xx + v \psi_{\xx\xx}\right)\\
&\qquad - D\left(v\left(k^2\psi_{\xx\xx\xx} + \psi_{\xx yy}\right) + v_\xx\left(3k^2 \psi_{\xx\xx} + \psi_{yy}\right) + 2v_y\psi_{\xx y} + 2k^2 v_{\xx\xx} \psi_\xx + v_{\xx y}\left(\psi_\xx + \psi_y\right)\right)\\
&\qquad + \frac{D}{1+\psi_\xx} \left(\left(u_\infty' + v_\xx\right)\left(\psi_y\psi_{\xx y} + \psi_\xx \psi_{\xx y} + 2k^2 \psi_\xx \psi_{\xx\xx}\right) + \left(u_\infty'' + v_{\xx\xx}\right)\left(\psi_y\psi_\xx + k^2 \psi_\xx^2\right)\right)\\
&\qquad - \frac{D}{\left(1+\psi_\xx\right)^2} \left(u_\infty' + v_\xx\right)\left(\psi_\xx\psi_{\xx\xx}\psi_y + k^2 \psi_\xx^2\psi_{\xx\xx}\right).
\end{split} \label{nonlinearity}\end{aligned}$$ Using Taylor’s Theorem, it is relatively straightforward to observe that the nonlinearity is quadratic in $v$, $\psi$ and their derivatives. More precisely, there exist constants $B,C > 1$ such that as long as it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\|v(t)\|_\infty + \sum_{|\mathfrak{a}| = 1} \left\|D_{\xx,y}^{\mathfrak{a}} \psi(t)\right\|_\infty \leq B,\end{aligned}$$ we have the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|{\mathcal{N}}(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq \ &C\left[\left(\left\|v(\xx,y,t)\right\| + \sum_{1 \leq |\mathfrak{a}| \leq 3} \left\|D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{a}} \psi(\xx,y,t)\right\|\right)^2\right.\\
&\left.\qquad + \left(\left\|v_y(\xx,y,t)\right\| + \sum_{0 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 1} \left\|D_{\xx,y}^{\mathfrak{b}} v_\xx(\xx,y,t)\right\|\right) \sum_{1 \leq |\mathfrak{c}| \leq 2} \left\|D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{c}} \psi(\xx,y,t)\right\|\right],
\end{split}
\label{nonlest1}\end{aligned}$$ for $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $t \geq 0$.
\[cancel\] In the perturbation equation for $v$, we grouped terms that are nonlinear in $(v,\psi)$ and their derivatives on the right-hand side, whereas the left-hand side contains all contributions that are linear in $(v,\psi)$ and their derivatives. This decomposition suggests new coordinates $(w,\psi)$ with $w = v + u_\infty'\psi$. The advantage of working in these coordinates is that, by choosing $\psi$ appropriately, the contribution $u_\infty' \psi$ accounts for the translational mode $u_\infty'(\xx)e(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ of the Green’s function in the nonlinear iteration – see Remark \[remtranslational\]. The principle of canceling the slowly decaying translational mode via these type of coordinatizations has been developed independently in [@JONZV; @JONZ] and [@DSSS; @SAN3] using different methods – see [@JONZNL Remark 5.1] for a review.
In the nonlinear right-hand side of , we introduced the term $\left(\partial_t - {\mathcal{L}}\right)\left[v\psi_\xx\right]$ in order to eliminate any temporal derivatives of $v$ in the nonlinear iteration. Indeed, one observes from that the residual nonlinearity ${\mathcal{N}}$ contains only $\xx$- and $y$-derivatives of $v$. In Remark \[motvt\] below, we will explain how we control spatial derivatives of $v$ in the nonlinear iteration.
Duhamel’s integral formulation
------------------------------
Our goal is obtain a closed nonlinear iteration scheme by integrating , while exploiting the decomposition of the Green’s function. Applying Duhamel’s formula to yields the equivalent integral equation $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
v(\xx,y,t) =& \ u_\infty'(\xx)\psi(\xx,y,t) - v(\xx,y,t)\psi_\xx(\xx,y,t) + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} G(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t) v_0(\xt,\yt) d\xt d\yt\\
&\qquad + \int_0^t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} G(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t-s) {\mathcal{N}}(\xt,\yt,s)d\xt d\yt ds,
\end{split} \label{vintegral}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, t \geq 0$ and $v_0(\xx,y) = v(\xx,y,0)$. Now we define the phase function $\psi$ as the solution to the integral equation $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\psi(\xx,y,t) =& -\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} e(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t) v_0(\xt,\yt) d\xt d\yt\\
&\qquad - \int_0^t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} e(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t-s) {\mathcal{N}}(\xt,\yt,s)d\xt d\yt ds.
\end{split}
\label{defpsi}\end{aligned}$$ This leads via to the system of integral equations $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
v(\xx,y,t) =& \ -v(\xx,y,t) \psi_\xx(\xx,y,t) + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} {\widetilde{G}}(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t) v_0(\xt,\yt) d\xt d\yt\\
&\qquad + \int_0^t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} {\widetilde{G}}(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t-s) {\mathcal{N}}(\xt,\yt,s)d\xt d\yt ds,\\
D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{b}} \psi(\xx,y,t) =& -\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{b}} e(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t) v_0(\xt,\yt) d\xt d\yt\\
&\qquad- \int_0^t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{b}} e(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t-s) {\mathcal{N}}(\xt,\yt,s)d\xt d\yt ds,
\end{split}
\label{integralscheme}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, t \geq 0$ and $\mathfrak{b} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^3$ with $0 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 3$, where we use that $e(\xx,\xt,y,0) = 0$ for all $\xx,\xt,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ to determine the $t$-derivative of the second integral in . To obtain a closed nonlinear iteration scheme from , we still need to control the derivatives $v_\xx,v_{\xx\xx},v_y,v_{\xx y}$ in the nonlinearity . Theorem \[theope\] yields pointwise control over the first $\xt$- and $y$-derivative of the Green’s functions ${\widetilde{G}}(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ and $e(\xx,\xt,y,t)$. Therefore, integrating by parts once in eliminates one $\xx$- or one $y$-derivative of $v$ in the nonlinearity at the expense of taking more derivatives of the $\psi$-dependent terms. We emphasize that this elimination is only possible due to the fact that all derivatives of $v$ in are paired with $\psi$-terms and not with other $v$-terms. Since we control also higher order $\xt$- and $y$-derivatives of the Green’s function $e(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ via Theorem \[theope\], we can apply integration by parts multiple times in the $\psi$-equation to eliminate *all* derivatives of $v$ from the nonlinearity. All in all, exploiting that ${\widetilde{G}}(\xx,\xt,y,t)$, $e(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ and its derivatives are exponentially localized in space and assuming that there exists a bound $B > 1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{0 \leq s \leq t} \|v(s)\|_\infty + \|v_\xx(s)\|_\infty + \sum_{1 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 3} \left\|D_{\xx,y}^{\mathfrak{b}} \psi(s)\right\|_\infty \leq B,\end{aligned}$$ we integrate by parts in to obtain the following equivalent integral system $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
v(\xx,y,t) =& \ -v(\xx,y,t) \psi_\xx(\xx,y,t) + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} {\widetilde{G}}(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t) v_0(\xt,\yt) d\xt d\yt\\
& \qquad + \int_0^t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} {\widetilde{G}}(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t-s) {\mathcal{N}}_1(\xt,\yt,s)d\xt d\yt ds \\
& \qquad + \int_0^t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \partial_{\xt} {\widetilde{G}}(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t-s) {\mathcal{N}}_2(\xt,\yt,s)d\xt d\yt ds\\
& \qquad + \int_0^t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \partial_y {\widetilde{G}}(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t-s) {\mathcal{N}}_3(\xt,\yt,s)d\xt d\yt ds\\
D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{b}} \psi(\xx,y,t) =& -\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{b}} e(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t) v_0(\xt,\yt) d\xt d\yt \\
&\qquad + \sum_{0 \leq |\mathfrak{a}| \leq 2} \int_0^t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{b}} D_{\xt,y}^{\mathfrak{a}} e(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t-s) {\mathcal{M}}_{\mathfrak{a}}(\xt,\yt,s)d\xt d\yt ds,
\end{split} \label{integralscheme2}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, t \geq 0$ and $\mathfrak{b} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^3$ with $0 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 3$, where the nonlinearity ${\mathcal{N}}_1$ contains the term $$\begin{aligned}
Dv_\xx \left(\left(\psi_{\xx y} + \psi_{y y}\right) + \left(2k^2\psi_\xx - \frac{\psi_y\psi_\xx + k^2\psi_\xx^2}{1+\psi_\xx}\right)_\xx\right),\end{aligned}$$ with a derivative of $v$, whereas all other terms present in ${\mathcal{N}}_1$ do not depend on derivatives of $v$. Similarly, the nonlinearity ${\mathcal{N}}_2$ only contains the term $$\begin{aligned}
D v_\xx \left(2k^2\psi_\xx - \frac{\psi_y\psi_\xx + k^2\psi_\xx^2}{1+\psi_\xx}\right),\end{aligned}$$ with a derivative of $v$, the nonlinearity ${\mathcal{N}}_3$ only contains the term $$\begin{aligned}
-D v_\xx \left(\psi_\xx + \psi_y\right),\end{aligned}$$ with a derivative of $v$ and the nonlinearities ${\mathcal{M}}_{\mathfrak{a}}$ contain no derivatives of $v$ for all multi-indices $\mathfrak{a} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^2$ with $0 \leq |\mathfrak{a}| \leq 2$. Using Taylor’s Theorem, one readily observes that the obtained nonlinearities ${\mathcal{N}}_j,{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathfrak{a}}$ are quadratic in $v$, $\psi$ and their derivatives. More precisely, there exist constants $B,C > 1$ such that as long as $$\begin{aligned}
\|v(t)\|_\infty + \sum_{1 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 2} \left\|D_{\xx,y}^{\mathfrak{b}} \psi(t)\right\|_\infty \leq B,\end{aligned}$$ we have the bounds $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|{\mathcal{N}}_j(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq&\ C\left[\left(\|v(\xx,y,t)\| + \sum_{1 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 3} \left\|D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{b}} \psi(\xx,y,t)\right\|\right)^2\right. \\
&\left.\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad + \left\|v_\xx(\xx,y,t)\right\| \sum_{1 \leq |\mathfrak{c}| \leq 2} \left\|D_{\xx,y}^{\mathfrak{c}} \psi(\xx,y,t)\right\|\right],\\
\left\|{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathfrak{a}}(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq&\ C\left(\|v(\xx,y,t)\| + \sum_{1 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 3} \left\|D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{b}} \psi(\xx,y,t)\right\|\right)^2,
\end{split} \label{nonlest2}\end{aligned}$$ for $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $t \geq 0$, $j = 1,2,3$ and $\mathfrak{a} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^2$ with $0 \leq |\mathfrak{a}| \leq 2$. Comparing the estimates on ${\mathcal{N}}_j, j = 1,2,3$ to the estimate on ${\mathcal{N}}$, we observe that we have indeed gained one derivative of $v$. However, the integral equations do not give rise to a closed nonlinear iteration scheme yet, because we still need to control the derivative $v_\xx$ occurring in the nonlinearities ${\mathcal{N}}_j, j = 1,2,3$. This can be achieved by appending integral equations for the derivatives ${\tilde{v}}_\xx,{\tilde{v}}_{\xx\xx}$ of the ‘unshifted’ perturbation ${\tilde{v}}$ to the scheme and employing the estimates – see also Remark \[motvt\]. Applying Duhamel’s formula to yields $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\partial_\xx {\tilde{v}}(\xx,y,t) =&\ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \partial_\xx G(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t) v_0(\xt,\yt) d\xt d\yt\\
&\qquad + \int_0^t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \partial_\xx G(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t-s) {\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_1(\xt,\yt,s)d\xt d\yt ds,\\
\partial_{\xx\xx} {\tilde{v}}(\xx,y,t) =&\ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \partial_\xx G(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t) \partial_\xt v_0(\xt,\yt) d\xt d\yt\\
&\qquad + \int_0^t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \partial_\xx G(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t-s) {\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_2(\xt,\yt,s)d\xt d\yt ds,
\end{split} \label{integralscheme3}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $t \geq 0$, where we used that $\psi(\xx,y,0) = 0$ implies $v_0(\xx,y) = v(\xx,y,0) = {\tilde{v}}(\xx,y,0)$ for all $\xx, y \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Observe that by the nonlinearities ${\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_j, j = 1,2$ can be estimated in terms of ${\tilde{v}}$ and ${\tilde{v}}_\xx$. Thus, combining the integral equations and and the estimates , and yields a closed nonlinear iteration scheme.
\[remtranslational\] Applying Duhamel’s formula to gives the integral equation $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
{\tilde{v}}(\xx,y,t) =&\ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} G(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t) v_0(\xt,\yt) d\xt d\yt\\
&\qquad + \int_0^t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} G(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t-s) {\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_1(\xt,\yt,s)d\xt d\yt ds, \end{split} \label{integralscheme4}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $t \geq 0$. Observe that yields a closed nonlinear iteration scheme, since the nonlinearity ${\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_1$ depends only on ${\tilde{v}}$ itself. However, because ${\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_1$ is quadratic in ${\tilde{v}}$ in general, the Green’s function estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|G(\xx,\xt,y,t)\right\| \leq Ct^{-1}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}}, \qquad \xx,\xt,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, t \geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ obtained in Theorem \[theope\] is not strong enough to close a nonlinear iteration argument. The decomposition in Theorem \[theope\] factors out the translational mode $u_\infty'(\xx)e(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ of the Green’s function, which yields an additional decay factor $t^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ in the estimate of the residual. Moreover, the introduction of the phase function $\psi(\xx,y,t)$ in the nonlinear iteration scheme leads to a contribution $u_\infty'\psi$ in , which cancels the translational mode of the Green’s function by a judicious choice of $\psi$. The additional decay of the residual mode of the Green’s function can then be exploited to close the nonlinear iteration argument. The trade-off is that the introduction of the phase function $\psi(\xx,y,t)$ yields derivatives of $v$ in the nonlinearity, which needs to be controlled – see also Remark \[motvt\].
\[motvt\] In order to obtain a closed nonlinear iteration scheme from , one needs to control the derivatives $v_\xx,v_y,v_{\xx y}$ and $v_{\xx\xx}$ in the nonlinearity . Naively, one might introduce integral equations for the derivatives of $v$ by differentiating . However, the second order derivatives of the Green’s function satisfy the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|D_{\xx,y}^{\mathfrak{b}} {\widetilde{G}}(\xx,\xt,y,t)\right\| \leq Ct^{-2}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}}, \qquad \xx,\xt,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, t \geq 0, \mathfrak{b} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^2, |\mathfrak{b}| = 2,\end{aligned}$$ for some constants $C,M > 1$, which leads, after integration over $\xx$ and $y$, to the nonintegrable factor $(t-s)^{-1}$ in the estimation of the integral equations for $v_{\xx y}$ and $v_{\xx\xx}$. Integrating by parts to move a derivative from the Green’s function to the nonlinearity, introduces third derivatives of $v$ in the nonlinearity and thus transfers the problem of controlling second derivatives of $v$ to controlling third derivatives of $v$.
The same problem occurs in the nonlinear stability analyses [@JONZNL; @JONZ; @JUN; @JUNNL] of wave-train solutions to reaction-diffusion systems in one spatial dimension. There one establishes a nonlinear damping estimate that controls the $H^k$-norm of the perturbation $v$ for $k \geq 0$ by its $L^2$-norm and by the $H^k$-norm of $(\psi_\xx,\psi_t)$. This yields nonlinear $L^1 \cap H^k \to H^k$-stability in [@JONZ] and nonlinear $L^1 \cap H^k \to L^\infty$-stability with nonlocal phase in [@JONZNL]. The damping estimate from [@JONZNL; @JONZ] is also employed in the pointwise nonlinear stability analyses in [@JUN; @JUNNL]. Since the derivatives of $v$ are paired with $\psi$-terms in the nonlinearity, one only needs $L^\infty$-bounds on the derivatives of $v$ in [@JUN; @JUNNL]. These $L^\infty$-bounds follow via Sobolev interpolation from $H^k$-bounds on $v$ that are obtained using the damping estimate from [@JONZNL; @JONZ].
One can establish a $2$-dimensional equivalent of the damping estimate in [@JONZNL; @JONZ], which bounds the $H^k({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$-norm of $v$ in terms of its $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$-norm and the $H^k({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$-norm of $(\psi_\xx,\psi_t)$. However, such a damping estimate cannot be employed in our analysis, since we allow for nonlocal perturbations. More precisely, we consider planar perturbations that are not in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, whereas in [@JONZNL; @JONZ; @JUN; @JUNNL] the perturbations are $L^2$-localized on the real line (allowing possibly for a nonlocal phase modulation). Since we consider perturbations that are only nonlocalized in one spatial direction (say the $y$-direction), it may be possible to adapt the damping estimate in [@JONZNL; @JONZ] to work in the mixed $L^\mathfrak{p}$-space $L^{\mathfrak{p}}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, where $\mathfrak{p}$ is the tuple $(2,\infty)$, endowed with the norm $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_{\mathfrak{p}} = \sup_{y \in {\mathbb{R}}} \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\|u(\xx,y)\right\|^2 d\xx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}. \end{aligned}$$ However, we expect that one needs to append a damping estimate of $v_y$ in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ in order to control the $y$-derivatives in the damping estimate of $v$ in $L^{\mathfrak{p}}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, thus requiring the derivatives of $v$ to be localized in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.
In this paper, we choose an alternative approach by appending the integral equations for the derivatives of the ‘unshifted’ perturbation ${\tilde{v}}$ to the nonlinear iteration scheme . All derivatives in the nonlinearity vanish, when the phase function $\psi$ is set to $0$. Therefore, ${\tilde{v}}_\xx$ and ${\tilde{v}}_{\xx\xx}$ can be controlled without running into problems due to nonintegrable Green’s function bounds. Then, estimates like can be used to control the derivatives of $v$. The advantage over a possible $L^{\mathfrak{p}}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$-damping estimate is that we do not require localization of any derivative of $v$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. The trade-off is that the obtained estimates on $v_\xx$ are not as strong as one might expect due to the fact that we do not correct for a phase shift relative to the original wave train while estimating ${\tilde{v}}_\xx$ and ${\tilde{v}}_{\xx\xx}$. However, by *combining* these estimates with the ones on the integral scheme which does track the phase shift, they are strong enough to close the nonlinear iteration argument – see Remark \[remtranslational\] – and only yield a possibly artificial factor $\log(2+t)$ in Theorem \[maintheorem\]. Moreover, for fully exponentially localized perturbations, our method yields the same optimal decay bounds as the ones one obtains with a damping estimate in $H^k({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ – see Theorem \[maintheorem2\] and Remark \[optimality\].
Nonlinear stability analysis {#sec:nonstab}
============================
We prove the nonlinear stability results stated in §\[sec:statres\] by applying the pointwise Green’s function estimates from Theorem \[theope\] to the nonlinear iteration scheme consisting of , and . We start with the proof of Theorem \[maintheorem\] concerning nonlocalized perturbations.
In this proof, the constant $M > 1$ is as in Theorem \[theope\], whereas $C>1$ denotes a constant, which is independent of $E_0,\xx,\xt,y$ and $t$, that will be taken larger if necessary.
Short-time existence theory for semilinear parabolic equations – see [@HEN; @LUN] – yields via a standard contraction-mapping argument that there exists a maximal $T_0 \in (0,\infty]$ such that has a solution ${\tilde{v}}(t)$ in $W^{2,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ on $[0,T_0)$ with ${\tilde{v}}(0) = v_0$. The map $t \mapsto \|{\tilde{v}}(t)\|_{W^{2,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)}$ is continuous on $[0,T_0)$ and, if $T_0 < \infty$, it must blow up as $t \to T_0$. By a similar contraction-mapping argument, the semilinear parabolic system together with – and hence the integral system – has a solution $(v(t),\psi(t))$ in $X_\infty := W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n) \times W^{3,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}})$ on some maximal time interval $[0,T_1), T_1 \in (0,\infty]$ with initial condition $(v(0),\psi(0)) = (v_0,0)$ such that $t \mapsto \|(v(t),\psi(t))\|_{X_\infty}$ is continuous on $[0,T_1)$ and blows up as $T \to T_1$ if $T_1$ is finite. We conclude that the template function $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(t) :=& \sup_{\begin{smallmatrix} 0 \leq s \leq t\\ \xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}\end{smallmatrix}} e^{\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta s|^2}{M(1 + s)}} \left[(1+s)\left(\frac{\left\|v(\xx,y,s)\right\|}{\log(2+s)} + \sum_{1 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 3} \left\|D_{\xx,y,s}^\mathfrak{b} \psi(\xx,y,s)\right\|\right) \right.\\
&\qquad \qquad \quad \left.\phantom{\sum_{1 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 3}} + \sqrt{1+s}\left(\left\|{\tilde{v}}(\xx,y,s)\right\| + \left\|\psi(\xx,y,s)\right\|\right) + \sqrt{s}\left(\left\|{\tilde{v}}_\xx(\xx,y,s)\right\| + \left\|v_\xx(\xx,y,s)\right\|\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ is well-defined and continuous on $[0,\min\{T_0,T_1\})$ and must blow up as $t \to \min\{T_0,T_1\}$. Our goal is to prove that there exists constants $B > 0$ and $C > 1$ such that for all $t \geq 0$ with $\eta(t) \leq B$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(t) \leq C\left(E_0 + \eta(t)^2\right). \label{etaest}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\eta$ must be continuous as long as it remains small, we can apply continuous induction using estimate . Thus, provided that $E_0 < \frac{1}{4C}$, it follows $\eta(t) \leq 2CE_0$ for *all* $t \geq 0$, which readily yields the result, except for the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|{\tilde{v}}_y(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq C\frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{t}}, \label{yestimate}\end{aligned}$$ for $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $t \geq 0$.
We prove the key estimate . We employ two integral identities $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y-\yt|^2}{Mt} - \frac{|\beta \xt + \gamma \yt|^2}{M}}d\xt d\yt &= \frac{M\pi t e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{1+t}},\\
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha (t-s)|^2 + |y-\yt|^2}{M(t-s)} - \frac{|\beta \xt + \gamma \yt + \alpha \beta s|^2}{M(1+s)}}d\xt d\yt &= \frac{M\pi (t-s) \sqrt{1+s} e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{1+t}},
\end{split} \label{intid4}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xx,y,s,t \in {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying $0 \leq s \leq t$. These identities are obtained by adding the fractions in the exponent of the integrand and applying the (standard) formula $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} e^{az(z-2b)}dz &= \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{\sqrt{|a|}}e^{-ab^2}, &\quad a < 0, b \in {\mathbb{C}}, \label{intid} \end{aligned}$$ twice to evaluate the double integral.
Let $B > 1$ be as in §\[secitscheme\] and assume $t \geq 0$ is such that $\eta(t) \leq B$. We start by bounding the solutions to the integral system in terms of $\eta(t)$. By estimate the nonlinearities in can be bounded as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|{\mathcal{N}}_j(\xt,\yt,s)\right\| &\leq C\frac{\eta(t)^2 e^{-\frac{|\beta \xt + \gamma \yt + \alpha \beta s|^2}{M(1+s)}}}{(1+s)\sqrt{s}}, \qquad \qquad \ \ \ j = 1,2,3,\\
\left\|{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathfrak{a}}(\xt,\yt,s)\right\| &\leq C\frac{\eta(t)^2 \log^2(2+s) e^{-\frac{|\beta \xt + \gamma \yt + \alpha \beta s|^2}{M(1+s)}}}{(1+s)^2}, \qquad \mathfrak{a} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^3, 0 \leq |\mathfrak{a}| \leq 2,
\end{split} \label{nonlinest}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xt,\yt \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $0 \leq s \leq t$. Thus, applying the pointwise Green’s function estimates in Theorem \[theope\] to the integral system and employing and , yields $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|v(\xx,y,t)\right\| &\leq C \frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{1+t}}\left(\frac{\eta(t)^2\log(2+t)}{(1+t)\sqrt{1+t}} + \frac{E_0}{\sqrt{1+t}} + \eta(t)^2\! \! \int_0^t \!\!\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+s} \sqrt{s} \sqrt{t-s}} ds\right)\\ &\leq C\left(E_0+\eta(t)^2\right)\frac{\log(2+t)}{1+t} e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}},\\
\left\|\psi(\xx,y,t)\right\| &\leq C \frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{1+t}}\left(E_0 + \eta(t)^2 \int_0^t \frac{\log^2(2+s)}{(1+s)\sqrt{1+s}} ds\right)\\ &\leq C\left(E_0 + \eta(t)^2\right)\frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{1+t}},\\
\left\|D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{b}} \psi(\xx,y,t)\right\| &\leq C \frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{1+t}}\left(\frac{E_0}{\sqrt{1+t}} + \eta(t)^2 \int_0^t \frac{\log^2(2+s)}{(1+s)\sqrt{1+s}\sqrt{1 + t - s}} ds\right) \\ &\leq C\left(E_0 + \eta(t)^2\right)\frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{1+t},
\end{split} \label{iteration1}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $\mathfrak{b} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^3$ with $1 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 3$. Subsequently, we bound the solutions to the integral system . As $\eta(t) \leq B$, estimate yields the following bounds on the nonlinearities in $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|{\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_1(\xt,\yt,s)\right\| &\leq C\frac{\eta(t)^2 e^{-\frac{|\beta \xt + \gamma \yt + \alpha \beta s|^2}{M(1+s)}}}{(1+s)},\\
\left\|{\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_2(\xt,\yt,s)\right\| &\leq C\left(1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}\right)\frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xt + \gamma \yt + \alpha \beta s|^2}{M(1+s)}}}{\sqrt{1+s}},
\end{split} \label{nonlinest2}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xt,\yt \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $0 \leq s \leq t$. Moreover, the pointwise Green’s function estimates in Theorem \[theope\] imply $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|D_{\xx,y}^{\mathfrak{c}} G(\xx,\xt,y,s)\right\| &\leq Cs^{-\frac{3}{2}}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha s|^2 + |y|^2}{Ms}},
\end{split} \qquad \xx,\xt,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, s \geq 0, \label{pointwiseestimates2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{c} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^2$ is a multi-index with $|\mathfrak{c}| = 1$. Therefore, applying and to the integral system and employing , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|{\tilde{v}}_\xx(\xx,y,t)\right\| &\leq C \frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{1+t}}\left(\frac{E_0}{\sqrt{t}} + \eta(t)^2 \int_0^t \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+s} \sqrt{t-s}} ds\right)\\ & \leq C\left(E_0+\eta(t)^2\right)\frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{t}},\\
\left\|{\tilde{v}}_{\xx\xx}(\xx,y,t)\right\| &\leq C \frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{1+t}}\left(\frac{E_0}{\sqrt{t}} + \int_0^t \left(1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{t-s}} ds\right) \\ & \leq C\left(1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\right),
\end{split} \label{iteration2}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Finally, we use to bound ${\tilde{v}}(\xx,y,t)$ and $v_\xx(\xx,y,t)$ in terms of $\eta(t)$. Observe that $e(\xx,\xt,y,s) = 0$ by construction for all $\xx,\xt,y,s \in {\mathbb{R}}$ with $0 \leq s \leq 1$, therefore we have $\psi(\xx,y,s) = 0$ for $0 \leq s \leq 1$. Thus, estimate yields using $\eta(t)\leq B$ and identities and $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|{\tilde{v}}(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq &\ \left\|v(\xx,y,t)\right\| + \left(\left\|u_\infty'\right\|_{\infty} + \left\|{\tilde{v}}_\xx(t)\right\|_{\infty} \right) \left\|\psi(\xx,y,t)\right\| \\ \leq &\ C\left(E_0 + \eta(t)^2\right)\frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{1+t}},\\
\left\|v_\xx(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq &\ \left\|{\tilde{v}}_\xx(\xx,y,t)\right\| + \left(\left\|u_\infty''\right\|_{\infty} + \left\|{\tilde{v}}_{\xx \xx}(t)\right\|_{\infty}\right)\left\|\psi(\xx,y,t)\right\|\\
&\qquad\quad + \left(\left\|u_\infty'\right\|_{\infty} + \left\|{\tilde{v}}_\xx(t)\right\|_{\infty} \right) \left\|\psi_\xx(\xx,y,t)\right\| \\ \leq &\ C\left(E_0+\eta(t)^2\right)\frac{e^{-\frac{|\beta \xx + \gamma y + \alpha \beta t|^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{t}},
\end{split} \label{iteration3}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Now, estimate follows from , and , which concludes the proof except for the estimate . To establish we differentiate with respect to $y$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\partial_y {\tilde{v}}(\xx,y,t) =&\ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \partial_y G(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t) v_0(\xt,\yt) d\xt d\yt\\
&\qquad + \int_0^t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \partial_y G(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t-s) {\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}}_1(\xt,\yt,s)d\xt d\yt ds,
\end{split}
\label{integralscheme5}\end{aligned}$$ for $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $t \geq 0$. Thus, using that $\eta(t)$ is bounded for all $t \geq 0$, we estimate using , and to yield .
The proof of Theorem \[maintheorem2\] concerning exponentially localized perturbations has a similar set-up as the proof of Theorem \[maintheorem\]. However, the obtained decay estimates differ.
In this proof, the constant $M > 1$ is as in Theorem \[theope\], whereas $C>1$ denotes a constant, which is independent of $E_0,\xx,\xt,y$ and $t$, that will be taken larger if necessary.
Similar to the proof Theorem \[maintheorem\], we conclude that the template function $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(t) :=& \sup_{\begin{smallmatrix} 0 \leq s \leq t\\ \xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}\end{smallmatrix}} e^{\frac{|\xx + \alpha s|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + s)}} \left[(1+s)\sqrt{1+s}\left(\left\|v(\xx,y,s)\right\| + \sum_{1 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 3} \left\|D_{\xx,y,s}^\mathfrak{b} \psi(\xx,y,s)\right\|\right) \right.\\
&\qquad \left.\phantom{\sum_{1 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 3}} + (1+s)\left(\left\|{\tilde{v}}(\xx,y,s)\right\| + \left\|\psi(\xx,y,s)\right\|\right) + \sqrt{s}\sqrt{1+s}\left(\left\|{\tilde{v}}_\xx(\xx,y,s)\right\| + \left\|v_\xx(\xx,y,s)\right\|\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ is well-defined and continuous on some maximal interval $[0,T)$ with $T \in (0,\infty]$ and must blow up as $t \to T$. Again we prove that there exists constants $B > 0$ and $C > 1$ such that for all $t \geq 0$ with $\eta(t) \leq B$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(t) \leq C\left(E_0 + \eta(t)^2\right). \label{etaest2}\end{aligned}$$ Then, provided $E_0 < \frac{1}{4C}$, we have $\eta(t) \leq 2CE_0$ for *all* $t \geq 0$ by continuous induction, which yields the result.
Thus, we establish the key estimate proceeding as in the proof Theorem \[maintheorem\]. This time, we employ two simpler integral identities $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y-\yt|^2}{Mt} - \frac{\xt^2 + \yt^2}{M}}d\xt d\yt &= \frac{M\pi t e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{1+t},\\
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha (t-s)|^2 + |y-\yt|^2}{M(t-s)} - \frac{|\xt + \alpha s|^2 + \yt^2}{M(1+s)}}d\xt d\yt &= \frac{M\pi (t-s) (1+s) e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{1+t},
\end{split} \label{intid42}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xx,y,s,t \in {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying $0 \leq s \leq t$. These identities are obtained by factorizing the double integral into a product of an integral over $\xt$ and one over $\yt$, each of which can be evaluated using .
Let $B > 1$ be as in §\[secitscheme\] and assume $t \geq 0$ is such that $\eta(t) \leq B$. As in the proof of Theorem \[maintheorem\], we bound the solutions to the integral systems and in terms of $\eta(t)$. Thus, by applying Theorem \[theope\], and to the integral system , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|v(\xx,y,t)\right\| &\leq C \frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{1+t}\left(\frac{\eta(t)^2}{(1+t)^2} + \frac{E_0}{\sqrt{1+t}} + \eta(t)^2 \int_0^t \frac{1}{(1+s) \sqrt{s} \sqrt{t-s}} ds\right)\\ &\leq C\left(E_0+\eta(t)^2\right)\frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{(1+t)\sqrt{1+t}},\\
\left\|\psi(\xx,y,t)\right\| &\leq C \frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{1+t}\left(E_0 + \eta(t)^2 \int_0^t \frac{1}{(1+s)^2} ds\right)\\ &\leq C\left(E_0 + \eta(t)^2\right)\frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{1+t},\\
\left\|D_{\xx,y,t}^{\mathfrak{b}} \psi(\xx,y,t)\right\| &\leq C \frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{1+t}\left(\frac{E_0}{\sqrt{1+t}} + \eta(t)^2 \int_0^t \frac{1}{(1+s)^2\sqrt{1 + t - s}} ds\right) \\ &\leq C\left(E_0 + \eta(t)^2\right)\frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{(1+t)\sqrt{1+t}},
\end{split} \label{iteration12}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $\mathfrak{b} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^3$ with $1 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 3$. Similarly, by applying , and to the integral system , we bound $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|{\tilde{v}}_\xx(\xx,y,t)\right\| &\leq C \frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{1+t} \left(\frac{E_0}{\sqrt{t}} + \eta(t)^2 \int_0^t \frac{1}{(1+s) \sqrt{t-s}} ds\right)\\ & \leq C\left(E_0+\eta(t)^2\right)\frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{1+t}\sqrt{t}},\\
\left\|{\tilde{v}}_{\xx\xx}(\xx,y,t)\right\| &\leq C \frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{1+t} \left(\frac{E_0}{\sqrt{t}} + \int_0^t \left(1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}\sqrt{1+s}}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{t-s}} ds\right) \\ & \leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{1+t}}\left(1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\right),
\end{split} \label{iteration22}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Finally, still following the proof of Theorem \[maintheorem\], we use $\psi(s) = 0$ for $0 \leq s \leq 1$, $\eta(t)\leq B$, , and to bound $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|{\tilde{v}}(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq &\ C\left(E_0 + \eta(t)^2\right)\frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{1+t},\\
\left\|v_\xx(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq &\ C\left(E_0 + \eta(t)^2\right)\frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{t}\sqrt{1+t}},
\end{split} \label{iteration32}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xx,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Estimate follows from , and , which yields the result except for the estimate on ${\tilde{v}}_y(\xx,y,t)$. This estimate follows as in Theorem \[maintheorem\]: using that $\eta(t)$ is bounded for all $t \geq 0$, we apply , and to and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|{\tilde{v}}_y(\xx,y,t)\right\| \leq C\frac{e^{-\frac{|\xx + \alpha t|^2 + y^2}{M(1 + t)}}}{\sqrt{t}\sqrt{1+t}},\end{aligned}$$ which concludes the proof.
\[optimality\] It follows from the decomposition of the Green’s function $G(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ in Theorem \[theope\] that the leading-order linear contribution in the integral equation for ${\tilde{v}}(\xx,y,t)$ comes from the term $$\begin{aligned}
u_\infty(\xx) \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} e(\xx,\xt,y-\yt,t) v_0(\xt,\yt) d\xt d\yt. \label{linearest}\end{aligned}$$ Using the explicit formula for the Green’s function $e(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ given in Theorem \[theope\], one readily observes from and that for $v_0 \in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ satisfying the optimal decay rate of is $t^{-1/2}$, whereas for $v_0 \in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ satisfying the optimal decay rate of is $t^{-1}$. Thus, the decay rates of ${\tilde{v}}(\xx,y,t) = \ut(\xx,y,t) - u_\infty(\xx)$ in Theorems \[maintheorem\] and \[maintheorem2\] are optimal. Similarly, one can verify the optimality of the other decay rates in Theorems \[maintheorem\] and \[maintheorem2\]. One finds that we have obtained a (possibly) suboptimal decay rate *only* in the estimation of $v(\xx,y,t) = \ut(\xx + \psi(\xx,y,t),y,t) - u_\infty(\xx)$ in Theorem \[maintheorem\]. Here, we establish a decay rate of $\log(2+t)(1+t)^{-1}$, whereas one would expect that the optimal decay rate is $t^{-1}$ from the estimation of the leading-order linear contribution. This (possibly) artificial logarithm might come from our approach to dealing with derivatives of the perturbation in the nonlinearity – see Remark \[motvt\].
Proof of pointwise estimates {#proofpointwise}
============================
Approach {#sec:papproach}
--------
We prove Theorem \[theope\] by employing similar methods as in [@JUN], where pointwise Green’s function bounds are obtained for wave trains in reaction-diffusion systems in one spatial dimension. In the proof, we distinguish between two different regimes, that is we obtain pointwise Green’s function estimates for $(|\xx - \xt + \alpha t|+|y|)/t$ large and for bounded $(|\xx - \xt + \alpha t|+|y|)/t$, separately.
In the first regime, we proceed as in [@HOF Proposition 2.7]. We apply the Laplace transform to and write the solution operator $e^{{\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y} t}$ as an integral $$\begin{aligned}
e^{{\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y} t} = \int_{\Gamma_\nu} e^{\lambda t} \left({\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y} - \lambda\right)^{-1} d\lambda, \label{LaplaceSol}\end{aligned}$$ for $\nu_y \in {\mathbb{C}}$, where $\Gamma_{\nu_y}$ is a contour in the resolvent set $\rho({\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y})$ containing the spectrum $\sigma({\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y})$. Consequently, the temporal Green’s function $G(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ can be related via the Fourier and Laplace transforms to the resolvent kernel $G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ associated with the elliptic operator ${\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y} - \lambda$. Thus, and yield $$\begin{aligned}
G(\xx,\xt,y,t) = \frac{1}{2\pi i \sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_{\Gamma_{\nu_y}} e^{i\nu_y y + \lambda t} G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)d\lambda d\nu_y. \label{Duhamel}\end{aligned}$$ We regard the eigenvalue problem ${\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y}u = \lambda u$, associated with the resolvent kernel $G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$, as an ODE in the *complex* parameters $\nu_y$ and $\lambda$. The behavior of this ODE is well-understood when $\nu_y$ and $\lambda$ are contained in a certain set ${\mathcal{S}}\subset {\mathbb{C}}^2$, sufficiently far away from the origin. Thus, for $(\nu_y,\lambda) \in {\mathcal{S}}$ pointwise estimates on the resolvent kernel $G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ can be obtained. These estimates can then be employed to bound the temporal Green’s function $G(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ by deforming the contour integrals in $\lambda$ and $\nu_y$ in to lie in ${\mathcal{S}}$. We emphasize that, in order to obtain this bound on $G(\xx,\xt,y,t)$, it is crucial that $(|\xx - \xt + \alpha t|+|y|)/t$ is sufficiently large to compensate for the fact that the resulting $\lambda$-contour lies partly in the right half-plane, far away from the origin, causing the factor $e^{\lambda t}$ in to blow-up as $t \to \infty$.
In order to obtain sharp pointwise Green’s function estimates for $(|\xx - \xt + \alpha t|+|y|)/t$ bounded, it is necessary to minimize the factor $e^{\lambda t}$ in . This can be established by choosing the contour $\Gamma_{\nu_y} \subset \rho({\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y})$ to lie as much into the left half plane as possible. However, since the spectrum of ${\mathcal{L}}_0$ touches the imaginary axis at the origin, the obtained decay is not sufficient to close an eventual nonlinear iteration argument – see Remark \[remtranslational\]. Instead, we proceed as in [@JONZ; @JUN; @OHZUM] and split off the slow-decaying translational mode first using the Fourier-Bloch decomposition of the solution operator. More precisely, we split into an integral over a small neighborhood $U_0 \subset \Omega$ of $0$, corresponding to the translational part, and a residual integral over $\Omega \setminus U_0$ to which we apply the Laplace transform. Since the resolvent set $\rho(L_{\pmb \nu})$ is contained in $\Re(\lambda) \leq -\eta$ for ${\pmb \nu} \in \Omega \setminus U_0$ by (D3), we can deform the contour to obtain exponential decay from the factor $e^{\lambda t}$ in the Laplace transform formula. Finally, we approximate the translational part by $u_\infty(\xx)e(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ using the expansion in Lemma \[Lem1\].
This section is structured as follows. First, we establish pointwise estimates on the resolvent kernels associated with the operators ${\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y} - \lambda,\nu_y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $L_{\pmb \nu} - \lambda,{\pmb \nu} \in \Omega$. Then, we recall some standard, but nontrivial, integrals that we will encounter in our estimation of the Green’s function. Finally, we obtain pointwise estimates on the temporal Green’s function for $(|\xx - \xt + \alpha t|+|y|)/t$ large and $(|\xx - \xt + \alpha t|+|y|)/t$ bounded, separately.
Bounds on the resolvent kernel
------------------------------
We obtain bounds on the Green’s function $G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ associated with the elliptic operator ${\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y} - \lambda$ for $(\lambda,\nu_y)$ in a certain subset of ${\mathbb{C}}^2$, sufficiently far away from the origin. We proceed as in [@BEC Section 3.2] and obtain these bounds from the behavior of the spatial eigenvalues associated with the temporal eigenvalue problem ${\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y} u = \lambda u$.
\[high\] Complexify $\nu_y$ and consider the family ${\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y}, \nu_y \in {\mathbb{C}}$ of operators on $L^2({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ given by . Denote by $G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ the Green’s function associated with ${\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y} - \lambda$. There exists $\kappa_1 \in (0,1)$ and $C,R,\kappa_{2} > 1$, such that for all $(\nu_y,\lambda) \in {\mathbb{C}}^2$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
|\nu_y| + |\lambda|^{1/2} > R, \quad \Re(\lambda) \geq - \kappa_1\left(|\Re(\nu_y)|^2 + |\Im(\lambda)|\right) + \kappa_2 |\Im(\nu_y)|^2, \label{sector2}\end{aligned}$$ $\lambda$ is in the resolvent set $\rho(L_{\nu_y})$ and the Green’s function may be bounded as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|D_{\xx,\xt}^\mathfrak{a} G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\| &\leq C\frac{e^{-\left(|\lambda|^{1/2} + |\nu_y|\right)|\xx-\xt|/C}}{\left(|\lambda|^{1/2} + |\nu_y|\right)^{1-|\mathfrak{a}|}},
\end{split} \qquad \xx,\xt \in {\mathbb{R}}, \label{high2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{a} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^2$ is a multi-index with $0 \leq |\mathfrak{a}| \leq 1$.
Throughout this proof, we denote by $C>1$ a constant, which is independent of $\xx,\xt,\lambda$ and $\nu_y$, that will be taken larger if necessary.
Let $f \in L^2({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{C}}^{n})$. We rescale the inhomogeneous problem $({\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y} - \lambda) u = f$ by setting $z = (|\lambda|^{1/2} + |\nu_y|)\xx$ and $\phi = (u,\partial_ z u)$. This leads to the equivalent problem $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\partial_z - {\mathcal{A}}(z,\nu_y,\lambda)\right)\phi = g(z,\nu_y,\lambda), \quad g(z,\nu_y,\lambda) := \left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \frac{D^{-1} f\left(\left(|\lambda|^{1/2} + |\nu_y|\right)^{-1} z\right)}{\left(|\lambda|^{1/2} + |\nu_y|\right)^2} \end{array}\right), \label{ODE3}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{A}}(z,\nu_y,\lambda) := A(\nu_y,\lambda) + \frac{1}{|\lambda|^{1/2} + |\nu_y|}B(z,\nu_y,\lambda), \quad A(\nu_y,\lambda) := \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & {\mathbb{I}}_n\\ \frac{k^{-2}(\nu_y^2 + D^{-1}\lambda)}{(|\lambda|^{1/2} + |\nu_y|)^2} & 0 \end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ and $B$ is bounded on ${\mathbb{R}}\times \left\{(\nu_y,\lambda) \in {\mathbb{C}}^2 : |\nu_y| + |\lambda|^{1/2} > R\right\}$. Since $D^{-1}$ is symmetric and positive-definite, there exists $d_{\mathrm{min}} > 0$ such that $v^* D^{-1} v \geq d_{\mathrm{min}}$ for all $v \in {\mathbb{C}}^n$ with $\|v\| = 1$. We use the latter to explicitly bound the eigenvalues of the matrix $A(\nu_y,\lambda)$, which are given by the square roots of the eigenvalues of its lower-left block. Thus, take $\kappa_1 \in (0,1)$ and $\kappa_2 > 0$ such that $4\kappa_1\|D^{-1}\| < \min\{2d_{\mathrm{min}},1\}$ and $2\kappa_2 > 5\|D^{-1}\|$. We find that for any $(\nu_y,\lambda) \in {\mathbb{C}}^2$ satisfying it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\Re(\sigma(A(\nu_y,\lambda)))\right| \geq \frac{1}{2k} \sqrt{\min\left\{\tfrac{1}{4}-\left\|D^{-1}\right\|\kappa_1,\tfrac{d_{\mathrm{min}}}{2}\right\}},\end{aligned}$$ i.e. $A(\nu_y,\lambda)$ is hyperbolic with $(\nu_y,\lambda)$-independent spectral gap. We apply [@SAN1993 Lemma 1.2] (see also [@COP]) to the homogeneous problem, $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\partial_z - {\mathcal{A}}(z,\nu_y,\lambda)\right)\phi = 0. \label{ODE2}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, taking $R > 1$ sufficiently large, system has for all $(\nu_y,\lambda) \in {\mathbb{C}}^2$ satisfying an exponential dichotomy on ${\mathbb{R}}$ with constants independent of $\lambda$ and $\nu_y$. Denote by $T^{s,u}_{\nu_y,\lambda}(z,\bar{z})$ the stable and unstable evolution of under the exponential dichotomy. Variation of constants yields that the unique solution $\phi \in L^2({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ to is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(z,\nu_y,\lambda) = \int_{-\infty}^z T^s_{\nu_y,\lambda}(z,\bar{z}) g(\bar{z},\nu_y,\lambda)d\bar{z} - \int_z^\infty T^u_{\nu_y,\lambda}(z,\bar{z}) g(\bar{z},\nu_y,\lambda)d\bar{z}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, rescaling back to the original coordinates, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c} G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\\
\partial_\xx G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt) \end{array}\right)
= \left(\begin{array}{cc} \frac{{\mathbb{I}}_n}{|\lambda|^{1/2} + |\nu_y|} & 0 \\ 0 & {\mathbb{I}}_n \end{array}\right) \cdot \begin{cases} T^s_{\nu_y,\lambda}\left(\left(|\lambda|^{1/2} + |\nu_y|\right)\xx,\left(|\lambda|^{1/2} + |\nu_y|\right)\xt\right) \left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ D^{-1}\end{array}\right), & \xx \geq \xt,\\
-T^u_{\nu_y,\lambda}\left(\left(|\lambda|^{1/2} + |\nu_y|\right)\xx,\left(|\lambda|^{1/2} + |\nu_y|\right)\xt\right) \left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ D^{-1}\end{array}\right), & \xx < \xt,\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ which yields the estimates on $G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ and $\partial_\xx G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ in . Finally, for the estimate on $\partial_{\xt} G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ we observe that $G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt) = H_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xt,\xx)^*$, where $H_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ is the Green’s function associated with the adjoint operator $({\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y} - \lambda)^*$ – see also [@ZUH Lemma 4.3]. Analogous to the above, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\partial_\xx H_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\| \leq Ce^{-\left(|\lambda|^{1/2} + |\nu_y|\right)|\xx-\xt|/C}, \qquad \xx,\xt \in {\mathbb{R}},\end{aligned}$$ for any $(\nu_y,\lambda) \in {\mathbb{C}}^2$ satisfying (by choosing $R > 1$ larger if necessary). This yields the bound on $\partial_\xt G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt) = \left(\partial_\xt H_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xt,\xx)\right)^*$ in .
Using the Bloch transform, Lemma \[high\] yields pointwise bounds on the resolvent kernel $G_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ associated with the operator $L_{\pmb \nu} - \lambda$ given by .
\[high3\] There exists constants $C,R > 1$ and $\mu > 0$ such that for all $({\pmb \nu},\lambda) \in \Omega \times {\mathbb{C}}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
|\lambda| > R, \quad \Re(\lambda) \geq -\mu \left(\nu_y^2 + |\Im(\lambda)|\right),\end{aligned}$$ $\lambda$ is in the resolvent set $\rho(L_{\pmb \nu})$ and the Green’s function ${\mathcal{G}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ associated with the operator $L_{\pmb \nu} - \lambda$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\sup_{\nu_x \in [-\pi,\pi]} \left\|D_{\xx,\xt}^\mathfrak{a}{\mathcal{G}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\| &\leq C|\lambda|^{\frac{|\mathfrak{a}|-1}{2}},
\end{split}
\qquad \xx,\xt \in [0,1],\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{a} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^2$ is a multi-index with $0 \leq |\mathfrak{a}| \leq 1$.
It holds ${\mathcal{G}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt) = e^{i\nu_x(\xt-\xx)}G_{\nu_y,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ for any $({\pmb \nu},\lambda) \in \Omega \times {\mathbb{C}}$ and $\xx,\xt \in [0,1]$. The result now follows from Lemma \[high3\].
\[mid\] Let $K$ be some compact set in $\Omega \times {\mathbb{C}}$ such that for pairs $({\pmb \nu},\lambda) \in K$ it holds $\lambda \in \rho(L_{\pmb \nu})$. By analyticity of ${\mathcal{G}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ and its $\xx$- and $\xt$-derivatives in $\lambda$ and ${\pmb \nu}$ there exists $C>1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{({\pmb \nu},\lambda) \in K, \xx,\xt \in [0,1]} \left\|D_{\xx,\xt}^\mathfrak{a} {\mathcal{G}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\| \leq C,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{a} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^2$ is a multi-index with $0 \leq |\mathfrak{a}| \leq 1$.
Some useful integrals
---------------------
In the pointwise estimation of the Green’s function, we need to evaluate some standard, but nontrivial, integrals. First, recall $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} e^{az(z-2b)}dz &= \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{\sqrt{|a|}}e^{-ab^2}, &\quad a < 0, b \in {\mathbb{C}}, \label{intid1} \end{aligned}$$ from §\[sec:nonstab\]. In addition, we use the identities $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} |z|^a e^{-b z^2} dz &= \Gamma\left(\frac{a+1}{2}\right)b^{-(a+1)/2}, &\quad a \geq 0, b > 0, \label{intid2}\\
\int_0^\infty \frac{e^{-bz}}{\sqrt{z}}dz &= \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{\sqrt{b}}, \ \ \ &b > 0.\label{intid3}\end{aligned}$$
Pointwise Green’s function estimates for large .
------------------------------------------------
As described in §\[sec:papproach\], we obtain pointwise bounds on the Green’s function and its derivatives for large $(|\xx - \xt + \alpha t|+|y|)/t$ by proceeding as in [@HOF Proposition 2.7].
\[Point1\] Assume (D1)-(D3) hold true. There exists constants $m > 0$ and $S,C,M>1$ such that for any $\xx,\xt,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, t \geq 0$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
|\xx-\xt+\alpha t|+|y| \geq St,\end{aligned}$$ the Green’s function $G(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ associated with the operator $\partial_t - {\mathcal{L}}$ enjoys the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{b} G(\xx,\xt,y,t)\right\| &\leq Ct^{-1-\frac{|\mathfrak{b}|}{2}} e^{-mt} e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},
\end{split} \qquad\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{b} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^3$ is a multi-index with $0 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 1$.
Throughout this proof, we denote by $C>1$ a constant, which is independent of $\xx,\xt,y$ and $t$, that will be taken larger if necessary.
Complexify $\nu_y$ and consider the family ${\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y}, \nu_y \in {\mathbb{C}}$ of operators analytic in $\nu_y$ given by . Let $R,\kappa_{1,2} > 0$ be as in Lemma \[high\] and take $$\begin{aligned}
A := \epsilon_0^2 \frac{(|\xx - \xt + \alpha t| + |y|)^2}{t^2}, \quad a := \mathrm{sgn}(y)\sqrt{\frac{A}{\kappa_2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_0 > 0$ is to be defined. We consider as a complex contour integral in $\nu_y$. By Cauchy’s integral theorem we have $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
D_{\xx,\xt}^\mathfrak{a} G(\xx,\xt,y,t) &= \frac{1}{2\pi i \sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_{\Gamma_{\nu_y}} e^{i(z+ia)y + \lambda t} D_{\xx,\xt}^\mathfrak{a} G_{z+ia,\lambda}(\xx,\xt) d\lambda dz,\\
\partial_y G(\xx,\xt,y,t) &= \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_{\Gamma_{\nu_y}} (z+ia) e^{i(z+ia)y + \lambda t} G_{z+ia,\lambda}(\xx,\xt) d\lambda dz,
\end{split}
\label{Duhamel2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{a} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^2$ is a multi-index with $0 \leq |\mathfrak{a}| \leq 1$. We take the contour $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\nu_y} := \{\lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}\colon \Re(\lambda) = A - \kappa_1(|\Re(\nu_y)|^2 + |\Im(\lambda)|)\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that for every $\lambda \in \Gamma_{\nu_y}$ it holds $$\begin{aligned}
|\nu_y|^2 + |\lambda| \geq \max\left\{|\Re(\lambda)|, \frac{A - \Re(\lambda)}{\kappa_1}\right\} \geq \frac{A}{1 + \kappa_1}. \label{normb}\end{aligned}$$ By and the fact that $A = \kappa_2 a^2$, every $\nu_y \in \{z + ia : z \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ and $\lambda \in \Gamma_{\nu_y}$ satisfy for $A > 0$ sufficiently large. Therefore, every $\lambda \in \Gamma_{\nu_y}$ is in the resolvent set of ${\mathcal{L}}_{\nu_y}$ for $\Im(\nu_y) = a$. Taking the lower bound $S > 0$ sufficiently large, we may assume $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|y| + |\xx-\xt|}{t} \geq \frac{|y| + |\xx - \xt + \alpha t|}{t} - |\alpha| \geq \frac{|y| + |\xx - \xt + \alpha t|}{2t} . \label{large}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, by taking $\epsilon_0 > 0$ sufficiently small, we are able to estimate using Lemma \[high\] and identities , , and $$\begin{aligned}
\|D^\mathfrak{a}_{\xx,\xt} G(\xx,\xt,y,t)\| &\leq C \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_{\Gamma_{\nu_y}} e^{-a y + \Re(\lambda) t}\|D^\mathfrak{a}_{\xx,\xt} G_{z+ia,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\| d\lambda dz\\
&\leq C \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} e^{-a y + At - \sqrt{\frac{A}{1+\kappa_1}}|\xx-\xt|/C - \kappa_1 (|\Im(\lambda)| + z^2)t} |\Im(\lambda)|^{\frac{|\mathfrak{a}|-1}{2}} d|\Im(\lambda)| dz\\
&\leq C \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} e^{(\epsilon_0^2 - \epsilon_0/C)\frac{(|y| + |\xx - \xt + \alpha t|)^2}{t} - \kappa_1 (|\Im(\lambda)| + z^2)t} |\Im(\lambda)|^{\frac{|\mathfrak{a}|-1}{2}} d|\Im(\lambda)| dz\\
&\leq Ct^{-1-\frac{|\mathfrak{a}|}{2}} e^{-mt} e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},
\end{aligned}$$ for some $m > 0$ and $M > 1$, where in the latter inequality we used that the lower bound $S > 0$ can be taken larger if necessary. Analogously, we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\|\partial_y G(\xx,\xt,y,t)\| &\leq C \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_{\Gamma_{\nu_y}} \left(|z|+|a|\right)e^{-a y + \Re(\lambda) t}\| G_{z+ia,\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\| d\lambda dz\\
&\leq C \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \left(|z|+\sqrt{A}\right)e^{-a y + At - \sqrt{\frac{A}{1+\kappa_1}}|\xx-\xt|/C - \kappa_1 (|\Im(\lambda)| + z^2)t} |\Im(\lambda)|^{-\frac{1}{2}} d|\Im(\lambda)| dz\\
&\leq C \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \left(|z|+\frac{|y| + |\xx - \xt + \alpha t|}{t}\right)\frac{e^{(\epsilon_0^2 - \epsilon_0/C)\frac{(|y| + |\xx - \xt + \alpha t|)^2}{t} - \kappa_1 (|\Im(\lambda)| + z^2)t}}{\sqrt{|\Im(\lambda)|}} d|\Im(\lambda)| dz\\
&\leq Ct^{-\frac{3}{2}} e^{-m t} e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},\end{aligned}$$ for some $m > 0$ and $M > 1$.
Pointwise Green’s function estimates for bounded
-------------------------------------------------
As described in §\[sec:papproach\], we establish pointwise bounds on the temporal Green’s function and its derivatives for bounded $(|\xx - \xt + \alpha t|+|y|)/t$ following [@JUN; @OHZUM].
\[Point2\] Assume (D1)-(D3) hold true and let $S > 1$. There exists constants $C,M>1$ such that for any $\xx,\xt,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, t \geq 0$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
|\xx-\xt+\alpha t|+|y| \leq St,\end{aligned}$$ the Green’s function $G(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ associated with the operator $\partial_t - {\mathcal{L}}$ can be decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
G(\xx,\xt,y,t) = \frac{1}{4\pi t\sqrt{d_\perp \theta}}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt+\alpha t|^2}{4\theta t} - \frac{|y|^2}{4d_\perp t}} u_\infty'(\xx) u_{\ad} (\xt)^* + {\mathcal{G}}(\xx,\xt,y,t)\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{G}}(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ enjoys the estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|{\mathcal{G}}(\xx,\xt,y,t)\right\| &\leq Ct^{-1}(1+t)^{-\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},\\
\left\|D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{a} {\mathcal{G}}(\xx,\xt,y,t)\right\| &\leq Ct^{-\frac{3}{2}}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{a} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^3$ is a multi-index with $|\mathfrak{a}| = 1$.
Throughout this proof, we denote by $C>1$ a constant, which is independent of $\xx,\xt,y$ and $t$, that will be taken larger if necessary.
Without loss of generality we may assume that $\{\nu \in {\mathbb{C}}^2 \colon |\nu| \leq 2\epsilon\} \subset U$, where $\epsilon$ is as in (D2)-(D3) and $U \subset {\mathbb{C}}^2$ is the neighborhood of $0$ from Lemma \[Lem1\]. Let $\phi \colon {\mathbb{C}}^2 \to [0,1]$ be a smooth cut-off function satisfying $\phi({\pmb \nu}) = 1$ if $|{\pmb \nu}| \leq \epsilon$ and $\phi({\pmb \nu}) = 0$ if $|{\pmb \nu}| \geq 2\epsilon$. Let $\delta_z^m \colon {\mathbb{R}}^m \to {\mathbb{R}}$ be the Dirac delta function centered at $z \in {\mathbb{R}}^m$. Applying the Fourier-Bloch transform – see §\[s2.1\] – yields $2\pi \check{\delta}^2_{(\xt,0)}({\pmb \nu},\xx) = e^{-i\nu_x\xt}\delta^1_{\xt}(\xx)$. So, using and Lemma \[Lem1\], we decompose the Green’s function of problem as $$\begin{aligned}
G(\xx,\xt,y,t) &= \left[e^{{\mathcal{L}}t} \delta^2_{(\xt,0)}\right](\xx,y) = I + II,\\
I := \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_\Omega e^{i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \xi}} \phi({\pmb \nu})P({\pmb \nu})e^{L_{{\pmb \nu}} t} \delta^1_\xt(\xx)d{\pmb \nu}, &\qquad II := \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_\Omega e^{i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \xi}} (1-\phi({\pmb \nu})P({\pmb \nu}))e^{L_{{\pmb \nu}} t} \delta^1_\xt(\xx)d{\pmb \nu},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\pmb \xi} := (\xx-\xt,y)$ and $P({\pmb \nu}) := \langle q_\ad({\pmb \nu}),\cdot\rangle_2 q({\pmb \nu})$ is the spectral projection in $L_\per^2([0,1],{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ onto $\ker(L_{\pmb \nu} - \lambda_0({\pmb \nu}))$. By Lemma \[Lem1\], $P({\pmb \nu})$ is well-defined for any ${\pmb \nu} \in U$ and depends analytically on ${\pmb \nu}$. It holds $P({\pmb \nu}) e^{L_{\pmb \nu} t} = e^{\lambda_0({\pmb \nu})t}P({\pmb \nu})$ for ${\pmb \nu} \in U$. Thus, we calculate using and Lemma \[Lem1\] $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi^2 I &= \int_\Omega e^{i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \xi}} \phi({\pmb \nu})P({\pmb \nu})e^{L_{{\pmb \nu}} t} \delta^1_{\xt}(\xx)d{\pmb \nu}\\
&= \int_{|{\pmb \nu}|_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \leq 2\epsilon} e^{i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \xi}} \phi({\pmb \nu})e^{\lambda_0({\pmb \nu}) t} q({\pmb \nu},\xx) q_\ad({\pmb \nu},\xt)^* d{\pmb \nu}\\
&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} e^{i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \xi}} e^{(i\alpha\nu_x - \theta \nu_x^2 - d_\perp \nu_y^2)t} u_\infty'(\xx) u_{\ad} (\xt)^* d{\pmb \nu} - \int_{|{\pmb \nu}|_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \geq 2\epsilon} e^{i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \xi}} e^{(i\alpha\nu_x - \theta \nu_x^2 - d_\perp \nu_y^2)t} u_\infty'(\xx) u_{\ad} (\xt)^* d{\pmb \nu}\\
& \qquad + \int_{|{\pmb \nu}|_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \leq 2\epsilon} e^{i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \xi}} e^{(i\alpha\nu_x - \theta \nu_x^2 - d_\perp \nu_y^2)t} \left(e^{{\mathcal{H}}({\pmb \nu})t} \phi({\pmb \nu}) q({\pmb \nu},\xx) q_\ad({\pmb \nu},\xt)^* - q(0,\xx) q_\ad(0,\xt)^*\right) d{\pmb \nu}\\
&= \frac{\pi}{t\sqrt{d_\perp \theta}}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt+\alpha t|^2}{4\theta t} - \frac{|y|^2}{4d_\perp t}} u_\infty'(\xx) u_{\ad} (\xt)^* + II' + III'.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\mathfrak{b} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^3$ with $0 \leq |\mathfrak{b}| \leq 1$. Using we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|D^\mathfrak{b}_{\xx,\xt,y} II'\right\| &\leq C\int_{|{\pmb \nu}|_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \geq 2\epsilon} \left(1+|\nu_x| + |\nu_y|\right)^{|\mathfrak{b}|} e^{-(\theta \nu_x^2 + d_\perp \nu_y^2)t} d{\pmb \nu}\\
&\leq C \int_{-2\epsilon}^{2\epsilon} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \left(1+|\nu_x| + |\nu_y|\right)^{|\mathfrak{b}|} e^{-\theta \nu_x^2t}d\nu_x e^{-d_\perp\nu_y^2t} d\nu_y \\
& \qquad + C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_{-2\epsilon}^{2\epsilon} \left(1+|\nu_x| + |\nu_y|\right)^{|\mathfrak{b}|} e^{-\theta \nu_x^2t}d\nu_x e^{-d_\perp\nu_y^2t} d\nu_y\\
&\leq Ct^{-1}\left(1 + t^{-\frac{|\mathfrak{b}|}{2}}\right)e^{-2\epsilon^2 \min\{d_\perp,\theta\} t},\\
&\leq C t^{-1-\frac{|\mathfrak{b}|}{2}}e^{-m t}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},\end{aligned}$$ for some $m > 0$ and $M > 1$, using that $(|\xx-\xt+\alpha t|+|y|)/t$ is bounded in the latter inequality.
The estimation of $III'$ is more elaborate. As in [@OHZUM] define $$\begin{aligned}
a_1 := \frac{\xx - \xt + \alpha t}{2\theta t}, \quad a_2 := \frac{y}{2d_\perp t}, \quad \tilde{a}_{1,2} := \mathrm{sgn}(a_{1,2})\min\{2\epsilon,|a_{1,2}|\} ,\end{aligned}$$ and abbreviate $$\begin{aligned}
h(\nu_x,\nu_y,\xx,\xt,y,t) := e^{i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \xi}} e^{(i\alpha\nu_x - \theta \nu_x^2 - d_\perp \nu_y^2)t} \left(e^{{\mathcal{H}}({\pmb \nu})t} \phi({\pmb \nu}) q({\pmb \nu},\xx) q_\ad({\pmb \nu},\xt)^* - q(0,\xx) q_\ad(0,\xt)^*\right).\end{aligned}$$ We consider $III'$ as a double complex line integral. By Cauchy’s integral theorem the integral of $h(\cdot,\nu_y,\xx,\xt,t)$ over $[-2\epsilon,2\epsilon]$ equals the integral over the other three sides of the rectangle in ${\mathbb{C}}$ formed by the points $\pm 2\epsilon$, $\pm 2\epsilon + i\tilde{a}_1$. Denote by $\Gamma_1 \subset {\mathbb{C}}$ the curve consisting of these three sides and define $\Gamma_2 \subset {\mathbb{C}}$ similarly by the points $\pm 2\epsilon$, $\pm 2\epsilon + i\tilde{a}_2$. Using Cauchy’s theorem twice we rewrite $III'$ as $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{a} III' &= \int_{\Gamma_1} \int_{\Gamma_2} D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{a} h(\nu_x,\nu_y,\xx,\xt,y,t)d\nu_yd\nu_x. \label{CauchyIII}\end{aligned}$$ Our next step is to bound the integrand $D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{a} h(\nu_x,\nu_y,\xx,\xt,y,t)$ as a complex function of ${\pmb \nu} \in \Gamma_1 \times \Gamma_2$. For ${\pmb \nu} \in \Gamma_1 \times \Gamma_2 \subset U$ we bound using Lemma \[Lem1\] $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|e^{{\mathcal{H}}({\pmb \nu})t} \right.\!&\!\left.\phi({\pmb \nu}) D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{a}\left(q({\pmb \nu},\xx) q_\ad({\pmb \nu},\xt)^*\right) - D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{a} \left(q(0,\xx) q_\ad(0,\xt)^*\right)\right\| \\
&\leq \left|e^{{\mathcal{H}}({\pmb \nu})t} - 1\right|\left\|\phi({\pmb \nu}) D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{a}\left(q({\pmb \nu},\xx) q_\ad({\pmb \nu},\xt)^*\right)\right\| \\
&\qquad + \left\|\phi({\pmb \nu}) D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{a} \left(q({\pmb \nu},\xx) q_\ad({\pmb \nu},\xt)^*\right) - D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{a}\left(q(0,\xx) q_\ad(0,\xt)^*\right)\right\|\\
&\leq C\left(e^{|{\mathcal{H}}({\pmb \nu})| t} - 1 + |{\pmb \nu}|\right)\\
&\leq C\left(|{\mathcal{H}}({\pmb \nu})| t e^{|{\mathcal{H}}({\pmb \nu})|t} + |\nu_y| + |\nu_x|\right)\\
&\leq C\left(\left(|\nu_x| + |\nu_y|\right)^3 t + |\nu_y| + |\nu_x|\right) e^{c_0 \epsilon (\nu_x^2 + \nu_y^2) t},
\end{split}\label{estinteg}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_0$ is a constant independent of $\epsilon$. By taking $\epsilon > 0$ smaller if necessary, we may assume $2c_0\epsilon \leq \theta, d_\perp$. We apply the triangle inequality to and bound the integrand using . This leads to a sum of terms of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
&C t^m \int_{\Gamma_1} \int_{\Gamma_2} \left|e^{i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \xi}} e^{(i\alpha\nu_x - \theta \nu_x^2 - d_\perp \nu_y^2)t + c_0 \epsilon (\nu_x^2 + \nu_y^2) t} |\nu_x|^k |\nu_y|^l \right|d{\pmb \nu}\\
&= C t^m \int_{\Gamma_1} \left|e^{i\nu_x (\xx - \xt + \alpha t) - (\theta - c_0\epsilon) \nu_x^2 t}\right| |\nu_x|^k d\nu_x \int_{\Gamma_2} \left|e^{i\nu_y y - (d_\perp - c_0\epsilon) \nu_y^2 t} \right| |\nu_y|^l d\nu_y,
\end{split}
\label{summand}\end{aligned}$$ with integers $k, l, m \geq 0$ satisfying $k + l - 2m \geq 1$. Using and the identities $$\begin{aligned}
-\tilde{a}_2y &\leq -2d_\perp \tilde{a}_2^2 t, \quad -zy \leq -2d_\perp |z| |\tilde{a}_2|t \leq -2d_\perp z^2t, \quad z \in [0,\tilde{a}_2],\end{aligned}$$ we estimate the second factor in $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{\Gamma_2} \left|e^{i\nu_y y - (d_\perp - c_0\epsilon) \nu_y^2 t} \right| |\nu_y|^l d\nu_y,\\
& \quad \leq C \int_{-2\epsilon}^{2\epsilon} \left|e^{i(z + i\tilde{a}_2) y - (d_\perp - c_0\epsilon) (z+i\tilde{a}_2)^2t}\right| |z+i\tilde{\alpha_2}|^l dz + C\int_0^{\tilde{a}_2} \left|e^{i(2\epsilon + iz) y - (d_\perp - c_0\epsilon) (2\epsilon + iz)^2t}\right| |2\epsilon + iz|^l dz \\
&\quad \leq C e^{-d_\perp \tilde{a}_2^2 t/2} \sum_{j = 0}^l\int_{-2\epsilon}^{2\epsilon} e^{-(d_\perp - c_0\epsilon)z^2 t} |z|^{l-j}|\tilde{\alpha_2}|^{j} dz + Ce^{-2d_\perp \epsilon^2 t} \sum_{j = 0}^l\int_0^{|\tilde{a}_2|} e^{-(d_\perp - c_0\epsilon) z^2 t} |z|^{l-j}\epsilon^{j} dz \\
&\quad \leq C e^{-d_\perp \tilde{a}_2^2 t/2} \sum_{j = 0}^l\min\left\{1,t^{-(l+1-j)/2} |\tilde{\alpha_2}|^{j}\right\} + e^{-2d_\perp \epsilon^2 t/2}\sum_{j = 0}^l \min\left\{1, t^{-(l+1-j)/2} \epsilon^{j}\right\}\\
&\quad \leq C e^{-d_\perp \tilde{a}_2^2 t/4} \min\left\{1, t^{-(l+1)/2} \right\} + e^{-d_\perp \epsilon^2 t} \min\left\{1, t^{-(l+1)/2}\right\}\\
&\quad \leq C (1+t)^{-(1+l)/2} \left(e^{-d_\perp \tilde{a}_2^2 t/4} + e^{-d_\perp \epsilon^2 t}\right)\\
&\quad \leq C (1+t)^{-(1+l)/2} e^{-\frac{|y|^2}{Mt}},\end{aligned}$$ for some $M > 0$, using that $(|\xx-\xt+\alpha t|+|y|)/t$ is bounded in the latter inequality. Similarly, one establishes the bound on the second factor in $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Gamma_1} \left|e^{i\nu_x (\xx - \xt + \alpha t) - (\theta - c_0\epsilon) \nu_x^2 t}\right| |\nu_x|^k d\nu_x \leq C (1+t)^{-(1+k)/2} e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2}{Mt}},\end{aligned}$$ for some $M > 0$. We employ the latter two estimates to bound the summands of the form in order to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{a} III'\right\| &\leq \int_{\Gamma_1} \int_{\Gamma_2} \left\| D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{a} h(\nu_x,\nu_y,\xx,\xt,y,t)\right\|d\nu_yd\nu_x \leq C(1+t)^{-3/2} e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt+\alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},\end{aligned}$$ using $k+l-2m\geq 1$ holds in .
Next, we split $II$ into two integrals $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi^2 II &= \int_{|{\pmb \nu}|_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \leq \epsilon} e^{i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \xi}} (1-\phi({\pmb \nu})P({\pmb \nu}))e^{L_{{\pmb \nu}} t} \check{\delta}_{\xt}({\pmb \nu},\xx)d{\pmb \nu} + \int_{{\pmb \nu} \in \Omega, |{\pmb \nu}|_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \geq \epsilon} e^{i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \xi}} (1-\phi({\pmb \nu})P({\pmb \nu}))e^{L_{{\pmb \nu}} t} \check{\delta}_{\xt}({\pmb \nu},\xx)d{\pmb \nu}\\
&= \widetilde{I} + \widetilde{II},\end{aligned}$$ We start estimating $\widetilde{II}$. Note that by assumption (D3) the spectrum $\sigma(L_{\pmb \nu})$ is confined to $\Re(\lambda) < -\eta$ for ${\pmb \nu} \in \Omega$ with $|{\pmb \nu}| \geq \epsilon$. Combining this with Corollary \[high3\] yields that there exists $\kappa > 0$, independent of ${\pmb \nu}$ and $\lambda$, such that the contour $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\pmb \nu} := \{\lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}\colon \Re(\lambda) = -\kappa(1 + \nu_y^2 + |\Im(\lambda)|)\}, \label{contour}\end{aligned}$$ is contained in the resolvent set of $L_{\pmb \nu}$ for ${\pmb \nu} \in \Omega$ with $|{\pmb \nu}| \geq \epsilon$. Using the Laplace transform we rewrite $\widetilde{II}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{II} = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{{\pmb \nu} \in \Omega, |{\pmb \nu}| \geq \epsilon} \int_{\Gamma_{\pmb \nu}} e^{i{\pmb \nu} \cdot {\pmb \xi} + \lambda t} (1-\phi({\pmb \nu})P({\pmb \nu})) {\mathcal{G}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)d\lambda d{\pmb \nu},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{G}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ denotes the Green’s function associated with the operator $L_{\pmb \nu} - \lambda$. Let $j \in \{0,1\}$. Using Corollary \[high3\], Remark \[mid\] and the integral identities and we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\partial_y^j \ \widetilde{II}\ \right\| &\leq C \int_{{\pmb \nu} \in \Omega, |{\pmb \nu}| \geq \epsilon} \int_{\Gamma_{\pmb \nu}} |\nu_y|^j e^{\Re(\lambda) t} \left\|{\mathcal{G}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\|d\lambda d{\pmb \nu}\\
&\leq C e^{-\kappa t} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_0^\infty \frac{|\nu_y|^j}{\sqrt{|\Im(\lambda)|}} e^{-\kappa t(|\Im(\lambda)| + \nu_y^2)}d|\Im(\lambda)| d\nu_y\\
&\leq C t^{-1- \frac{j}{2}} e^{-\kappa t}\\
&\leq C t^{-1 - \frac{j}{2}}e^{-m t}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},\end{aligned}$$ for some $m > 0$ and $M > 1$, using that $(|\xx-\xt+\alpha t|+|y|)/t$ is bounded in the latter inequality. Let $\mathfrak{c} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^2$ be a multi-index with $|\mathfrak{c}| = 1$. Analogously, we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|D_{\xx,\xt}^\mathfrak{c} \ \widetilde{II} \ \right\| &\leq C \int_{{\pmb \nu} \in \Omega, |{\pmb \nu}| \geq \epsilon} \int_{\Gamma_{\pmb \nu}} e^{\Re(\lambda) t} \left(|\nu_x|\left\|{\mathcal{G}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\|+\left\|D_{\xx,\xt}^\mathfrak{c} {\mathcal{G}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\|\right)d\lambda d{\pmb \nu}\\
&\leq C e^{-\kappa t} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_0^\infty \left(1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\Im(\lambda)|}} \right) e^{-\kappa t(|\Im(\lambda)| + \nu_y^2)}d|\Im(\lambda)| d\nu_y\\
&\leq C t^{-1}\left(1 + t^{-1/2}\right) e^{-\kappa t}\\
&\leq C t^{-3/2} e^{-m t}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},\end{aligned}$$ for some $m > 0$ and $M > 1$.
For the estimation of $\widetilde{I}$ we note that $\phi({\pmb \nu}) = 1$ for $|{\pmb \nu}|_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \leq \epsilon$. For $|{\pmb \nu}|_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \leq \epsilon$ the spectrum of the operator $L_{\pmb \nu}$ restricted to $\ker(P({\pmb \nu}))$ is confined to $\Re(\lambda) < -\eta$ by Lemma \[Lem1\] (by taking $\eta$ smaller if necessary), since $P({\pmb \nu})$ is the spectral projection associated with the critical eigenvalue $\lambda_0({\pmb \nu})$ of $L_{\pmb \nu}$. Therefore, we may assume (by adapting $\kappa > 0$ if necessary) that the contour $\Gamma_{\pmb \nu}$ defined in lies in the resolvent set of $L_{\pmb \nu}|_{\ker(P({\pmb \nu}))}$ for all $|{\pmb \nu}|_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \leq \epsilon$ by Corollary \[high3\]. Estimating $\widetilde{I}$ is therefore similar to estimating $\widetilde{II}$. Let $\widetilde{{\mathcal{G}}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)$ be the Green’s function associated with the operator $L_{\pmb \nu}|_{\ker(P({\pmb \nu}))} - \lambda$. Let $K$ be some compact set in $\Omega \times {\mathbb{C}}$ such that for pairs $({\pmb \nu},\lambda) \in K$ it holds $\lambda \in \rho(L_{\pmb \nu}|_{\ker(P({\pmb \nu}))})$. By analyticity of the Green’s function in $\lambda$ and ${\pmb \nu}$ it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{\begin{smallmatrix} ({\pmb \nu},\lambda) \in K,\\ \xx,\xt \in [0,1]\end{smallmatrix}} \left\|D_{\xx,\xt}^\mathfrak{c}\widetilde{{\mathcal{G}}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\| \leq C,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{c} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^2$ is a multi-index with $0 \leq |\mathfrak{c}| \leq 1$. Thus, using the Laplace transform, Corollary \[high3\] and the integral identities and we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\partial_y^j \ \widetilde{I} \ \right\| &\leq C \int_{|{\pmb \nu}|_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \leq \epsilon} \int_{\lambda \in \Gamma_{\pmb \nu}, |\lambda| \leq R} |\nu_y|^j e^{\Re(\lambda) t} \left\|\widetilde{{\mathcal{G}}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\|d\lambda d{\pmb \nu}\\ &\qquad + C\int_{|{\pmb \nu}|_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \leq \epsilon} \int_{\lambda \in \Gamma_{\pmb \nu}, |\lambda| > R} |\nu_y|^j e^{\Re(\lambda) t} \left\|{\mathcal{G}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\|d\lambda d{\pmb \nu}\\
&\leq Ce^{-\kappa t} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_0^\infty |\nu_y|^j \left(1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\Im(\lambda)|}}\right) e^{-\kappa t(|\Im(\lambda)| + \nu_y^2)}d|\Im(\lambda)| d\nu_y\\
&\leq C t^{-1 - \frac{j}{2}}e^{-m t}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},\end{aligned}$$ for some $m > 0$ and $M > 1$, using that $(|\xx-\xt+\alpha t|+|y|)/t$ is bounded in the latter inequality. Analogously, we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|D_{\xx,\xt}^\mathfrak{c}\ \widetilde{I} \ \right\| &\leq C \int_{|{\pmb \nu}|_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \leq \epsilon} \int_{\lambda \in \Gamma_{\pmb \nu}, |\lambda| \leq R} e^{\Re(\lambda) t} \left(|\nu_x|\left\|\widetilde{{\mathcal{G}}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\| + \left\|D_{\xx,\xt}^\mathfrak{c} \widetilde{{\mathcal{G}}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\|\right)d\lambda d{\pmb \nu}\\ &\qquad + C\int_{|{\pmb \nu}|_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \leq \epsilon} \int_{\lambda \in \Gamma_{\pmb \nu}, |\lambda| > R} e^{\Re(\lambda) t} \left(|\nu_x|\left\|{\mathcal{G}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\|+\left\|D_{\xx,\xt}^\mathfrak{c} {\mathcal{G}}_{{\pmb \nu},\lambda}(\xx,\xt)\right\|\right)d\lambda d{\pmb \nu}\\
&\leq C e^{-\kappa t} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_0^\infty \left(1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\Im(\lambda)|}}\right) e^{-\kappa t(|\Im(\lambda)| + \nu_y^2)}d|\Im(\lambda)| d\nu_y\\
&\leq C t^{-\frac{3}{2}}e^{-m t}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}},\end{aligned}$$ for some $m > 0$ and $M > 1$.
Proof of Theorem \[theope\]
---------------------------
We employ Lemmas \[Point1\] and \[Point2\] to prove Theorem \[theope\]. First, observe that a direct calculation establishes the estimates in on $e(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ and its derivatives. Now, let $S > 1$ be as in Lemma \[Point1\]. It holds by Lemma \[Point2\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde{G}}(\xx,\xt,y,t) = \begin{cases} {\mathcal{G}}(\xx,\xt,y,t) + \frac{1-\chi(t)}{4\pi t\sqrt{d_\perp \theta}}e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt+\alpha t|^2}{4\theta t} - \frac{|y|^2}{4d_\perp t}} u_\infty'(\xx) u_{\ad} (\xt)^* & \text{if } |\xx-\xt+\alpha t|+|y| \leq St,\\
G(\xx,\xt,y,t) - e(\xx,\xt,y,t) & \text{if } |\xx-\xt+\alpha t|+|y| > St,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ for $\xx,\xt,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $t \geq 0$. The bounds in on $G(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ and its derivatives follow for $\xx,\xt,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, t \geq 0$ satisfying $|\xx-\xt+\alpha t|+|y| \leq St$ from Lemma \[Point1\] and the fact that $t \mapsto 1 - \chi(t)$ vanishes for $t \geq 2$. The bounds in on $G(\xx,\xt,y,t)$ and its derivatives follow for $\xx,\xt,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, t \geq 0$ satisfying $|\xx-\xt+\alpha t|+|y| > St$ from Lemma \[Point2\] and the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|D_{\xx,\xt,y}^\mathfrak{a} e(\xx,\xt,y,t)\right\| &\leq C(1+t)^{-1} e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{Mt}} \leq C(1+t)^{-1}e^{-\frac{S^2}{2M}t} e^{-\frac{|\xx-\xt + \alpha t|^2 + |y|^2}{2Mt}},\end{aligned}$$ where $C,M > 1$ are some constants, which are independent of $\xx,\xt,y$ and $t$. $\hfill \Box$
[^1]: `[email protected]`, Institut für Analysis, Dynamik und Modellierung, University of Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 57, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
[^2]: `[email protected]`, Division of Applied Mathematics, Brown University, 182 George Street, Providence, RI 02912, USA. Sandstede was partially supported by the NSF through grant DMS-1714429.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Teguh Santoso Lembono$^{1,2}$Carlos Mastalli$^{3}$Pierre Fernbach$^{3}$Nicolas Mansard$^{3}$Sylvain Calinon$^{1,2}$ [^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'IEEEconf.bib'
- 'main.bib'
title: |
Learning How to Walk: Warm-starting Optimal Control Solver\
with Memory of Motion
---
at (current page.south) ;
[^1]: $^1$ Idiap Research Institute, Martigny, Switzerland $^2$ EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland $^3$ Gepetto Team, LAAS-CNRS, Toulouse, France.
[^2]: This work was supported by the European Union under the EU H2020 collaborative project MEMMO (Memory of Motion, <http://www.memmo-project.eu/>), Grant Agreement No. 780684.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The ribosome is one of the largest and most complex macromolecular machines in living cells. It polymerizes a protein in a step-by-step manner as directed by the corresponding nucleotide sequence on the template messenger RNA (mRNA) and this process is referred to as ‘translation’ of the genetic message encoded in the sequence of mRNA transcript. In each successful chemo-mechanical cycle during the (protein) elongation stage, the ribosome elongates the protein by a single subunit, called amino acid, and steps forward on the template mRNA by three nucleotides called a codon. Therefore, a ribosome is also regarded as a molecular motor for which the mRNA serves as the track, its step size is that of a codon and two molecules of GTP and one molecule of ATP hydrolyzed in that cycle serve as its fuel. What adds further complexity is the existence of competing pathways leading to distinct cycles, branched pathways in each cycle and futile consumption of fuel that leads neither to elongation of the nascent protein nor forward stepping of the ribosome on its track. We investigate a model formulated in terms of the network of discrete chemo-mechanical states of a ribosome during the elongation stage of translation. The model is analyzed using a combination of stochastic thermodynamic and kinetic analysis based on a graph-theoretic approach. We derive the exact solution of the corresponding master equations. We represent the steady state in terms of the cycles of the underlying network and discuss the energy transduction processes. We identify the various possible modes of operation of a ribosome in terms of its average velocity and mean rate of GTP hydrolysis. We also compute entropy production as functions of the rates of the interstate transitions and the thermodynamic cost for accuracy of the translation process.'
author:
- Annwesha Dutta
- Gunter M Schütz
- Debashish Chowdhury
title: |
Stochastic thermodynamics and modes of operation of\
a ribosome: A network theoretic perspective
---
Introduction
============
The synthesis of proteins, performed by a macromolecular machine, called ribosome, is one of the fundamental processes inside every living cell [@spirin_ribosomes_2002; @aitken_single_2010]. The sequence of monomeric subunits of the protein, called amino acid, is directed by the sequence of the triplets of monomeric subunits of a messenger RNA (mRNA) template; each triplet is called a codon. In the language of information processing, the template-directed polymerization of a protein by a ribosome is called translation (of genetic message). The ribosome hydrolyzes two molecules of GTP and one molecule of ATP (a strongly exergonic or ‘downhill’ reaction) to elongate the nascent protein by one amino acid. The GTP molecules are hydrolyzed in a complete elongation cycle whereas the ATP molecule is hydrolyzed during the prior aminoacylation reaction that results in an activated aminoacyl-tRNA (aa-tRNA). The amino acid brought in by an aa-tRNA at the beginning of an elongation cycle subsequently forms a peptide bond with the nascent growing protein. Simultaneously with the elongation of this polypeptide by one amino acid, the ribosome moves forward by one codon on the mRNA template. Therefore, a ribosome can also be regarded as a molecular motor for which the mRNA template serves as a track; the motor is fueled by GTP and ATP hydrolysis and its step size on the track is a single codon.
Over the last few decades, enormous progress has been made in characterizing the structure of the ribosome and its dynamics during the process of translation by X-ray crystallography, cryo-electron microscopy and combinations of biochemical and biophysical single molecule techniques such as smFRET, [@frank_structure_2010; @wasserman_multiperspective_2016; @frank_molecular_2011; @chen_structural_2015; @fischer_ribosome_2010; @rodnina_ribosomes_2011]. There are many theoretical studies of the translation process based on these experimental revelations [@siwiak_comprehensive_2010; @gilchrist_model_2006; @xie_model_2012; @rudorf_protein_2015; @savir_ribosome_2013; @basu_modeling_2007; @garai_stochastic_2009; @garai_fluctuations_2009; @chowdhury_stochastic_2013; @sharma_distribution_2011; @sharma_quality_2010; @dutta_generalized_2017]. Fluitt et al [@fluitt2006], Rudorf et al. [@rudorf_protein_2015], Vieira et al [@hatzimanikatis2016], Dana et al [@tuller2014] developed detailed stochastic kinetic models capturing the translation process in the presence of cognate, near cognate and non cognate aa-tRNA and also considered the inhomogeneity of the mRNA transcript. However, to our knowledge, there is no study of the stochastic thermodynamics and operational modes of ribosome. Our model is designed to provide a clear understanding of the energy transduction processes during translation by decomposing the complex network of distinct states into its cycles, focusing on the energetics and thermodynamic picture in terms of fluxes, their conjugate affinities and entropy change associated with every cycle. It helps us understand what chemical, mechanical and chemo-mechanical cycles compete in the network. It also helps us compute important motor properties like velocity, hydrolysis rate in terms of external parameters like concentration of the different particles which bind to the ribosome. The flux balance relations give us the expression for stall force and balanced potential.
The directed movement of the ribosome on its mRNA track is, however, noisy because of the thermal motion of the surrounding medium and the low concentration of the molecules involved in the chemical reactions. The ribosome can be regarded as a thermodynamically open system that is coupled to various reservoir potentials. More specifically, the reservoirs include not only a thermal reservoir at a constant temperature, but also several chemical reservoirs maintained at the respective chemical potentials and a “force reservoir” describing a load force acting on the ribosome. The main aim of the present work is to improve our theoretical understanding of the translation process from the perspective of stochastic thermodynamics [@seifert12; @hwang18; @gnesotto18; @andrieux06; @qian16; @rao16; @seifert18; @gerritsma10; @astumian10; @seifert11; @loutchko17; @julicher97] by a detailed and quantitative description of the various stages of the chemo-mechanical cycle that the ribosome undergoes in a single translation step.
We describe the kinetics of the ribosome in terms of a Markov network of observable mesoscopic states, using experimentally measured interstate transition rates [@rodnina_ribosome_2017; @riccardo_belardinelli_choreography_2016] . For the exact analytical treatment of this multiple-pathway discrete-state Markov model we develop a graph theoretic framework, following refs.[@hill_free_1989; @hill_studies_1966; @schnakenberg_network_1976]. In this approach, the network of the states is represented by a graph consisting of vertices and edges. Vertices correspond to the observable mesostates and the directed edges represent the possible transitions between these states. The stationary solution is obtained by studying subgraphs of the graph in a systematic analysis that we outline in this paper.
This approach is powerful since the ratio of the products of the transition rates along a cycle and its time reversal, that are of interest from the perspective of stochastic thermodynamics, is independent of the mesoscopic states. Cycle fluxes, entropy production rate per cycle, thermodynamic force per cycle [@qian_cycle_2005; @liepelt_impact_2010; @liepelt_steady-state_2007] and other important quantities can then be calculated explicitly as a function of the rates. This allows for discussion of the operation mode of the ribosome in terms of average velocity and hydrolysis rate.
Markov model of the mechanochemical cycle of a ribosome
=======================================================
The ribosome as a complex nanomachine {#Sec:rcn}
-------------------------------------
Each ribosome is built from two loosely associated subunits: (1) The small subunit, which is responsible for all the processes related to the deciphering the genetic code present in the mRNA, and (2) the large subunit which serves as the catalytic center where the formation of peptide bonds takes place. The two subunits are joined together by flexible connectors. A class of adaptor molecules, that bring in the amino acid subunits, move along the intersubunit space. One end of the tRNA molecule, that participates in the decoding of the genetic message, interacts with the mRNA. The other end of the tRNA, that brings in the amino acid subunit, interacts with the large subunit. For each end of the tRNA molecule three binding sites are available on the respective subunits of the ribosome. These binding sites are designated by the letters ‘A’ (acceptor site) , ‘P’ (peptidyl site) and ‘E’ (exit site), respectively, in that sequence along the direction of translocation of the tRNAs in the intersubunit space. Each tRNA not only brings in an amino acid whose incorporation elongates the polypeptide (protein), but also holds it transiently thereafter before irreversibly transfering the polypeptide to the next tRNA.
In order to account for the main features of the elongation cycle, we
introduce a model that is an extended version of the model of translation developed earlier by Dutta and Chowdhury [@dutta_generalized_2017]. This model explicitly incorporates four competing pathways corresponding to four different types of aa-tRNA, namely, correctly charged cognate tRNA, mischarged cognate tRNA, correctly charged near-cognate tRNA and correctly charged non-cognate tRNA. Each of these pathways, shown in Fig. \[fig1:translation\_pict\], comprises of 5 distinct states, each of which corresponds to a distinct conformational (or ‘chemical’) state of the ribosome during translation of a single codon. The 5-state subnetwork along all the four pathways looks identical in spite of the fact that these correspond to four different types aa-tRNA. The difference between the four pathways are captured by the difference in the numerical values of the rates of the same inter-state transitions along different pathways. Therefore, we begin by explaining the different conformational changes that the ribosome undergoes along each of these four pathways.
In Fig. \[fig1:translation\_pict\] the state labeled by 1 represents the situation where both the E and A sites of the ribosome are empty while the site P is occupied by the tRNA carrying the nascent protein. In step $1 \rightarrow 2$ the ternary complex EF-Tu.GTP.aa-tRNA with the elongation factor EF-Tu, one GTP, and an aminoacyl-tRNA (aa-tRNA) binds to the ribosome. The reverse transition $2 \rightarrow 1$ describes the unbinding of the same ternary complex from the ribosome. While the system in the state $2$, the enzyme GTPase of the EF-Tu is activated, leading to the hydrolysis of a single GTP molecule to GDP and inorganic Phosphate $\mathrm{P_i}$ which is captured by the irreversible transition ($2 \rightarrow 3$). At this stage, the aatRNA may get rejected ($3 \rightarrow 1$). The physical implications of this transition, called kinetic proofreading, will be discussed further later in this section.
However, if the selected aa-tRNA is not rejected along the path $3 \rightarrow 1$, the growing polypeptide is then linked by a peptide bond to the amino acid supplied by the selected aa-tRNA thereby transferring the polypeptide from the tRNA located at the P site to the tRNA at the A site. After the transfer of the polypeptide, the deacylated tRNA remains at the P site. This ‘peptidyl transferase’ activity of the ribosome thus results in the elongation of the polypeptide by one subunit. The composite process comprising the departure of the products of GTP hydrolysis, together with that of the EF-Tu, and the formation of the peptide bond between the amino acid supplied by the selected aa-tRNA and the growing polypeptide is represented by the single transition $3 \rightarrow 4$.
While the polypeptide gets elongated by one amino acid, a fresh molecule of GTP enters bound with an elongation factor EF-G. Spontaneous Brownian (relative) rotation of the two subunits of the ribosome coincides with the back and forth transition ($4 \leftrightharpoons 5$) after the amino acid incorporation between the so-called classical and hybrid configurations of the two tRNA molecules. In the classical configuration, both ends of the two tRNA molecules correspond to the locations of P and A sites. In contrast, in the hybrid configuration, the ends of tRNA molecules interacting with the large subunit are found at the locations of E and P sites, respectively, while their opposite ends interacting with the small subunit continue to be located at the P and A sites, respectively.
Finally the hydrolysis of the fresh GTP drives the irreversible transition $5 \rightarrow 1$ along the pathway for correct amino acid incorporation, thereby completing a cycle. This involves the translocation of the ribosome on its track by one codon and, simultaneously, that of the two tRNAs inside the ribosome by one binding site also on the small subunit, followed by the deacylated (i.e. bare) tRNA exiting from the E site. The EF-G.GDP complex dissociates from the ribosome and the initial state 1 is again attained. The deacylated tRNA is then aminoacylated (‘charged’) by an enzyme, called aminoacyl tRNA synthetase, by hydrolyzing a molecule of Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) into Adenosine Monophosphate (AMP) and inorganic pyrophosphate (PPi). It is often believed that the energy of the chemical bond between the amino acid and tRNA is later used by the ribosome for the formation of peptide bond between the amino acid and the nascent polypeptide [@spirin_ribosomes_2002].
For clarity, Fig. \[fig2\_spatial\_model\] indicates how these internal processes along each of the four pathways relate to the translocation of the ribosome along the mRNA template. The forward movement by one codon occurs from state 5 and leads to state 1. The total displacement from the start codon at time $t$ is an integer multiple $n$ of the average length ${\ell} \approx 1$nm of a codon where $n$ is the number of elongation cycles completed up to time $t$. Hence the average ribosome velocity $v$ along the mRNA is proportional to the elongation rate $e = v/{\ell}$ which is the average number of completed elongation cycles per time unit which is identical to the average rate of elongation of the nascent protein. Since in this paper we treat the ribosome as a molecular motor, we use the term velocity instead of the rate of elongation.
![The kinetic Markov network of the ribosomal elongation cycle. At every codon position, the ribosome undergoes changes between different conformations that are labelled by $i=1, 2, 3,...,17$. The $k_{ij}$ are the transition rates to move from conformation $i$ to conformation $j$. Notice that there are multiple pathways that the ribosome can follow.[]{data-label="fig4:detailednetwork"}](fig3_new.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
In reality, the incoming aa-tRNA need not be cognate to the codon in the ribosomal A site (correct aa-tRNA). Instead, it may be a mischarged cognate (wrongly charged), or a near cognate (one of the three nucleotides of the aa-tRNA anti-codon does not match the three nucleotides in the codon) or a non-cognate (none of the nucleotides on the aa-tRNA match) aa-tRNA. Therefore, the overall model of the elongation cycle consists of four subnetworks, as shown in Fig. \[fig4:detailednetwork\], each of which looks identical to the 5-state network of Fig.\[fig1:translation\_pict\]. The binding of the four possible aa-tRNA molecules (each as a distinct ternary complex formed with GTP and EF-Tu) cause transitions to their respective subnetworks from the state 1.
High fidelity of translation beyond the level guaranteed by thermodynamics is known to arise from kinetic proofreading (transition $3 \to 1$ in Fig.\[fig1:translation\_pict\]) whereby an aa-tRNA is rejected. The overall network depicted in Fig. \[fig4:detailednetwork\] implies that even a correctly charged cognate tRNA may get rejected by kinetic proofreading, albeit with a low probablity, in spite of perfect codon-anticodon matching. In contrast, a mischarged cognate aa-tRNA may escape detection by the same quality control mechanism leading to an eventual translational error by incorporating a wrong amino acid in the elongating protein.
It may be noted that in the original version of the model reported earlier by Dutta and Chowdhury [@dutta_generalized_2017], some of the transitions were assumed to irreversible because the reverse transitions were not observed in any experiments. In the extended version adopted here all the irreversible transitions are replaced by reversible transitions where the transitions that have not been observed experimentally are treated as highly improbable (Fig. \[fig1:translation\_pict\]) by assigning a hypothetical small rate $10^{-5}$ s$^{-1}$. This weak reversibility condition [@Harr07], which is based on the law of mass action, allows for a discussion of the entropy production in the process. Moreover, the cycle ‘1-14-15-16-17-1’ which corresponds to the incorporation of non cognate tRNA is very improbable. Therefore the probability of a ribosome being in the conformational states 14, 15, 16, 17 must be extremely low. To ensure that, we need to have very low forward rates and very high rejection rates. To elaborate upon this point, let us consider the transition of a ribosome from 1 to 14. While the rate of transition from state 1 to state 14 is very low, the ribosome, if it somehow reaches the state 14, gets trapped in that state if the rejection rate is also low. This would lead to a non negligible probability of occurrence of state 14. To avoid this anomaly, a high rate $10^{5}$ s$^{-1}$ is assigned to rejection rates that have not been observed in any experiments so far.
Stochastic reaction kinetics
----------------------------
During the course of an elongation cycle, the ribosome is fed by energy from EF-Tu and EF-G mediated hydrolysis of GTP to GDP and inorganic phosphate $\mathrm{P_i}$ and ATP hydrolysis during aminoacylation for ribosome catalyzed transpeptidation. These free energies, $\Delta G$ in each hydrolysis, are consumed for (a) decoding the genetic information encoded in the codon sequences of the mRNA into the amino acid sequence forming the polypeptide, and (b) also for translocation along the mRNA track.
\[fig3:reservoir\]
The complex ribosome machine can thus be viewed as a small system coupled to multiple reservoirs that act as sources and sinks of particles and energy for the system (Fig. \[fig3:reservoir\]). Under isothermal conditions the different reservoirs are: (1) Thermal reservoir at temperature $T$; (2) Particle reservoirs for the chemical species aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GTP, aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GDP, EF-Tu.GDP, EF-G.GTP, EF-G.GDP, $Pi$, ATP, AMP and $PPi$ characterized by the chemical potentials $\mu_\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GTP}$, $\mu_\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GDP}$, $\mu_\text{EF-Tu.GDP}$, $\mu_\text{EF-G.GTP}$, $\mu_\text{EF-G.GDP}$, $\mu_\text{Pi}$, $\mu_\text{ATP}$, $\mu_\text{AMP}$, $\mu_\text{PPi}$; (3) “Force reservoir” that comes into play in the presence of an external force $F_{ext}$ acting on the ribosome, such as a load force opposing the natural forward stepping of the machine.
The ribosome may remain attached to a membrane and pull the mRNA template through it, translating one codon after another. In contrast, we have assumed the mRNA template to be static along which the ribosome steps forward unidirectionally by one codon at a time. The difference between the two scenarios is merely the difference in the choice of the frame of reference, as pointed out explicitly earlier in a paper by Cozzarelli et al. [@cozzarelli06]. The experimental set up that faithfully captures the scenario envisaged in our theoretical modeling is that developed a few years ago by Bustamante and collaborators [@bustamante2014].
The extra work that is done in the mechanical movement on the mRNA track in order to overcome the load force is also supplied by the free energy released in hydrolysis. A load force leads to a reduction in the speed of the ribosome, unless it is compensated (or overcompensated) by an increase of the chemical potential differences that contribute to the free energy. Analogously, an external force may act in the same direction as the natural motion of the ribosome, thus either enhancing its speed or reducing the free energy required from hydrolysis.
Thus the functioning of the ribosome machine depends on the thermodynamic forces generated by chemical potential differences of the particle reservoirs and on the external force $F_{ext}$ applied to the machine. The chemical potential differences of the particle reservoirs for the ribosome apparatus arising from hydrolysis are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:chem_pot_diffTu}
\Delta \mu_\text{Tu,1}
& = & \mu_\text{\text{aa-tRNA}.EF-Tu.GTP} - \mu_\text{EF-Tu.GDP} - \mu_\text{Pi} \\
\label{eq:chem_pot_diffTu}
\Delta \mu_\text{Tu,2}
& = & \mu_\text{\text{aa-tRNA}.EF-Tu.GTP} - \mu_\text{\text{aa-tRNA}.EF-Tu.GDP}- \mu_\text{Pi} \\
\label{eq:chem_pot_diffG}
\Delta \mu_\text{G} & = & \mu_\text{EF-G.GTP} - \mu_\text{EF-G.GDP} - \mu_\text{Pi} \\
\label{eq:chem_pot_diffG}
\Delta \mu_\text{A} & = & \mu_\text{ATP} - \mu_\text{AMP} - \mu_\text{PPi}\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that EF-Tu is a GTPase that catalyzes the selection and binding of aa-tRNA with the help of hydrolysis of chemical fuel GTP whereas EF-G is a GTPase that catalyzes the translocation step of the ribosome.
The system attains chemical equilibrium, without any average net displacement of the ribosome, when $\Delta \mu_\text{Tu,1}=\Delta \mu_\text{Tu,2}=\Delta \mu_\text{G}=\Delta \mu_\text{A}=0$. However, when $\mu_\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GTP} \gg \mu_\text{EF-Tu.GDP}
+ \mu_\text{Pi}$ and $\mu_\text{EF-G.GTP} \gg \mu_\text{EF-G.GDP} + \mu_\text{Pi}$, the likelihood that the GTP will bind to the active site for hydrolysis is much higher than the binding of GDP for GTP synthesis. Again, $\mu_\text{ATP} \gg \mu_\text{AMP}
+ \mu_\text{PPi}$ increases the likelihood that deacyl tRNA gets aminoacylated with the help of aminoacyl tRNA synthetase. These non-vanishing chemical potential differences drive the system out of equilibrium and generate a directed movement of the ribosome as indicated above. Moreover, the conversion of chemical energy into mechanical energy involves a thermodynamic cost which results in an increase of the entropy in the environment.
From this thermodynamic perspective, the biological processes that the ribosome undergoes during an elongation cycle can be understood as Markovian transitions between the distinct states, driven by thermal fluctuations, external forces, and chemical reservoirs that supply the molecules required for the transitions to take place. In our approach, the transition rates between the states are assumed to be independent of the spatial position of the ribosome on the mRNA track. This allows us to study the elongation cycle just in terms of the internal states of the ribosome, without reference to its location on the mRNA template.
Thus the model reduces to a multi-pathway process as shown in Fig. \[fig4:detailednetwork\], with the transition rates from a state $i$ to some other state $j$ denoted by $k_{ij}$. The experimental values of the rate constants used in our model are shown in Table \[tab:experimental\_values\]. The rates depend on the concentrations of the complexes that bind to the ribosome in the following manner:\
$k_{12} = \omega^{0}_{12} ~[\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GTP}]_{co}$,\
$k_{16} = \omega^{0}_{16} ~[\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GTP}]_{mc}$,\
$k_{1,10} = \omega^{0}_{1,10} ~[\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GTP}]_{nr}$,\
$k_{1,14} = \omega^{0}_{1,14} ~[\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GTP}]_{no}$,\
$k_{45} = \omega^{0}_{45} ~[\text{EF-G.GTP}]$,\
$k_{89} = \omega^{0}_{89} ~[\text{EF-G.GTP}]$,\
$k_{12,13} = \omega^{0}_{12,13} ~[\text{EF-G.GTP}]$,\
$k_{14,15} = \omega^{0}_{14,15} ~[\text{EF-G.GTP}]$,\
$k_{13} = \omega^{0}_{13} ~[\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GDP}] ~[\text{Pi}]$,\
$k_{17} = \omega^{0}_{17} ~[\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GDP}] ~[\text{Pi}]$,\
$k_{1,11} = \omega^{0}_{1,11} ~[\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GDP}] ~[\text{Pi}]$,\
$k_{1,15} = \omega^{0}_{1,15} ~[\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GDP}] ~[\text{Pi}]$,\
$k_{43} = \omega^{0}_{43} ~[\text{EF-Tu.GDP}] ~[Pi]$,\
$k_{12,11} = \omega^{0}_{12,11} ~[\text{EF-Tu.GDP}] ~[\text{Pi}]$,\
$k_{16,15} = \omega^{0}_{16,15} ~[\text{EF-Tu.GDP}] ~[\text{Pi}]$,\
$k_{87} = \omega^{0}_{87} ~[\text{EF-Tu.GDP}] ~[\text{Pi}]$,\
$k_{15} = \omega^{0}_{15} ~[\text{EF-G.GDP}] ~[\text{Pi}]$,\
$k_{17} = \omega^{0}_{17} ~[\text{EF-G.GDP}] ~[\text{Pi}]$.\
Here the square brackets $[.]$ denotes the concentration of the complexes. The subscript $co$, $mc$, $nr$ and $no$ represent the cognate, mischarged, near cognate and non cognate aa-tRNA respectively. The $\omega_{ij}$ denote the binding rate constant for the complexes that bind to the ribosome.
For our calculations, we have used the concentration of ternary complexes of cognate, near-cognate and non-cognate aa-tRNA to be $50 \, \mu \mathrm{M}$, i.e.,\
$[\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GTP}]_{co}=[\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GTP}]_{nr}\\=[\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GTP}]_{no}=[\text{EF-G.GTP}]=50 \, \mu \mathrm{M}$.\
The concentration of the mischarged aa-tRNA ternary complex is taken to be $5 \mu M$. We have taken the concentration of mischraged ternary complex to be low because the relatively rare event of mischarging of aa-tRNA occurs only when the aminoacylation of tRNA escapes quality control done be by amino acyl tRNA synthetase. This error generally occurs when the cell is under stress. The concentration for the rest of the complexes were taken to be $[\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GDP}]=[\text{EF-Tu.GDP}] = [\text{EF-G.GDP}] = [\text{Pi}] = 50 \mu \mathrm{M}$.
We have used the experimental transition rates that were reported by Rodnina et al.[@rodnina_ribosome_2017] (steps involving initial binding, accomodation, proofreading and peptide elongation for cognate and near cognate aa-tRNA) and Belardinelli et al [@riccardo_belardinelli_choreography_2016] (steps involving translocation). The experiments in ref.[@rodnina_ribosome_2017] were conducted at $20^{\circ}$C, whereas in ref.[@riccardo_belardinelli_choreography_2016] the experiments were carried out at $37^{\circ}$C. Since the rates in these experiments are very sensitive to temperature, we have estimated the rates at $37^{\circ}$C that correspond to the rates reported in ref.[@rodnina_ribosome_2017] at $20^{\circ}$C using the Arrhenius equation following the method used by Rudorf et al. [@rudorf_protein_2015]. Moreover, we have assumed that the steps involved in translocation have the same rates for cognate, mischarged and near cognate aa-tRNA [@hatzimanikatis2016], as the movements involved in translocation are practically independent of the extent of codon-anticodon matching. Furthermore, we have also assumed the transition rates for the mischarged cognate aa-tRNA to be identical to those of cognate aa-tRNA, because both exhibit identical codon-anticodon base pairing [@moghal_mistranlation_2014]. For the case of non-cognate aa-tRNA, the transition rates are experimentally unavailable but, as expected, the chances of their incorporation is negligibly small.
[[P[0.25]{}P[0.25]{}P[0.25]{}P[0.25]{}]{}]{} & & &\
$\omega^{0}_{12}=$ $170 \pm 25 \; \mu M^{-1}s^{-1}$ & $\omega^{0}_{16}=$ $170 \pm 25 \; \mu M^{-1}s^{-1}$ &$\omega^{0}_{1,10}=$ $170 \pm 25 \; \mu M^{-1}s^{-1}$ &$\omega^{0}_{1,14}= $ $170 \pm 25 \; \mu M^{-1}s^{-1}$\
$k_{21}=$ $700 \pm 270 \; s^{-1}$ & $k_{61}=$ $700 \pm 270 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{10,1}=$ $700 \pm 270 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{14,1}= $ $700 \pm 270 \; s^{-1}$\
$k_{23}=$ $1500 \pm 450 \; s^{-1}$ & $k_{67}=$ $1500 \pm 450 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{10,11}=$ $1500 \pm 450 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{14,15}= $ $10^{-5} \; s^{-1}$\
$k_{32}=$ $2 \pm 0.6 \; s^{-1}$ & $k_{76}=$ $2 \pm 0.6 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{11,10}=$ $1100 \pm 330 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{15,14}= $ $10^{5} \; s^{-1}$\
$k_{31}=$ $1 \; s^{-1}$ & $k_{71}=$ $1 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{11,1}=$ $4 \pm 0.7 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{15,1}= $ $10^{5} \; s^{-1}$\
$\omega^{0}_{13}=$ $4 \cdot 10^{-9} \; \mu M^{-2}s^{-1}$ & $\omega^{0}_{17}=$ $4 \cdot 10^{-7} \; \mu M^{-2}s^{-1}$ &$\omega^{0}_{1,11}=$ $4 \cdot 10^{-9} \; \mu M^{-1}s^{-2}$ &$\omega^{0}_{1,15}= $ $4 \cdot 10^{-9} \; \mu M^{-2}s^{-1}$\
$k_{34}=$ $200 \pm 40 \; s^{-1}$ & $k_{78}=$ $200 \pm 40 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{11,12}=$ $0.26 \pm 0.04 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{15,16}= $ $10^{-5} \; s^{-1}$\
$\omega^{0}_{43}=$ $4 \cdot 10^{-9} \; s^{-1}$ & $\omega^{0}_{87}=$ $4 \cdot 10^{-9} \; \mu M^{-2}s^{-1}$ &$\omega^{0}_{12,11}=$ $4 \cdot 10^{-9} \; \mu M^{-2}s^{-1}$ &$\omega^{0}_{16,15}= $ $40 \; \; \mu M^{-2}s^{-1}$\
$\omega^{0}_{45}=$ $55 \pm 6 \; \mu M^{-1}s^{-1}$ & $\omega^{0}_{89}=$ $55 \pm 6 \; \mu M^{-1}s^{-1}$ &$\omega^{0}_{12,13}=$ $55 \pm 6 \; \mu M^{-1}s^{-1}$ &$\omega^{0}_{16,17}= $ $10^{-6} \; \mu M^{-1}s^{-1}$\
$k_{54}=$ $65 \pm 10 \; s^{-1}$ & $k_{98}=$ $65 \pm 10 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{13,12}=$ $65 \pm 10 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{17,16}= $ $10^{5} \; s^{-1}$\
$k_{51}=$ $4 \pm 1 \; s^{-1}$ & $k_{91}=$ $4 \pm 1 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{13,1}=$ $4 \pm 1 \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{17,1}= $ $10^{-5} \; s^{-1}$\
$k_{15}=$ $10^{-5} \; s^{-1}$ & $k_{19}=$ $10^{-5} \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{1,13}=$ $10^{-5} \; s^{-1}$ &$k_{1,17}= $ $10^{-5} \; s^{-1}$\
ref.[@rodnina17].
ref.[@belardinelli16]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results and discussion I: Generalized thermodynamic forces and fluxes
=====================================================================
Stationary state of the elongation cycle
----------------------------------------
To keep track of the position of the ribosome along the mRNA template we describe the ribosome by its chemical state $i$ at time $t$ and the number of monomers $n_m$ in the polypeptide chain that it has polymerized up to time $t$. This number directly yields the displacement $\Delta x = n_m {\ell}$ by time $t$ along the mRNA. The stochasticity of the process then leads to a description of the dynamics in terms of the probability $P_{i}(n_m,t)$ that at time $t$ the ribosome is at “position” $n_m$ in the “chemical” state $i$. The full master equation for the probability to find the ribosome at time $t$ in the chemical state $i$ at codon $n_m$ reads
From the full master equation (\[eq:full\_master\_equation\_1\]) - (\[eq:full\_master\_equation\_17\]) as shown in Appendix \[app:full\_master\_equation\], one obtains the reduced master equation for the probability distribution $P_i(t)$ for the internal states by summing over all positions $n_m$ and defining $P_i(t) = \sum_{n_m} P_i(n_m,t)$. This yields $$\label{eq:master_equation}
\frac{d P_{i}(t)}{dt} = \sum_{j=1}^7 \left[k_{ji} P_{j}(t) - k_{ij} P_{i}(t)\right]$$ for the probability distribution of the chemical states.
In the stationary state the time-dependence drops out from both sides of the reduced master equation (\[eq:master\_equation\]). For the steady-state probabilities, the master equation can be solved numerically very efficiently with standard computer routines for any choice of the numerical values of the transition rates. However, we are interested in the exact analytical solution, i.e., in the stationary probabilities as functions of the transition rates.
![Graph representation: Figure (a) shows the undirected graph for our network as shown in Fig. \[fig4:detailednetwork\] and Figure (b) shows an example of spanning tree for the undirected graph. There are in total 14641 spanning trees for our network.[]{data-label="fig5:undirected_cycle_model"}](fig5_new.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
To this end, we adapt the ideas of [@schnakenberg_network_1976] in which the Markov network shown in Fig. \[fig4:detailednetwork\] is represented by a graph where each of the vertices represents a distinct state $i$ ($i=1,2,\dots,17$) and the directed edges $i \rightarrow j$ represent the possible transitions from the state $i$ to the state $j$. From the graph an [*undirected graph*]{} is obtained by replacing the directed edges by undirected edges (see Fig. \[fig5:undirected\_cycle\_model\] (a)). A [*spanning tree*]{} of an undirected graph is a sub-graph which is maximal in the sense that it includes all the vertices of the graph, with minimum possible edges which implies the absence of any loop (see Fig. \[fig5:undirected\_cycle\_model\] (b)). A directed spanning tree, say the $\mu$-th ($\mu=1,2,\dots, M$), $T^{\mu}_{i}(G)$ of a graph $G$ can be obtained by directing all the edges of the undirected spanning tree $T^{\mu}(G)$ towards the vertex $i$. To each of the directed spanning trees $T^{\mu}_{i}(G)$, we assign a numerical value, $A(T^{\mu}_{i})(G)$, which is defined as the product of the $|V|-1$ transition rates in the tree. The steady state probability distributions are then given by $$\label{eq:p_st}
P_i=\mathcal{Z}^{-1} \sum^{M}_{\mu=1} A(T^{\mu}_{i})$$ where the normalization factor $$\label{eq:part_func}
\mathcal{Z}=\sum^{|V|}_{i=1} \sum^{M}_{\mu=1} A(T^{\mu}_{i}).$$ plays a role similar to that of the partition function. The detailed step-by-step derivation of $P_{i}$ for a smaller network is given in the Appendix \[App:rssp\]. We have written a dedicated Matlab code that computes all the steps in the graph theoretic calculation.
Using the experimentally measured values of the rates listed in Tab. \[tab:experimental\_values\] in the analytical expressions for $P_i$ ($i=1,2,\dots,17$) one obtains the numerical values as shown in Tab. \[tab:probabilities\].
[M[0.3]{}M[0.3]{}]{} $P_1 = 0.00059$ & $P_2 = 0.0023$\
$P_3 = 0.017$ & $P_4 = 0.021$\
$P_5 = 0.84$ & $P_6 = 0.00023$\
$P_7 = 0.0017$ & $P_8 = 0.0021$\
$P_9 = 0.084$ & $P_{10} = 0.0071$\
$P_{11} = 0.0096$ & $P_{12} = 0.000016$\
$P_{13} = 0.00062$ & $P_{14} = 0.007$\
$P_{15} = 4.2*10^{-13}$ & $P_{16} = 5.9*10^{-14}$\
$P_{17} = 5.9*10^{-14}$\
By ergodicity, the stationary values $P_i$ represent the fraction of time the ribosome spends in state $i$. We point out that for the correctly charged cognate aa-tRNA the overwhelming amount of time ($> 80 \%$) is spent in the state 5 (from which translocation, accompanied by GTP hydrolysis and EF-G.GDP dissociation, takes place), followed by that in the state 3 (from which proofreading and elongation, accompanied by EF-Tu.GDP dissociation, take place). This is followed by the time spent in the states 9 and 6 for similar reasons in case of mischarged aa-tRNA. This is again followed by the probability of the states 13 and then 11 for the same reasons in case of near cognate aa-tRNA. The incorporation of near cognate amino acid has much lower probability than mischarged aa-tRNA as the aa-tRNAs go through the quality control process of the ribosome. The probability of the ribosome incorporating a non-cognate amino acid is negligibly small.
Transition flux, cycle flux and their relations
-----------------------------------------------
The right hand side of the master equation ((\[eq:full\_master\_equation\_1\]) - (\[eq:full\_master\_equation\_17\])) (as shown in Appendix \[app:full\_master\_equation\]) is the negative sum of the net [*probability currents*]{} $$\label{eq:prob_current}
J_{ij}(t) = k_{ij} P_{i}(t) - k_{ji} P_{j}(t)$$ from state $i$ to state $j$. Notice that all pairs $i$ and $j$ that contribute to the master equation are neighbours in the network graph Fig. \[fig4:detailednetwork\]. For the steady state solution $P_{i}$, the associated stationary probability currents $k_{ij} P_{i} - k_{ji} P_{j}$ are denoted by $J_{ij}$, without argument $t$. They are related to the [*macroscopic mean transition fluxes*]{} $$J^\ast_{ij}:= k_{ij}N_i - k_{ji}N_j$$ between states $i$ and $j$ in the direction $i\rightarrow j$, where in an ensemble of $N$ identical ribosomes translating an mRNA an average of $N_i$ are in state $i$. Since in the stationary state one has $N_i = N P_{i}$ one finds $$J^\ast_{ij} = N(k_{ij} P_{i} - k_{ji} P_{j}) = N J_{ij}.$$ Therefore, we shall refer to the stationary probability currents $J_{ij}=-J_{ji}$ as [*transition fluxes*]{}. If the ribosome would be in full thermal equilibrium (i.e., not only with respect to the temperature), the process would satisfy detailed balance and, consequently, all transition fluxes would vanish. However, as pointed out above, this is not the case because of the non-equilibrium nature of the steady state of the model under investigation here.
Next we define the auxiliary variables $Q_i(t) := \sum_{n_m} n_m P_i(n_m,t)$. With the step length $\ell$ of a translocation from one codon to the next, one obtains from the $Q_i(t)$ the mean position $X(t) = \ell \sum_i Q_i(t)$ and the mean velocity $v(t) = \dot{X}(t)$ of the ribosome. From the full master equation (\[eq:full\_master\_equation\_1\]) - (\[eq:full\_master\_equation\_7\]) one obtains (by shifting the summation index in the sum over $n_m$ for the terms involving site $n_m\pm1$) the simple expression $$\label{eq:stat_velo}
v(t)= \ell \left[J_{51}(t) + J_{91}(t) + J_{13,1}(t) + J_{17,1}(t)\right]$$ for the average velocity for the ribosome.
In a similar fashion one obtains the mean hydrolysis rate. One introduces as stochastic variable the net number $m(t)$ of GTP hydrolysis and effective GTP synthesis events. This number is incremented by $+1$ for say $2\to 3$, $5\to 1$ takes place and incremented by $-1$ when the reverse transitions take place. This yields a master equation for the joint probability $P_i(n_m,m,t)$ similar to (\[eq:full\_master\_equation\_1\]) - (\[eq:full\_master\_equation\_7\]), but with terms like $k_{51} P_{5}(n_m-1,m-1,t)$, $k_{32} P_{3}(n_m,m+1,t)$ and so on instead of $k_{51} P_{5}(n_m-1,t)$, $k_{32} P_{3}(n_m,t)$ (and so on). The net hydrolysis up to time $t$ is then given by $H(t) = \sum_i \sum_{n_m} \sum_m m P_i(n_m,m,t)$ and the master equation yields the exact expression $$\label{eq:hydrolysis}
h(t)=J_{23}(t) +J_{67}(t) +J_{10,11}(t) +J_{14,15}(t) +J_{51}(t) + J_{91}(t) + J_{13,1}(t) + J_{17,1}(t)$$ for mean hydrolysis rate $h(t) = dH(t)/dt$. In the steady-state, the time-dependence drops out of both sides of (\[eq:stat\_velo\]) as well as those of (\[eq:hydrolysis\]).
In order to get deeper insight into the non-equilibrium nature of the chemo-mechanical cycle of the ribosome we next express the transition fluxes in terms of cycle fluxes. Six different single loops (cycles regardless of their orientation), labeled by $\kappa \in$ { (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l) } in Fig. \[fig5:cycle1\] and Fig. \[fig6:cycle2\], can arise in the network model shown in \[fig4:detailednetwork\]. It will transpire that transition cycles allow for a deeper understanding of the kinetic activity of the network than just by focusing on the transition fluxes.
![The graphs (a)-(f) show the six different loops (unoriented cycles) labelled by $\kappa = a,b,\dots,f$ and indicated by the solid lines that are present in the Fig. \[fig5:undirected\_cycle\_model\].[]{data-label="fig5:cycle1"}](fig6_new.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![The graphs (g)-(l) show the six different loops (unoriented cycles) labelled by $\kappa = g,h,\dots,l$ and indicated by the solid lines that are present in the Fig. \[fig5:undirected\_cycle\_model\]](fig7_new.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
. \[fig6:cycle2\]
To make the role of cycles quantitative, we first define the [*cycle products*]{} $$\Pi_{\kappa\pm} := \prod_{(i,j) \in (\kappa\pm)} k_{ij}
\label{eq-cycleProduct}$$ as the products of rates $k_{ij}$ of the edges contributing to cycle $\kappa$ in clockwise ($+$) or anticlockwise ($-$) orientations, respectively.
Next we summarize a graph theoretic approach for deriving the analytical expressions for the cycle fluxes. Following Hill [@hill_free_1989], we associate to a given oriented cycle $(\kappa\pm)$ the cycle rate constants $$J_{\kappa,\pm} = \sum_{\mu, (i,j)} k_{ij} A(T^{\mu}_{i})$$ over those directed trees $\mu$ and edges $(i,j)$ that contribute to all graphs with cycle $(\kappa\pm)$. Notice that adding a new directed edge oriented from $i$ to $j$ to a directed spanning tree $T^{\mu}_{i}$ converts the latter into a graph $T^{\mu}_{ij}$ that has a single oriented cycle. Thus, from the undirected spanning trees one can construct the [*flux diagrams*]{} each of which has a single undirected cycle and directed branches that feed into this cycle. Then, it follows that $$J_{\kappa,\pm} = \Pi_{\kappa,\pm} R_{\kappa}/ \mathcal{Z}
\label{eq-Jkappa}$$ where $$R_{\kappa} = \sum_{\substack{\text{all the flux diagrams}\\ \text{containing cycle } \kappa}} \biggl( \prod_{\substack{\text{(i, j) are the directed edges}\\ \text{feeding into cycle }\kappa \text{ in the flux diagram}}} k_{ij} \biggr).
\label{eq-Rkappa}$$ The expression (\[eq-Jkappa\]) for $J_{\kappa,\pm}$ can be interpreted as the cycle product multiplied by the weight factor $R_{\kappa}/\mathcal{Z}$ where the latter accounts for the flux from the rest of the network into the cycle. Using the expressions above, we arrive at the expression for the cycle fluxes $$J_{\kappa} = J_{\kappa,+} - J_{\kappa,-} = (\Pi_{\kappa,+}-\Pi_{\kappa,-})R_{\kappa}/\mathcal{Z}.
\label{eq-Jkappa2}$$ where $R_{\kappa}$ is given by (\[eq-Rkappa\]). Both $J_{\kappa,+}$ and $J_{\kappa,-}$ are positive quantities while $J_{\kappa}$ can be positive or negative.
$\kappa \quad $ $\Pi_{\kappa,+}$ $\Pi_{\kappa,-}$ $J_{\kappa}$
----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------
(a) $1.3*10^{7}$ $0.014$ $0.017$
(b) $0.014$ $1.3*10^{6}$ $-0.0017$
(c) $22$ $6.5*10^{-9}$ $5.8*10^{-9}$
(d) $6.5*10^{-9}$ $22$ $-5.8*10^{-9}$
(e) $5.1*10^{7}$ $7.7$ $0.0385$
(f) $700$ $8500$ $-3.3*10^{-8}$
(g) $2.8*10^{13}$ $9.1*10^{-6}$ $3.38$
(h) $9.1*10^{-6}$ $2.8*10^{12}$ $-0.34$
(i) $0.029$ $2.6*10^{-8}$ $4.3*10^{-12}$
(j) $1*10^{10}$ $1*10^{-20}$ $2.9*10^{-9}$
(k) $3.6*10^{10}$ $0.0050$ $0.0025$
(l) $7*10^{12}$ $8.5*10^{-17}$ $2.9*10^{-9}$
: Numerical values for $\Pi_{\kappa,\pm}$ and the cycle fluxes $J_{\kappa,\pm}$, obtained from the rates of Table \[tab:experimental\_values\]. Since $J_{\kappa,+} \gg J_{\kappa,-}$ for all cycles $\kappa$, one has $J_\kappa \approx J_{\kappa,+}$. The units of the cycle products $\Pi_{\kappa,\pm}$ depend on the loop $\kappa$. The units for $J_{\kappa,+}$, $J_{\kappa,-}$ and $J_{\kappa}$ are s$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="tab:pi_values"}
For clear understanding, as an example, all the flux diagrams corresponding to the smaller network are displayed in the Appendix \[app-flux\_diag\_Ribo\] along with the outline of the related calculations. Each transition flux through the oriented edge $(i,j)$ can be decomposed into the sum of cycle fluxes. This decomposition for the 17-state model yields
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{JtJc12}
& & J_{12} = J_{23} = J_a + J_g \\
\label{JtJc13}
& & J_{13} = - J_a + J_c \\
\label{JtJc34}
& & J_{34}=J_{45}=J_{51}=J_c+J_g \\
\label{JtJc16}
& & J_{16} = J_{67} = -J_b - J_h \\
\label{JtJc17}
& & J_{17} = J_b - J_d \\
\label{JtJc78}
& & J_{78}=J_{89}=J_{91}=-J_d-J_h \\
\label{JtJc110}
& & J_{1,10} = J_{10,11} = J_e + J_k \\
\label{JtJc111}
& & J_{1,11} = - J_e + J_i \\
\label{JtJc1112}
& & J_{11,12}=J_{12,13}=J_{13,1}=J_i+J_k \\
\label{JtJc114}
& & J_{1,14} = J_{14,15} = -J_f - J_l \\
\label{JtJc115}
& & J_{1,15} = - J_j + J_f \\
\label{JtJc1516}
& & J_{15,16}=J_{16,17}=J_{17,1}=-J_j-J_l \\\end{aligned}$$
Note that this list of decompositions is complete. All transition fluxes are uniquely expressed in terms of cycle fluxes. However, it is not possible to invert this and express the cycle fluxes in terms of transition fluxes because only four transition fluxes are linearly independent while the number of cycle fluxes is six. The numerical values of the cycle fluxes are given in Table \[tab:pi\_values\]. The largest flux goes through cycle (g,+), which represents correct translation with correctly charged cognate aa-tRNA. The second largest flux passes through cycle (h,-), corresponding to incorporation of wrong amino acid due mischarged cognate aa-tRNA binding. The third largest flux passes through cycle (e,+), corresponding to successful error correction when near cognate aa-tRNA binds. The cycle (k,+), (unsuccessful error correction leading up to missense error) has a small flux.
It is worth pointing out here that our decomposition into cycles is complete and carried out by inspection. A formal prescription for identifying the independent thermodynamic forces (affinities) has been proposed in recent years by Esposito and collaborators [@polettini16; @rao18]. However, the latter formal approach is not required for analysing the entropy production of the specific machine (ribosome) and specific process (translation) under our consideration in this paper. Nevertheless, we hope to report the alternative analysis, based on Esposito’s prescription, for the kinetics of template-directed polymerization, in a future publication.
Energy balance in steady-state
------------------------------
The two ratios $$\label{eq:ratio_flux}
\frac{J_{\kappa,+}}{J_{\kappa,-}} = \frac{\Pi_{\kappa,+}}{\Pi_{\kappa,-}}
=: \mathrm{e}^{\frac{X_{\kappa}}{k_{B}T}}$$ depend only on the rate constants around the cycle $\kappa$ itself. They define the so-called generalized thermodynamic forces $X_{\kappa}$ [@schnakenberg_network_1976; @hill_free_1989] generated in a non-equilibrium system when coupled to different reservoirs. In a stationary state, which does not involve any change in internal energy, these forces are equivalent to the heat exchange $\Delta Q_{\kappa}$ that arises from the transitions through a loop $\kappa$ and proportional to the corresponding entropy change $$\label{SXQ}
\Delta S_{\kappa} = X_\kappa/T = \Delta Q_{\kappa}/T,$$ thus exposing the entropic nature of the generalized thermodynamic forces in the stationary regime.
Thus the generalized thermodynamic forces highlight the connection between the irreversibility of a non-equilibrium process and its heat dissipation since (\[eq:ratio\_flux\]) implies $$\label{eq:flux_force_rel2}
J_\kappa =J_{\kappa,+} \left(1-\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\Delta Q_{\kappa}}{k_B T}}\right) = J_{\kappa,+} \left(1-\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{X_{\kappa}}{k_B T}}\right)$$ which demonstrates (a) that the heat dissipation and the cycle flux vanish simultaneously (corresponding to thermal equilibrium), and (b) that otherwise (i.e., out of equilibrium) they always have the same sign. In other words, the generalized thermodynamic forces express the direction of the cycle fluxes.
The ratios (\[eq:ratio\_flux\]) also provide a link between the kinetics and thermodynamics of the network which can be further developed as follows. During the transition from state $i$ to state $j$, the internal energy $U_i$ of the system in state $i$ can change due to three factors: (i) a chemical potential change $\Delta \mu_{ij} =\mu_i - \mu_j$ arising from the coupling of the states to the particle reservoirs with the chemical potentials $\mu_\text{aa-tRNA.EF-Tu.GTP}$, $\mu_\text{EF-Tu.GDP}$, $\mu_\text{EF-G.GTP}$, $\mu_\text{EF-G.GDP}$, $\mu_\text{ATP}$, $\mu_\text{AMP}$, $\mu_\text{PPi}$ and $\mu_\text{Pi}$ introduced above, (ii) the mechanical work $W_{ij}$ which the machine performs in the transition $i\to j$ to overcome the external force $F_{ext}$, and (iii) the heat exchange $Q_{ij}$ with the surrounding medium. Conservation of energy for the transition from $i$ to $j$ therefore reads $$\label{eq:energy_cons_single_trans}
U_i - U_j = \Delta \mu_{ij} - W_{ij} - Q_{ij}.$$
Next we apply conservation of energy to a cycle. Since the internal energy is a state function, the total change in the internal energy for a cycle must be zero in the steady state. The heat exchange $\Delta Q_{\kappa} = T \Delta S_{\kappa}$ in a cycle $(\kappa,+)$ is given by (\[eq:ratio\_flux\]) in terms of the reaction rates. For a cycle $(\kappa,+)$, energy conservation (\[eq:energy\_cons\_single\_trans\]) thus reads $$\label{eq:energy_cons_cycle}
\Delta \mu_{\kappa,+} - W_{\kappa,+} - \Delta Q_{\kappa} = 0$$ where $W_{\kappa,+}$ is the work done against the external force in the complete cycle in positive direction and $\Delta \mu_{\kappa,+}$ denotes the net chemical potential difference in the complete cycle.
Using (\[eq:ratio\_flux\]) and (\[SXQ\]) in (\[eq:energy\_cons\_cycle\]) we arrive at the equivalent steady state balance condition $$\label{eq:steady_bal}
\Delta \mu_{\kappa,+} - W_{\kappa,+} = X_\kappa
= k_B T \ln \frac{\Pi_{\kappa,+}}{\Pi_{\kappa,-}}$$ which yields the relation between the transition rates (through $\Pi_{\kappa,\pm}$), the chemical energy input and the mechanical work for any cycle in the network, conveniently expressed through the stationary generalized thermodynamic forces. This relation will be used below to determine the range of normal operation of the ribosome, i.e., with positive mean velocity of the ribosome along the mRNA and positive rate of hydrolysis.
Results and discussion II: Modes of operation, mechanics and stochastic thermodynamics
======================================================================================
Modes of operation
------------------
The analysis carried out in this subsection for the ribosome is very similar to that reported earlier [@liepelt09] for the cytoskeletal molecular motor kinesin. As elaborated above, the elongation factors EF-Tu and EF-G catalyze the hydrolysis of the fuel molecules, i.e., GTP, into GDP and $\mathrm{P_i}$. Also, ATP is hydrolyzed into AMP and $\mathrm{PP_i}$ during aminoacylation with help of aminoacyl synthetase. The energy released in these reactions acts as the chemical energy input for the ribosome machine in each elongation cycle. Thus the operation of the ribosome depends on the respective chemical potential differences and the external force $F_{ext}$. Its modes of operation are characterized in terms of the average velocity and the average rate of hydrolysis both of which are positive in the normal mode of operation. In the following, we identify the different modes of operation of the ribosome, normal as well as abnormal, exploiting the cyclic energy balance relations (\[eq:energy\_cons\_cycle\]).
### Sign of cycle fluxes and modes of operation
Substituting (\[JtJc34\]), (\[JtJc78\]), (\[JtJc1112\]) and (\[JtJc1516\]) into the time-independent (\[eq:stat\_velo\]) we get $$\label{eq:vel}
v= \ell \left[J_{51} + J_{91} + J_{13,1} + J_{17,1}\right] = {\ell} (J_c - J_d + J_g - J_h + J_i - J_j + J_k - J_l)$$
for the average velocity of the ribosome in terms of the cycle fluxes; which yields the numerical value $3.7 \, \mathrm{nm} \,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ after substitution of the values of parameters listed in Tab. \[tab:pi\_values\]. Our result is of the same order of the experimentally observed elongation rates [@proshkin10]. Note that while our result is in nm/s, the experimentally observed rate is given in aa/s and recall that for every addition of amino acid, the ribosome takes one codon step which is approximately equal to 1 nm.
Likewise, substituting the expressions (\[JtJc12\]), (\[JtJc16\]), (\[JtJc110\]), (\[JtJc114\]), (\[JtJc34\]), (\[JtJc78\]), (\[JtJc1112\]) and (\[JtJc1516\]) into (\[eq:hydrolysis\]) in the steady state we get the rate of GTP hydrolysis
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:hydro_rate}
h &=&J_{23} +J_{67} +J_{10,11} +J_{14,15} +J_{51} + J_{91} + J_{13,1} + J_{17,1} \nonumber \\
&=& J_a - J_b + J_c - J_d + J_e - J_f + J_i - J_j + 2 (J_g - J_h + J_k - J_l)\end{aligned}$$
in the network model in terms of the cycle fluxes; it predicts the numerical value $h=7.5 \,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ after substitution of the parameter values listed in Tab. \[tab:pi\_values\].
To investigate under which external conditions the ribosome functions in normal mode, we make a simplification of the calculation by showing only the GTP molecules explicitly. According to this simplification, we have two GTP molecules hydrolyzed for every mechanical step of the ribosome between the codons, one in the transition $2\to 3$ and one in the transition $5\to 1$ (similarly for the other pathways). The hydrolysis is then driven by a chemical potential difference $\Delta \mu$ that comes into play in these transitions. Since the sign of the transition fluxes does not depend in a straightforward fashion on the chemical potential difference and the external force, we study the process in terms of the cycle fluxes.
For the twelve individual cycles labeled by $\kappa$, as displayed in Fig. \[fig5:cycle1\] and Fig. \[fig6:cycle2\], the analysis of the process discussed in detail in Sec. \[Sec:rcn\] yields $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \mu_{a,+} & = & \Delta \mu_{e,+} \, = \, \Delta \mu \\
\Delta \mu_{b,+} & = & \Delta \mu_{f,+} \, = \, - \Delta \mu \\
\Delta \mu_{c,+} & = & \Delta \mu_{i,+} \, = \, 2 \Delta \mu \\
\Delta \mu_{d,+} & = & \Delta \mu_{j,+} \, = \, -2 \Delta \mu \\
\Delta \mu_{g,+} & = & \Delta \mu_{k,+} \, = \, 3 \Delta \mu \\
\Delta \mu_{h,+} & = & \Delta \mu_{l,+} \, = \, -3 \Delta \mu \\ \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with the effective chemical potential difference $\Delta \mu_{\kappa,+} =
\mu^\text{GTP}_{\kappa,+} - \mu^\text{GDP}_{\kappa,+} - \mu^{\mathrm{P_i}}_{\kappa,+}$ or $\Delta \mu_{\kappa,+} =
\mu^\text{ATP}_{\kappa,+} - \mu^\text{AMP}_{\kappa,+} - \mu^{\mathrm{PP_i}}_{\kappa,+}$.
Recalling that $W = {\ell} F_{ext}$ is the work performed against the external force in one translocation step, one also derives from the description of the six cycles $$\begin{aligned}
W_{a,+} & = & W_{b,+} \, = \, W_{e,+} \, = \, W_{f,+} \, = \, 0\\
W_{d,+} & = & W_{h,+} \, = \, W_{j,+} \, = \, W_{l,+} \, = \, W\\
W_{c,+} & = & W_{g,+} \, = \, W_{i,+} \, = \, W_{k,+} \, = \, -W\\ \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Thus one gets from (\[eq:steady\_bal\]) $$\begin{aligned}
X_a &=& X_e \, = \, \Delta \mu \\
X_b &=& X_f \, = \, -\Delta \mu \\
X_c &=& X_i \, = \, 2\Delta \mu - W \\
X_d &=& X_j \, = \, W - 2\Delta \mu \\
X_g &=& X_k \, = \, (3\Delta \mu) - W \\
X_h &=& X_l \, = \, W - (3\Delta \mu) \\ \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Since the cycle flux and the generalized thermodynamic force always have the same sign and must vanish simultaneously, $$\label{eq:flux_force_rel2}
J_\kappa =J_{\kappa,+} \left(1-\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\Delta Q_{\kappa}}{k_B T}}\right) = J_{\kappa,+} \left(1-\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{X_{\kappa}}{k_B T}}\right)$$ The conditions that must be satisfied are shown in in Fig.\[fig8:operat\_diag1\] on the $F_{ext}-\Delta \mu$-plane. Combining the information displayed in these figures, we identify the various modes of operation of the ribosome, from (\[eq:vel\]) and (\[eq:hydro\_rate\]), on the $\bar{F}-\Delta \bar{\mu}$-plane in terms of $v$ and $h$, as shown in Fig. \[fig9:operat\_diag2\]. Here, $\bar{F}=\frac{F \ell}{k_{B}T}$ and $\Delta \bar{\mu}=\frac{\Delta \mu}{k_{B}T}$ are the scaled force and chemical potential .
![The figure shows the variation of sign of cycle fluxes with the variation of the chemical potential difference $\Delta\mu$ and the applied force $F_{ext}$. The shaded region corresponds to the conditions written on it.[]{data-label="fig8:operat_diag1"}](fig8_new.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
The lines where velocity and hydrolysis rate change sign are not accessible to this analysis. At the equilibrium point $W=0=\Delta\mu$ both $v$ and $h$ vanish.
### Stall force and balanced potential
For a given concentration for \[GTP\],\[GDP\],\[P\], the stall force $F_s$ is given by the condition $$\label{eq:F_s}
v(F_{ext}\text{,[GTP],[GDP],[P])})=0 \mbox{ for } F_{ext} = F_s .$$
After substituting the values of the rate constants and $\ell=1 \; \mathrm{nm}$ in (\[eq:vel\]), the expression for velocity in terms of $\Delta \mu$ and $F_{ext}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
v&=&
[-2.9*10^{-9} (1-e^{\frac{2 \Delta \mu-F_{ext}}{k_BT}})-2.9*10^{-9} (1-e^{\frac{3 \Delta \mu-F_{ext}}{k_BT}}) \nonumber \\
&+& 3.4 (1-e^{\frac{-3 \Delta \mu+F_{ext}}{k_BT}})+5.8*10^{-9} (1-e^{\frac{-2 \Delta \mu+F_{ext}}{k_BT}})]
\mathrm{nm} \, \mathrm{s}^{-1}
\label{eq:v_exp}
\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[eq:F\_s\]) and (\[eq:v\_exp\]), we obtain the stall force $F_s(\Delta \mu)$ as a function of $\Delta \mu$.
Following a similar route, the zeros of the hydrolysis rate give us the balanced concentrations of GTP, GDP, P, i.e, which in turn gives us the balanced potential $\Delta \mu_b$. The condition for balanced potential $\Delta \mu_b$ is given by $$\label{eq:mu_b}
h(F_{ext}\text{,[GTP],[GDP],[P])})=0 \mbox{ for } \Delta \mu =\Delta \mu_{b} .$$
After substituting the values of the rate constants in (\[eq:hydro\_rate\]), the expression for hydrolysis rate in terms of $\Delta \mu$ and $F_{ext}$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
h&=& \left[6.8-0.055 e^{-(\Delta \mu/k_BT)}+3.0*10^{-9} e^{\Delta \mu/k_BT} \right. \nonumber \\
&+&2.9*10^{-9} e^{(2 \Delta \mu-F)/k_BT}+5.9*10^{-9} e^{(3 \Delta \mu-F)/k_BT} \nonumber \\
&-& \left. 6.8 e^{(-3 \Delta \mu+F)/k_BT}-5.8*10^{-9} e^{(-2 \Delta \mu+F)/k_BT} \right] \mathrm{s}^{-1}
\label{eq:hyd}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eqs. (\[eq:hyd\]) and (\[eq:mu\_b\]), we obtain the expression for the balanced potential $\Delta \mu_{b}(F_{ext})$ as function of $F_{ext}$.
As shown in Fig. \[fig1:operat\_diag\], the conditions of vanishing velocity (red line) and vanishing hydrolysis rate (blue line) divides the (F, $\Delta \mu$)-plane into four different regions. In operation mode HF (blue), ribosome couples GTP hydrolysis to forward mechanical steps, while in the operation mode HB (yellow), the ribosome couples GTP hydrolysis to backward steps. In the operation mode SB (red), the ribosome couples GTP synthesis to backward steps, while in the operation mode SF (green), the ribosome couples GTP synthesis to forward steps. The SF region appears only for negative external force (corresponding to a force [*along*]{} the natural direction of motion) when this force is strong enough.
The two functions $F_{s}(\Delta \mu)$ and $\Delta \mu_b(F)$ intersect when there is both mechanical and chemical equilibrium i.e., $F_{ext}, \Delta \mu=0$. We note that the stall force and the balanced potential approach the straight line $F_{ext} =3 \Delta \mu$ as we move closer to the chemo-mechanical equilibrium, i.e., $F_{ext}=\Delta \mu=0$. This represents the ideal operating curve which directly follows from the linear response theory. Near the chemo-mechanical equilibrium, the ribosome works with 100% efficiency i.e., $F_{ext} \ell= 3 \Delta \mu$. The efficiency is given by the ratio of the mechanical work performed by ribosome against the external force and the chemical energy consumption.
The validity of our prediction for GTP synthesis under strong enough load force can be verified only after systematic experimental studies are carried out using a set up of the type developed by Liu et al. [@bustamante2014]. Can a ribosome really synthesize GTP under the conditions described above? A similar question on the possibility of ATP synthesis by cytoskeletal motors under externally applied load force has been raised earlier in the literature in the context of the modes of their operation. In spite of some indirect indication in support, the possibulity of ATP synthesis during load-induced backstepping still remains an open question [@hyeon10]. We believe that the possibility of GTP synthesis during load-induced backward stepping is allowed by the principles of stochastic kinetics and thermodynamics. However, some constraints arising from the structures of the ribosome and the accessory proteins involved during the elongation cycle may make the probability current of the process in reality negligibly small.
Ribosome velocity
-----------------
We study in more detail the ribosome velocity under normal operation as a function of the rates $k_{23}$ and $k_{51}$ for the processes that involve GTP hydrolysis, with all other rates kept at their experimental or hypothetical values. From the exact expression (\[eq:vel\]) one concludes that the velocity as a function of any two rates $k$, $k'$, with all other rates kept fixed, is of the form $$\label{vtworates}
v(k,k') = \frac{\alpha_1 + \alpha_2 k + \alpha_3 k'
+ \alpha_4 k k' }
{\beta_1 + \beta_2 k + \beta_3 k'
+ \beta_4 k k' + \beta_5 k^2 + \beta_6 {k'}^2} \mathrm{nm} \, \mathrm{s}^{-1}$$ with coefficients $\alpha_l$, $\beta_l$ that depend on the choice of rates $k$, $k'$.
As a function of the rates $k=k_{51}$ and $k'=k_{23}$ one obtains from the exact stationary distribution the coefficients $\alpha_1 = 1.23\cdot10^{-8}$, $\alpha_2 = 3.53 \mathrm{s}$, $\alpha_3 = 5.87\cdot10^{-12} \mathrm{s}$, $\alpha_4 = 7.78\cdot10^{-2} \mathrm{s}^2$ and $\beta_1 = 6.69\cdot10^{-8}$, $\beta_2 = 1.31 \mathrm{s}$, $\beta_3 = 7.46\cdot10^{-2} \mathrm{s}$, $\beta_4 = 2.14 \cdot10^{-3} \mathrm{s}^2$, $\beta_5 = 4.36 \cdot10^{-9} \mathrm{s}^2$, $\beta_6 = 0$. Neglecting numerical prefactors of order $10^{-6}$ and smaller and introducing the dimensionless unit rates $\tilde{k}_{ij} := {k}_{ij} \, \mathrm{s}$ (i.e., the rates expressed in units of a second) one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v2351}
v & = & \frac{3.53 \tilde{k}_{51} + 7.78\cdot10^{-2} \tilde{k}_{51} \tilde{k}_{23} }
{1.31 \tilde{k}_{51} + 7.46\cdot 10^{-2} \tilde{k}_{23} + 2.14 \cdot10^{-3} \tilde{k}_{51} \tilde{k}_{23}}
\mathrm{nm} \, \mathrm{s}^{-1} .\end{aligned}$$
Notice that the velocity becomes a constant even when the rates $k_{51}$ and $k_{23}$ become large and saturates. This saturation effect arises because even if hydrolysis and translocation would be instantaneous, the velocity would still be limited by the rate of the other processes in the elongation cycle. As seen in Fig. \[fig:velocity2351\], the dependence on the rate $k_{23}$ is very weak in the experimentally relevant range around $k_{23} = 1500 \,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ and saturates to a value that is approximately proportional to $k_{51}$ in the experimentally relevant range around $k_{51} = 4 \,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$. This saturation effect indicates that the main limiting factor for the velocity is the second hydrolysis in the elongation cycle.
![Velocity $v$ in $\mathrm{nm}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ as a function of the rates $k_{51}$ and $k_{23}$ in $\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig:velocity2351"}](fig11_new.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
To explore the velocity saturation due to the second GTP hydrolysis further we consider the velocity as a function of $k=k_{51}$ and $k'=k_{12}$, the latter being the rate at which GTP for the first hydrolysis is supplied by the ternary complex . As a function of these two rates the constants entering (\[vtworates\]) are given by $\alpha_1 = 2.1\cdot10^{-9}$, $\alpha_2 = 1.1 \mathrm{s}$, $\alpha_3 = 0$, $\alpha_4 = 1.3\cdot10^{-3} \mathrm{s}^2$ and $\beta_1 = 3.9\cdot10^{-8}$, $\beta_2 = 3.8\cdot10^{-1} \mathrm{s}$, $\beta_3 = 1.3\cdot10^{-3} \mathrm{s}$, $\beta_4 = 7.8 \cdot10^{-6} \mathrm{s}^2$, $\beta_5 = 1.3 \cdot10^{-20} \mathrm{s}^2$, $\beta_6=0 $ which yields the velocity plot shown in Fig. \[fig:velocity1251\]. Neglecting numerical prefactors of order $10^{-6}$ and smaller one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v1251}
v & = & \frac{1.1 \tilde{k}_{51}+1.3\cdot10^{-3} \tilde{k}_{51} \tilde{k}_{12}}
{1.3\cdot10^{-3} \tilde{k}_{12} + 0.38 \tilde{k}_{51}}
\mathrm{nm} \, \mathrm{s}^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
![Velocity $v$ in $\mathrm{nm}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ as a function of the rates $k_{51}$ and $k_{12}$ in $\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig:velocity1251"}](fig12_new.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
The dependence of the velocity on the rate $k_{12}$ is very weak in the experimentally relevant range of the order $10^3$ - $10^4$. As $k_{12}$ increases (high concentration of aa-tRNA), the velocity becomes limited by the rate $k_{51}$ which is not affected by a high concentration of aa-tRNA.
Hydrolysis rate
---------------
The transitions $2\to 3$ and $5\to 1$ involve GTP hydrolysis. Therefore, from the Eq.(\[eq:hydro\_rate\]), we get the expression $$\label{htworates}
h = \frac{\tilde{\alpha}_1 + \tilde{\alpha}_2 k_{23} + \tilde{\alpha}_3 k_{51}+\tilde{\alpha}_4 k_{23}k_{51}}
{\tilde{\beta}_1 + \tilde{\beta}_2 k_{23} + \tilde{\beta}_3 k_{51} + \tilde{\beta}_4 k_{23} k_{51}+\tilde{\beta}_5 k^{2}_{51}} \mathrm{s}^{-1}$$ for the rate of GTP hydrolysis as a function of the rates $k_{23}$ and $k_{51}$, where the coefficients $\alpha_l$, $\beta_l$, just like in the case of the velocity, depend on the choice of the rates. For $k=k_{23}$, $k'=k_{51}$ one obtains the coefficients $\tilde{\alpha}_1=2.6\cdot 10^{-8}$, $\tilde{\alpha}_2=9.8\cdot 10^{-11} \mathrm{s}$, $\tilde{\alpha}_3=7.5 \mathrm{s}$, $\tilde{\alpha}_4=1.6\cdot 10^{-1} \mathrm{s}^2$, $\tilde{\beta}_1=1.3\cdot 10^{-7} $, $\tilde{\beta}_2=7.4\cdot 10^{-2} \mathrm{s}$, $\tilde{\beta}_3=1.3 \mathrm{s}$, $\tilde{\beta}_4=2.1\cdot 10^{-3} \mathrm{s}^2$, $\tilde{\beta}_5=2.2\cdot 10^{-9} \mathrm{s}^2$. As a function of $k_{51}$, there is little variation in the rate for $k_{23}>1500 \, \mathrm{s}^{-1}$, which is in the experimental relevant range $k_{23} \approx 1500 \, \mathrm{s}^{-1}$, thus indicating robustness of hydrolysis w.r.t. this rate. On the other hand, in the region of the experimental value $k_{51} \approx 4 \, \mathrm{s}^{-1}$ for the transition $5\to 1$ (where hydrolysis is accompanied by translocation), the hydrolysis rate depends strongly on $k_{51}$. The rate of hydrolysis under normal operation is shown in Fig. \[fig14:h\_k23\_k51\].
![Hydrolysis rate $h$ in units of $\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ plotted against the rates $k_{23}$ and $k_{51}$ in units of [[****]{}]{}.[]{data-label="fig14:h_k23_k51"}](fig13_new.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
Entropy Production
------------------
In order to determine how the entropy change $\Delta S_{\kappa,\pm} := \pm \Delta S_{\kappa}$ associated with the completion of an oriented cycle $(\kappa,\pm)$ contributes to the total entropy production of the process we recall that the entropy of a system described by Markovian stochastic dynamics is the usual Gibbs entropy $$\label{eq:entropy}
S^{sys}(t)=-k_{B} \sum_{i} P_i(t) \ln(P_i(t)).$$ Following Schnakenberg [@schnakenberg_network_1976] we split the time evolution of the system entropy into two parts $$\label{eq:sigma_pf}
\dfrac{d}{dt}S^{sys}(t) =\sigma^{tot}(t)+\sigma^{env}(t)$$ with the [*total entropy production*]{} $$\label{eq:entropy_prod_rate}
\sigma^{tot}(t) := \dfrac{1}{2} k_{B} \sum_{ij} J_{ij}(t) \ln\bigg(\dfrac{P_i(t) k_{ij}}{P_j(t) k_{ji}}\bigg)$$ and the [*entropy flux*]{} $$\label{eq:entropy_flux_rate}
\sigma^{env}(t) := -\dfrac{1}{2}k_{B} \sum_{ij} J_{ij}(t) \ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{ij}}{k_{ji}}\bigg).$$ The entropy flux can be interpreted as the entropy production of the environment [@lebowitz_gallavotticohen-type_1999; @Harr07]. Using the master equation (\[eq:master\_equation\]) it is straightforwardly verified that the time-derivatives satisfy $\dot{S}(t) = \sigma^{tot}(t) + \sigma^{env}(t)$.
In the steady state, the system entropy does not change which implies $$\label{eq:ss_entropy1}
\sigma^{tot} = - \dfrac{1}{2} k_{B} \sum_{ij} J_{ij} \ln{\left(\dfrac{k_{ij}}{k_{ji}}\right)} = - \sigma^{env}.$$ In terms of cycle fluxes with the entropy change $$\label{eq:ss_entropy_c2}
\Delta S_{\kappa,\pm} = k_B \ln \frac{\Pi_{\kappa,\pm}}{\Pi_{\kappa,\mp}}$$ along a circle in clockwise or anticlockwise direction one gets the decomposition $$\label{eq:ss_entropy_c1}
\sigma^{tot} = \sum_{\kappa} \left(J_{\kappa,+} \Delta S_{\kappa,+}
+ J_{\kappa,-} \Delta S_{\kappa,-} \right).$$ of the entropy production in terms of cycles (see appendix \[app-EntropyProd\] for detailed derivation). Using $\Delta S_{\kappa,-} = - \Delta S_{\kappa,+}$, which indicates that the cycle $(\kappa,+)$ is the time reversed trajectory of the cycle $(\kappa,-)$, we arrive at the entropy production $$\label{eq:ss_entropy_c3}
\sigma^{tot}_{\kappa} = J_{\kappa} \Delta S_{\kappa}$$ for cycle $\kappa$ and at $$\label{eq:ss_entropy_c4}
\sigma^{tot} = \sum_{\kappa} \sigma^{tot}_{\kappa}$$ for the total entropy production. From Tab. \[tab:pi\_values\] it is readily seen that cycle (b) has the overwhelmingly largest contribution to the total entropy production, followed by cycle (c) and then cycle (a).
As $k_{12}$ is proportional to the concentration of cognate EF-Tu.GTP.aa-tRNA, the increase of $k_{12}$ is easily implemented by the increase of the concentration of cognate EF-Tu.GTP.aa-tRNA. Fig. \[fig:entropyprod\_vs\_TC\](a) shows how the entropy production increases with the increase of the concentration of the cognate ternary complex EF-Tu.GTP.aa-tRNA. We find that the effect is particularly pronounced at small concentration and gradually flattens out somewhat at higher concentration where the entropy production diverges logarithmically with the further increase of the EF-Tu.GTP.aa-tRNA concentration. A similar trend of variation of the entropy production is observed also in the variation of, for example $k_{23}$ (see Fig. \[fig:entropyprod\_vs\_TC\](b)) as well as with the variation of $k_{51}$ (Fig. \[fig:entropyprod\_vs\_TC\](c)). Note that $k_{23}$ is the rate of a step that involves the hydrolysis of a molecule of GTP whereas $k_{51}$ is associated with translocation.
\[fig:entropyprod\_vs\_TC\] (a)\
![Entropy production rate $\sigma^{tot} $ in units of seconds plotted against (a) the concentration of the cognate ternary complex EF-Tu.GTP.aa-tRNA (in units of $\mu \mathrm{mol}$ which is proportional to the rate $k_{12}$), (b) the rate $k_{23}$ of the transition $2 \to 3$ that involves hydrolysis of GTP, (c) the rate $k_{51}$ of the transition $5 \to 1$ that is associated with translocation. The remaining rates are kept at their experimental values.[]{data-label="fig:entropyprod_vs_TC"}](fig14a_new.pdf "fig:"){width="0.6\columnwidth"}\
(b)\
![Entropy production rate $\sigma^{tot} $ in units of seconds plotted against (a) the concentration of the cognate ternary complex EF-Tu.GTP.aa-tRNA (in units of $\mu \mathrm{mol}$ which is proportional to the rate $k_{12}$), (b) the rate $k_{23}$ of the transition $2 \to 3$ that involves hydrolysis of GTP, (c) the rate $k_{51}$ of the transition $5 \to 1$ that is associated with translocation. The remaining rates are kept at their experimental values.[]{data-label="fig:entropyprod_vs_TC"}](fig14b_new.pdf "fig:"){width="0.6\columnwidth"}\
(c)\
![Entropy production rate $\sigma^{tot} $ in units of seconds plotted against (a) the concentration of the cognate ternary complex EF-Tu.GTP.aa-tRNA (in units of $\mu \mathrm{mol}$ which is proportional to the rate $k_{12}$), (b) the rate $k_{23}$ of the transition $2 \to 3$ that involves hydrolysis of GTP, (c) the rate $k_{51}$ of the transition $5 \to 1$ that is associated with translocation. The remaining rates are kept at their experimental values.[]{data-label="fig:entropyprod_vs_TC"}](fig14c_new.pdf "fig:"){width="0.6\columnwidth"}\
In order to understand the causes and consequences of this common trend of variation of the entropy production with the rates of interstate transitions, it is instructive to consider also the behaviour of the entropy production as a function of the ribosome velocity. As $k_{12}$ increases (i.e., effectively the concentration of cognate EF-Tu.GTP.aa-tRNA increases), the velocity $v(k_{12})$ (\[v1251\]) of the ribosome, expressed as a function of $k_{12}$, saturates to a value $v^\ast = 3.7 \, \mathrm{nm} \, \mathrm{s}^{-1}$ as discussed above since in that parameter regime it is limited by the rates along the cycles that involve translocation. These rates are not affected by a high concentration of cognate EF-Tu.GTP.aa-tRNA. On the other hand, the contribution to the entropy production from the cycles (a), (b) and (c) – which involve the ratio $\ln{(k_{12} /k_{21})}$ from the reaction $1\rightleftharpoons 2$ – keeps increasing and diverges at $v^\ast$ since the inverse function $k_{12}(v)$ diverges at $v^\ast$. A similar divergence appears when any of the transition rates $k_{ij}$ becomes large since the entropy production diverges as $\ln{(k_{ij})}$ while the velocity saturates for large $k_{ij}$ (see Figs. \[fig:entropyprod\_vs\_TC\](b) and (c)) .
![ The entropy production rate ($P$) per second plotted against the velocity of translation $v$ in $\mathrm{nm}/\mathrm{s}$, obtained by varying the rate $k_{12}$ from 0 to $150000 \mathrm{s}^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig8:entropyprod_vel"}](fig15_new.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
Accuracy of translation and its thermodynamic cost
--------------------------------------------------
As pointed out earlier, proof reading and hence rejection of non- or near cognate aa-tRNA or mischarged aa-tRNA, may be faulty, leading to a transition $7\to 8$, $11\to 12$ and $15\to 16$. Unless the reverse transitions $8\to7$, $12\to 11$ and $16\to 15 $ take place before elongation and translocation, this process leads to a production of missense error in polypeptide chains with a total net production rate $$\label{eq:e6}
e_6 = J_{78}+J_{11,12}+J_{15,16}.$$ On the other hand, by a similar argument, correct production occurs with a rate $$\label{eq:e4}
e_4 = J_{34}.$$ Thus the accuracy of translation, defined by [@dutta_generalized_2017] $$\phi := \frac{e_4}{e_4+e_6} = \frac{J_c+J_g}{J_c+J_g-J_d-J_h+J_i+J_k-J_l-J_j},$$ yields the fraction of proper polypeptide chains in the total production of the ribosome.
In Fig. \[fig13:phi\_k34\_k36\], total entropy production rate $\sigma^{tot}$ is plotted against accuracy of translation. The plot shows that as we increase the accuracy of translation, the energetic cost of translation also increases.
![Entropy production rate $\sigma^{tot} $ is plotted against accuracy of translation $\phi$ by varying the rate $k_{23}$ from 0 to 30000 $s^{-1}$[]{data-label="fig13:phi_k34_k36"}](fig16_new.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:accuracy\_vs\_TC\], we observe how the accauracy of translation vary with the variation in concentration of cognate and mischarged ternary complexes Fig. \[fig:accuracy\_vs\_TC\](a) and with the variation of concentration of cognate and near cognate ternary complexes Fig. \[fig:accuracy\_vs\_TC\](b). This gives us n insight of the competition between different types of ternary complexes. We see that the accuracy varies considerably with the variation in concentration of cognate and mischarged because the mischarged tRNA escapes the proofreading as it has the correct codon-anticodon base pairing. Therefore, if we increase the concentration of mischarged aa-tRNA in the surrounding, it may conisderably affect the accuracy of translation. For the Fig. Fig. \[fig:accuracy\_vs\_TC\] (b), the accuracy is almost insensitive to the near cognate tRNA concentration. This is because the ribosome ensures rejection of near cognate tRNA through stringent proofreading.
(a)\
![Accuracy of translation $\phi$ plotted against (a) the concentration of the cognate ternary complex binding rate $k_{12}$ and mischarged ternary complex binding rate $k_{16}$, (b) the concentration of the cognate ternary complex binding rate $k_{12}$ and near cognate ternary complex binding rate $k_{1,10}$. The remaining rates are kept at their experimental values.[]{data-label="fig:accuracy_vs_TC"}](fig17a_new.pdf "fig:"){width="0.7\columnwidth"}\
(b)\
![Accuracy of translation $\phi$ plotted against (a) the concentration of the cognate ternary complex binding rate $k_{12}$ and mischarged ternary complex binding rate $k_{16}$, (b) the concentration of the cognate ternary complex binding rate $k_{12}$ and near cognate ternary complex binding rate $k_{1,10}$. The remaining rates are kept at their experimental values.[]{data-label="fig:accuracy_vs_TC"}](fig17b_new.pdf "fig:"){width="0.7\columnwidth"}\
In Fig. \[fig:accuracy\_vs\_pbond\], we show the variation of accuracy of translation $\phi$ with the cognate cycle peptide bond formation rate $k_{34}$ and mischarged cycle peptide bond formation rate $k_{78}$ (Fig. \[fig:accuracy\_vs\_pbond\] (a)) and the cognate cycle peptide bond formation rate $k_{34}$ and mischarged cycle peptide bond formation rate $k_{11,12}$ in Fig. \[fig:accuracy\_vs\_pbond\] (b).
(a)\
![Accuracy of translation $\phi$ plotted against (a) the cognate cycle peptide bond formation rate $k_{34}$ and mischarged cycle peptide bond formation rate $k_{78}$, (b) the cognate cycle peptide bond formation rate $k_{34}$ and mischarged cycle peptide bond formation rate $k_{11,12}$. The remaining rates are kept at their experimental values.[]{data-label="fig:accuracy_vs_pbond"}](fig18a_new.pdf "fig:"){width="0.7\columnwidth"}\
(b)\
![Accuracy of translation $\phi$ plotted against (a) the cognate cycle peptide bond formation rate $k_{34}$ and mischarged cycle peptide bond formation rate $k_{78}$, (b) the cognate cycle peptide bond formation rate $k_{34}$ and mischarged cycle peptide bond formation rate $k_{11,12}$. The remaining rates are kept at their experimental values.[]{data-label="fig:accuracy_vs_pbond"}](fig18b_new.pdf "fig:"){width="0.7\columnwidth"}\
Conclusions
===========
The ribosome is one of the largest multi-component molecular machines. It performs a crucially important biological function called translation (of genetic code) that results in the synthesis of proteins as directed by a mRNA template. Although the structure and kinetics of ribosomes have been studied extensively in the past, the stochastic thermodynamics has not received attention so far. Most of the results reported in this paper constitute, to our knowledge, essentially the first step in that direction.
Using a network approach we solved exactly the stationary master equation for a seven-states model of the kinetics of a ribosome during the elongation stage of translation. This solution is used for a detailed description of stationary properties arising from the stochasticity of the chemo-mechanical cycle of the ribosome. We have identified the various modes of operation of this machine in terms of its average velocity and the mean rate of GTP hydrolysis. Similar analysis have been reported earlier in the literature for cytoskeletal motor proteins. To our knowledge, this paper reports the first analysis, from the perspective of stochastic thermodynamics, of a molecular machine that carries out template-directed polymerization.
Our quantitative predictions can be used as benchmarks for simpler models and thus allow for judging the adequacy of such reduced models that incorporate fewer or other internal states of the ribosome. Moreover, since we used rates obtained from experiments, the comparison of the analytical results with other experimental data allows for a detailed quantitative understanding of the microscopic processes underlying translation, particularly those during the elongation stage.
Finally, we would like to point out that the knowledge of [*exact*]{} stationary distribution allows for the construction of exactly solvable models of many [*interacting*]{} ribosomes, as has been demonstrated recently in a mathematically similar setting for a two-states description of transcription elongation by RNA polymerase [@BELITSKY2019370]. This approach can be adapted to more internal states and exact stationary single-motor results open up the path to obtaining exact quantitative results for the elongation kinetics of many simultaneously transcribing or translating molecular motors.
Acknowledgements
================
G.M.S. thanks the Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, where part of this work was done for kind hospitality. This work was financed in part by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001, by the grants 2017/20696-0, 2017/10555-0 of the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), and by the grant 309239/2017-6 of the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). This work was also supported partly by SERB (India) through a J.C. Bose National Fellowship (D.C.). D.C. also thanks Frank Jülicher and the Visitors Program at the MPI-PKS for hospitality in Dresden where a part of the manuscript was completed during the final stages of this work.
Master Equations {#app:full_master_equation}
================
The full master equation for the probability to find the ribosome at time $t$ in the chemical state $i$ at codon $n_m$ reads [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:full_master_equation_1}
\frac{d}{dt} P_{1}(n_m,t) & = & k_{21} P_{2}(n_m,t) - k_{12} P_{1}(n_m,t) + k_{31} P_{3}(n_m,t) - k_{13} P_{1}(n_m,t) \nonumber \\
& & + k_{51} P_{5}(n_m-1,t) - k_{15} P_{1}(n_m,t) + k_{91} P_{9}(n_m-1,t) - k_{19} P_{1}(n_m,t) \nonumber \\
& & + k_{71} P_{7}(n_m,t) - k_{17} P_{1}(n_m,t) + k_{61} P_{6}(n_m,t) - k_{16} P_{1}(n_m,t) \nonumber \\
& & + k_{101} P_{10}(n_m,t) - k_{110} P_{1}(n_m,t) + k_{111} P_{11}(n_m,t) - k_{111} P_{1}(n_m,t) \nonumber \\
& & + k_{131} P_{13}(n_m-1,t) - k_{113} P_{1}(n_m,t) + k_{171} P_{17}(n_m-1,t) - k_{117} P_{1}(n_m,t) \nonumber \\
& & + k_{151} P_{15}(n_m,t) - k_{115} P_{1}(n_m,t) + k_{141} P_{14}(n_m,t) - k_{114} P_{1}(n_m,t) \\
\label{eq:full_master_equation_2}
\frac{d}{dt} P_{2}(n_m,t)
& = & k_{12} P_{1}(n_m,t) - k_{21} P_{2}(n_m,t) + k_{32} P_{3}(n_m,t) - k_{23} P_{2}(n_m,t) \\
\label{eq:full_master_equation_3}
\frac{d}{dt} P_{3}(n_m,t)
& = & k_{13} P_{1}(n_m,t) - k_{31} P_{3}(n_m,t) + k_{23} P_{2}(n_m,t) - k_{32} P_{3}(n_m,t) \nonumber \\
& & + k_{43} P_{4}(n_m,t) - k_{34} P_{3}(n_m,t) \\
\label{eq:full_master_equation_4}
\frac{d}{dt} P_{4}(k,t)
& = & k_{34} P_{3}(n_m,t) - k_{43} P_{4}(n_m,t) + k_{54} P_{5}(n_m,t) - k_{45} P_{4}(n_m,t) \\
\label{eq:full_master_equation_5}
\frac{d}{dt} P_{5}(n_m,t)
& = & k_{15} P_{1}(n_m+1,t) - k_{51} P_{5}(n_m,t) + k_{45} P_{4}(n_m,t) - k_{54} P_{5}(n_m,t) \\
\label{eq:full_master_equation_6}
\frac{d}{dt} P_{6}(n_m,t)
& = & k_{16} P_{1}(n_m,t) - k_{61} P_{6}(n_m,t) + k_{76} P_{7}(n_m,t) - k_{67} P_{6}(n_m,t) \\
\label{eq:full_master_equation_7}
\frac{d}{dt} P_{7}(n_m,t)
& = & k_{17} P_{1}(n_m,t) - k_{71} P_{7}(n_m,t) + k_{67} P_{6}(n_m,t) - k_{76} P_{7}(n_m,t)\nonumber \\
& & + k_{87} P_{8}(n_m,t) - k_{78} P_{7}(n_m,t) \\
\label{eq:full_master_equation_8}
\frac{d}{dt} P_{8}(n_m,t)
& = & k_{78} P_{7}(n_m,t) - k_{87} P_{8}(n_m,t) + k_{98} P_{9}(n_m,t) - k_{89} P_{8}(n_m,t) \\
\label{eq:full_master_equation_9}
\frac{d}{dt} P_{9}(n_m,t)
& = & k_{19} P_{1}(n_m+1,t) - k_{91} P_{9}(n_m,t) + k_{89} P_{8}(n_m,t) - k_{98} P_{9}(n_m,t) \\
\label{eq:full_master_equation_10}
\frac{d}{dt} P_{10}(n_m,t)
& = & k_{110} P_{1}(n_m,t) - k_{101} P_{10}(n_m,t) + k_{1110} P_{11}(n_m,t) - k_{1011} P_{10}(n_m,t) \\ \nonumber\end{aligned}$$]{}
The normalization condition is $$\label{normalization}
\sum_{i=1}^{17} \sum_{n_m} P_{i}(n_m,t)=1 .$$
Graph theoretic solution of master equations {#App:rssp}
============================================
In order to find the stationary solution of the master equation (\[eq:master\_equation\]) we follow [@schnakenberg_network_1976]. We demonstrate the solution explicitly for a simplified effective version of the model with only seven states. The solution of the full model proceeds along completely analogous lines.
Step 1: Constructing Graph and Undirected Graph
-----------------------------------------------
![The kinetic Markov network of the ribosomal elongation cycle. At every codon position, the ribosome undergoes different conformation changes that are labelled by $i=1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7$. The $k_{ij}$ are the transition rates to move from conformation $i$ to conformation $j$. Notice that there are multiple pathways that the ribosome can follow.[]{data-label="fig:small_network"}](fig19_new.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
From the graph an [*undirected graph*]{} is obtained by replacing the directed edges by undirected edges. The undirected graph for the 7-state model is displayed in Fig.\[fig:graph\_undirected\_st\]. This graph is fully determined by the vertex set $V=\{1,2,3,4,5,6,7\}$ and the edge set $E=\{(1,2),(1,3),(1,5),(1,7),(2,3),(3,4),(3,6),(4,5),(6,7)\}$. Here the edges are not directed, i.e., edge $(i,j)$ is the same as the edge $(j,i)$, as opposed to oriented edges $\vec{(i,j)}$ displayed below by an arrow pointing from $i$ to $j$.
![Undirected graph representation of the network of 7-states.[]{data-label="fig:graph_undirected_st"}](fig20_new.pdf){width=".5\columnwidth"}
Step 2: Constructing undirected spanning trees from the undirected graph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that a [*spanning tree*]{} of an undirected graph is a sub-graph which is a maximal tree that includes all the vertices of the graph, with minimum possible edges. All possible spanning trees of graph $G$ have the same number of edges and vertices. It doesn’t contain any cycle. Adding just one edge will create a cycle and removing one edge will make the graph disconnected. Let $T^{\mu}(G)$ ($\mu=1,2,\dots, M$) represent the $\mu$-th undirected spanning tree of graph $G$.
One can construct the spanning trees by removing $|E|-|V|+1$ edges (for our graph, 9-7+1=3 edges) from the graph, where $|E|$ is the number of edges and $|V|$ is the number of vertices. This yields $M=39$ distinct undirected spanning trees. For a systematic construction we group the spanning trees into three classes: (I) All spanning trees without edge $(1,2)$, (II) All spanning trees that have edge $(1,2)$ but not edge $(1,3)$, and (III) All spanning trees that have edge $(1,2)$ and edge $(1,3)$ but not edge $(2,3)$. In total there are 39 spanning trees, see Figs. \[fig:st12\] - \[fig:st23\].
![All spanning trees $T^{\mu}$ without edge $(1,2)$.[]{data-label="fig:st12"}](fig21a_new.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![All spanning trees $T^{\mu}$ that have edge $(1,2)$ but not edge $(1,3)$.[]{data-label="fig:st13"}](fig21b_new.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![All spanning trees $T^{\mu}$ that have edge $(1,2)$ and edge $(1,3)$ but not edge $(2,3)$.[]{data-label="fig:st23"}](fig21c_new.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Step 3: Constructing directed spanning trees from undirected spanning trees
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that a directed spanning tree $T^{\mu}_{i}(G)$ can be obtained by directing all the edges of the undirected spanning tree $T^{\mu}(G)$ towards the vertex $i$. Thus, for each undirected spanning tree $T^{\mu}$ displayed in Figs. \[fig:st12\] - \[fig:st23\], the six [*directed*]{} spanning trees $T^{\mu}_{i}$, $i \in \{1,\dots,7\}$, are obtained by directing all the edges of $T^{\mu}$ towards the vertex $i$. This construction is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:directed\_st\] for the undirected spanning tree $T^{9}$. Since, for every undirected spanning tree $T^{\mu}(G)$ and for a particular root vertex $i$, there is exactly one directed spanning tree, this construction yields a total of $7 \times 39= 273$ directed spanning trees $T^{\mu}_{i}$ ($\mu=1,2,\dots, 7$).
![All the seven directed spanning trees $T^{9}_i$, obtained from the undirected spanning tree $T^{9}$ of Fig. \[fig:st12\] by directing all the edges towards the root vertex $i$.[]{data-label="fig:directed_st"}](fig22_new.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Step 4: Steady-state solution in terms of contributions from directed spanning trees
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To each of the directed spanning trees $T^{\mu}_{i}$, we assign a numerical value, $A(T^{\mu}_{i})$, which is defined as the product of the $|V|-1=6$ transition rates in the tree, with transitions $i\to j$ defined along the orientation $\vec{(i,j)}$. The steady state probability distributions are then given by (\[eq:p\_st\]) with the normalization factor (\[eq:part\_func\]).
As a result of this construction, all unnormalized steady state probabilities $\tilde{P}_i = \sum^{M}_{\mu=1} A(T^{\mu}_{i})$ for the 7-state model are a sum of 39 monomials. Each monomial is a product of seven rates $k_{ij}$ such that each edge $(i,j)$ is represented exactly once. The monomials thus differ only in the orientation in which an edge appears. So, finally, for the 7-state model one finds $$P_{i} = \tilde{P_{i}}/\mathcal{Z},$$ with $$\label{eq:part_func2}
\mathcal{Z}=\sum^{7}_{i=1} \tilde{P}_i,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{P}_1 &=& k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{21} k_{31} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{31} k_{23} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{23} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{51} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36} k_{23} k_{43}+k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36} k_{23}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{21} k_{32} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{21} k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{21} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36}+k_{21} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36} k_{43}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{21} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36} k_{43} k_{54}+k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{54} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{54} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{71} k_{67} k_{36} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54}+k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{23} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{21} k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76} k_{51}+k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76} k_{51}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76} k_{51}+k_{31} k_{23} k_{63} k_{76} k_{51} k_{45}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{21} k_{31} k_{63} k_{76} k_{51} k_{45}+k_{21} k_{32} k_{63} k_{76} k_{51} k_{45}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{21} k_{32} k_{63} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71}+k_{21} k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{63} k_{71}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{21} k_{31} k_{63} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71}+k_{31} k_{23} k_{63} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{23} k_{63} k_{71}+k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{63} k_{51} k_{71}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{63} k_{51} k_{71}+k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{63} k_{51} k_{71}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{71}+k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{71}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{71},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{P}_2 &=& k_{12} k_{31} k_{43} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{12} k_{31} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{32} k_{13} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{32} k_{13} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67} k_{43}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{32} k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{12} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67} k_{32} k_{43}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{32} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17} k_{51}+k_{32} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17} k_{51} k_{45}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{12} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{67} k_{32}+k_{12} k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{12} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36}+k_{12} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36} k_{43}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{12} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36} k_{43} k_{54}+k_{12} k_{31} k_{43} k_{54} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{12} k_{71} k_{67} k_{32} k_{43} k_{54}+k_{32} k_{13} k_{71} k_{67} k_{43} k_{54}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{32} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17}+k_{12} k_{32} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{32} k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{32} k_{13} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{12} k_{31} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{12} k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{12} k_{51} k_{32} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{12} k_{31} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76} k_{51}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{32} k_{13} k_{51} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{32} k_{13} k_{51} k_{45} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{12} k_{31} k_{63} k_{76} k_{51} k_{45}+k_{12} k_{51} k_{45} k_{32} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{12} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{32} k_{63}+k_{12} k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{63} k_{71}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{12} k_{31} k_{63} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71}+k_{32} k_{13} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{32} k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{71} k_{63}+k_{12} k_{51} k_{71} k_{32} k_{43} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{32} k_{13} k_{51} k_{71} k_{43} k_{63}+k_{12} k_{31} k_{43} k_{63} k_{51} k_{71}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{12} k_{31} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{71}+k_{32} k_{13} k_{71} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{71},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{P}_3 &=& k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67} k_{43}+k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{13} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{67} k_{23}+k_{13} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67} k_{23} k_{43}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67} k_{43}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{23} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17} k_{51}+k_{23} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17} k_{51} k_{45}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{63} k_{76} k_{17} k_{21} k_{51} k_{45}+k_{43} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17} k_{21} k_{51}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17} k_{21}+k_{13} k_{21} k_{71} k_{67} k_{43} k_{54}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{23} k_{12} k_{71} k_{67} k_{43} k_{54}+k_{13} k_{71} k_{67} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17}+k_{23} k_{12} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{13} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{13} k_{21} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{13} k_{51} k_{23} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{13} k_{51} k_{45} k_{23} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{45} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{45} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{63}+k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{71} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{63}+k_{13} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{23} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{71} k_{63}+k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{71} k_{43} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{13} k_{51} k_{71} k_{23} k_{43} k_{63}+k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{71} k_{43} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{13} k_{21} k_{71} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63}+k_{13} k_{71} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{23} k_{12} k_{71} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{P}_4 &=& k_{34} k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{31} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{54} k_{15} k_{31} k_{23} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{34} k_{13} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67} k_{23}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{34} k_{23} k_{54} k_{15} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{34} k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{34} k_{23} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17} k_{51}+k_{54} k_{15} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36} k_{23}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{32} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{34} k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36}+k_{34} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17} k_{21} k_{51}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{34} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17} k_{21} k_{54}+k_{34} k_{13} k_{21} k_{71} k_{67} k_{54}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{34} k_{23} k_{12} k_{71} k_{67} k_{54}+k_{34} k_{13} k_{71} k_{67} k_{23} k_{54}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{34} k_{23} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17} k_{54}+k_{34} k_{23} k_{12} k_{63} k_{76} k_{54}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{34} k_{23} k_{63} k_{76} k_{54} k_{15}+k_{34} k_{13} k_{23} k_{63} k_{76} k_{54}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{34} k_{13} k_{21} k_{63} k_{76} k_{54}+k_{34} k_{63} k_{76} k_{54} k_{15} k_{21}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{34} k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{34} k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{34} k_{13} k_{51} k_{23} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{54} k_{15} k_{31} k_{23} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{31} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{32} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{32} k_{63} k_{71}+k_{34} k_{63} k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{71}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{31} k_{63} k_{71}+k_{54} k_{15} k_{31} k_{23} k_{63} k_{71}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{34} k_{23} k_{63} k_{54} k_{15} k_{71}+k_{34} k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{71} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{34} k_{13} k_{51} k_{71} k_{23} k_{63}+k_{34} k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{71} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{34} k_{13} k_{21} k_{71} k_{63} k_{54}+k_{34} k_{13} k_{71} k_{23} k_{63} k_{54}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{34} k_{23} k_{12} k_{71} k_{63} k_{54},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{P}_5 &=& k_{15} k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{15} k_{21} k_{31} k_{71} k_{67} k_{45}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{15} k_{31} k_{23} k_{71} k_{67} k_{45}+k_{15} k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{15} k_{71} k_{67} k_{45} k_{34} k_{23}+k_{15} k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{15} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36} k_{23} k_{43}+k_{15} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36} k_{23} k_{45}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{15} k_{21} k_{32} k_{71} k_{67} k_{45}+k_{15} k_{21} k_{71} k_{67} k_{45} k_{34}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{15} k_{21} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36} k_{45}+k_{15} k_{21} k_{71} k_{67} k_{36} k_{43}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{45} k_{34} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17} k_{21}+k_{45} k_{34} k_{13} k_{21} k_{71} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{45} k_{34} k_{23} k_{12} k_{71} k_{67}+k_{45} k_{34} k_{13} k_{71} k_{67} k_{23}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{45} k_{34} k_{23} k_{63} k_{76} k_{17}+k_{45} k_{34} k_{23} k_{12} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{15} k_{45} k_{34} k_{23} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{45} k_{34} k_{13} k_{23} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{45} k_{34} k_{13} k_{21} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{15} k_{21} k_{45} k_{34} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{15} k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{15} k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{15} k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{63} k_{76}+k_{15} k_{31} k_{23} k_{63} k_{76} k_{45}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{15} k_{21} k_{31} k_{63} k_{76} k_{45}+k_{15} k_{21} k_{32} k_{63} k_{76} k_{45}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{15} k_{21} k_{32} k_{63} k_{71} k_{45}+k_{15} k_{21} k_{71} k_{45} k_{34} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{15} k_{21} k_{31} k_{63} k_{71} k_{45}+k_{15} k_{31} k_{23} k_{63} k_{71} k_{45}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{15} k_{71} k_{45} k_{34} k_{23} k_{63}+k_{15} k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{63} k_{71}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{15} k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{63} k_{71}+k_{15} k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{63} k_{71}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{45} k_{34} k_{13} k_{21} k_{71} k_{63}+k_{45} k_{34} k_{13} k_{71} k_{23} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{45} k_{34} k_{23} k_{12} k_{71} k_{63},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{P}_6 &=& k_{76} k_{17} k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{51}+k_{76} k_{17} k_{21} k_{31} k_{51} k_{45}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{76} k_{17} k_{31} k_{23} k_{51} k_{45}+k_{76} k_{17} k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{51}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{76} k_{17} k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{23}+k_{76} k_{17} k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{51}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{36} k_{23} k_{43} k_{76} k_{17} k_{51}+k_{36} k_{23} k_{76} k_{17} k_{51} k_{45}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{76} k_{17} k_{21} k_{32} k_{51} k_{45}+k_{76} k_{17} k_{21} k_{51} k_{45} k_{34}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{36} k_{76} k_{17} k_{21} k_{51} k_{45}+k_{36} k_{43} k_{76} k_{17} k_{21} k_{51}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{36} k_{43} k_{54} k_{76} k_{17} k_{21}+k_{76} k_{17} k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{54}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{76} k_{17} k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{54}+k_{76} k_{17} k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{36} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{76} k_{17}+k_{36} k_{23} k_{12} k_{43} k_{54} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{36} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{76}+k_{36} k_{13} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{36} k_{13} k_{21} k_{43} k_{54} k_{76}+k_{36} k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{36} k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{43} k_{76}+k_{36} k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{43} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{36} k_{13} k_{51} k_{23} k_{43} k_{76}+k_{36} k_{13} k_{51} k_{45} k_{23} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{36} k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{45} k_{76}+k_{36} k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{45} k_{76}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{36} k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71}+k_{36} k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{21} k_{71}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{36} k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71}+k_{36} k_{13} k_{51} k_{45} k_{71} k_{23}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{36} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{71}+k_{36} k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{71} k_{43}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{36} k_{13} k_{51} k_{71} k_{23} k_{43}+k_{36} k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{71} k_{43}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{36} k_{13} k_{21} k_{71} k_{43} k_{54}+k_{36} k_{13} k_{71} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{36} k_{23} k_{12} k_{71} k_{43} k_{54},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{P}_7 &=& k_{17} k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{51} k_{67}+k_{17} k_{21} k_{31} k_{51} k_{45} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{17} k_{31} k_{23} k_{51} k_{45} k_{67}+k_{17} k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{51} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{17} k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{23} k_{67}+k_{17} k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{51} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{17} k_{51} k_{67} k_{36} k_{23} k_{43}+k_{17} k_{51} k_{45} k_{67} k_{36} k_{23}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{17} k_{21} k_{32} k_{51} k_{45} k_{67}+k_{17} k_{21} k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{17} k_{21} k_{51} k_{45} k_{67} k_{36}+k_{17} k_{21} k_{51} k_{67} k_{36} k_{43}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{17} k_{21} k_{67} k_{36} k_{43} k_{54}+k_{17} k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{54} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{17} k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{54} k_{67}+k_{17} k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{67}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{17} k_{67} k_{36} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54}+k_{67} k_{36} k_{23} k_{12} k_{43} k_{54}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{67} k_{36} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{15}+k_{67} k_{36} k_{13} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{67} k_{36} k_{13} k_{21} k_{43} k_{54}+k_{67} k_{36} k_{43} k_{54} k_{15} k_{21}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{67} k_{36} k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{43}+k_{67} k_{36} k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{43}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{67} k_{36} k_{13} k_{51} k_{23} k_{43}+k_{67} k_{36} k_{13} k_{51} k_{45} k_{23}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{67} k_{36} k_{13} k_{21} k_{51} k_{45}+k_{67} k_{36} k_{23} k_{12} k_{51} k_{45}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{17} k_{21} k_{32} k_{63} k_{51} k_{45}+k_{17} k_{21} k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{17} k_{21} k_{31} k_{63} k_{51} k_{45}+k_{17} k_{31} k_{23} k_{63} k_{51} k_{45}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{17} k_{51} k_{45} k_{34} k_{23} k_{63}+k_{17} k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{63} k_{51}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{17} k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{63} k_{51}+k_{17} k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{63} k_{51}\nonumber \\
& & + k_{17} k_{21} k_{31} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63}+k_{17} k_{31} k_{23} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{17} k_{21} k_{32} k_{43} k_{54} k_{63},\end{aligned}$$
From these exact expressions all stationary properties can be computed analytically or numerically exactly.
Graphical representations of transition and cycle fluxes: Flux diagrams {#app-flux_diag_Ribo}
=======================================================================
Using the decomposition (\[eq:p\_st\]) of the stationary probabilities into contributions from the directed spanning trees one obtains the decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prob_current_st}
J_{ij} &=& k_{ij} P_{i} - k_{ji} P_{j} \nonumber \\
&=&\mathcal{Z}^{-1} \sum_{\mu=1}^{39} \left[k_{ij}A(T^{\mu}_{i})-k_{ji}A(T^{\mu}_{j})\right]\end{aligned}$$ in terms of the unnormalized transition flux contributions $J^{\mu}_{ij}:= k_{ij}A(T^{\mu}_{i}) - k_{ji}A(T^{\mu}_{j})$ and the normalization factor (\[eq:part\_func2\]).
We observe that the directed trees $T^{\mu}_{i}$ and $T^{\mu}_{j}$ differ for the same $\mu$ only in the orientation of the edges connecting the vertices $i$ and $j$. Therefore, if vertices $i$ and $j$ are neighbours, i.e., if they are connected by an edge in the undirected spanning tree $\mu$, then the flux contribution $J^{\mu}_{ij}$ from $T^{\mu}_{i}$ and $T^{\mu}_{j}$ vanishes (see Fig. \[fig:form\_loop\](a)). On the other hand, if $i$ and $j$ are not neighbours, then the multiplication of $A(T^{\mu}_{i})$ by the rate $k_{ij}$ yields a product of rates that can be obtained from a new directed graph by adding to $T^{\mu}_{i}$ an oriented edge from $i$ to $j$, thus converting the oriented tree $T^{\mu}_{i}$ into a graph $T^{\mu}_{ij}$ with a single oriented cycle (see Fig. \[fig:form\_loop\](b)) whose original arrows are all directed towards vertex $i$ and with a new arrow from $i$ to $j$. Similarly, the product $k_{ji} A(T^{\mu}_{ji})$ corresponds to a graph $T^{\mu}_{ji}$ with the same cycle, but oriented in the opposite direction. The rest of both the one-cycle graphs (the side branches of the cycles) are identical, so that the product of the rates in the side branches $R(T^{\mu}_{ij})=R(T^{\mu}_{ji})$ is the same for both orientations. Notice that directed trees with different indices $\mu$ might lead to the same one-cycle graphs, see Fig. \[fig:form\_loop\](c) for two examples $T^9_{12} = T^{33}_{23}$ and $T^9_{21} = T^{33}_{32}$.
![Forming graphs with a single cycle: (a) Adding to the oriented tree $T^9_4$ an oriented edge from vertex 4 to the neighbouring vertex 5 yields the same tree (without any cycle) as adding to the oriented tree $T^9_5$ an oriented edge from vertex 5 to vertex 4, thus rendering $J^{9}_{45}=J^{9}_{54}=0$. (b) Adding to the directed tree $T^9_1$ an oriented edge from vertex 1 to vertex 2 generates a cycle $(231)$, while adding to the oriented tree $T^9_2$ an oriented edge from vertex 2 to vertex 1 generates a cycle $(132)$ where generically $J^{9}_{12} = - J^{9}_{21} \neq 0$ (viz. unless $k_{12}k_{23}k_{31} = k_{21}k_{13}k_{32}$ for the cycle products of the transition rates). (c) Adding oriented edges between vertices 2 and 3 of the oriented trees $T^{33}_{2}$ and $T^{33}_{3}$ resp., yields identical graphs so that $J^{9}_{12} = J^{33}_{23}$.[]{data-label="fig:form_loop"}](fig23_new.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
From the undirected spanning trees one can construct the [*flux diagrams*]{} each of which has a single undirected cycle and directed branches that feed into this cycle. In total, there are 29 distinct flux diagrams for the 7-state model; all these 29 graphs are displayed in Figs.\[fig:cycle\_a1\]-\[fig:cycle\_f\].
![Graphs with loop (a)[]{data-label="fig:cycle_a1"}](fig24a_new.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Graphs with loop (b)[]{data-label="fig:cycle_b"}](fig24b_new.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Graphs with loop (c)[]{data-label="fig:cycle_c"}](fig24c_new.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Graphs with loop (d)[]{data-label="fig:cycle_d1"}](fig24d_new.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Graphs with loop (e)[]{data-label="fig:cycle_e1"}](fig24e_new.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Graphs with loop (f).[]{data-label="fig:cycle_f"}](fig24f_new.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Using these flux diagrams, the exact expressions we obtain the contribution of the branches for every cycle $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ra}
R_{a} &=& k_{43}k_{67}k_{71}k_{51} + k_{43}k_{76}k_{63}k_{51} + k_{54}k_{43}k_{76}k_{63} \nonumber
\\
& & +k_{45}k_{51}k_{67}k_{71}+k_{54}k_{43}k_{67}k_{71} +k_{45}k_{51}k_{76}k_{63}\nonumber \\
& & +k_{45}k_{51}k_{63}k_{71} +k_{54}k_{43}k_{63}k_{71}+k_{43}k_{63}k_{51}k_{71} \\
\label{Rb}
R_{b} &=& k_{67}k_{71}+k_{76}k_{63}+k_{63}k_{71} \\
\label{Rc}
R_{c} &=& k_{43}k_{51}+k_{45}k_{51}+k_{54}k_{43} \\
\label{Rd}
R_{d} &=& k_{43}k_{51}k_{21}+k_{43}k_{51}k_{23}+k_{54}k_{43}k_{21}
\nonumber \\
& & +k_{54}k_{43}k_{23}+k_{45}k_{51}k_{21}+k_{45}k_{51}k_{23} \\
\label{Re}
R_{e} &=& k_{67}k_{71}k_{21}+k_{67}k_{71}k_{23}+k_{76}k_{63}k_{23} \nonumber \\
& & +k_{76}k_{63}k_{21}+k_{63}k_{71}k_{21}+k_{63}k_{71}k_{23} \\
\label{Rf}
R_{f} &=& k_{23}+k_{21}.\end{aligned}$$
Entropy production rate in terms of cycle flux {#app-EntropyProd}
==============================================
The explicit derivation of the Eq.(\[eq:ss\_entropy\_c1\]) is given below.
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^{st}_{pr} &=& \dfrac{1}{2}k_{B} \sum_{ij} J_{ij} ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{ij}}{k_{ji}}\bigg) \nonumber \\
&=& \dfrac{1}{2}k_{B}[J_{12} ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{12}}{k_{21}}\bigg)+J_{23} ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{23}}{k_{32}}\bigg)+J_{31} ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{31}}{k_{31}}\bigg)+ \nonumber \\
&& J_{21} ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{21}}{k_{12}}\bigg)+J_{32} ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{32}}{k_{23}}\bigg)+J_{13} ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{13}}{k_{31}}\bigg)+...] \nonumber \\
&=& \dfrac{1}{2}k_{B}[(J_{a}+J_{c}+J_{d}) ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{12}}{k_{21}}\bigg)+(J_{a}+J_{c}+J_{d}) ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{23}}{k_{32}}\bigg)+(J_{a}-J_{d}-J_{e}) ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{31}}{k_{31}}\bigg)+ \nonumber \\
&& (-J_{a}-J_{c}-J_{d}) ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{21}}{k_{12}}\bigg)+(-J_{a}-J_{c}-J_{d}) ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{32}}{k_{23}}\bigg)+(-J_{a}+J_{d}+J_{e}) ln\bigg(\dfrac{k_{13}}{k_{31}}\bigg)+...] \nonumber \\
&& \text{(using equation (28)-(31))} \nonumber \\
&=& \dfrac{1}{2}k_{B}[J_{a} ln \bigg(\dfrac{k_{12}k_{23}k_{31}}{k_{21}k_{32}k_{13}}\bigg)-J_{a} ln \bigg(\dfrac{k_{21}k_{32}k_{13}}{k_{12}k_{23}k_{31}}\bigg) +...] \nonumber \\
&=& \dfrac{1}{2}k_{B}[J_{a} ln \bigg(\dfrac{\Pi_{a,+}}{\Pi_{a,-}}\bigg)-J_{a} ln \bigg(\dfrac{\Pi_{a,-}}{\Pi_{a,+}}\bigg) +...] \nonumber \\
&& \text{(using equation(23))} \nonumber \\
&=& \dfrac{1}{2}[J_{a} k_{B} ln \bigg(\dfrac{\Pi_{a,+}}{\Pi_{a,-}}\bigg)-J_{a} k_{B} ln \bigg(\dfrac{\Pi_{a,-}}{\Pi_{a,+}}\bigg) +...] \nonumber \\
&=& \dfrac{1}{2}[J_{a} \Delta S_{a,+}-J_{a} \Delta S_{a,-} +...] \nonumber \\
&=& \dfrac{1}{2}[(J_{a,+}-J_{a,-}) \Delta S_{a,+}-(J_{a,+}-J_{a,-}) \Delta S_{a,-} +...] \text{(using equation(23))} \nonumber \\
&=& \dfrac{1}{2}[J_{a,+}\Delta S_{a,+}-J_{a,-}\Delta S_{a,+} -J_{a,+}\Delta S_{a,-}+J_{a,-}\Delta S_{a,-}+...] \nonumber \\
&=& \dfrac{1}{2}[J_{a,+}\Delta S_{a,+}+J_{a,-}\Delta S_{a,-} +J_{a,+}\Delta S_{a,+}+J_{a,-}\Delta S_{a,-}+...] \text{(using} \Delta S_{\kappa,-} = - \Delta S_{\kappa,+} ) \nonumber \\
&=&[J_{a,+}\Delta S_{a,+}+J_{a,-}\Delta S_{a,-}+...] \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{\kappa} \left(J_{\kappa,+} \Delta S_{\kappa,+}+ J_{\kappa,-} \Delta S_{\kappa,-} \right) \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$
[10]{} A. S. Spirin, [*Ribosomes*]{}. Cellular [Organelles]{}, Springer US, 2002.
C. E. Aitken, A. Petrov, and J. D. Puglisi, “Single [Ribosome]{} [Dynamics]{} and the [Mechanism]{} of [Translation]{},” [*Annual Review of Biophysics*]{}, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 491–513, 2010.
J. Frank and R. L. Gonzalez, “Structure and [Dynamics]{} of a [Processive]{} [Brownian]{} [Motor]{}: [The]{} [Translating]{} [Ribosome]{},” [*Annual Review of Biochemistry*]{}, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 381–412, 2010.
M. R. Wasserman, J. L. Alejo, R. B. Altman, and S. C. Blanchard, “Multiperspective [smFRET]{} reveals rate-determining late intermediates of ribosomal translocation,” [*Nat Struct Mol Biol*]{}, vol. 23, pp. 333–341, Apr. 2016.
J. Frank, [*Molecular [Machines]{} in [Biology]{}: [Workshop]{} of the [Cell]{}*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Dec. 2011. Google-Books-ID: zrXWKTujNpsC.
B. Chen, S. Kaledhonkar, M. Sun, B. Shen, Z. Lu, D. Barnard, T.-M. Lu, R. L. Gonzalez Jr., and J. Frank, “Structural [Dynamics]{} of [Ribosome]{} [Subunit]{} [Association]{} [Studied]{} by [Mixing]{}-[Spraying]{} [Time]{}-[Resolved]{} [Cryogenic]{} [Electron]{} [Microscopy]{},” [*Structure*]{}, vol. 23, pp. 1097–1105, June 2015.
N. Fischer, A. L. Konevega, W. Wintermeyer, M. V. Rodnina, and H. Stark, “Ribosome dynamics and [tRNA]{} movement by time-resolved electron cryomicroscopy,” [*Nature*]{}, vol. 466, pp. 329–333, July 2010.
M. V. Rodnina, W. Wintermeyer, and R. Green, eds., [*Ribosomes: structure, function, and dynamics*]{}. Wien: Springer, 2011.
M. Siwiak and P. Zielenkiewicz, “A [Comprehensive]{}, [Quantitative]{}, and [Genome]{}-[Wide]{} [Model]{} of [Translation]{},” [*PLoS Computational Biology*]{}, vol. 6, p. e1000865, July 2010.
M. A. Gilchrist and A. Wagner, “A model of protein translation including codon bias, nonsense errors, and ribosome recycling,” [*Journal of Theoretical Biology*]{}, vol. 239, pp. 417–434, Apr. 2006.
P. Xie, “Model of ribosome translation and [mRNA]{} unwinding,” [*European Biophysics Journal*]{}, vol. 42, pp. 347–354, Dec. 2012.
S. Rudorf and R. Lipowsky, “Protein [Synthesis]{} in [E]{}. coli: [Dependence]{} of [Codon]{}-[Specific]{} [Elongation]{} on [tRNA]{} [Concentration]{} and [Codon]{} [Usage]{},” [*PLOS ONE*]{}, vol. 10, p. e0134994, Aug. 2015.
Y. Savir and T. Tlusty, “The [Ribosome]{} as an [Optimal]{} [Decoder]{}: [A]{} [Lesson]{} in [Molecular]{} [Recognition]{},” [*Cell*]{}, vol. 153, pp. 471–479, Apr. 2013.
A. Basu and D. Chowdhury, “Modeling protein synthesis from a physicist’s perspective: [A]{} toy model,” [*American Journal of Physics*]{}, vol. 75, pp. 931–937, Oct. 2007.
A. Garai, D. Chowdhury, D. Chowdhury, and T. V. Ramakrishnan, “Stochastic kinetics of ribosomes: [Single]{} motor properties and collective behavior,” [*Physical Review E*]{}, vol. 80, p. 011908, July 2009.
A. Garai, D. Chowdhury, and T. V. Ramakrishnan, “Fluctuations in protein synthesis from a single [RNA]{} template: [Stochastic]{} kinetics of ribosomes,” [*Physical Review E*]{}, vol. 79, p. 011916, Jan. 2009.
D. Chowdhury, “Stochastic mechano-chemical kinetics of molecular motors: [A]{} multidisciplinary enterprise from a physicist’s perspective,” [*Physics Reports*]{}, vol. 529, pp. 1–197, Aug. 2013.
A. K. Sharma and D. Chowdhury, “Distribution of dwell times of a ribosome: effects of infidelity, kinetic proofreading and ribosome crowding,” [ *Physical Biology*]{}, vol. 8, p. 026005, Apr. 2011. arXiv: 1008.0298.
A. K. Sharma and D. Chowdhury, “Quality control by a mobile molecular workshop: [Quality]{} versus quantity,” [*Physical Review E*]{}, vol. 82, p. 031912, Sept. 2010.
A. Dutta and D. Chowdhury, “A [Generalized]{} [Michaelis]{}–[Menten]{} [Equation]{} in [Protein]{} [Synthesis]{}: [Effects]{} of [Mis]{}-[Charged]{} [Cognate]{} [tRNA]{} and [Mis]{}-[Reading]{} of [Codon]{},” [*Bulletin of Mathematical Biology*]{}, vol. 79, pp. 1005–1027, May 2017.
A. Fluitt, E. Pienaar, and H. Viljoen. “Ribosome Kinetics and Aa-TRNA Competition Determine Rate and Fidelity of Peptide Synthesis." Computational Biology and Chemistry 31, no. 5–6 (2007): 335–46.
Dana, Alexandra, and T. Tuller. “The Effect of TRNA Levels on Decoding Times of MRNA Codons." Nucleic Acids Research 42, no. 14 (August 18, 2014): 9171–81.
Vieira, Joana Pinto, Julien Racle, and Vassily Hatzimanikatis. “Analysis of Translation Elongation Dynamics in the Context of an Escherichia Coli Cell." Biophysical Journal 110, no. 9 (May 10, 2016): 2120–31.
T. Liu, A. Kaplan, L. Alexander, S. Yan, Jin-Der Wen, L. Lancaster, C. E. Wickersham, K. Frederick, H. Noller, I. Tinoco Jr. and C.J. Bustamante, “Direct Measurement of the Mechanical Work during Translocation by the Ribosome.” eLife 3, e03406 (2014)
U. Seifert, “Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines," [*Reports on Progress in Physics*]{}, 75, 126001 (2012).
W. Hwang, and C. Hyeon, “Energetic Costs, Precision, and Transport Efficiency of Molecular Motors," [*J. Phys. Chem. Lett.*]{}, 9, 513–520 (2018).
F. S. Gnesotto, F. Mura, J. Gladrow, and C. P. Broedersz, “Broken detailed balance and non-equilibrium dynamics in living systems: a review," [*Reports on Progress in Physics*]{}, 81, 066601 (2018).
D. Andrieux, and P. Gaspard, Fluctuation theorems and the nonequilibrium thermodynamics of molecular motors. Physical Review E 74 (2006).
H. Qian, S. Kjelstrup, A. B. Kolomeisky, and D. Bedeaux, “Entropy production in mesoscopic stochastic thermodynamics: nonequilibrium kinetic cycles driven by chemical potentials, temperatures, and mechanical forces," [*Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter*]{}, 28, 153004 (2016).
R. Rao, and M. Esposito, “Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics of Chemical Reaction Networks: Wisdom from Stochastic Thermodynamics," [*Physical Review X*]{}, 6 (2016).
U. Seifert, “Stochastic thermodynamics: From principles to the cost of precision. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications," 504, 176–191 (2018).
E. Gerritsma, and P. Gaspard, Chemomechanical Coupling and stochastic thermodynamics of the F1-ATPase Molecular Motor with an applied external torque," [*Biophysical Reviews and Letters*]{}, 05, 163–208 (2010).
R.D. Astumian, “Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Molecular Motors," [*Biophysical Journal*]{}, 98, 2401–2409 (2010).
U. Seifert, “Stochastic thermodynamics of single enzymes and molecular motors," [*Eur. Phys. J. E*]{}, 34, 26 (2011).
D. Loutchko, M. Eisbach, and A. S. Mikhailov, “Stochastic thermodynamics of a chemical nanomachine: The channeling enzyme tryptophan synthase," [*The Journal of Chemical Physics*]{}, 146, 025101 (2017).
F. Jülicher, A. Ajdari, and J. Prost, “Modeling molecular motors," [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{}, 69, 1269–1282 (1997).
N. Cozzarelli, G.J. Cost, M. Nöllmann, T. Viard, J.E. Stray, “Giant proteins that move DNA: bullies of the genomic playgraound”, [*Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.*]{} [**7**]{}, 580-588 (2006).
M. V. Rodnina, N. Fischer, C. Maracci, and H. Stark, “Ribosome dynamics during decoding,” [*Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B*]{}, vol. 372, p. 20160182, Mar. 2017.
, [H. Sharma]{}, [N. Caliskan]{}, [C. E. Cunha]{}, [F. Peske]{}, [W. Wintermeyer]{}, and [M. V. Rodnina]{}, “Choreography of molecular movements during ribosome progression along [mRNA]{},” [ *Nature Structural & Molecular Biology*]{}, 2016.
S. Rudorf, M. Thommen, M. V. Rodnina, and R. Lipowsky. “Deducing the Kinetics of Protein Synthesis In Vivo from the Transition Rates Measured In Vitro." PLoS Computational Biology 10, no. 10 (2014)
A. Moghal, K. Mohler, and M. Ibba. “Mistranslation of the Genetic Code.” FEBS Letters 588, no. 23 (November 28, 2014)
T. L. Hill, [*Free [Energy]{} [Transduction]{} and [Biochemical]{} [Cycle]{} [Kinetics]{}*]{}. New York, NY: Springer New York, 1989.
T. L. Hill, “Studies in irreversible thermodynamics [IV]{}. diagrammatic representation of steady state fluxes for unimolecular systems,” [ *Journal of theoretical biology*]{}, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 442–459, 1966.
J. Schnakenberg, “Network theory of microscopic and macroscopic behavior of master equation systems,” [*Reviews of Modern Physics*]{}, vol. 48, pp. 571–585, Oct. 1976.
M. Polettini, G. Bulnes-Cuetara and M. Esposito, “Conservation laws and symmetries in stochastic thermodynamics”, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, 052117 (2016).
R. Rao and M. Esposito, “Conservation laws shape dissipation”, [*New J. Phys.*]{}, 023007 (2018).
H. Qian, “Cycle kinetics, steady state thermodynamics and motors—a paradigm for living matter physics,” [*Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter*]{}, vol. 17, no. 47, p. S3783, 2005.
S. Liepelt and R. Lipowsky, “Impact of [Slip]{} [Cycles]{} on the [Operation]{} [Modes]{} and [Efficiency]{} of [Molecular]{} [Motors]{},” [*Journal of Statistical Physics*]{}, vol. 141, pp. 1–16, Oct. 2010.
S. Liepelt and R. Lipowsky, “Steady-state balance conditions for molecular motor cycles and stochastic nonequilibrium processes,” [*EPL (Europhysics Letters)*]{}, vol. 77, no. 5, p. 50002, 2007.
R. J. Harris and G. M. Schütz, “Fluctuation theorems for stochastic dynamics,” [*Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment*]{}, vol. 2007, pp. P07020–P07020, jul 2007.
S. Liepelt and R. Lipowsky, “Operation modes of the molecular motor kinesin,” [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, vol. 79, p. 011917, Jan 2009.
S. Proshkin, A.R. Rahmouni, A. Mironov, E. Nudler, “Cooperation Between Translating Ribosomes and RNA Polymerase in Transcription Elongation," [*Science*]{}, vol. 328, p. 504, Apr 2010.
C. Hyeon, S. Klumpp and J.N. Onuchic, [*Kinesin’s backsteps under mechanical load*]{}, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. [**11**]{}, 4899 (2009).
J. L. Lebowitz and H. Spohn, “A [Gallavotti]{}-[Cohen]{}-[Type]{} [Symmetry]{} in the [Large]{} [Deviation]{} [Functional]{} for [Stochastic]{} [Dynamics]{},” [ *Journal of Statistical Physics*]{}, vol. 95, pp. 333–365, Apr. 1999.
V. Belitsky and G. M. Schütz, “RNA polymerase interactions and elongation rate,” [*Journal of Theoretical Biology*]{}, vol. 462, pp. 370 – 380, 2019.
M. V. Rodnina, N. Fischer, C. Maracci, and H. Stark, “Ribosome dynamics during decoding”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, vol. 372, 20160182, 2017.
R. Belardinelli et al., “Choreography of molecular movements during ribosome progression along mRNA”, Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, 2016.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
harvmac \#1\#2
=.5in
\#2
.5in=0
\#1\#2
=.2in
\#2
.2in=0
\#1\#2 \#1[\#1|]{} \#1[| \#1]{} \#1[\#1]{} ‘=11 versim\#1\#2 \#1 \#1[$\bf#1$]{} \#1[$\bf\overline{#1}$]{} 1[[1]{}]{} \#1\#2 /\#1[\#1-6pt/]{} \#1\#2\#3[Nucl. Phys. B [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Lett. B [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[B [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rev. D [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rev. Lett. [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rep. [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1[Texas A & M University preprint CTP-TAMU-\#1]{}
S. KELLEY$^{(a)(b)}$, JORGE L. LOPEZ$^{(a)(b)}$, D. V. NANOPOULOS$^{(a)(b)(c)}$,
H. POIS$^{(a)(b)}$, and KAJIA YUAN$^{(d)}$
$^{(a)}$
$^{(b)}$
$^{(c)}$
$^{(d)}$
.1in
ABSTRACT
We discuss several aspects of state-of-the-art calculations of radiative electroweak symmetry breaking in supergravity models. These models have a five-dimensional parameter space in contrast with the 21-dimensional one of the MSSM. We examine the Higgs one-loop effective potential $V_1=V_0+\Delta V$, in particular how its renormalization-scale ($Q$) independence is affected by the approximations used to calculate $\Delta V$ and by the presence of a Higgs-field-independent term which makes $V_1(0)\not=0$. We show that the latter must be subtracted out to achieve $Q$-independence. We also discuss our own approach to the exploration of the five-dimensional parameter space and the fine-tuning constraints within this approach. We apply our methods to the determination of the allowed region in parameter space of two models which we argue to be the prototypes for conventional (SSM) and string (SISM) unified models. To this end we impose the electroweak breaking constraint by minimizing the one-loop effective potential and study the shifts in $\mu$ and $B$ relative to the values obtained using the tree-level potential. These shifts are most significant for small values of $\mu$ and $B$, and induce corresponding shifts on the lightest $\mu$- and/or $B$-dependent particle masses, , those of the lightest stau, neutralino, chargino, and Higgs boson states. Finally, we discuss the predictions for the squark, slepton, and one-loop corrected Higgs boson masses.
The Standard Model of electroweak and strong interactions is well established by now. In fact, the effects of the top quark in one-loop electroweak processes predict its mass (within $\approx20\%$) centered around $\approx140\GeV$ . Therefore, its expected direct experimental detection in the near future will complete the set of Standard Model predictions for the vector and fermion sectors. The scalar sector is another story. The simplest electroweak symmetry breaking scenario with a single Higgs boson is only mildly constrained experimentally, with a lower bound of $m_H>57\GeV$ and no firm indirect experimental upper bound, although this situation will change once the top quark mass is measured . On the other hand, interesting upper bounds on $m_H$ follow from various theoretical assumptions, such as perturbative unitarity at tree- ($m_H\lsim700\GeV$) and one-loop ($m_H\lsim400\GeV$) levels, and the stability of the Higgs potential ($m_H\lsim500\GeV$) . In practice, with the advent of the SSC and LHC, experimental information about the TeV scale is likely to clarify the composition of the Higgs sector. Nevertheless, despite all these efforts the structure of the Standard Model and its corresponding Higgs sector will remain basically unexplained.
It has therefore become customary to turn to the physics at very high energies to search for answers to these theoretical questions. The most promising theories of this kind contain two new ingredients: supersymmetry and unification. Together these can explain the origin of the weak scale (, the gauge hierarchy problem) relative to the very high energy unification ($M_U$) or Planck ($M_{Pl}$) scales . Furthermore, this class of theories predict a new set of relatively light ($\lsim{\cal O}(1\TeV)$) particles consisting of partners for the Standard Model particles but with spin offset by 1/2 unit. In fact, the new set of particles appears ever more likely to overlap little with the mass scales of the standard ones, thus their present unobserved status. Moreover, the Standard Model Higgs boson will then appear as one of the new particles but with mass close to $M_Z$, thus avoiding naturally the theoretical problems mentioned above.
Unfortunately, the introduction of supersymmetry also increases significantly the number of unknown parameters in the theory, mainly because this symmetry must be softly broken at low energies. Indeed, to describe a generic low-energy supersymmetric model (the so-called minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM)) neglecting the first- and second-generation Yukawa couplings, the KM angles, and possible CP violating phases, we need the following set of parameters (the values of $\sin^2\theta_w,\alpha_3,\alpha_e,M_Z$ are taken as measured parameters):
[[**a**]{}.]{}The Yukawa ($\lambda_t,\lambda_b,\lambda_\tau$) and Higgs mixing ($\mu$) superpotential couplings. (We can trade the Yukawa couplings for $m_t,\tan\beta$; $m_b,m_\tau$, with $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$ the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values, and $m_b,m_\tau$ given.)
[[**b**]{}.]{}The soft-supersymmetry breaking trilinear ($A_t,A_b,A_\tau$) and bilinear ($B$) scalar couplings (corresponding to the superpotential couplings in [**a**]{}).
[[**c**]{}.]{}The soft-supersymmetry breaking left-left and right-right entries in the squark and slepton mass matrices for the first and second ($m_{Q,U^c,D^c},\,m_{L,E^c}$), and third ($m_{Q_3,U^c_3,D^c_3},\,m_{L_3,E^c_3}$) generations.
[[**d**]{}.]{}The soft-supersymmetry breaking gaugino masses $m_{\tilde g},
m_{\wt W},m_{\wt B}$.
[[**e**]{}.]{}The Higgs sector parameter (at tree-level), , the pseudoscalar Higgs boson mass $m_A$.
The above 21 unknown parameters make any thorough analysis of this class of models rather impractical, and have allowed in the past only limited explorations of this parameter space. If we now add the gauge unification constraint ($\alpha_i(M_U)=\alpha_U,\,i=1,2,3$), the assumption of universal soft-supersymmetry breaking at a scale $\Lambda_{susy}=M_U$, and high-energy dynamics (in the form of renormalization group equations (RGEs) for all the parameters involved), the set of parameters in ${\bf b}$ reduces to $A=A_t=A_b=A_\tau$ and $B$, those in $\bf c$ to $m_0=m_{Q,U^c,D^c}=m_{Q_3,U^c_3,D^c_3}=m_{L,E^c}=m_{L_3,E^c_3}$, and those in $\bf d$ to $m_{1/2}=m_{\tilde g}=m_{\wt W}=m_{\wt B}$; these relations are valid [*only*]{} at the scale $\Lambda_{susy}$. The number of parameters has been dramatically reduced down to eight.
Let us now add low-energy dynamics by demanding radiative breaking of the electroweak symmetry. The tree-level Higgs potential is given by $$\eqalignno{V_0=&(m^2_{H_1}+\mu^2)|H_1|^2+(m^2_{H_2}+\mu^2)|H_2|^2
+B\mu(H_1H_2+{\rm h.c.})\cr
&+\coeff{1}{8}g^2_2(H^\dagger_2{\bf\sigma}H_2+H^\dagger_1{\bf\sigma}H_1)^2
+\coeff{1}{8}g'^2\left(|H_2|^2-|H_1|^2\right)^2,&\Inti{}\cr}$$ where $H_1\equiv{{H^0_1\choose H^-_1}}$ and $H_2\equiv{{H^+_2\choose H^0_2}}$ are the two complex Higgs doublet fields, $g'=\sqrt{5/3}\,g_1$ and $g_2$ are the $U(1)_Y$ and $SU(2)_L$ gauge couplings, and $B\mu$ is taken to be real and negative. This potential has a minimum if $\partial V_0/\partial\phi_i=0$, with $\phi_i$ denoting the eight real degrees of freedom of $H_1$ and $H_2$. In particular, for $\phi_i={\rm Re}\,H^0_i$ one obtains two constraints which allow the determination of $\mu$ and $B$, $$\eqalignno{\mu^2&={m^2_{H_1}-m^2_{H_2}\tan^2\beta\over\tan^2\beta-1}
-\coeff{1}{2}M^2_Z,&\Intii a\cr
B\mu&=-\coeff{1}{2}\sin2\beta(m^2_{H_1}+m^2_{H_2}+2\mu^2)<0,&\Intii b\cr}$$ up to the sign of $\mu$. In these expressions, $m^2_{H_1},m^2_{H_2}$ are soft-supersymmetry breaking masses equal to $m^2_0$ at $\Lambda_{susy}$. Since the whole set of Higgs masses and couplings (at tree-level) follows from $m^2_A$ (and $\tan\beta$), and one can easily show that $m^2_A=-2B\mu/\sin2\beta$, the parameter in $\bf e$ is also determined. (This result also holds at one-loop although the expression for $m^2_A$ is more complicated in this case.)
The final parameter count in the class of models we consider is then just five: $m_t,\tan\beta,m_{1/2},m_0,A$ (plus the sign of $\mu$). Note also that $\sin^2\theta_w$ (as well as $M_U$ and $\alpha_U$) gets determined (from $\alpha_3$ and $\alpha_e$) by the gauge unification condition. What are the [*a priori*]{} expected values of $m_{1/2},m_0,A$? In principle choosing a suitable supergravity model (, suitable hidden sector) one could have arbitrary values for these parameters. The so-called ‘minimal’ supergravity models predict $A=B+m_0$ (at $\Lambda_{susy}$) with $m_0,m_{1/2}\not=0$ in general. Supergravity models which explain naturally the vanishing of the cosmological constant (even after supersymmetry breaking), the so-called [**no-scale**]{} models , typically require $m_0=A=0$ and $m_{1/2}\not=0$, although models with $m_0,A\not=0$ are possible also.
With this scenario in mind we have undertaken a systematic study of supersymmetric unified models with universal soft-supersymmetry breaking. We pursue this objective in three steps: (i) determination of the parameter space allowed by all consistency and experimental constraints using the Higgs one-loop effective potential; (ii) calculation of particle masses, upper and lower bounds, correlations among them, and discovery limits; and (iii) study of specific reactions such as collider processes relevant for particle detection, rare decays, neutralino dark matter, supersymmetric loop corrections to $\sin^2\theta_w$, etc. In this paper we address the first two points.
Analyses of this nature in [*unified*]{} models exist in the literature (although their number is small relative to those in [*generic*]{} low-energy supersymmetric models) and date back one full decade (for a recent review see ). The recent interest in this type of analyses has been spurred by the experimental data available from LEP, and it has mostly been concerned with systematic studies of various aspects of unified supersymmetric models, such as gauge coupling unification , the Yukawa sector , electroweak symmetry breaking at tree-level and one-loop , the one-loop corrected Higgs boson masses , supersymmetry loop effects on the $\rho-$parameter and $\sin^2\theta_w$ , neutralino dark matter , proton decay , etc.
The purpose of this paper is to sharpen the determination of the allowed parameter space of this class of models (obtained at tree-level in Ref. ) by using the one-loop Higgs effective potential. In Sec. 2 we compare both approximations and discuss several theoretical and practical issues related to the use of the one-loop effective potential. We present a numerical study of the effect of the usual approximations to the one-loop effective potential (, keeping only the top-stop contributions) on its renormalization-scale ($Q$) independence properties. We also quantify the phrase “up to two-loop effects", clearly identifying the one- and two-loop leading- and non-leading-log contributions, and obtain a $Q$-independent one-loop potential. We show that in problems where the value of the one-loop effective potential (as opposed to any of its field derivatives) is relevant, one must define a new ‘subtracted’ potential which vanishes at the origin of field space and is manifestly renormalization-scale independent. We also provide details of our numerical and analytical techniques used to calculate the one-loop values of $\mu$ and $B$ and to demonstrate one-loop $Q$-independence.
In Sec. 3 we discuss the “fine-tuning" constraint , which limits the parameter space and yields an allowed region bounded in all five variables. In Sec. 4 we show that the class of models we consider here constitute a good first approximation to any realistic traditional (SSM) or string (SISM) supersymmetric unified model below the unification scale. In Sec. 5 we discuss the consistency and phenomenological constraints on the parameter space and the ensuing bounded regions in the $(m_t,\tan\beta)$ plane. We then study the shifts in $\mu$ and $B$ obtained with the one-loop potential relative to their tree-level counterparts, and find them to be most significant for small values of $\mu$ and $B$. We also explore the allowed parameter space extending our previous analysis to nonvanishing values of $m_0$ and $A$, and using the one-loop effective potential. In Sec. 6 we study the squark and slepton masses and the effect of the shifted values of $\mu$ and $B$ on the masses of the lightest stau, the lightest neutralino, and the lightest chargino states. We also study the one-loop corrected Higgs boson masses and present tables of mass ranges for all particle species for typical values of the parameters. Finally, in Sec. 7 we summarize our conclusions and in the Appendix we present some details of the computation of the one-loop effective potential. As a practical matter, in studies of electroweak symmetry breaking it is important to determine whether the tree-level approximation to the scalar Higgs potential ($V_0$) is adequate for the purposes at hand. There are two observations which make it apparent that this approximation may not be accurate enough nor reliable (at least in some regions of parameter space): (i) It had been noted long ago (and it has been emphasized recently ) that the low-energy scale $Q$ at which the RGEs connecting physics at very high energies with physics at the electroweak scale are stopped, influences the (tree-level) physical predictions of this class of models in significant ways, such as in the determination of minima of the tree-level Higgs potential. Equivalently put, $V_0$ does not obey the RGE $dV_0/dt=0$ (with $t=\ln Q$) in any sensible approximation. (ii) It has been recently observed that the one-loop corrections to the Higgs boson masses are non-negligible in certain regions of parameter space (, for large $m_t$) .
It has been argued that the one-loop effective potential $V_1=V_0+\Delta V$ solves the problem in (i) since it is presumed to satisfy the corresponding RGE ($dV_1/dt=0$) automatically and therefore yields one-loop $Q$-independent predictions. In fact, this property of $V_1$ is routinely used to derive one-loop RGEs . However, the one-loop $Q$-independence of $V_1$ has been explored only in a limited way in Ref. and the details by which it works have so far remained unclear or at least not explicitly described. Additionally, it has been shown that the naive expectation of using the one-loop Higgs potential to obtain one-loop corrected Higgs masses is in fact accurate to ${\cal O}({\rm few}\GeV)$ , and therefore one-loop corrections to $V_0$ are expected to affect the values of $\mu$ and $B$ calculated (as described in the Introduction) from the corresponding minimization conditions $\partial V_1/\partial{\rm Re}\,H^0_1=\partial V_1/\partial{\rm Re}\,H^0_2=0$. The expression for $\Delta V$ , where ${\rm STr}\,f({\cal M}^2)
=\sum_j(-1)^{2j}(2j+1){\rm Tr}\,f({\cal M}^2_j)$ and ${\cal M}^2_j$ are the field–dependent spin-$j$ mass matrices, receives contributions from all particle species. However, in analyses of this kind it is customary to include only the “dominant" contributions to $\Delta V$, , those from the top-stop (and sometimes also bottom-sbottom) system(s). This statement is indeed accurate provided one is only interested in the field derivatives of $V_1$. However, it is not clear to what extent this approximation to $\Delta V$ will affect the $Q$-independence of $V_1$. We will show that this question is not only of conceptual but also of practical importance. In the remainder of this section we review the derivation of $V_1$, study its formal $Q$-independence properties (in a $\lambda\phi^4$ theory and the MSSM), and discuss the numerical methods used to obtain the one-loop values of $\mu$ and $B$. The first calculation of the one-loop effective potential in field theories was performed by Coleman and E. Weinberg . Their method consisted basically of summing the infinite series of one-loop diagrams with all possible numbers of zero-momentum external lines. This procedure becomes very cumbersome for two- and higher-loop calculations and is replaced in practice (even at one-loop) by the so-called “tadpole method" first noticed by S. Weinberg and later developed by Lee and Sciaccaluga and extended to supersymmetric theories by Miller . This method is derived by expanding the effective action around shifted values of the fields. The first derivative of the $n$-loop contribution to the effective potential ($V^{(n)}$) is simply given by the $n$-loop tadpole ($\Gamma^{1}_{(n)}$) diagrams calculated in the shifted theory and with zero external momentum. For example, consider a massless $\lambda\phi^4$ theory with scalar potential $V_0(\phi)={\lambda\over4!}\phi^4$. Shifting $\phi\to\phi-w$ gives a linear term in $\phi$, $-{\lambda\over6}\phi w^3$, a “mass term" ${\lambda\over4}w^2\phi^2$, and cubic term $-{\lambda\over6}w\phi^3$. At tree-level we have $\Gamma^{1}_{(0)}={\lambda\over6}w^3$ and therefore $V^{(0)}(\phi)={\lambda\over4!}\phi^4$ as expected. The constant of integration has been fixed such that $V^{(0)}(0)=0$. At one-loop we have a single diagram due to the induced cubic coupling, giving where the ${1\over2}$ is the symmetry factor for the one-loop diagram. This integral is divergent and can be regulated by introducing a cut-off or more conveniently by using dimensional regularization. The result using the latter is where $D=4-2\epsilon$, $1/\hat\epsilon=-1/\epsilon+\gamma_E-\ln4\pi$, and $Q$ is an arbitrary scale introduced for dimensional reasons. In the $\ov{MS}$ renormalization scheme we simply discard $1/\hat\epsilon$ and obtain the finite result immediately by integrating Eq. , where we have defined a field-dependent mass $m^2(\phi)\equiv{1\over2}\lambda\phi^2$ to make the connection with Eq. more apparent. The arbitrary scale $Q$ appearing in $V^{(1)}$ can be specified in connection with physically measured (or ‘renormalized’) quantities. One usually sets $\partial^2 V_1/
\partial\phi^2=0$ to preserve the ‘masslessness’ of the theory and $\partial^4 V_1/\partial\phi^4 (\phi=M)=\lambda_R$. The latter relation implies that the quartic coupling takes the value $\lambda_R$ at scale $Q=M$. In this case one gets and Alternatively, one may just leave $Q$ unspecified as in Eq. . This is much more convenient in complicated theories (like the MSSM) but has the drawback that it does not involve true physical parameters measured at a specific scale. Until the sparticle spectrum is detected, high accuracy predictions are not required (unlike , the electroweak sector in the SM), and this approximation is perfectly adequate.
The calculation of $V^{(1)}$ sketched above can be easily generalized to gauge theories with fermions . The final result for the one-loop contribution to the effective potential is as given in Eq. with $V^{(1)}=\Delta V$. We should remark that this result has been obtained in the convenient Landau gauge (and using the $\ov{DR}$ renormalization scheme , , the supersymmetry-preserving counterpart of the usual $\ov{MS}$ scheme wherein dimensional regularization is replaced by dimensional reduction) and is otherwise gauge dependent . However, physical quantities extracted from $V^{(1)}$ should be gauge independent. This was explicitly verified to one-loop in one example in Ref. and shown generally to hold to all orders in perturbation theory in Ref. . Therefore the Landau gauge choice is as good as any other one. In perturbative expansions involving the renormalization group, it is well known that cancellation of the $Q$-dependence takes place across different orders. For example, the tree-level QCD cross section for jet production is highly $Q$-dependent, whereas the one-loop corrected expression is $Q$-independent up to two-loop effects. We now study the analogous effect for the scalar Higgs potential. It is instructive to study a particularly simple field theory in detail to see in what sense and to what degree of approximation is $V_1=V^{(0)}+V^{(1)}$ $Q$-independent. A calculation analogous to the one sketched above gives for the massive $\lambda\phi^4$ theory with $m^2(\phi)\equiv\mu^2+{1\over2}\lambda\phi^2$. To study the $Q$-dependence of $V_1$ we take the total derivative $dV_1/dt$ and make use of the one-loop RGEs $d\lambda/dt=3\lambda^2/(4\pi)^2$, $d\mu^2/dt=\mu^2\lambda/(4\pi)^2$, and $d\phi/dt=0$, to obtain where $\rm ``two-loop"$ denotes contributions where the derivative has acted on pieces in $V^{(1)}$ other than $\ln Q^2$. Using the RGEs one can easily see that these pieces are of higher order (, $\propto1/(4\pi)^4$ as opposed to $\propto1/(4\pi)^2$) and will be cancelled by two-loop contributions in $V^{(2)}$. Equation indicates that $V_1$ does [*not*]{} obey the RGE $dV_1/dt=0$ in one-loop approximation. This problem can be easily traced back to the constant piece $V_1(Q,0)=V^{(1)}(Q,0)$ which may be subtracted from $V_1$ such that $$\eqalignno{\wt V_1(Q,\phi)&\equiv V_1(Q,\phi)-V_1(Q,0)&\IX a\cr
&=V^{(0)}(\phi)+V^{(1)}(Q,\phi)-V^{(1)}(Q,0),&\IX b\cr}$$ satisfies $\widetilde V_1(Q,0)=0$. Indeed, in this case $V_1(Q,0)=\mu^4/(64\pi^2)[\ln(\mu^2/Q^2)-3/2]$ and such that $d\wt V_1/dt=0+``{\rm two-loop}"$ obeys the one-loop RGE as it should. The above prescription (Eq. ) can be justified in several ways (see also the recent discussion in Ref. ). First of all, from the practical point of view, adding a field-independent piece to $V$ is perfectly harmless in problems where only field derivatives of $V$ are of interest. From the requirement of renormalizability we know that the all-orders solution to the RGE $dV/dt=0$ must resemble $V^{(0)}$ but with suitably modified coefficients and wave-function renormalizations, and this expression clearly vanishes at the origin of field space. Yet another way of seeing this is in the $\ov{MS}$ cancellation of infinities process. The counterterms $\propto\phi^2/\hat\epsilon$ and $\propto\phi^4/\hat\epsilon$ that need to be added to the Lagrangian will not absorb the $\propto\mu^4/\hat\epsilon$ divergence (see , Eq. with $1/\hat\epsilon$ added inside the square brackets) and one is forced to add a ‘constant’ counterterm $\propto1/\hat\epsilon$ to remove it. This occurs naturally for $\wt V_1$. In the context of supersymmetric theories, the fact that $V(0)=0$ to all orders is equivalent to the statement that unbroken (global) supersymmetry at tree-level cannot be broken by radiative corrections.
Does this ‘subtraction’ procedure survive higher-loop corrections? To study this question we consider the two-loop effective potential $V_2=V^{(0)}
+V^{(1)}+V^{(2)}$, with $V^{(2)}$ given by $$\eqalignno{V^{(2)}={1\over(4\pi)^4}\Biggl\{
&4\lambda m^4\left[\coeff{1}{32}\ln^2{m^2\over Q^2}
-\coeff{1}{16}\ln{m^2\over Q^2}+a_{200}\right]\cr
&+2\lambda^2\phi^2m^2\left[\coeff{1}{16}\ln^2{m^2\over Q^2}
-\coeff{1}{4}\ln{m^2\over Q^2}+a_{210}\right]\Biggr\},&\XI{}\cr}$$ where $m^2\equiv \mu^2+{\lambda\over2}\phi^2$ and $a_{200},a_{210}$ are some numerical coefficients. We also use the following two-loop expressions for the relevant RGEs $$\eqalignno{{d\lambda\over dt}&={3\lambda^2\over(4\pi)^2}
-{(17/3)\lambda^3\over(4\pi)^4},&\XII a\cr
{1\over\mu^2}{d\mu^2\over dt}&={\lambda\over(4\pi)^2}
-{(5/6)\lambda^2\over(4\pi)^4},&\XII b\cr
{1\over\phi}{d\phi\over dt}&=-{(1/12)\lambda^2\over(4\pi)^4}.&\XII c\cr}$$ After some straightforward algebraic manipulations and keeping only terms up to two-loop order we obtain $$\eqalignno{
{dV^{(0)}\over dt}&={m^4\over2(4\pi)^2}-{\mu^4\over2(4\pi)^2}
-{\lambda^2\phi^2 m^2\over2(4\pi)^4},&\derivs a\cr
{dV^{(1)}\over dt}&=-{m^4\over2(4\pi)^2}
+{\lambda m^2\over2(4\pi)^4}(m^2+\lambda\phi^2)
\left(\ln{m^2\over Q^2}-1\right),&\derivs b\cr
{dV^{(2)}\over dt}&=-{\lambda m^2\over2(4\pi)^4}(m^2+\lambda\phi^2)
\left(\ln{m^2\over Q^2}-1\right)
+{\lambda^2\phi^2 m^2\over2(4\pi)^4},&\derivs c\cr}$$ and therefore That is, the one-loop subtraction in Eq. is still needed at two-loops as anticipated. However, an analogous two-loop subtraction is not necessary since the field-independent pieces in $dV^{(1)}/dt$ and $dV^{(2)}/dt$ ($\propto\lambda\mu^4(\ln\mu^2/Q^2-1)/(4\pi)^4$) cancel among themselves. This is a rather interesting result which may be not that surprising if one realizes that in the cancellations of the field-independent pieces in $dV^{(n)}/dt$ and $dV^{(n+1)}/dt$, there is a mismatch for $n=0$ since $dV^{(0)}/dt$ has no field-independent piece. It is not clear to us whether this phenomenon persists at higher orders or in more complicated theories.
We now consider the case of the MSSM (our unification constraints do not affect the present discussion). Analogous to the massive $\lambda\phi^4$ theory, we define a potential $\wt V_1=V_0+\Delta V-\Delta V(0)$ for the MSSM using Eqs. and . It is then not hard to see that the $Q$-dependence of $\wt V_1$ can be studied to one-loop order from the following expression where $h_{1,2}\equiv {\rm Re}\,H^0_{1,2}$. This equation evidences the fact that it is the ${\rm STr}{\cal M}^4$ term in $\Delta V$ which cancels the running with $Q$ of the parameters in $V_0$. It is also clear that an incomplete set of contributions to the supertrace will make for an ‘incomplete’ $Q$-independence of $\wt V_1$. Below we quantify this statement, but first we consider a particularly simple limit of the MSSM where the derivative in Eq. can be carried out explicitly, and justifies our use of the subtracted one-loop potential.
Let us take the limit of vanishing gauge couplings and $\mu=A_{t,b,\tau}=
\lambda_{b,\tau}=0$ (see Ref. ). This allows us to set $v_1=0$ and the tree-level potential reduces to $V_0=m^2_{H_2}h^2_2$. The relevant RGEs for the left-over tree-level parameters are $$\eqalignno{
{dm^2_{H_2}\over dt}&={3\over8\pi^2}\lambda^2_t(2m^2_{\tilde q}+m^2_{H_2}),
&\XV a\cr
{dh^2_2\over dt}&=-{3h^2_2\over8\pi^2}\lambda^2_t,&\XV b\cr}$$ once we take all squark mass parameters degenerate ($m_Q=m_{U^c}=\cdots=m_{\tilde q}$). Therefore (Note the role played in the result by the often-neglected ‘vev running’.) With our approximations only the top-stop contribution ($m^2_t=\lambda^2_t h^2_2,\ m^2_{\tilde t}=m^2_{\tilde q}+\lambda^2_t h^2_2$) to Eq. survives, since any field-independent contribution is subtracted out and with vanishing gauge couplings this is the case for the gauge/gaugino and Higgs/Higgsino sectors. We then get Substituting Eqs. and into finally gives $d\wt V_1/dt=0$ as expected. Note that had we not used the subtracted one-loop potential we would have obtained $d\wt V_1/dt=-3m^4_{\tilde q}/8\pi^2$, , a huge $Q$-dependence (see below).
Let us now take a more quantitative look at the $Q$-dependence of the various approximations to the effective potential. To this end we expand $V_0$ and $\wt V_1$ around $t=0$ ($t\equiv\ln(Q/M_Z)$), as follows and with To one-loop order we only need to include in $\Delta V(t,\phi)$ the tree-level masses evaluated at $t=0$ ($Q=M_Z$). In we plot the the tree-level ($V_0$) and one-loop ($\wt V_1$) Higgs potentials (following a numerical procedure described in Sec. 2.3) as a function of $t=\ln(Q/M_Z)$ for a particular point in parameter space (with $m_t=100\GeV$, $\tan\beta=3$, $m_{1/2}=150\GeV$, $m_0=A=0$, $\mu>0$). (Note the large $t$-dependence of the unsubtracted one-loop effective potential $V_1$, as anticipated.) In calculating ${\rm Str}{\cal M}^{2,4}$ we have included the [*full*]{} spectrum. The curves shown are well fit by third-degree polynomials in $t$, as follows $$\eqalignno{
a_0&=-0.0795,\quad a_1=0.2751,\quad a_2=-0.0315,\quad a_3=0.0027,&\XXI a\cr
b_0&=-0.0895,\quad b_1=-0.0007,\quad b_2=-0.0322,\quad b_3=0.0027.&\XXI b\cr}$$ (The non-vanishing $a_{2,3}$ coefficients are due to higher-order effects in the running of the parameters in $V_0$ (since the RGEs are solved numerically) and are small relative to the linear term.) The expected result is evident: $|b_1/a_1|=0.0025=1/400$, that is, $\wt V_1$ is $Q$-independent to one-loop order (, ‘flat’ at $t=0$). It is important to realize that the only test of the calculation is $b_1/a_1\ll 1$, since $b_{2,3}$ are subject to two- and higher-loop corrections.
To study the relative importance of the various contributions to ${\rm STr}{\cal M}^4$ in Eq. , in we show the linear (in $t$) contributions to $V_0$, and to $\wt V_1$ in two steps: (a) only $t,\tilde t,b,\tilde b$, and (b) all contributions. The corresponding coefficients are which give $|b_1^{(a,b)}/a_1|\sim 1/12,1/400$, showing an explicit convergence to the correct result. It is clear that the “dominant" contributions to $\Delta V$ (, $t,\tilde t,b,\tilde b$) are indeed the largest ones. However, shows that these may not be enough in applications where the $Q$-independence of the one-loop potential over a several hundred GeV range is essential.
Let us now comment on what happens if we allow the masses that enter into $\Delta V(t,\phi)$ to run with $t$. To this end we rewrite $\Delta V(t,\phi)$ as follows The leading-log piece ($\propto t$) displays the expected one-loop $t$-dependence. However, the non-leading-log residue also has a linear term in $t$ which is of two-loop order (, $\propto1/(4\pi)^4$) and which therefore spoils the vanishing of the linear term in the potential. The magnitude of this effect is shown in as the $\wt V'_1$ line, which clearly deviates from the $\wt V_1\,({\rm full})$ line. Note that the potential is formally $Q$-independent to one-loop no matter where the masses in the supertrace are renormalized. However, only when these masses are renormalized at $t=0$ do the two-loop subleading-log terms and the linear term in the potential vanish.
In sum, we have shown that the subtracted one-loop effective potential $\wt V_1$ is $Q$-independent to one-loop and should be used in calculations to this order. Explicit running of the parameters in $\Delta V$ leads to a residual $Q$-dependence due to the introduction of spurious two-loop contributions which affect the quadratic as well as the linear $t$-dependence of $\wt V_1$. Note however that two- and higher-loop effects (, the source for the curvature of $\wt V_1$ in ) increase logarithmically with $Q/M_Z$ and signal a progressive deterioration of the one-loop approximation. It is therefore not advisable to use $\wt V_1$ to study effects over scales greater than $1\TeV$. A renormalization-group-improved one-loop effective potential (wherein all powers of $t$ are summed up) would be the proper tool for this purpose.
In this section we discuss the numerical methods and assumptions used to explore the $Q$-(in)dependence of the tree-level and the one-loop Higgs potentials as well as the one-loop minimization. As we have demonstrated in the previous section, this procedure involves the following basic steps: (i) the full scalar field-dependent s/particle spectrum must be defined at a fixed scale, in order to calculate $\Delta V$ (see appendix for details), (ii) a particular choice in the scalar field space must be made in order to calculate $V_0,\wt V_1$, and (iii) the parameters and fields in $V_0$, namely $g_1(Q),g_2(Q),\mu(Q),B(Q),{m^2_{H_1}}(Q),{m^2_{H_2}}(Q),H_1(Q),H_2(Q)$ must be RG evolved to the new scale in question. As we have shown, the issue of $Q$-independence for $V_1$ thus becomes a numerical test as to whether the implicit leading-log corrections to the tree-level parameters conspire to cancel the explicit leading-log $Q$-dependence in $\Delta V$ (Eqn. ).
For step (i), in order to solve for the ‘physical’ theory at a fixed scale $Q=M_Z$ and define $\Delta V$, we begin by making a choice for the initial set of independent parameters and integrate the RGEs to this scale. In order to calculate $\Delta V$, the complete scalar field-dependent s/particle spectrum must be defined. We then minimize the tree-level or one-loop potential to obtain a consistent, complete set of parameters that represents the ground state of the theory. One option would be to choose $\mu,B,m_0,m_{1/2},\lambda_t$ at $M_U$, evolve to $Q=M_Z$ and then minimize $V_1(M_Z)$ or $V_0(M_Z)$ to determine $v_1(M_Z),v_2(M_Z)$. From the experimental constraints for $M_W,M_Z$, the original set of high-energy parameters are either allowed or ruled out. While this approach involves the ‘direct’ calculation of $v_1(M_Z),v_2(M_Z)$, the original parameter space is at $M_U$, and the connection to low-energy physics which include the constraints for $m_b,m_\tau$ must be done via an iterative procedure.
Our calculational procedure for minimization of the one-loop potential is quite different. For a given point in the five-dimensional parameter space $m_t(m_t)$, $\tan\beta(M_Z)$, $m_{1/2}$, $m_0$, $A$ we begin by integrating the RGEs for the gauge and Yukawa couplings up to $Q=M_U$ in order to specify the complete set of boundary conditions at this scale. We then evolve back down to $Q=M_Z$ but this time including the RGEs for the scalar masses as well. The feasibility of this approach relies on the basic fact that the values of $\mu,B$ decouple from the full set of RGEs. Thus, initial specification of $\mu(M_U),B(M_U)$ is not required. Now armed with a set of low-energy parameters (except for $\mu,B$, for which we must make an initial guess), we can calculate the s/particle spectrum which enters into the supertrace in $\Delta V$. We then solve for $\mu(M_Z)$ and $B(M_Z)$ via the minimization conditions for the one-loop scalar potential. Specifically, we numerically determine the values of $\mu$ and $B$ which solve the following conditions $${\left({\partial V\over \partial \phi_i}\right)_{\vev{\phi_3}=v_1,
\vev{\phi_7}=v_2,\vev{\phi_{1,2,4,5,6,8}}=0}=0,}$$ where $V=V(v_1,v_2,\mu,B,m_{1/2},m_0,A,m_t)$ is the scalar potential (tree-level or one-loop), and the $\phi_i$ describe the eight real degrees of freedom of the two Higgs doublets (in the notation of Ref. ). At tree-level $V=V_0$ and the conditions above can be solved analytically for $\mu$ and $B$ (see Eqn. ). For the one-loop potential, we employ a two-dimensional Newton method which quickly locates the extremal values for $\mu,B$. We begin by making a guess for $\mu,B$ values, and then allow the system to self-consistently relax to the extremum $\mu,B$ values. Note that since we have demonstrated the one-loop $Q$-independence of $\wt V_1(Q)$, this implies that if we were to minimize $\tilde V_1(Q)$ for $Q\not=M_Z$, the values of $\mu(Q)$ and $B(Q)$ would just be the one-loop RG-evolved $\mu(M_Z)$ and $B(M_Z)$ obtained by minimizing $\wt V_1(M_Z)$. We can thus [*derive*]{} the boundary conditions for $\mu,B$ at any scale; we conveniently choose $Q=M_Z$ such that $M_Z^2={1\over2}(g_2^2(M_Z)+g'^2(M_Z))(v_1^2(M_Z)+v_2^2(M_Z))$ corresponds to the physical $Z$ mass.
In principle, there could be more than one point in the $\mu,B$ parameter space which is consistent with the above conditions. We have searched the $\mu,B$ parameter space via a Monte Carlo analysis and find, however that in all cases considered, there is only [*one*]{} allowed point for $\mu,B$. This simplifies the search of the parameter space enormously.
As for step (ii), to evaluate the value of the potential itself, the discussion above makes clear the natural choice for the configuration of the scalar field space: the minimum of the potential at $Q=M_Z$. In general, it is not necessary nor essential to choose the minimization configuration; due to the non-negligible two-loop effects that we have described in Sec. 2.2, it is likely that this initial choice in field space will no longer represent the minimum for $Q>M_Z$ anyhow. Finally, regarding the tree-level parameters in step (iii), we simply evolve the $Q$-dependent parameters $g_1,g_2,\mu,B,{m_{H_1}}^2,{m_{H_2}}^2,v_1,v_2$ from $M_Z$ to variable $Q$, using the standard one-loop RGEs. These running parameters contribute to the implicit $Q$-dependence of $\wt V_1$ and appear solely in $V_0$.
Even though supersymmetric theories technically solve the gauge hierarchy problem, it is well known that this problem may be re-introduced in a different guise if the splitting of the supersymmetric multiplets exceeds ${\cal O}(1\TeV)$. A quantification of this ‘fine-tuning’ effect was proposed in Ref. and later elaborated on in Ref. . The purpose of this section is to explore, in the light of our own approach, the consequences of the proposed “naturalness" cut on the parameter space. The basic idea can be easily grasped by studying Eqn. , which we trivially rewrite as follows Clearly, for increasingly larger values of the dimensionful supersymmetry breaking parameters, the renormalization-group evolved mass $m^2_{H_{1}}$ tends to increase, forcing $\mu^2$ to larger values as well. It can also happen that the value of $m_t$ is fine-tuned such that $\mu$ remains small even if $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ grow large. Therefore, the measured value of $M_Z$ becomes the result of increasingly more “fine-tuned" cancellations among the supersymmetric masses.
Before proceeding to the specifics, we would like to point out a difference between our approach and the standard one to the exploration of the parameter space in this class of models. This difference is in the treatment of the variables $\mu$ and $m_t$. We take $m_t$ as an input and obtain $\mu^2$ (which is related to $\mu_0=\mu(M_U)$ via RG-evolution) directly using Eqn. . In the standard approach on the other hand, one gives $\mu_0\leftrightarrow\mu$ and uses Eqn. as a [*constraint*]{} to determine $m_t$ implicitly. The implied numerical inversion becomes harder (, more time-consuming) as the fine-tuning (, $m_{1/2}$) grows. For example, to obtain $\mu^2+{1\over2}M^2_Z$ with a relative accuracy of 0.001 (for $\mu=150\GeV$, $m_0=m_{1/2}$, $A=0$, $\tan\beta=5$) one needs to solve for $m_t$ to the first/second/third decimal place for $m_{1/2}=150/300/600\GeV$ (one obtains: $m_t=120.8/97.45/91.061\GeV$). A variant of the standard approach, wherein $m_t$ and $\mu$ are given as inputs and $m_0$ is solved for using Eq. , has an analogous problem involving the determination of $m_0$. The usual definition of the fine-tuning parameters $c_i$ is given by where the $a_i$ are the relevant parameters of the theory. It is then argued that if $c_i<\Delta$, then cancellations among the parameters of at most $\log(\Delta)$–orders of magnitude occur. The various expressions for the $c_i$ scale with $(m_{1/2}/M_Z)^2$ and therefore we define scaled coefficients $\hat c_i\equiv c_i/(m_{1/2}/M_Z)^2$, and obtain (with $\wh M_Z\equiv M_Z/m_{1/2}$ and $\xi_0\equiv m_0/m_{1/2}$) $$\eqalignno{
\hat c_\mu&=2\mu^2/m^2_{1/2}
=2(X_{1/2}+X_0\xi^2_0-\coeff{1}{2}\wh M^2_Z),&\FTiii a\cr
\hat c_t&=2m^2_t\left|{\partial X_0\over\partial m^2_t}\xi^2_0
+{\partial X_{1/2}\over\partial m^2_t}\right|,&\FTiii b\cr
\hat c_{1/2}&=2\left|X_{1/2}\right|,&\FTiii c\cr
\hat c_0&=2\left|X_0\right|\xi^2_0.&\FTiii d\cr}$$ The important point is that since the $\hat c_i$ scale with $m^2_{1/2}$, then an upper bound on $m_{1/2}$ (for a given $\xi_0$) results for a given choice of $\Delta$, , $m_{1/2}<m^{max}_{1/2}(\xi_0,\Delta)$, and these bounds scale with $\sqrt{\Delta}$.
To facilitate the subsequent discussion, we now give analytical expressions for the quantities $X_0,X_{1/2}$ which are valid in the limit of vanishing $\lambda_b,\lambda_\tau$, or equivalently for not too large $\tan\beta$ (, $\tan\beta<8$ ) $$\eqalignno{
X_0&=-1+\coeff{3}{2}{\tan^2\beta+1\over\tan^2\beta-1}
\left({m_t\over m^0_t}\right)^2,&\FTiv a\cr
X_{1/2}&=-K_l+{\tan^2\beta+1\over\tan^2\beta-1}\left({m_t\over m^0_t}\right)^2
\left\{a+\coeff{1}{2}(b-\xi_A)^2-\coeff{1}{2}(b-\xi_A)^2
\left({m_t\over m^0_t}\right)^2(1+\tan^{-2}\beta)\right\},\cr
&&\FTiv b\cr}$$ where $\xi_A\equiv A/m_{1/2}$, $m^0_t=192\GeV$, and $K_l,a,b$ are some (positive) numerical coefficients.
The simplest fine-tuning parameter is $\hat c_\mu$, which basically imposes an upper bound on $\mu$, However, since in our approach $\mu$ is a derived quantity, the constraints on the parameters of the theory are less transparent. In we show $\hat c_\mu$ (calculated exactly and for $\tan\beta=5$) as a function of $\xi_0$ (for $\xi_A=0$) and for three values of $m_t$. From Eq. we see that $X_0$ has a zero at $m_t\approx151\GeV$ (for $\tan\beta=5$) and therefore $\hat c_\mu$ will be quadratic in $\xi_0$ but with negative (positive) curvature for $m_t<151\GeV$ ($m_t>151\GeV$), as observed in the figure. The magnitude of the curvature grows with $m_t$, also as anticipated. In we show the case where $\xi_A=\xi_0$, which has a similar behavior, although the zero of $X_0$ is not the relevant turning point anymore since $X_{1/2}$ also depends on $\xi_0$ through $\xi_A$.
From the expression for $\hat c_\mu$ one can see that if $X_0=0$, then even though $m_{1/2}$ would still need to be bounded above, $m_0$ would not. Analogously, if $X_{1/2}=0$, then $m_{1/2}$ could grow indefinitely without affecting $c_\mu$. These peculiar points in parameter space are isolated and are not stable in perturbation theory. Moreover, in the second instance, they correspond to small values of $\mu$ which are excluded on phenomenological grounds. In the figures, the first case is seen to occur in the $m_t=150\GeV$ curve in , whereas the second case is approached by the $\xi_0=\xi_A\approx7$ point on the $m_t=145\GeV$ curve in .
The $\hat c_t$ fine-tuning coefficient is shown in in analogy to . Large values of this coefficient correspond to instances in which $m_t$ is fine-tuned to give small values of $\mu$ in Eq. , even though $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ grow large. This coefficient gives qualitatively similar constraints since it is also quadratic in $\xi_0$. From the approximate expression for $X_0$ one can easily show that $m^2_t\partial X_0/\partial m^2_t=X_0+1>0$, and therefore we expect $\hat c_t$ to grow with $\xi^2_0$ for all allowed values of $m_t$, and also $\hat c_t>\hat c_\mu$. These facts are evident in the figures.
The effect of the $\hat c_{1/2}$ coefficient can be studied from $\hat c_\mu$ by setting $\xi_0=0$ ([*c.f.*]{} Eqs. ). As seen from (for $\xi_0=0$), $\hat c_{1/2}$ depends very weakly on $m_t$ and therefore gives a direct upper bound on $m_{1/2}$, independently of $\xi_0,\xi_A$, although this bound is not as strong as the ones obtained from $\hat c_{\mu},\hat c_t$. Finally, the $\hat c_0$ coefficient has the same $\xi_0$ dependence as does $\hat
c_\mu$, although its magnitude is shifted down by $X_{1/2}$. It is not our intention to quote concrete upper bounds on the various parameters in the model, since these would depend on the chosen value for the cutoff $\Delta$ (although these bounds would scale with $\sqrt{\Delta}$). For example, from Eq. taking $\Delta=10$ (as done in previous analyses ) gives $|\mu|\lsim200\GeV$, and $|\mu|/M_Z\lsim2.2$. This bound appears unnecessarily stringent. A more reasonable cutoff of $|\mu|\lsim450\,(650)\GeV$ is obtained for $\Delta=50\,(100)$. It is also not clear to us whether the above definition of the $c_i$ is the only possible one, or rather whether alternative definitions would yield quantitatively similar results (qualitatively they must all agree). Our purpose here is to determine whether the values of $m_{1/2},\xi_0,\xi_A$ which we will examine later give values of the $c_i$ below a ‘reasonable’ cutoff of say $\Delta=50-100$. In general we have $m_{1/2}<\sqrt{\Delta/\hat c_{\mu,t}}\,M_Z$. From the figures it is clear that for $\xi_0\lsim1$ one gets $\hat c_{\mu,t}\approx3-6$, and therefore $m_{1/2}\lsim370-265\,(525-370)$ for $\Delta=50\,(100)$. These estimates hold for $\tan\beta=5$ and decrease with decreasing $\tan\beta$: for $\tan\beta=2$, $\hat c_\mu(\xi_0\lsim1)\approx9$, $m_{1/2}\lsim220\,(310)\GeV$ for $\Delta=50\,(100)$. Larger values of $\xi_0$ strengthen these bounds rapidly. We thus see that if we restrict $m_{1/2}$ to $m_{1/2}\lsim400\GeV$ or equivalently $m_{\tilde g}\lsim1\TeV$ (and take $\xi_0\lsim1$) then the resulting class of models will presumably remain in the reasonable fine-tuning regime. Since the squark masses can be approximated by $m^2_{\tilde q}=
m^2_{1/2}(c+\xi^2_0)$, with $c\approx6$, we also see that $m_{\tilde q}\lsim
1\TeV$.
Even though these fine-tuning “bounds" on $m_{1/2}$ and $\xi_0$ are not very precise and in fact do not necessarily have to hold in the real world, it is useful to have an estimate of where things start to become “un-natural".
For the purposes of this paper we will consider two $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times
U(1)$ supersymmetric models. The first is the supersymmetric Standard Model (SSM) with the minimal three generations and two Higgs doublets of matter representations, and which is assumed to unify into a larger gauge group at a unification mass of $M_U\approx10^{16}\GeV$. The second is the String-Inspired Standard Model (SISM) with additional vector-like $Q$ and $D^c$ matter representations with masses set to obtain $\sin^2\theta_w=0.233$ and a string unification scale of $M_U=10^{18}\GeV$.
However, it is widely believed that there must be more than this to nature, in particular grand-unification and string unification. Surprisingly, many grand unified and string models can reduce (below the unification scale) to the SSM or SISM with a few minor alterations. Thus these simpler models can give a good first approximation for the low-energy predictions of more realistic models, and provide the groundwork upon which the extra details of more complicated models may be added.
Take for example minimal supersymmetric $SU(5)$. After the GUT is broken, the light content of the model is exactly that of the SSM. Probably the most important difference are the dimension-five proton-decay-mediating operators resulting from integrating out heavy GUT Higgs triplet fields of mass $M_H$. The presence of these operators imposes strong constraints on the parameters of the model . Indeed, in Ref. it is shown that the current experimental lower bound on the decay mode $p\to\bar\nu K^+$ can be transformed into an upper bound on a quantity $P$ (called $B$ in Ref. ) which encompasses the sparticle mass dependences of the decay width ($\tau\propto1/P^2$). These authors find $P<(103\pm15)(M_H/M_U)$. The function $P$ is complicated but it is argued to be reduced by small gluino masses and large scalar masses, , by large values of $\xi_0$. It also has the following explicit dependence on $\tan\beta$, $P\propto(1+\tan^2\beta)/\tan\beta$, which then reduces $P$ for small values of $\tan\beta$. How large does $\xi_0$ need to be to obtain acceptable proton decay rates? In Table I we show the values of the fine-tuning coefficients $c_\mu$ and $c_t$ which follow from the choices made in fig. 2 of Ref. for the model parameters ($\tan\beta=1.73$, $m_t=125\GeV$, $\mu>0$, and $A_t=-0.6m_0$). The minimum values of $\xi_0$ are those required to obtain a value of $P$ equal to its experimental upper bound and with the assumption $M_H=3M_U$. We see that the fine-tuning coefficient $c_t$ exceeds $\Delta=100$ in all cases and therefore compatibility with proton decay experiments drives the minimal model into the fine-tuned regime. This was also observed in Ref. . Our point here is to be more quantitative in the light of our own studies of the fine-tuning constraint. Note that increasing the value of $\tan\beta$ increases $P$ and therefore makes the experimental bound harder to satisfy. Note also that had we chosen $M_H=M_U$ instead, then the minimum $\xi_0$ values get increased significantly (refer to Table I): for $m_{1/2}=74\,(122)\GeV$, $\xi^{min}_0$ goes from $8.1\,(6.5)$ to $16.2\,(11.5)$ and $c_t$ from $113\,(204)$ to $432\,(603)$.
Clearly, the minimal SU(5) supergravity GUT is a rather constrained model, which may not survive proton decay bounds if the fine-tuning constraints hold at face value. Therefore, the SSM is probably best thought of as the low-energy limit of a unified model where the strict proton decay constraints are naturally avoided. One strategy to remedy the ailments of the minimal $SU(5)$ model is to change the gauge group to flipped $SU(5)$ . After GUT breaking, the resulting effective theory is the SSM with the Higgs mixing term $\mu\bar h h$ provided elegantly by the superpotential terms $\lambda_7\bar h h\phi+\lambda_8\phi^3$ involving a singlet field . This is qualitatively the same as the usual Higgs mixing term once the singlet gets a vev. However, there is a crucial difference relative to the minimal $SU(5)$ model since now the Higgs triplet mixing term ($\propto\vev{\phi}$) is naturally of ${\cal O}(M_W)$ and leads to a suppression of the dangerous dimension-five proton decay operators of ${\cal O}(M_W/M_U)$ relative to the minimal $SU(5)$ case, thus making these operators innocuous . Quantitatively, there are differences in the two models, though the dimension of the solution space is the same. The tree-level case may be solved by noting that the dimensionful parameters in the tree-level potential scale with $m_{1/2}$, allowing one to minimize a dimensionless potential and then fix $m_{1/2}$ from the measured value of $M_Z$ . This approach does not work in the one-loop case because the spectrum does not scale with $m_{1/2}$, and $\lambda_7$ and $\lambda_8$, unlike $\mu$ and $B$, feed into the other RGEs. Solving the one-loop problem requires a search over parameters at the unification scale for the subspace which gives the correct $M_Z$, the needle in the haystack approach. In string-derived flipped models, the role of the singlet vev is played by a hidden sector condensate in a non-renormalizable superpotential term which effectively reproduces the usual Higgs mixing term in the SSM .
Another possibility is that there is no GUT. The requirement of gauge coupling unification when there is no GUT is unmotivated in field theory but completely natural in string theory, and models exist in which the string directly gives rise to the Standard Model gauge group . String models predict a unification scale of about $10^{18}\GeV$ and usually contain several extra vector-like matter representations. This motivates the SISM, in which the extra vector masses are choosen so that gauge unification scale gives the required $10^{18}\GeV$ result . Among the many possible sets of extra vector representations which might arise from the string and realize the correct unification scale, we have choosen the unique minimal set for the SISM to analyze in this work. These are an extra vector-like quark doublet with mass $m_Q\approx3\times10^{12}\GeV$ and an extra vector-like charge $-1/3$ quark singlet with mass $m_{D^c}\approx
3\times10^5\GeV$ .
One concern is that the effective SSM or SISM from more complicated models might not result in universal soft supersymmetry breaking. If the minimal $SU(5)$ model had universal soft supersymmetry breaking at a scale much larger than the GUT scale, differences in the supersymmetry breaking masses between the and representations would develop.
In the flipped model, however, it can be shown that the onset of supersymmetry breaking, the $SU(5)\times U(1)$ and the $SU(5)\times U(1)\to SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ scales must be within about an order of magnitude of each other , and that the modifications of universal soft supersymmetry breaking in the resulting SSM are therefore small, in accordance also with the natural absence of dangerous flavor-changing neutral currents (FCNC) which are endemic in supersymmetric theories . Coupling constant unification and the experimental bounds on the low-energy gauge couplings require that the two gauge unification scales in the flipped model be almost identical . The GUT breaking is along a flat direction in the absence of supersymmetry breaking of the potential which develops a minimum upon the introduction of soft supersymmetry breaking terms. Dynamical calculations result in a GUT scale which is just slightly below the scale where supersymmetry breaking is introduced .
In summary, the simple SSM and SISM models not only have the advantage of ignoring the complicated and model-dependent details of more realistic GUT and string models, but also capture the essence of many of these more realistic models as these extra details, in many cases, are irrelevent or give small corrections to the results of the simpler models.
We now present the several consistency and experimental constraints on this class of models and later discuss how they restrict the allowed parameter space. [1. Consistency constraints]{}(i) Perturbative unification: the values of the $t,b$, and $\tau$ Yukawa couplings should remain in the perturbative regime (and certainly finite) all the way up to $M_U$. Tree-level partial wave unitarity is violated if these couplings exceed $\lambda\approx5$ at any scale . We apply these relations at $M_U$ where they are most constraining. At low energies these upper bounds on the Yukawa couplings get transmuted into upper bounds on $m_t$ and $\tan\beta$ as follows, for $\alpha_3=0.113\pm0.004$, and for $m_b(m_b)=4.9\mp0.1\GeV$. Since dynamically one gets $\tan\beta>1$ (see below) and experimentally $m_t>90\GeV$, we get a completely bounded region in the $(m_t,\tan\beta)$ plane. (ii) Electroweak breaking: as discussed in Sec. 2.3, we solve for $\mu$ and $B$ using the one-loop effective potential. This implies that the set of subsidiary conditions which are usually imposed to obtain a good minimum of the tree-level potential (, boundedness, stability, and avoidance of electric charge and color breaking minima) are automatically satisfied by the one-loop potential and do not need to be (and have not been) imposed. It is however necessary to demand boundedness of the potential at the unification scale, , We also demand that all squared squark, slepton, and Higgs masses be positive. In particular, this must hold for the pseudoscalar Higgs mass, $m^2_A>0$. At tree-level $m^2_A=-2B\mu/\sin2\beta$ and therefore $(B\mu)_{tree}<0$. However, this does not necessarily hold at one-loop since there are additional contributions to $m^2_A$ which allow both signs of $(B\mu)_{loop}$. (iii) Cosmology: astrophysical considerations indicate that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) must be neutral and colorless . This leaves two candidates: the sneutrino and the lightest neutralino. As discussed in Ref. , in most of the parameter space it is the lightest neutralino which is the LSP, and is sensible to neglect the small regions of parameter space where the sneutrino is the LSP (, $m_{\tilde\nu}\approx
42-46\GeV$). In what follows we exclude points in parameter space where the lightest neutralino is not the LSP. (iv) Naturalness: as discussed in Sec. 3 to avoid re-introducing the fine-tuning problem, we require $m_{1/2}\lsim400\GeV$ (, $m_{\tilde g}
\lsim1\TeV$) and $\xi_0\lsim1$ (or more properly, $c_{\mu,t}\lsim100$). [2. Experimental constraints]{}We impose the following cuts on the sparticle masses and/or couplings:(i) The LEP lower bound on the chargino mass $m_{\chi^\pm}>45\GeV$ .(ii) The CDF lower bounds on the gluino ($m_{\tilde g}>150\GeV$) and the squark ($m_{\tilde q}>100 \GeV$) masses . These bounds are actually correlated and are subject to numerous assumptions. Fortunately, they are satisfied automatically in this class of models once the other constraints are imposed.(iii) The LEP lower bound on the charged slepton mass $m_{\tilde l}>43\GeV$ .(iv) The CDF lower bound on the top quark mass $m_t\gsim90\GeV$ . We do not expect a significant weakening of this SM bound due to potential non-SM top decay processes, since these are rather suppressed (, $t\to bH^+$, $m_{H^+}>M_W$, $t\to\tilde t_1\chi^0_1$, $m_{\tilde t_1}+m_{\chi^0_1}>72\GeV$ in this model).(v) The contributions to the invisible and new $Z$ widths from $Z$ decay into neutralino pairs, , $\Gamma(Z\to \chi^0_1\chi^0_1)<\Gamma^{inv}<18\MeV$ and $\Gamma(Z\to \chi^0_i\chi^0_j)<\Gamma^{new}<28\MeV$ ($i=j=1$ excluded) at 95% C.L. .(vi) The contribution to the invisible $Z$ width from $Z\to \tilde\nu\tilde{\bar\nu}$ for $m_{\tilde\nu}\le{1\over2}M_Z$, , $\Gamma(Z\to \tilde\nu\tilde{\bar\nu})<18\MeV$, since we expect the invisible decay mode $\tilde\nu\to\nu\chi^0_1$ to dominate in this $m_{\tilde\nu}$ range. For three degenerate sneutrinos, as is the case in the two models we consider, we get $m_{\tilde\nu}\gsim42\GeV$. Realistically this bound will be further pushed towards ${1\over2}M_Z$ since the $\Gamma(Z\to \chi^0_1\chi^0_1)$ also contributes to $\Gamma^{inv}$ in the same region of parameter space, thus possibly closing up the window for sneutrino LSP.(vii) The experimental constraints on the lighter Higgs bosons $h$ and $A$, as follows: we require $\Gamma(Z\rightarrow h Z^*
\rightarrow h \mu^+\mu^-)/\Gamma(Z\rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-)<5\times 10^{-5}$, and $\Gamma(Z\rightarrow h A)/\Gamma(Z\rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-)<0.11$; these values were obtained from a graphical fit to the experimental results . The Higgs boson masses have been calculated to one-loop accuracy as described in Ref. .
The consistency constraints described above allow us to obtain a bounded region in $(m_t,\tan\beta)$ space for all values of $m_{1/2},\xi_0,\xi_A$. These areas are further constrained by the phenomenological cuts given above. It is however more illuminating to understand the shape of the bounded region prior to these cuts. This is particularly simple in the tree-level case where $\mu$ and $B$ are obtained directly from Eqs. . In this case one has to demand two subsidiary conditions to ensure a good symmetry breaking minimum, namely that the tree-level potential be bounded from below and that it possesses a minimum away from the origin of field space, In the one-loop case $\mu$ and $B$ need to be solved for numerically and these conditions are enforced automatically . But then, when is an $(m_t,\tan\beta)$ point not allowed at one-loop? This happens when the search for a $\mu,B$ pair fails because $B$ is driven to very large values (, $\mu\to0$) or when an otherwise acceptable pair nevertheless gives $m^2_A<0$.
To illustrate our remarks, in and we show the resulting allowed regions for $\xi_0=0,1$ and $\xi_A=0$ for $m_{1/2}=150,250\GeV$ and both signs of $\mu$ for the SSM [*prior*]{} to the application of any phenomenological cuts. (The following discussion applies qualitatively to the SISM case also.) The solid (dashed) boundaries are those calculated using the tree-level (one-loop) potential. The dotted lines are one-loop contours of $\mu$ (for $\mu>0$ boundaries) and $B$ (for $\mu<0$ boundaries). The tree-level and one-loop boundaries have five distinct portions. These are most easily understood in tree-level approximation as follows:
[(i)]{}The top boundary: this is the positively sloped line restricting the values of $\tan\beta$. For points above this line ${\cal B}<0$. For points on or below this line we can use Eqs. to obtain Clearly since $m_{H_{1,2}}$ scale with $m_{1/2}$, for $m_{1/2}\gg M_Z$ an asymptotic state is obtained in which the explicit $M_Z$ dependence becomes irrelevant, whereas any finite value of $m_{1/2}$ helps drive ${\cal B}$ to negative values and therefore more restrictive top boundaries result, as the figures show. Note though that $m_{1/2}=250\GeV$ is already quite asymptotic. For what values of $m_t,\tan\beta$ is this constraint relevant (or where in the plane does this line lie)? Consider the following RGE where $F_{b,t}$ are linear combinations of squared supersymmetry breaking masses. At $M_U$, $m^2_{H_1}=m^2_{H_2}$ and $F_b=F_t$ and therefore for $\lambda_b<\lambda_t$, $m^2_{H_1}-m^2_{H_2}$ grows as $t$ decreases. One needs $\lambda_b\approx\lambda_t$ to turn this around and have $m^2_{H_1}-m^2_{H_2}
<0$ at $M_Z$, otherwise ${\cal B}>0$ automatically. From Eqs. and we get for $\tan\beta\gg1$, $\lambda_t\approx m_t/174$ and $\lambda_b\approx \tan\beta\,m_b(M_Z)/174$, where $m_b(M_Z)=3.77\GeV$ (for $m_b(m_b)=4.9\GeV$). Therefore the ${\cal B}\approx0$ line occurs for $\tan\beta\approx m_t/3.77$, as observed in the figures. This result is independent of $\xi_0,\xi_A$. For later reference, from Eqs. and it is easy to see that $m^2_A=-B\mu/\sin2\beta\approx0$ is equivalent to ${\cal B}\approx0$, , on the top boundary $m^2_A=0$.
[(ii)]{}The upper corner: the perturbative unification constraint in cuts off the growth of the top boundary. The rounded portion at the top and towards the side of increasing values of $m_t$ results from the strengthening of the perturbative cut on $\tan\beta$ due to the increasing value of $\lambda_t$ .
[(iii)]{}The right boundary: this originates from the perturbative cut on $m_t$ in Eq. . The curved portion for small $\tan\beta$ also follows from for the corresponding values of $\tan\beta$, , we get $m^{max}_t=135,171,181\GeV$ for $\tan\beta=1,2,3$.
[(iv)]{}The bottom boundary: From Eq. we see that if $\tan\beta<1$ then $\mu^2<0$ since $m^2_{H_1}-m^2_{H_2}>0$ for $\lambda_t\gg\lambda_b$, as is true for $\tan\beta\lsim1$ (see discussion following Eq. ). Therefore $\tan\beta\ge1$ always.
[(v)]{}The left boundary: $\mu>0$: points to the left of this line have $\mu^2<0$ at tree-level. From Eq. we have with $X_{0,1/2}$ given in Eqs. in the limiting case of small $\tan\beta$. For the values of $m_t$ where this boundary occurs, $X_0$ is negative (it turns positive for $m_t=97,121,140\GeV$ for $\tan\beta=1.5,2,3$) and therefore increasing $\xi_0$ tends to drive $\mu^2$ to negative values, unless this is compensated by an increase in $X_{1/2}$, , by increasing $m_t$. Therefore raising $\xi_0$ shifts the left boundary to the right, as shown in the figures. The effect of $\xi_A$ is less pronounced. For fixed $\xi_0$, Eq. shows that $\xi_A>0$ ($\xi_A<0$) decreases (increases) $X_{1/2}$ since $b>0$. That is, a larger (smaller) value of $m_t$ is needed to obtain the same $\mu^2$ and therefore $\xi_A>0$ ($\xi_A<0$) shifts the left boundary to the right (left). $\mu<0$: for $\xi_0\gsim0.1$ the same remarks as the $\mu>0$ case apply. For $\xi_0\lsim0.1$ a peculiarity occurs due to the boundedness at the unification scale constraint in Eq. . In this case ${\cal B}_0\approx2(\mu^2_0+B_0\mu_0)$ and for $\mu_0<0$ (and therefore $\mu<0$) too small values of $\mu$ can give ${\cal B}_0<0$. This results in the peculiar shape of the $\mu<0$ boundaries in . As seen from and , the one-loop minimization yields very similar boundary configurations. In fact, only the left and (to a lesser extent the) top boundaries show any shift relative to their tree-level counterparts, as easily inferred from the above discussion on the origins of the various portions of the boundaries. Just outside the left boundary one finds that $B$ is driven to very large values (, $\mu\to0$), and just outside the top boundary $m^2_A<0$. These are precisely the same conditions defining these boundaries at tree-level.
The shape of the $\mu$ contours can be deduced from Eq. , at least at tree-level and for small $\tan\beta$. For fixed $m_{1/2}$ and $\xi_0$, the value of $\mu$ becomes independent of $\tan\beta$ for large $\tan\beta$ (see Eq. ) and increases with $m_t$ (at least as long as $X_{1/2}$ dominates over $X_0\xi^2_0$). This behavior is indeed realized numerically. Surprisingly, it is found to persist for large values of $\tan\beta$ [*and*]{} at the one-loop level, as the figures show. In fact, for not too small values of $\tan\beta$, the tree-level contours have a ‘shadow’ one-loop contour running on top and viceversa. The relation between these contours is shown in Table II for the typical case of $\xi_0=\xi_A=0$ in . One can see that the shift in $\mu$ is largest for small $\mu$ and then asymptotes to a constant value which grows with $m_{1/2}$. (Similar results are obtained for the $\xi_0=1,\xi_A=0$ case in .)
In fact, the shift is [*maximum*]{} for $(m_t,\tan\beta)$ points on the one-loop left boundary, since there $\mu_{loop}=0$ by definition. This means that on that boundary the relative change in $\mu$ is $100\%$, and decreases as one moves away towards larger values of $m_t$. The fact that the one-loop corrected potential induces a $100\%$ shift on $\mu$ indicates that the underlying perturbative approach to the determination of $\mu$ breaks down in this region of parameter space. Fortunately, these points (where $\mu_{loop}\approx0$) are ruled out on phenomenological grounds: (i) for $\mu=0$ the LSP is a massless Higgsino state which gives $\Gamma(Z\to\chi\chi)=\Gamma(Z\to\nu\bar\nu)
[(\tan^2\beta-1)/(\tan^2\beta+1)]^2<18\MeV$ for $\tan\beta<1.4$ only; (ii) for larger values of $\mu$ (but still close to zero) the lightest chargino falls below the LEP lower bound. Therefore one does not have to worry too much about the possible effect of two- and higher-loop contributions to $\mu$.
The figures also show (although perhaps not very clearly) that the values of $\mu$ scale with $m_{1/2}$. At tree-level, the $-|\mu_{tree}|$ and $|\mu_{tree}|$ contours overlap in $(m_t,\tan\beta)$ space. Even though this is not supposed to be necessarily the case for their one-loop counterparts, our results indicate that this is very approximately the case too. Therefore, the $|\mu|$ contours on the $\mu>0$ boundaries in can be mapped onto the $\mu<0$ boundaries as $-|\mu|$ contours on the same positions in the $(m_t,\tan\beta)$ plane.
A similar analysis for the $B$ contours (shown at one-loop on the $\mu<0$ boundaries in ) reveals that ‘shadow’ contours exist only for the larger values of $B$. Note also that contrary to the tree-level case where $B_{tree}$ vanishes at the top boundary, $B_{loop}$ does not. This is because on the top boundary $m^2_A=0$ and $(m^2_A)_{tree}=-(B\mu)_{tree}/\sin2\beta=0$ for $B_{tree}=0$, whereas $(m^2_A)_{loop}=-(B\mu)_{loop}/\sin2\beta+\Delta
m^2_A
=0$ for $B_{loop}\not=0$. We have explored the five-dimensional parameter space by determining the slices in $(m_t,\tan\beta)$ which are allowed for both signs of $\mu$, $m_{1/2}=150,250\GeV$, and several choices of $\xi_0,\xi_A$, which respect the fine-tuning constraints. Here we have imposed all the phenomenological cuts discussed above (see ). (However, for clarity of presentation, in the figures we do not restrict the values of $m_t$.) These discrete choices for $m_{1/2},\xi_0,\xi_A$ represent a good sample of the full space and are enough to infer the shape of the $(m_t,\tan\beta)$ region for other values of the parameters.
The phenomenological cuts on the parameter space have various degrees of effectiveness. For $\xi_0\lsim0.1$ the neutral LSP cut is most constraining. This is because for increasing $m_{1/2}$ the LSP tends to become the lightest $\tilde\tau$ state. Indeed, since we have not neglected $\lambda_\tau$ in the calculation, the off-diagonal elements in the $\tilde\tau$ squared mass matrix ($\propto m_\tau(A_\tau+\mu\tan\beta)$) grow with $\mu$ (which grows with $m_t$) and push down the $\tilde\tau_1$ mass. To avoid a charged LSP the range of $m_t$ has to be cut off as shown in . In particular, (solid line) should be compared with where no phenomenological cuts were imposed; the severity of the cut is stunning. The value of $\xi_A$ has a small effect on the magnitude of this cut as far as the direct effect of $A_\tau$ is concerned (for large values of $\tan\beta$). However, $\xi_A$ influences the value of $\mu$ also (see Eqs. and ). In fact, $\xi_A>0$ ($\xi_A<0$) decreases (increases) $X_{1/2}$ and therefore $\mu$ (for fixed $\xi_0$). Thus $\xi_A>0$ ($\xi_A<0$) weakens (strengthens) the LSP cut by shifting $m_{\tilde\tau_1}$ upwards (downwards), as is evident in (, compare the dashed ($\xi_A=-1$), solid ($\xi_A=0$), and dotted ($\xi_A=1$) boundaries). Note that the $\mu<0$ figures suffer from a less effective LSP cut. This is because for the same $|\mu|$ and $m_{1/2}$ values (and low $\tan\beta$), $m_\chi$ is lower for $\mu<0$. The LSP cut becomes ineffective for $\xi_0\gsim0.1$ since by then the sleptons get an additional significant contribution to their squared masses, , $m^2_{\tilde l}\approx m^2_{1/2}(c_{\tilde l}+\xi^2_0)$. This can be seen for example by comparing (solid line) with (dashed line).
There are two phenomenological cuts which affect the left boundary: the chargino cut comes first and rules out small values of $\mu$ (recall that $\mu=0$ on the left boundary), effectively shifting the left boundary to the right by a significant amount for small $m_{1/2}$; for example, compare (solid) with (dashed) and (solid) with (dashed). Once this is satisfied, the $Z$-width cut shifts the left boundary slightly further to the right. The top boundary (where $m^2_A=0$) is constrained a little by the one-loop Higgs mass cut. This cut also constrains the bottom boundary for values of $\tan\beta$ very close to 1. For $\xi_0=0$ the neutral LSP cut is very effective on the bottom boundary, basically eliminating the range $1\le\tan\beta\lsim2$.
The boundaries shown in appear in the sequence: $(0,-1)\to(0,0)\to(0,1)$ and $(1,-1)\to(1,0)\to(1,1)$ exemplifying the motion of the left boundary to the right due to the effects of $\xi_0$ and $\xi_A$, as described in Sec. 5.2. Other values of $\xi_0,\xi_A$ yield boundaries whose shape can be inferred from the given ones.
The one-loop SISM boundaries differ from the SSM ones in two respects: (i) the LSP cut is less effective when applicable, and (ii) the left boundaries are shifted to the right relative to those for the SSM. In we show two illustrative cases plus one-loop contours of $\mu$ (for $\mu>0$). (The $\Delta\mu$ shifts here follow the same pattern as in the SSM case.) Both of these effects can be traced back to a lower value of $\mu$ for corresponding points in parameter space (, compare the $\mu$ contours in with those in ). Indeed, if $\mu$ is lower then the $\tilde\tau_1$ mass will not be shifted downwards as much and the LSP cut will be less effective. Also, $\mu^2$ is driven to negative values sooner and therefore one needs to increase $m_t$ to compensate, , the left boundary shifts to the right.
The spectrum of sparticle and Higgs boson masses in the SSM/SISM depends on the particular point in the five-dimensional parameter space, and therefore it is a complicated matter to give the values of these masses for all allowed points in this space. However, not all masses depend on all parameters and some of their dependences can be worked out analytically. We now discuss the predictions for the squark, slepton, neutralino, chargino, and one-loop corrected Higgs boson masses. When relevant, we also comment on the shifts on the $\mu$- and/or $B$-dependent masses which result from the minimization of the one-loop versus tree-level Higgs potentials. The first and second generation (and third generation for the sneutrino) squark and slepton masses can be determined analytically as follows (see , ) with $d_i=(T_{3i}-Q)\tan^2\theta_w+T_{3i}$ (, $d_{\tilde e_L}=
-{1\over2}+{1\over2}\tan^2\theta_w$ and $d_{\tilde e_R}=-\tan^2\theta_w$) and the $c_i$ are coefficients directly calculable in terms of the gauge couplings (see , ). These are listed in Table III for both SSM and SISM. In detailed calculations involving the sparticle masses, the $c$’s should be renormalized at the physical sparticle mass . However, for the purposes of this paper, we have renormalized all the $c$’s at $M_Z$ for simplicity. We should point out that the squark (slepton) coefficients have a $\approx10\%$ ($\lsim2\%$) uncertainty due to the present uncertainties on the low-energy gauge couplings . The gluino mass is analogously given by $m_{\tilde g}=
c_{\tilde g}m_{1/2}$, with $\approx8\%$ uncertainty on $c_{\tilde g}$. In we have plotted the ratio of these masses to the gluino mass as a function of the gluino mass for several values of $\xi_0$ in the SSM. These masses depend on the other parameters of the model and/or tree-level versus one-loop minimization only to the extent that specific values of these parameters may exclude certain values of $\tan\beta,\xi_0$, and $m_{1/2}$. In fact, in (where we have taken $\xi_A=0$, $\mu>0$, and $m_t=125\GeV$) not all lines start at $m_{\tilde g}\approx150\GeV$ or continue up to $m_{\tilde g}=1\TeV$, due to the various cuts on the paramater space. This dependence is particularly important for the $\xi_0=0$ case, where the upper bound on the masses varies quite a bit with $m_t$. Note that the near proportionality to $m_{\tilde g}$ is only broken by small D-term ($\tan\beta$-dependent) effects. In fact, to a good approximation (which improves with increasing $m_{\tilde g}$) these ratios are simply given by with the $c_i$ given in Table III. Both squarks and sleptons can be lighter or heavier than the gluino, depending on the value of $\xi_0$. However, squarks are always heavier than sleptons.
All the above remarks apply to the SISM as well. With the help of Eq. and Table III one can easily reproduce the analog of for the SISM. Note that the gluino and all of the squarks and sleptons are lighter in the SISM than in the SSM for the same point in parameter space , although the ratios $m_i/m_{\tilde g}$ are larger in the SISM than in the SSM.
The $\tilde\tau_{1,2},\tilde b_{1,2},\tilde t_{1,2}$ mass eigenstates receive additional contributions from the off-diagonal left-right mixing term (plus the corresponding fermion masses). In the case of $\tilde b_{1,2}$ we have verified that these eigenstates have masses very approximately equal to that of $\tilde d_R$ and $\tilde d_L$ respectively. This also happens for the stau mass eigenstates which are close to $\tilde e_{R,L}$, although the discrepancy grows with $\xi_0$ since then larger values of $\mu$ can occur. A rather interesting effect occurs in this case which is worth pointing out. From Eq. , $d_{\tilde e_R}<0$ and therefore $m_{\tilde e_R}$ grows with increasing $\tan\beta$. In (for $\mu>0$) we show contours of $m_{\tilde\tau_1}$, which exhibit just the opposite $\tan\beta$ dependence, due to the off-diagonal $m_\tau(A_\tau+\mu\tan\beta)$ term. Thus, the effect of the D-term is completely washed out by the $\lambda_\tau$ contribution.
The $\tilde t_1$ mass eigenstate can be significantly lighter than the average squark mass. In we indicate the ranges of $m_{\tilde t_1}$ throughout each of the boundaries shown. For example, for $m_{\tilde g}=415\,(690)\GeV$ (, $m_{1/2}=150\,(250)\GeV$) and $\xi_0=\xi_A=0$, the $\tilde u_R$ squark mass is $\approx360\,(600)\GeV$ whereas $\tilde t_1:270-310\,(495-545)\GeV$ for $\mu>0$ and $240-285\,(425-520)\GeV$ for $\mu<0$. This discrepancy grows with $m_{1/2}$ since $\mu$ scales with $m_{1/2}$. The lowest value of $m_{\tilde t_1}$ occurs for $\xi_0\approx1$ since then smaller values of $m_{1/2}$ are allowed. For $m_{\tilde g}=150\GeV$ and $\xi_A=-1,-2,-3$, we obtain $m_{\tilde t_1}\gsim100,80,45\GeV$. However, this effect occurs only for $m_t\approx110\GeV$ and $\tan\beta\approx2$, , a rather fine-tuned and very small region of parameter space. A more typical lower bound would be $m_{\tilde t_1}\gsim100\GeV$. The neutralino $\tilde\chi^0_i\,(i=1,2,3,4)$ and chargino $\tilde\chi^\pm_i\,
(i=1,2)$ masses depend on just three parameters: $m_{1/2},\mu,\tan\beta$. We have explored the masses of the lightest of each kind (using $\mu_{loop}$) and found that they get shifted relative to what would be obtained using $\mu_{tree}$. As discussed in Sec. 5.2, the $\Delta\mu$ shift is largest for small $\mu$. This reflects itself on the shifts of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ and $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$ masses as well. For example, for the $\xi_0=\xi_A=0$ case for $m_{1/2}=150\GeV$ we get $m^{tree}_{\wt\chi^0_1}=50\,(55)\GeV\to
m^{loop}_{\wt\chi^0_1}=41-66\,(50-53)\GeV$ and $m^{tree}_{\wt\chi^\pm_1}=75\,(100)
\GeV\to m^{loop}_{\wt\chi^\pm_1}=58-64\,(92-93)\GeV$. Since $\Delta\mu<0$, we expect the shifts to be negative, as observed. Note that the mass shifts are rather small ($\lsim$few GeV) unless one is very close to the left boundary. Furthermore, as one moves away from this boundary and $\mu$ increases, its effect on the mases decreases considerably, making the $\Delta\mu$ shift irrelevant.
In both the SSM and SISM models we consider here, the Higgs sector is comprised of two complex Higgs doublets. After electroweak symmetry breaking there remain three neutral (two scalars $h,H$ and a pseudoscalar $A$) and one charged $(H^\pm)$ physical Higgs bosons. Depending on the specific point in the allowed parameter space, the mass of $h$ (and to a lesser extent $H,A,H^\pm$) may receive significant one-loop radiative corrections . Here we extend our previous ‘no-scale’ analysis ($\xi_0=\xi_A=0$) of the one-loop corrected Higgs boson masses in the allowed $(m_t,\tan\beta,m_0,m_{1/2},A)$ parameter space by considering other $\xi_0,\xi_A$ options as well. As a fine-tuning constraint (see Sec. 3.3), we restrict $m_{1/2}<400\GeV$ which effectively bounds the various Higgs masses from above. The analysis of the MSSM Higgs sector is usually parameterized by $\tan\beta$ and $m_A$; in contrast, for the SSM/SISM unified models $m_A$ is redundant, since $m_A$ (as well as the other Higgs masses) are [*predicted*]{} from the original set of five parameters.
In order to include radiative corrections to the Higgs boson masses, simplifying choices for the many low-energy parameters are usually made (none of which are made in this paper). For example, it is typical to assume $A_t=A_b=\mu$ and $m^2_Q=m^2_U=m^2_D=m^2_{\tilde q}$. However, as discussed in the Introduction, the assumption of universal soft supersymmetry breaking at $M_U$ in the SSM and SISM leads to a correlation of the many low-energy parameters, and these correlations are essential to the overall predictiveness of the models. The Higgs spectrum we present here incorporates these crucial low-energy correlations.
As expected, the Higgs masses scale with $m_{1/2}$, and the one-loop radiative corrections depend strongly on the value of $m_t$. In (SISM) and (SSM) we give contours of $h$ ($\mu<0$ boundaries; contours for $\mu>0$ are very similar). One can see that $h$ is driven quickly to values above $M_Z$, although small corners of parameter space exist where it can be as light as $\sim {1\over 2}M_Z$. For the ‘no-scale’ scenario ( and ), the maximal values for $h$ are $m_h^{max}\simeq 120\,(130)\GeV$ for the SSM (SISM). The larger $m_h^{max}$ value for SISM is due to the less restrictive LSP cut as discussed in Sec. 5.3. For a [*given*]{} point in the parameter space we find that overall there is a slight systematic downward shift ($<5\%$) in $m_h$ in the SISM compared to the SSM. This is probably a consequence of the slightly smaller values of $\mu$ in the SISM relative to the SSM (see Sec. 5.3). For increasing values of $\xi_0$, the values of $m_h^{max}$ rise and saturate with the fine-tuning or “naturalness" value of $m_{1/2}=400\GeV$; the value of $m_h^{max}\simeq 135\,(130)\GeV$ for SSM (SISM) and for both $(\xi_0,\xi_A)=(1,1),(1,-1)$ choices. The values of $m_h^{max}$ for the $\mu<0$ cases are similar.
From the fine-tuning constraints and the various constraints on the $(m_t,\tan\beta)$ parameter space discussed at length in Sec. 5.2, we can make the prediction that $m_h<135\,(130)\GeV$ in ‘natural’ SSM (SISM) scenarios irrespective of the supersymmetry breaking choice; this is a rather restrictive and striking prediction. This result agrees with the previous analysis of Drees and Nojiri , even though they made the additional assumption of $A=B+m_0$. In comparison, the MSSM analysis (see fig. 1a of Ref. ) shows that $m_h^{max}\simeq 132$ (for $m_{\wt q}=1\TeV$), again in close agreement with our result.
Due to the more severe LSP phenomenological cuts, the ‘no-scale’ SSM seems to be rather unique in requiring a ‘light’ $h$ ($m_h<120\GeV$). Of course, if the fine-tuning constraint were relaxed and $m_{1/2}$ increased, then $m_h^{max}$ would rise as well. These mass constraints suggest that if $h$ is not found at LEP, the $WhX\rightarrow l\gamma\gamma X$ final states at SSC/LHC may be the only hope of discovering the $h$ Higgs. For a more detailed phenomenological discussion of the $h$ Higgs boson, including radiative corrections, see Refs. .
As for the $h$ Higgs, as $m_{1/2}$ increases, the masses for $H,A,H^\pm$ rise as well, and become increasingly degenerate. For $m_{1/2}=400\GeV$, in we present contours of $m_A$ for the $(\xi_0,\xi_A)=(1,\pm1)$ cases for both SSM and SISM, and $\mu>0$. Due to the high degree of degeneracy, the contours can be assumed to also represent contours of $m_H$ and $m_{H^\pm}$ to within $5\%$.
In summary, the Higgs sector of ‘natural’ supergravity models generically predict a relatively light Higgs scalar, $m_h<135\GeV$ possibly detectable at the SSC/LHC. This limit takes into account naturalness, the full set of constraints on the allowed parameter space, and is maintained over a wide range of supersymmetry breaking scenarios. In this limit, the $H,A,H^\pm$ Higgs masses are nearly degenerate, but could be anywhere from $100\GeV-1\TeV$. Due to the near degeneracy of the SSM/SISM Higgs sectors, it is unlikely that discovery of a minimal supersymmetry Higgs sector will allow for an immediate discrimination between these two models.
In Tables IV and V we have collected the mass ranges for all the particle species in the SSM (results for the SISM are similar) when one sweeps the entire one-loop allowed region in $(m_t,\tan\beta)$ for the given $\xi_0,\xi_A$, and $m_{1/2}$ values. The values of $m_{1/2}$ have been chosen such that the corresponding regions (in $(m_t,\tan\beta)$) are not too restrictive. For example, for too small values of $m_{1/2}$ the regions tend to be confined to small values of $\tan\beta$. Thus, we avoid ‘small’ regions of parameter space in these two variables. For the $\xi_0=\xi_A=0$ case (in Table IV), $m_{1/2}=110\GeV$ is close to the lowest possibly obtainable value ($\approx100\GeV$). The mass ranges for this case should be compared with their tree-level counterparts given in Ref. . The ranges have some differences but they are quite close, except for the Higgs masses which were not given in Ref. . For the $\xi_0=1,\xi_A=0$ case (in Table V) the lowest value of $m_{1/2}$ for which ‘large’ regions still exist depends on the sign of $\mu$, as indicated in the Table. The most striking difference between this case (and in general for any value of $\xi_0\not=0$) is that values of the squark and gluino masses as low as their current experimental lower bounds are attainable (although not shown explicitly on the table since these correspond to ‘small’ regions of parameter space). Note also that a light chargino ($\wt\chi^\pm_1$) is always allowed, although the fraction of the parameter space for which this happens decreases with increasing $m_{1/2}$.
The study of supersymmetric models is a subject of great topical interest since this is the physics beyond the standard model which is most likely to exist on theoretical grounds. The minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM) by itself contains so many parameters (21) that comprehensive studies are impractical. In fact, to alleviate this problem people routinely make simplifying assumptions about the various parameters, typically assuming a sort of ‘low-energy unification’ of the sparticle masses.
The approach we advocate does away with ad-hoc low-energy ansätze by invoking the structure of unified models where well motivated theoretical constraints reduce the dimension of the parameter space down to eight. However, even these constraints are not enough to produce a consistent picture of low-energy physics since the electroweak symmetry must be broken as well. This last constraint determines $\mu$ and $B$ and generally correlates them with the dominant source of supersymmetry breaking. The major advantage of the above constraints is to reduce the dimension of the parameter space down to just five.
Our present study utilizes the one-loop effective Higgs potential to execute the last step of radiative electroweak symmetry breaking. This makes the results largely independent of the renormalization scale $Q$ used (, the scale where the RGEs are stopped and the Higgs potential is minimized). The use of this potential is a technical advancement which has yet to catch up in the literature, and we believe it to be essential in the determination of the ground state of this class of supersymmetric unified models. We have explored the virtues of this more sophisticated approach and in the process have realized that a Higgs-field–independent term in $\Delta V$ ruins the $Q$-independence of $V_1$. For fixed-$Q$ calculations this term is irrelevant since it drops out in the minimization process. However, the whole point of using $V_1$ is precisely to obtain $Q$-independence. We have shown explicitly that if this piece is subtracted out, then $V_1$ is indeed $Q$-independent to one-loop order.
We have also discussed the ‘fine-tuning constraint’ in the light of our analysis of the parameter space. We found that a good measure of this effect is given by coefficients $c\propto m^2_{1/2}(a+b\xi^2_0)$ which can easily surpass a ‘limit’ $\Delta=50-100$ if $m_{1/2}>400\GeV$ for all values of $\xi_0$. Our results here are not new, we still get $m_{\tilde g,\tilde q}\lsim
1\TeV$. However, these coefficients help quantify the level of ‘un-naturalness’ in a model. For example, we have found that in the minimal $SU(5)$ supergravity GUT, proton decay constraints can be satisified only for values of the parameters which give $c\gsim100$. Thus indicating a possible fine-tuning problem in this model.
Our study has been based on two $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ supersymmetric models which exemplify the low-energy limits of traditional (SSM) and string-inspired (SISM) unified models. For these models we have described in detail the completely bounded regions in ($m_t,\tan\beta$) space and their dependence on the other parameters of the model. We have also compared the tree-level and one-loop values of $\mu$ and concluded that $|\Delta\mu|=|\mu_{loop}-\mu_{tree}|$ is largest for small $\mu$, as expected. In fact, the relative shift in $\mu$ is maximal ($-100\%$) at the one-loop left boundary and decreases as $m_t$ increases. Fortunately, this small region of parameter space, where one-loop perturbation theory is unreliable, is excluded on phenomenological grounds.
We have studied the sparticle spectrum and have given useful plots of the first and second generation squark and slepton masses. We have shown that the inclusion of $\lambda_\tau\not=0$ is relevant since $\mu$ effects dominate over the D-term contributions to the $\tilde\tau_{1,2}$ masses. The lightest stop eigenstate $\tilde t_1$ is generally lighter than the average squark mass, and can even be as light as ${1\over2}M_Z$ although only for a very small region of parameter space; a more typical lower bound is $m_{\tilde t_1}\gsim100\GeV$. We have also studied the one-loop corrected Higgs boson masses and concluded that for ‘natural’ values of the parameters (, $m_{\tilde g,\tilde q}<1\TeV$) one must have $m_h<135\GeV$. Finally, we have given mass ranges for all particle species for typical values of the parameters. If supergravity is indeed realized in Nature, then the correlations among the many sparticle and Higgs boson masses that we have presented here should be dramatically revealed in the near future.
[*Acknowledgments*]{}: This work has been supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG05-91-ER-40633. The work of J.L. has been supported in part by an ICSC-World Laboratory Scholarship.The work of D.V.N. has been supported in part by a grant from Conoco Inc. The work of K.Y. was supported in part by the Texas National Laboratory Research Commission under Grant No. RCFY9155, and in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG05-84ER40141. We would like to thank Doni Branch and the HARC Supercomputer Center for the use of their NEC SX-3 supercomputer.
In this appendix we present some details of the calculation of $\Delta V$ used throughout our work. The evaluation of $\Delta V$ proceeds from the following definition where ${\rm STr}\,f({\cal M}^2)=\sum_{i}C_i(-1)^{2j_i}(2j_i+1)f(m^2_i)$ and $m^2_i$ are the Higgs-field–dependent mass-squared eigenstates with spin $j_i$. We refer the reader to the literature for the necessary squark , slepton , Higgs , and gaugino/Higgsino mass formulas in the MSSM. The factor $C_i$ that enters into the supertrace accounts for the color degrees of freedom, and we define a spin factor $S_i=(-1)^{2j_i}(2j_i+1)$, where $j_i$ is the spin of the $i$th particle. The appropriate $S_i,C_i$ factors for the particles which contribute nonnegligibly to $\Delta V$ are summarized in Table VI.
In calculating charged Higgs masses, scalar field values away from the minimum (and which therefore break $U_{em}(1)$ invariance) are needed. In this case charge-conjugate particles are no longer degenerate in mass and we treat each charge-conjugate state as a separate mass-eigenstate in the supertrace. For example, for the squarks $\wt q$, the complete set of mass eigenstates (at the minimum of the potential) would be where $i=1,2$ labels the first and second generation squarks.
The contributions of the $u,d,c,s,e,\mu,\tau$ fermions to $\Delta V$ are utterly negligible (and would vanish identically in the massless limit), and we do not include them in our calculations. Depending on whether the scalar field configuration is chosen to be at (i) the origin of field space or (ii) away from it, the contributions to $\Delta V$ from the two Higgs doublets and the $W^\pm$ and $Z$ fields are included as follows: (i) the $W^\pm$ and $Z$ fields are massless and all eight Higgs mass eigenstates must be included (, the Goldstone bosons are not massless); (ii) the $W^\pm$ and $Z$ fields are massive and only the Higgs physical states $h,A,H,H^\pm$ are included (, the Goldstone bosons are massless). In certain cases, it is possible for $m^2_i<0$, and in this event we make the replacement $m^2_i\rightarrow |m^2_i|$ .
We thus calculate $\Delta V$ using the following complete supertrace formula $$\eqalignno{{\rm STr}f({\cal M}^2)=&3\sum_{i=1,24}^{\wt q}
f(m^2_{\wt q_i})-6\sum_{i=1,4}^{q}f(m^2_{q_i})
+\sum_{i=1,18}^{\wt l}f(m^2_{\wt l_i})\cr
&+\sum_{i=1,8}^{H}f(m^2_{H_i})
-2\sum_{i=1,8}^{\wt \chi}f(m^2_{\chi_i})+3\sum_{i=1,3}^{W,Z}f(m^2_{V_i})\cr
&-16f(m^2_{\wt g}).&\Aiii{}\cr}$$
tables =1.0pt $m_{1/2}$|$\xi^{min}_0$|$\xi_A$|$c_\mu$|$c_t$74|8.1|$-5.4$ |39|113 122|6.5|$-3.2$ |67|204 187|5.4|$-1.6$ |107 |342 267|4.5|$-.41$ |155 |503 364|3.8|$+.55$ |217 |699 $m_{1/2}=150\GeV$ $m_{1/2}=250\GeV$ $\mu_{tree}$|$\mu_{loop}$|$\Delta\mu$$\mu_{tree}$|$\mu_{loop}$|$\Delta\mu$$75$|$25$|$-50$$150$|$60$|$-90$$100$|$65$|$-35$$200$|$130$|$-70$$150$|$120$|$-30$$300$|$235$|$-65$$200$|$170$|$-30$$350$|$285$|$-65$$240$|$210$|$-30$$400$|$335$|$-65$ $c_i$|SISM |SSM $c_{\tilde u_L,\tilde d_L}$|3.91 |6.28 $c_{\tilde u_R}$|3.60 |5.87 $c_{\tilde d_R}$|3.55 |5.82 $c_{\tilde e_L,\tilde\nu}$|0.402|0.512$c_{\tilde e_R}$|0.143|0.149$c_{\tilde g}$|2.01 |2.77 |$\xi_0=0,\xi_A=0$$m_{1/2}$|$110^+$|$110^-$|$150^+$|$150^-$|$250^+$|$250^-$$\wt\chi^0_1$ |$ 34- 50$|$ 22- 38$|$ 36- 67$|$ 32- 58$|$ 37-104$|$ 60-102$$\wt\chi^0_2$ |$ 55-103$|$ 62- 69$|$ 73-133$|$ 78-104$|$ 76-175$|$112-188$$\wt\chi^0_3$ |$ 93-204$|$123-196$|$ 87-274$|$104-269$|$116-234$|$122-440$$\wt\chi^0_4$ |$136-220$|$168-240$|$161-287$|$179-305$|$231-269$|$242-466$$\wt\chi^\pm_1$ |$ 53-103$|$ 45- 65$|$ 56-133$|$ 52-102$|$ 53-176$|$ 81-187$$\wt\chi^\pm_2$ |$137-220$|$170-235$|$161-287$|$180-301$|$230-272$|$242-462$$\tilde\nu$ |$ 45- 60$|$ 45- 60$|$ 86- 94$|$ 86- 94$|$167-171$|$167-171$$\tilde e_L$ |$ 87- 92$|$ 87- 92$|$114-117$|$114-117$|$183-185$|$183-185$$\tilde e_R$ |$ 55- 61$|$ 55- 61$|$ 68- 73$|$ 68- 73$|$103-106$|$103-106$$\tilde\tau_1$|$ 43- 59$|$ 43- 57$|$ 53- 72$|$ 49- 71$|$ 91-105$|$ 89-104$$\tilde\tau_2$|$ 87-100$|$ 88-101$|$114-124$|$114-126$|$183-187$|$183-188$$\tilde g$|$300$|$300$|$415$|$415$|$690$|$690$$\tilde u_L$ |$271-272$|$271-272$|$372-374$|$372-374$|$624-625$|$624-625$$\tilde u_R$ |$264-265$|$264-265$|$362-362$|$362-362$|$605-605$|$605-605$$\tilde d_L$ |$280-282$|$280-282$|$379-381$|$379-381$|$628-629$|$628-629$$\tilde d_R$ |$266-267$|$266-267$|$362-363$|$362-363$|$604-604$|$604-604$$\tilde b_1$ |$247-266$|$242-258$|$336-362$|$328-358$|$565-603$|$558-597$$\tilde b_2$ |$266-273$|$268-275$|$361-371$|$364-370$|$592-614$|$594-608$$\tilde t_1$ |$189-252$|$165-220$|$269-316$|$242-284$|$494-545$|$425-521$$\tilde t_2$ |$313-346$|$338-360$|$391-425$|$417-440$|$643-651$|$638-656$$h$ |$ 42-102$|$ 66-104$|$ 46-109$|$ 46-112$|$ 46- 97$|$ 46-121$$A$ |$ 48-232$|$ 86-229$|$ 49-325$|$ 49-321$|$ 53-278$|$ 54-539$$H$ |$ 96-244$|$ 99-240$|$ 93-332$|$ 94-329$|$ 93-277$|$ 94-542$$H^\pm$ |$ 94-244$|$118-241$|$ 94-333$|$ 95-330$|$ 97-289$|$ 98-545$ |$\xi_0=1,\xi_A=0$$m_{1/2}$|$70^+$|$85^-$|$150^+$|$150^-$|$250^+$|$250^-$$\wt\chi^0_1$ |$ 27- 34$|$ 26- 29$|$ 36- 67$|$ 23- 60$|$ 38-108$|$ 31-104$$\wt\chi^0_2$ |$ 40- 75$|$ 50- 52$|$ 73-133$|$ 78-108$|$ 78-212$|$ 82-201$$\wt\chi^0_3$ |$101-147$|$136-150$|$ 84-877$|$104-304$|$115-568$|$119-332$$\wt\chi^0_4$ |$113-168$|$165-179$|$162-885$|$178-336$|$232-573$|$238-340$$\wt\chi^\pm_1$ |$ 45- 76$|$ 45- 48$|$ 56-133$|$ 46-107$|$ 55-212$|$ 50-201$$\wt\chi^\pm_2$ |$119-168$|$169-182$|$161-883$|$179-331$|$232-571$|$238-338$$\tilde\nu$ |$ 58- 69$|$ 82- 83$|$173-183$|$173-177$|$301-307$|$301-307$$\tilde e_L$ |$ 94- 98$|$115-115$|$185-190$|$188-190$|$308-311$|$308-311$$\tilde e_R$ |$ 83- 87$|$101-101$|$161-167$|$165-167$|$268-272$|$268-272$$\tilde\tau_1$|$ 79- 85$|$ 45- 91$|$ 85-166$|$ 85-165$|$172-271$|$172-271$$\tilde\tau_2$|$ 94-103$|$121-135$|$186-208$|$188-208$|$303-318$|$303-318$$\tilde g$|$195$|$235$|$415$|$415$|$690$|$690$$\tilde u_L$ |$181-184$|$223-223$|$401-404$|$401-403$|$673-675$|$673-675$$\tilde u_R$ |$180-181$|$220-220$|$392-393$|$392-392$|$654-655$|$654-655$$\tilde d_L$ |$195-198$|$237-237$|$405-409$|$408-409$|$675-677$|$675-677$$\tilde d_R$ |$184-185$|$223-223$|$392-393$|$392-393$|$653-653$|$653-653$$\tilde b_1$ |$168-183$|$143-197$|$264-390$|$260-385$|$464-648$|$460-647$$\tilde b_2$ |$184-188$|$230-234$|$371-394$|$374-394$|$578-654$|$581-654$$\tilde t_1$ |$140-204$|$182-197$|$204-324$|$245-303$|$385-567$|$310-559$$\tilde t_2$ |$243-279$|$300-312$|$401-453$|$416-452$|$608-688$|$610-743$$h$ |$ 47- 92$|$ 46-100$|$ 41-112$|$ 45-113$|$ 38-124$|$ 39-125$$A$ |$ 88-170$|$ 48-152$|$ 50-244$|$ 50-397$|$ 55-240$|$ 55-897$$H$ |$108-187$|$ 99-152$|$ 97-234$|$ 98-402$|$ 99-214$|$ 99-883$$H^\pm$ |$118-187$|$ 97-171$|$ 97-246$|$ 98-404$|$100-241$|$100-899$ =1.0pt particle |$n$ |Spin ($j$) |$C_i$ |$S_i$ $\wt q_i$|$24$ |$0$|$3$|$1$$\wt l_i$|$18$ |$0$|$1$|$1$$H_i$|$8$|$0$|$1$|$1$$q_i$|$4$|${1\over2}$|$3$|$-2$ $\wt \chi_i$|$8$|${1\over2}$|$1$|$-2$ $\wt g$|$1$|${1\over2}$|$8$|$-2$ $W$|$2$|$1$|$1$|$3$$Z$|$1$|$1$|$1$|$3$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the normal-state and superconducting properties of NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$As system by specific heat measurements. Both the normal-state Sommerfeld coefficient and superconducting condensation energy are strongly suppressed in the underdoped and heavily overdoped samples. The low-temperature electronic specific heat can be well fitted by either an one-gap or a two-gap BCS-type function for all the superconducting samples. The ratio $\gamma_NT_c^2/H_c^2(0)$ can nicely associate the neutron spin resonance as the bosons in the standard Eliashberg model. However, the value of $\Delta C/T_c\gamma_N$ near optimal doping is larger than the maximum value the model can obtain. Our results suggest that the high-$T_c$ superconductivity in the Fe-based superconductors may be understood within the framework of boson-exchange mechanism but significant modification may be needed to account for the finite-temperature properties.'
author:
- Guotai Tan
- Ping Zheng
- Xiancheng Wang
- Yanchao Chen
- Xiaotian Zhang
- Jianlin Luo
- Tucker Netherton
- Yu Song
- Pengcheng Dai
- Chenglin Zhang
- Shiliang Li
bibliography:
- 'NaCoFeAs.bib'
title: 'Strong-Coupling Superconductivity in NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$As: the Eliashberg Theory and Beyond'
---
Strong-coupling superconductivity in the conventional superconductors can be well described within the framework of Eliashberg theory [@CarbotteJP90], where electron Cooper pairs are mediated by virtual phonons or some other bosons. Since spin fluctuations may act as the mediating bosons for electron pairing and superconductivity [@EschrigM06; @scalapino], it is important to determine if the Eliashberg-based theory can understand the transport and magnetic properties of unconventional superconductors [@CarbotteJP11]. For copper oxides, this is difficult due to the plethora of phases competing with superconductivity and the $d$-wave nature of the superconducting gap symmetry. The Fe-based superconductors may offer a better opportunity to test the suitability of the Eliashberg theory due to the $s$-wave nature of the superconducting electron pairing and the Fermi-liquid-like normal states [@hirschfeld].
In the standard Eliashberg theory, the superconducting electron Cooper pairs are mediated by bosons with an average energy of $\omega_{ln}$. For a $\delta$-function electron-boson spectral density $\alpha^2F(\omega)$ = $A\delta(\omega-\omega_E)$, we have $\omega_{ln}$ = $\omega_E$. The ratio of $T_c/\omega_{ln}$ representing the coupling strength is related to two important dimensionless parameters $\gamma_NT_c^2/H_c^2(0)$ and $\Delta C/T_c\gamma_N$, where $\gamma_N$, $H_c(0)$ and $\Delta C/T_c$ are the normal-state Sommerfeld coefficient, the thermodynamic critical field at zero temperature, and the specific heat jump across $T_c$, respectively [@CarbotteJP90]. For conventional superconductors, these two ratios can be solved analytically through $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\gamma_NT_c^2}{H_c^2(0)} &= 0.168\left[1-12.2\left(\frac{T_c}{\omega_{ln}}\right)^2ln\left(\frac{\omega_{ln}}{3T_c}\right)\right],\\
\frac{\Delta C}{T_c\gamma_N} &= 1.43\left[1+53\left(\frac{T_c}{\omega_{ln}}\right)^2ln\left(\frac{\omega_{ln}}{3T_c}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ We see that these two ratios has a linear relationship and should be simultaneously satisfied for a given superconductor.
Recently, the bosonic spectrum is found in the tunneling measurements on the Fe-based superconductors [@FasanoY10; @ShanL12; @WangZ12]. It is thus important to determine to what extent the standard Eliashberg theory holds by checking the validity of Eqs. (1) and (2). The thermodynamic properties of the Fe-based superconductors have been measured in many systems [@LiZ08; @BudkoSL09; @MuG09; @PopovichP10; @GofrykK10a; @HardyF10; @WeiF10; @KimJS11; @StewartGR11; @HuJ11; @NojiT12; @WangAF12]. In Ba$_{0.6}$K$_{0.4}$Fe$_2$As$_2$, a calculation based on the Eliashberg model considering multiple bands is able to quantitatively reproduce the experimental results based on the assumption that spin fluctuations are electron pairing mediating bosons [@PopovichP10]. Recently, a very sharp neutron spin resonance is found in superconducting NaFe$_{0.955}$Co$_{0.045}$As [@ZhangC12]. The mode, centering at the in-plane antiferromagnetic wave vector, is strictly two-dimensional in the reciprocal space, which leads to an easy way of considering $\alpha^2F(\omega)$ and hence $\omega_{ln}$. Therefore, the NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$As system may be suitable to check the Eliashberg theory.
In this paper, we report a comprehensive study on the electron-doping evolution of the specific heat in NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$As. The measured value of $\gamma_NT_c^2/H_c^2(0)$ is consistent with that obtained from Eq. (1) by assuming that $\omega_{ln}$ is equal to the neutron spin resonance energy [@ZhangC12]. However, the value of $\Delta C/T_c\gamma_N$ reaches up to 3.7 near optimal doping, which is much larger than the maximum value of Eq. (2). Our results suggest that the high-$T_c$ superconductivity in the Fe-based superconductors may be understood within the conventional boson-exchange mechanism but the finite-temperature properties should be revised around the optimal doping.
Single crystals of NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$As were grown by the self-flux method as reported previously [@TanatarMA12]. The samples were attached onto the heat capacity pucks in the glovebox and transported within a sealed bottle to avoid the sample quality change [@TanatarMA12]. The time that the samples were exposed to air during the installation of the puck was less than 1 minute. The specific heat was measured by the PPMS from Quantum Design.
The phase diagram of NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$As is very similar to other iron pnictides with a long-range AF order in the parent compound and a dome-like superconducting regime [@dai; @ParkerDR10; @WangAF12; @LiS09], as shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a). The structural transition temperature $T_s$ and magnetic transition temperature $T_N$ determined from the resistivity measurement are similar to those reported in the other literatures [@ParkerDR10; @WangAF12]. The $T_c$ is obtained from the specific heat measurement and it is set to zero for those that exhibit no superconducting jump despite the fact that the resistivity goes to zero in some samples [@WrightJD12]. Therefore, the superconducting dome plot in Fig. \[fig1\](a) only includes the samples that show bulk superconductivity.
![(Color online) (a) Phase diagram of NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$As that shows $T_c$ (black solid square), $T_N$ (red open circle) and $T_s$ (blue open triangle). The dash lines are guided to the eye. (b) Specific heats of some samples plotted as C/T vs T. (c) Fitted results of several models on the specific heat of the x = 0.2 sample. The differences between the data and each model are given in (d). []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1)
The raw data of specific heat are plotted in Fig. \[fig1\](b) for some of the samples. It is clear that the phonon contribution varies a lot for the different Co doping, which makes it impossible to use the specific heat of non-superconducting samples (e.g, x=0 or 0.2) as a reference to determine the electronic specific heat of superconducting samples as done in some other materials [@GofrykK10a; @GofrykK10b; @HardyF10]. To understand the specific heat of the non-superconducting samples, we consider a Debye plus Einstein model assuming the total specific heat to be $ C = \gamma_NT + C_D+C_E$, where $C_D = A_D(T/T_D)^3\int_0^{T_D/T}x^4e^x/(e^x-1)^2dx$ and $C_E = A_E(T_E/T)^2e^{T_E/T}/(e^{T_E/T}-1)^2$ are the specific heats from the Debye and Einstein models, respectively. Fig. \[fig1\](c) shows the fitting results on the x=0.2 sample for the Debye+Einstein model and some other models. Fig. \[fig1\](d) further gives the differences between the raw data and the fitting results of various models, which unambiguously shows that the Debye+Einstein model gives the best fit to the data. We note that the parameters such as the Debye temperature and Einstein temperature in the fitting may not reflect the real phonon physics in this system. Since it is only possible to fit the normal-state and low-temperature data of the superconducting samples ( assuming that the superconducting gaps are fully opened), we also test the above method by removing the x = 0.2 data between 3 K and 20 K in the fitting and the result is consistent with that fitted with the whole temperature range. The value of $\gamma_N$ is manually adjusted for the superconducting samples to make sure that the entropy is conserved. In addition, the residual Sommerfeld coefficient $\gamma_0$ is obtained by fitting the low-temperature specific heat with $C = \gamma_0 T+\beta T^3$.
![(Color online) The electronic specific heat (black open circle) of serial samples obtained as described in the text. The red lines are the fitted results of one-gap BCS function except for the x=0 sample which shows no superconducting jump. The blue line in (h) is the subtracted data between 0 and 9 Tesla. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2)
The subtracted electronic specific heats of the superconducting samples are shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. All the data except for the x = 0.015 can be well fitted by the two-gap BCS expression of the specific heat ( $C = A_1C_{BCS}(\Delta_1)+A_2C_{BCS}(\Delta_2)$) as shown by the solid lines [@GofrykK10a]. Only one gap is needed to fit the x = 0.015 data. It should be pointed out that we cannot rule out the existence of nodes or highly anisotropic gaps [@ChoK12; @GeQ12] due to the limitation of our model. Fig. \[fig3\](a) shows the doping dependence of $\gamma_N$ and $\gamma_0$. Contrary to that in Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$)$_2$As$_2$ [@GofrykK10b], $\gamma_0$ is much smaller than $\gamma_N$ for all the superconducting samples, suggesting that most of the electrons in NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$As are condensed at 0 K. With increasing Co doping, $\gamma_N$ quickly increases and reaches its peak at the optimal doping with x = 0.025. Such suppression in the underdoped regime is most likely due to the opening of the SDW gap [@GofrykK10b]. Further increasing Co above 0.05 rapidly reduce $\gamma_N$ to a very low value for heavily over-doped samples ( $\gamma_N$ = 2.3 mJ/mol/K$^2$ for the x = 0.08 sample ). Surprisingly, the $\gamma_N$ goes back to more than 3 mJ/mol/K$^2$ for the x $\geq$ 0.1 samples.
![(Color online) Doping dependence of (a) $\gamma_N$ ( black solid squares ) and $\gamma_0$ ( red open circles ), (b) the condensation energy, (c) 2$\Delta(0)/k_BT_c$ and (d) $A_1/(A_1+A_2)$. All the dashed lines are guided to the eye. []{data-label="fig3"}](fig3)
The doping dependence of $\gamma_N$ may be strongly associated with the SDW gap and pseudogap as observed by the STM [@ZhouX12]. Since Co doping only shifts the Fermi level without significantly changing the band structures [@CuiST12], we can quantitatively estimate the effect of the two gaps. Taking that N(0)(1+$\lambda$)=0.42$\gamma_N$/n [@StewartGR11] where n = 3 and N(0) $\approx$ 0.53 states/eV/atom [@DengS09], we get that the coupling parameter $\lambda$ is about 0.9 for the x=0.025 sample. Such value is reasonable considering that no pseudogap is found near the optimal doping [@ZhouX12]. Supposing $\lambda$ does not change below 0.1 Co doping, we estimate that the DOS is suppressed about 60% for both the x =0 and x = 0.06 samples, which is consistent with the STM results [@ZhouX12]. We note that the suppression of $\gamma_N$ in overdoped NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$As is much larger than that in Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$)$_2$As$_2$ [@GofrykK10b], which suggest that the latter may have a different origin. Increasing Co doping above 0.1 results in the depinning of the large “V”-shaped feature and thus the disappearance of the pseudogap [@ZhouX12]. Our measurements on the 0.1 and 0.2 samples show that $\lambda$ is close to zero assuming that there is no suppression of DOS at Fermi level, which accords with the fact that the system is close to a normal metal with weakly coupled electrons in this doping regime.
Fig. \[fig3\](b) plots the doping dependence of the condensation energy $E_c$, which is obtained through $E_c = -\int^{T_c}_{0}\int^{T_c}_{0}C/TdTdT$. It is clear that $E_c$ is much smaller at either the x = 0.015 or x = 0.06 sample, consistent with the fact that the DOS at the Fermi level is strongly suppressed due to either the SDW gap or the pseudogap [@ZhouX12; @CaiP12].
![(Color online) (a) Theoretical result of $(\gamma_N-\gamma_0)T_c^2/H_c^2(0)$ calculated from Eq. (2) as shown by the red line. The values of conventional superconductors fall into the shaded area. The open circles represent the values obtained in this paper which give the corresponding $T_c/\omega_{ln}$ (b) The $T_c$ dependence of the resonance energy $E_R$ and $\omega_{ln}$. The solid line is guided to the eye. (c) The doping dependence of $\Delta C/T_c(\gamma_N-\gamma_0)$. (d) The corresponding $(\gamma_N-\gamma_0)T_c^2/H_c^2(0)$ and $\Delta C/T_c(\gamma_N-\gamma_0)$ for each sample. The solid line is the linear relationship between these two values as calculated from Eq. (1) and (2). []{data-label="fig4"}](fig4)
The doping dependences of the two superconducting gaps and the relevant ratio of the small gap are shown in Fig. \[fig3\](c) and \[fig3\](d) respectively. The values of the larger gap above x = 0.025 are more or less consistent with the results of ARPES and STM experiments where only one gap is observed [@LiuZH11; @ZhouX12; @YangH12]. The existence of the smaller gap and its increasing contribution to the electronic specific heat are missing in those experiments. Since the tunneling matrix element of the M-centered bands may be strongly suppressed for a good surface in the STM experiment [@HoffmanJE11], the small gap may exist around the M point with a non-zero $k_z$ value [@LiuZH11]. For the x = 0.015 sample where the AF order presents, it is not clear why a much smaller gap is obtained from the specific heat data [@CaiP12; @GeQ12].
The two dimensionless ratios in Eq. (1) and (2) can be derived from the above experimental data. To eliminate the effect of the residual electronic specific heat, we replace $\gamma_N$ in the ratios to $\gamma_N-\gamma_0$. Fig. 4(a) shows the doping dependence of $(\gamma_N-\gamma_0)T_c^2/H_c^2(0)$ by taking $H_c(0)^2 = 8\pi E_c$. For the conventional superconductors, the ratios of many materials are within the shaded area centering the red line in Fig. \[fig4\](a) calculated by Eq. (1) [@CarbotteJP90]. By assuming that it is on the other side of the curve in our case (a value of $T_c/\omega_{ln}$ much smaller than 0.2 will result in a bosonic energy that has not been observed in other experiments), we are able to obtain $T_c/\omega_{ln}$ ( the open circles in Fig. \[fig4\](a) ). Fig. 4(b) shows the $T_c$ dependence of $\omega_{ln}$, which gives $\omega_{ln} = 3.38k_BT_c$. Interestingly, the resonance energy in the NaFe$_{0.955}$Co$_{0.045}$As is very close to the value of $\omega_{ln}$ [@ZhangC12], suggesting the resonance mode may play as bosons in the superconductivity of NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$As. It will be interesting to compare the resonance energy in heavily underdoped and overdoped samples with the $\omega_{ln}$ obtained here. The large values of $T_c/\omega_{ln}$ suggest the strong-coupling nature of NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$As noting that the ratio only extends up to about 0.25 in the conventional superconductors. We note that the above $\omega_{ln}$ can also give a value of $2\Delta(0)/k_BT_c$ larger than 5 as suggested by the equation (4.1) in Ref. [@CarbotteJP90].
The doping dependence of the normalized specific heat jump $\Delta C/T_c(\gamma_N-\gamma_0)$ is shown in Fig. \[fig4\](c). In the case where the two-gap BCS function cannot give a good fit near $T_c$, a sing-gap BCS function is used to just fit the data near $T_c$ to obtain an accurate specific heat jump. A dome-like feature is seen as that in Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$)$_2$As$_2$ [@GofrykK10b]. Surprisingly, the largest value of $\Delta C/T_c(\gamma_N-\gamma_0)$ is 3.7 for x = 0.025, which is much larger than those found in other systems [@PopovichP10; @NojiT12]. While the values of $(\gamma_N-\gamma_0)T_c^2/H_c^2(0)$ seem to be reasonable, Eq. (2) fails to calculate $\Delta C/T_c(\gamma_N-\gamma_0)$ at the optimal doping. This is clearer by plotting these two ratios together as shown in Fig. \[fig4\](d). The data falling on the solid line suggest that they can be calculated from each other according to Eq. (1) and (2). It is clear that strong deviation occurs near the optimal doping. Since $(\gamma_N-\gamma_0)T_c^2/H_c^2(0)$ is close to each other except for that of x = 0.06, such deviation is not due to the insufficiency in calculating the two ratios by the perturbation method [@CarbotteJP90]. For the x = 0.06 sample, it is possible that a more accurate method may give a better result or the pseudogap-like phase may has something to do with the mismatch.
A large specific heat jump in the Eliashberg model is a result that the superconducting gap opens up more rapidly just below $T_c$ than it does in the BCS theory [@CarbotteJP90], which will only give a maximum value of about 3 as seen in Eq. (2). In the case of NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$As, one may has to consider a very weak temperature dependence of the gap [@LiuZH11]. On the other hand, the ratio $\gamma_NT_c^2/H_c^2(0)$ is associated with the condensation of the Cooper pairs at zero K, which may not contradict with what happens near $T_c$. After all, a very important assumption in the strong-coupling theory is that the boson spectrum is fixed while the spin fluctuations in the Fe-based superconductors strongly evolve with changing temperature.
It is also found in the heavy-fermion materials CeCoIn$_5$ [@PetrovicC01] and CeIrSi$_3$ [@TateiwaN08] that $\Delta C/T_c\gamma_N$ is lager than 4. This is consistent with theories associated with the strong localized spin fluctuations [@IkedaH03; @BangY04; @KhodelVA05], indicating that spin fluctuations may result in the largest enhancement of the specific heat jump near optimal doping [@VavilovMG11].
In conclusion, we test the validity of the Eliashberg formalism in the NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$As system by deriving $\gamma_NT_c^2/H_c^2(0)$ and $\Delta C/T_c(\gamma_N-\gamma_0)$ from the specific heat measurements. Our results show that while the former value is nicely associated with the neutron spin resonance through Eq. (1), the latter value is beyond the Eliashberg theory near optimal doping. Therefore, the pairing mechanism in NaFe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$As may be understood within the boson-exchange mechanism but the disappearance of the superconductivity near the optimal doping should be considered with significant modification of the theory.
The authors would like to thank Yifeng Yang, Tao Xiang, Yayu Wang, Haihu Wen, Daoxin Yao and Lei Shan for helpful discussions. This work is supported by Chinese Academy of Science, 973 Program (2010CB833102, 2010CB923002, 2012CB821400, 2011CB921701). The single crystal growth at University of Tennessee was supported by U.S. DOE BES under Grant No. DE-FG02-05ER46202 (P.D.).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'Center for Superconductivity Research, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742'
- 'Department of Physics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45421'
- 'Northrop Grumman Corporation, 1310 Beulah Rd, Pittsburgh, PA 15235'
author:
- 'A. P. Nielsen [@nielsen:addr]'
- 'A. B. Cawthorne [@cawthorne:addr]'
- 'P. Barbara'
- 'F. C. Wellstood'
- 'C. J. Lobb'
- 'R. S. Newrock'
- 'M. G. Forrester'
title: 'Paramagnetic Meissner Effect in Multiply-Connected Superconductors'
---
=26 =23
= 1
= 1
=1
0.125in
=1
A paramagnetic response was first observed in BSCCO [@braunisch_papers] and subsequently reported in many other high $T_c$ materials.[@schliepe1; @riedling1; @onbasli1; @okram1] This response is in striking contrast to the diamagnetic response which is a hallmark of superconductivity. It has been argued that the paramagnetic Meissner effect (PME) results from a $d$-wave symmetry in the BSSCO order parameter.[@sigrist1] The observation of PME in niobium[@thompson1; @kostic1; @terentiev1] and aluminum,[@geim1] known to be $s$-wave superconductors, questioned the validity of the $d$-wave argument.
There are several proposed theories for the PME, although no experiment has been yet able to provide conclusive evidence for one or another; and there is disagreement as to the validity of the $d$-wave explanation.[@note:disagree] In high $T_c$ materials one possible explanation is the existence of $\pi$-junctions which result from the misalignment of grains in materials with $d$-wave symmetry. [@sigrist1] In the conventional materials, which are known to be $s$-wave, PME has been attributed to different mechanisms causing non-equilibrium flux configurations. A non-equilibrium flux state may result from flux-compression,[@koshelev1] the similar giant vortex state,[@moshchalkov1; @deo1] pinning randomness, or a surface barrier at the edge of the sample.[@deo2]
To create a controlled experiment we have chosen to look at Josephson-junction arrays using a scanning SQUID microscope (SSM), using a technique similar to that of Kirtley [*et al.*]{}[@kirtley1] The SSM provides spatially resolved magnetization images of the sample. Arrays eliminate many of the complications in studying the underlying cause of the PME. Since our arrays are lithographically fabricated from $\mathrm{Nb}$ and $\mathrm{Al}_2\mathrm{O}_3$, we know that there are neither $\pi$-junctions nor significant randomness. Additionally, our sample is uniformly attached to the thermal bath, eliminating thermal gradients across the sample during cooling. We find that arrays can be either paramagnetic or diamagnetic depending upon the cooling field. Additionally, we propose a new model, valid for multiply-connected supercondutors, which predicts a paramagnetic response and agrees with our scanning SQUID measurements.
The arrays consist of a square array of niobium crosses in two layers, with a unit cell size of $a=46 \mu \mathrm{m}$. Junctions are formed at the cross overlap. The calculated self-inductance of each loop of four junctions is $L=64 \mathrm{pH}$ and the measured critical current density is $J_c = 600 \mathrm{A}/\mathrm{cm}^2$ at $4.2\mathrm{K}$, with a junction area of $ 5 \times 5 \mu \mathrm{m}^2$. The entire array consists of $30 \times 100$ junctions. The unit-cell dimensions compare to the typical grain size seen in BSCCO samples [@braunisch_papers; @kirtley1] which exhibit PME, to which similar fields are applied. The array is placed in an SSM sample stage,[@black2] sitting at the end of a sapphire rod of $10 \mathrm{mm}$ diameter, around which a solenoid has been wound. Before any data is collected we first remove any flux trapped within the pick up loop of the SQUID to avoid interaction with the sample.[@mathai2] Additionally, we measure and correct for any background field present.
We cooled our arrays to 4.2K in fixed external magnetic field, and then used the SSM to measure the magnetic flux threading the SQUID from the sample, ${\Phi_{\mathrm{tot}}}$, as a function of position. Our spatial resolution was limited by our SQUID-sample separation distance, which we estimate to be between $40$ and $ 60 \mu
\mathrm{m}$. Data were taken every $5 \mu \mathrm{m} $ in the $x$ direction and every $50 \mu \mathrm{m}$ in the $y$ direction, and converted from flux through the SQUID to normalized flux per unit cell. We measure the external flux, ${\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}$, directly by warming the sample above $T_c$ and imaging. From the data we calculate both a local normalized magnetization $({\Phi_{\mathrm{tot}}}- {\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}) /
\Phi_0$ and an average overall magnetization $\langle{\Phi_{\mathrm{tot}}}- {\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}\rangle /
\Phi_0$.[@units:note] We were unable to resolve individual unit cells in the array, [@samplesize:note] but we were still able to resolve large scale flux distributions.
Our measurement and analysis proceeded in a fashion similar to [Ref. ]{}. We first make an image of the magnetization of the array (a typical image is shown in [[Fig. \[magpicts\]]{}(a)]{}). We then make a magnetization histogram and compute the mean magnetization. [[Fig. \[magpicts\]]{}(b)]{} shows the magnetization histogram generated from the image in [[Fig. \[magpicts\]]{}(a)]{}. The histogram is computed by looking at the lower third of the array and counting the number of points at a given magnetization.[@scratches:note] We find that the array may be either diamagnetic or paramagnetic, but surprisingly, appears to be preferentially paramagnetic. Additionally, we always observe diamagnetic screening currents around the outside edges of the sample. The array shown in [[Fig. \[magpicts\]]{}(a)]{} was cooled in an external field of $ 4.8 \Phi_0$ and clearly is paramagnetic ([*i.e.*]{} it is darker than the background). We find a mean paramagnetic response of $\langle{\Phi_{\mathrm{tot}}}-{\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}\rangle
= (0.063 \pm 0.005) \Phi_0$ for this cooling field.
=1
The data plotted in [Fig. \[mvh:data\]]{} show the mean magnetization versus external cooling field. Each data point represents a single field-cooled average measurement. The error in the mean values plotted, such as discussed above, is less than the size of each data point as drawn. The sign of the magnetization is reproducible, and the magnitude is reproducible to within a factor of two when the sample is warmed above 10K and recooled in the same field, indicating that our external field is consistent to within $ \pm 0.05 \Phi_0$ The external field has a spatial variation of $\pm 0.5 \Phi_0$, which is limited by the gradient of the background field in our probe. Although there is some variation from one cooling to the next in the actual magnetic images for the same external field, the paramagnetism is remarkably reproducible.
=1
We may consider a single loop of the array as a jumping off point for modeling the entire array’s magnetization. Originally used to describe the observed magnetization of a single loop with a single Josephson-junction,[@silver1] Sigrist and Rice [@sigrist1] later used this model to argue that $\pi$-junctions could cause PME in $d$-wave superconductors. The single-loop model gives a relationship between the external flux applied to a four-junction loop and the total measured flux $${\Phi_{\mathrm{tot}}}= {\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}+
L I_c \sin\left({\pi\over 2} n
- {\pi\over 2} {{\Phi_{\mathrm{tot}}}\over \Phi_0}\right).
\label{phitotvsext}$$ Here $I_c$ is the critical current of a single junction. For all values of ${\frac{L I_c}{\Phi_0}} >{\frac{2}{\pi}}$, ${\Phi_{\mathrm{tot}}}$ is a multi-valued function of ${\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}$ depending on an integer $n$. We note here that [Ref. ]{} used a model with a ${\frac{L I_c}{ \Phi_0}}$ slightly greater than one to demonstrate the absence of potential paramagnetism for a single loop with a single junction. Had they used a value of ${\frac{L I_c}{ \Phi_0}} \gg 1$ they would have noticed the potential for paramagnetism even in the absence of external flux, although such a situation is not energetically favorable. For a four junction loop, ${\beta_\ell}= 2 \pi {\frac{L I_c}{ \Phi_0}} = 30$ allows for the possibility of paramagnetism (or diamagnetism) at ${\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}=0$.
Computing the Gibbs free energy for the various possible solutions to (\[phitotvsext\]) we find that for $m<{\frac{{\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}}{\Phi_0}} <m+\frac{1}{2}$ the single loop will be diamagnetic and for $m+\frac{1}{2}<{\frac{{\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}}{\Phi_0}} <m+1$ will be paramagnetic, where $m$ is any integer. If one applies a positive offset flux ${\Phi_{\mathrm{off}}}$ to the four-junction loop ([[*i.e.*]{}]{} the total applied flux is ${\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}+ {\Phi_{\mathrm{off}}}$) the solutions ${\Phi_{\mathrm{tot}}}- {\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}$ [*vs.*]{} ${\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}$ become more paramagnetic and conversely if ${\Phi_{\mathrm{off}}}< 0$ the solutions become more diamagnetic. If, [[*e.g.*]{}]{}, a simple diamagnetic screening current flows around the outside edge of the superconductor (negative offset), the measured magnetization will be more diamagnetic.
A conventional superconductor is a perfect diamagnet: An applied flux causes screening currents to flow around the outside. In an ideal array of Josephson junctions, one may decompose this edge current, $I$, into loop currents of magnitude $I$, flowing around each plaquette, as shown in [[Fig. \[screeningfig\]]{}(a)]{}. In a real array, this is not likely to be the complete picture. The currents will flow only within one penetration depth in the superconductor. For our array, the penetration depth is $900 \mathrm{\AA}$ while the wire size is $10 \mu \mathrm{m}$ so that the interior loop currents do not cancel. This means that the array must create an energy $\frac{1}{2} LI^2$ for each plaquette in order to generate a screening current $I$ for the array. In an overlap geometry, the currents through the Josephson-junctions are uniform, so the currents through the junctions still cancel and we do not have any increase in the total Josephson energy, $E_J$. For an array of $N \times N$ junctions [[Fig. \[screeningfig\]]{}(a)]{} costs a total energy of $$E_a = \frac{1}{2} L I^2 N^2 + 4 N (1 - \cos \gamma) E_J
\label{eq:conventionalenergy}$$ where $\gamma$ is the gauge invariant phase difference.
=1
We propose that the array actually screens in a much different fashion. The array may generate a diamagnetic screening current around the outside perimeter if each exterior plaquette maintains a screening current. as shown schematically in [[Fig. \[screeningfig\]]{}(b)]{}. In addition to the diamagnetic screening current, we then also have a paramagnetic current, of the same magnitude, flowing just inside the array. The array must generate the $\frac{1}{2} LI^2$ energy only for each exterior plaquette, so the energy cost to the array in this case is $$E_b = \frac{1}{2} L I^2 (4N) + \lbrace 4N+4(N-1) \rbrace (1-\cos\gamma)E_J.
\label{eq:newenergy}$$ It is clear from (\[eq:conventionalenergy\]) and (\[eq:newenergy\]) that $E_a \propto N^2$ while $E_b \propto N$ so that for a large enough array, the conventional picture of screening will *not* be energetically favorable. [[Fig. \[screeningfig\]]{}(b)]{} has lower energy than [[Fig. \[screeningfig\]]{}(a)]{} when, assuming $\gamma$ is proportional to ${\Phi_{\mathrm{tot}}}$, $${\beta_\ell}> {4N-1 \over N^2-4N}, \ \forall \ N>2.
\label{eq:criteria}$$ For our array the criteria is easily satisfied and we expect screening to take place as in [[Fig. \[screeningfig\]]{}(b)]{}.
In [[Fig. \[screeningfig\]]{}(a)]{} we can treat the outer ring of Josephson-junctions as a single loop of $4N$ junctions. This loop will screen up to ${\frac{LI_c}{\Phi_0}}=4.8$ flux quanta from the interior of the array, when $I_c$ is flowing around the exterior of the array. In [[Fig. \[screeningfig\]]{}(b)]{} each exterior plaquette can screen up to ${\frac{LI_c}{\Phi_0}}$ flux quanta *from itself*. This is a much larger absolute field than in the conventional case and the difference can be easily observed experimentally. We have observed, that flux will not penetrate the array until the external flux exceeds at least $4.0 \Phi_0$ per unit cell. Additionally, ac susceptibility work demonstrated that little effect was seen until the amplitude of the driving ac flux exceeded $4.6 \Phi_0$ per unit cell of the array.[@barbara_ac_papers]
The interior plaquettes see the external field, a diamagnetic flux from the extreme outside loop of the array, and a paramagnetic flux from just inside the array. Because the loop generating the paramagnetic flux is closer, the interior loops will see a net paramagnetic flux in addition to the external field. Considered individually, the interior plaquettes obey a modified Eq. (\[phitotvsext\]), $${\Phi_{\mathrm{tot}}}= {\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}+ {\Phi_{\mathrm{scr}}}+
L I_c \sin\left({\pi\over 2} n
- {\pi\over 2} {{\Phi_{\mathrm{tot}}}\over \Phi_0}\right)
\label{eq:phitotvsextmod}$$ where ${\Phi_{\mathrm{scr}}}$ is the flux seen by the inner plaquette due to the screening currents produced by the exterior plaquettes. When ${\Phi_{\mathrm{scr}}}> 0$ the interior plaquette sees a paramagnetic offset and its magnetization will be more paramagnetic. This causes the array to be paramagnetic more often than diamagnetic in agreement with experiment.
If we consider only the mutual inductance between a test plaquette in the interior of the array and the exterior plaquettes which provide the screening, we can make a crude estimate of the paramagnetic response. The maximum current that the junctions can sustain is the critical current, $I_c$; this sets the upper bound for the magnetization offset. We have numerically computed the flux induced from the screening currents in [[Fig. \[screeningfig\]]{}(b)]{} onto the interior plaquettes for our $30 \times 100$ junction array. When the screening currents are $I_c$, the maximum flux is induced, and the *minimum* ${\Phi_{\mathrm{scr}}}$ we compute is $0.15 \Phi_0$ per unit cell, near the center of the array. This means that the center plaquette should have its magnetization shifted upward by $0.15 \Phi_0$. Plaquettes nearer to the exterior see ${\Phi_{\mathrm{scr}}}$ values as large as several $\Phi_0$. Additionally, we compute an average flux induced into the interior of the array to be ${\Phi_{\mathrm{scr}}}= 0.277\Phi_0$ per unit cell. Considering the crudeness of the model, this is remarkable agreement with our measured magnetization (see [Fig. \[mvh:data\]]{}).
We expect that the screening current will increase monotonically with the external flux, up to $I_c$, and therefore expect that the paramagnetic offset in the interior plaquette magnetization will increase as the external flux increases. This is also consistent with our observations in Fig. \[mvh:data\].
The model described here does not account for many features of the real array. We have not accounted for variations in the Josephson-junction parameters and we have ignored the mutual induction between interior plaquettes. Phillips [[*et al.*]{}]{}[@phillips1] showed the importance of including the mutual inductance matrix when computing array magnetization. Chandran has, in the overdamped junction limit, used a model including the full inductance matrix and computed a paramagnetic moment in a Josephson-junction array.[@chandran1] Unfortunately, our arrays are highly underdamped, which makes a model utilizing the full-inductance and dynamics much more computationally difficult. [@note:meanfield] The simplicity of our model does not describe all of the features that we observe in our array. The observed flux pattern is very complicated, with both paramagnetic and diamagnetic regions.
We have shown that in a multiply connected superconductor such as our array, that the lowest energy configuration that provides diamagnetic screening will also tend to make the interior of the array paramagnetic. Furthermore, the predictions of this model are consistent with our measurements, that the array is more often paramagnetic than diamagnetic. We believe that the paramagnetism in Josephson-junction arrays is best described by the effects detailed above.
We would like to thank J. R. Kirtley, M. Sigrist and M. Chandran for useful communications. Additionally we would like to thank R. L. Greene for his critical reading of our manuscript. We acknowledge support from AFOSR Grant F49620-98-1-0072, NSF Grant DMR-9732800 and NSF Grant DMR-9801825.
=0
[10]{}
Electronic address: [email protected].
Present address: Neocera, Inc., 10000 Virginia Manor Road, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA.
W. Braunisch, N. Knauf, V. Kataev, A. Grutz, A. Kock, B. Roden, D. Khomskii, and D. Wohlleben, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1908 (1992) and W. Braunisch, N. Knauf, B. Bauer, A. Kock, A. Becker, B. Freitag, A. Grutz, V. Kataev, S. Neuhausen, B. roden, D. Khomskii, and D. Wohlleben, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 4030 (1993).
B. Schliepe, M. Stindtmann, I. Nikolic, and K. Baberschke, Phys. Rev. B [ **47**]{}, 8331 (1993).
S. Riedling, G. Brauchle, R. Lucht, K. Rohberg, and H. v. Lohneysen, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 13283 (1994).
U. Onbasli, Y. T. Wang, A. Naziripour, R. Tello, W. Kiehl, and A. M. Hermann, Phys. Stat. Sol. B [**194**]{}, 371 (1996).
G. S. Okram, D. T. Adroja, B. D. Padalia, O. Prakash, and P. A. J. de Groot, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. [**9**]{}, L525 (1997).
M. Sigrist and T. M. Rice, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**61**]{}, 4283 (1992).
D. J. Thompson, M. S. M. Minhaj, L. E. Wenger, and J. T. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 529 (1995).
P. Kostic, A. P. Paulikas, U. Welp, V. R. Todt, C. Gu, U. Geiser, J. M. Williams, K. D. Carlson, and R. A. Klemm, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 791 (1996).
A. Terentiev, D. B. Watkins, and L. E. D. Long, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, R761 (1999).
A. K. Geim, S. V. Dubonos, J. G. S. Lok, M. Henini, and J. C. Mann, Nature [ **396**]{}, 144 (1998).
This disagreement is highlighted by the comments following the publication of Ref. in T. M. Rice and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. B [ **55**]{}, 14647 (1997) and P. Kostic, B. Veal, A. P. Paulikas, U. Welp, V. R. Todt, C. Gu, U. Geiser, J. M. Williams, K. D. Carlson, and R. A. Klemm, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 14649 (1997).
A. E. Koshelev and A. I. Larkin, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 13559 (1995).
V. V. Moschalkov, X. G. Qiu, and V. Bruyndoncx, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 11793 (1999).
P. S. Deo, V. A. Schweigert, F. M. Peeters, and A. K. Geim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 4653 (1997).
P. S. Deo, V. A. Schweigert, and F. M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 6039 (1999).
J. R. Kirtley, A. C. Mota, M. Sigrist, and T. M. Rice, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. [**10**]{}, L97 (1998).
R. C. Black, A. Mathai, F. C. Wellstood, E. Dantsker, A. H. Miklich, D. T. Nemeth, J. J. Kingston, and J. Clarke, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**62**]{}, 2128 (1993).
A. Mathai, D. Song, Y. Gim, and F. C. Wellstood, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**61**]{}, 598 (1992).
${\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}}= H a^2 $ and ${\Phi_{\mathrm{tot}}}= B a^2 $ so that $({\Phi_{\mathrm{tot}}}-{\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}})=4 \pi M
a^2 $ where $H=B-4 \pi M$ and $B$ is the magnetic induction, $H$ is the magnetic field and $M$ is the magnetization, in Gaussian units.
The size of our SQUID is $10 \times 10 \mu \mathrm{m}^2$, while the separation between the SQUID and sample is between $40$ and $60 \mu \mathrm{m}$. The SQUID-sample separation limits the spatial resolution we can achieve to roughly $50 \mu \mathrm{m}$. Because of this, and the design of our sample stage, it was not feasible to scan at a higher than $50 \mu \mathrm{m}$ resolution in the $y$ direction. Because we do not undersample the array the average we quote for the magnetization of the array will be correct.
Scratches were accidentally introduced into the array [*in situ*]{}. In order to ignore complications arising from these scratches in the analysis of the data we have chosen to only analyze the unblemished region of the array.
A. H. Silver and J. E. Zimmerman, Phys. Rev. [**157**]{}, 317 (1967).
F. M. Araujo-Moreira, P. Barbara, A. B. Cawthorne, and C. J. Lobb, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4625 (1997) and P. Barbara, F. M. Araujo-Moreira, A. B. Cawthorne, and C. J. Lobb, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 7489 (1999).
J. R. Phillips, H. S. J. van der Zant, J. White, and T. P. Orlando, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 5219 (1993).
M. Chandran, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 6169 (1997).
We have partially addressed this issue by considering the effects on one plaquette of its neighbors in a mean field approximation and discovered that, surprisingly, the paramagetism of the array is *enhanced* a small amount.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'To provide the generic clock, trigger and control function and fulfill the data transmission performance requirement in high energy physics (HEP) experiments, a MicroTCA Fast Control board (uFC) was developed based on the Advanced Mezzanine Card (AMC) specification. Built around the Xilinx Kintex-7 FPGA, the uFC provides users with a platform with data memory, reference clock, trigger and SFP+ (Small Form-factor Pluggable) connections that are required in general experiment. In addition, it has access to two on-board FPGA Mezzanine Card (FMC) sockets with a large array of configurable I/O and high-speed links up to 10 Gbps. This paper presents test results from the first set of pre-production prototypes and reports on the application in High Energy Photon Source in China.'
author:
- 'Jie Zhang, Hangxu Li, Jingzi Gu, Xiaoshan Jiang[^1][^2]'
title: |
The MicroTCA fast control board\
for generic control and data acquisition applications\
in HEP experiments
---
[Shell : IEEE TRANSACTION ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE]{}
high energy physics experiments, modular electronics, MicroTCA, AMC, FMC.
Introduction
============
Micro Telecommunications Computing Architecture (MicroTCA) standard[@MicroTCA] is a modern platform that is gaining popularity in the area of HEP experiments[@Physics][@CMS]. The main advantage of this architecture is high-level reliability, availability and maintainability. The concept for developing the uFC is an FPGA-based development platform designed to serve general purpose control and data acquisition system residing either inside a MicroTCA crate or stand-alone on a bench with high-speed optical/Ethernet links. Figure \[fig\_ufc\] shows a picture of the pre-production uFC, highlighting two SFP+ connectors, hard gold AMC edge connector, two high-pin count (HPC) compatible FMC[@FMC] sockets and 8GB DDR3 SODIMM (small outline dual in-line memory module). By basing the uFC on existing hardware, extracting commonality between projects, the development time for experiment can be short by reusing design components, including hardware, firmware and software.
{width="2.5in"} {width="2.5in"}
This paper has the following structure: Section II and III describe the hardware and firmware design of the uFC. In Section IV, we compare the hardware scheme with two other double-width FPGA-based AMC with dual-FMC. The performance evaluation and the first results from the application in High Energy Photon Source (HEPS) are demonstrated in the Section V.
Hardware
========
Designed as a middle-size, double-width AMC, the uFC is suitable for MicroTCA-based scalable system, as well as for bench-top prototyping. Figure \[fig\_ufc\_block\] shows the block diagram of the uFC.
![The block diagram of the uFC[]{data-label="fig_ufc_block"}](block.pdf){width="2in"}
FPGA
----
Based on the Xilinx Kintex-7 XC7K325T-2FFG900I FPGA, the application allows designing a cost-effective and still powerful controller supporting sixteen links with rate up to 10 Gbps.
Memory
------
- Up to 8G-Byte DDR3 SODIMM with 64-bit wide data bus, capable of data transfer rate up to 64 Gbps at 500 MHz.
- 32M-Byte SPI Flash Memory for storing the FPGA firmware bitstreams.
- 2K-bit IIC EEPROM with EUI-48^TM^ Node Identity, providing a unique node Ethernet MAC address for mass-production process.
Communication & Networking
--------------------------
Considering board to board transmission, the FPGA should communicate with other devices using high-speed point to point connections provided by the serial transceivers. The applied Kintex-7 FPGA allows a maximum throughput up to 10.3125 Gbps (speed grade -2). But unfortunately, it provides a hardware IP block for the PCI-Express 2.0 with 5 GT/s. This may upgrade to the PCI-Express 3.0 by a software IP solution. The uFC supports 1/10 Gb Ethernet connection on port 0 and 1, and PCI-Express x4 on port 4-7 for MicroTCA backplane. Taking advantage of the flexibility of the FPGA, the uFC gives users the possibility of implementing various other high-speed protocols instead of PCI-Express. Besides, the uFC carries two SFP+ connectors in order to interface to other board through optical link or to a PC through 1000BASE-T SFP transceiver module[@SFP_GE_T] and a category 5 cable while in bench-top operation.
Expansion Connectors
--------------------
The uFC input/output capability can be further enhanced with two HPC-FMC sockets. Each has 4 GTX transceivers, 116 single-ended or 58 differential user defined signals (34 LA & 24 HA). The V$_{adj}$ supports 1.8V, 2.5V, or 3.3V. These sockets allow the use of a variety of mezzanines for various applications, for instance by mounting ADC/DAC module for front-end, or connecting clock, trigger and control module to back-end. Moreover, the front and rear panels provide four LEMO input/output connectors for external clock and trigger function.
Module Management Controller (MMC)
----------------------------------
ARM Cortex-M7 microcontroller is used as the MMC for the board initialization when in a MicroTCA crate as well as for other management tasks, e.g. temperature, voltage, current monitoring and FPGA control (payload reset, firmware reload, and check status of booting). The original firmware of the MMC was written by CERN MMC project[@MMC]. It is compliant with the Intelligent Platform Management Interface v1.5 standard as well as the PICMG extension for xTCA. We migrated this project from Atmel AVR to ARM Cortex-M7. The microcontroller monitors and controls all DC/DC converters via PMBus with the help of two UCD90120A chips from Texas Instruments. If the current of the FMC module exceeds the limitation, the UCD90120A will turn off power for FMC automatically and report to the MMC. The temperatures are measured under the DC/DC converters and also directly on the FPGA die. The MMC supports the firmware upgrade of the microcontroller and the FPGA using the HPM.1 protocol. The MMC firmware can be debugged using a virtual serial port, available through USB connection.
Clocking
--------
The uFC offers input clock sources (Figure \[fig\_clock\]):
{width="6in"}
- Fixed Oscillator with single-ended 25 MHz through CPLD (Complex Programmable Logic Device).
- Fixed Oscillator with differential 125 MHz for 1G Ethernet.
- Fixed Oscillator with differential 200 MHz for FPGA IO Delay.
- Programmable Oscillator with 156.250 MHz as the default output. Default frequency targeted for 10G Ethernet applications but oscillator is programmable for other end uses.
- LEMO external clock input and output in front and rear panels.
- AMC FCLKA, TCLKA and TCLKC input. TCLKB and TCLKD output.
- FMC CLKx\_C2M, CLKx\_M2C and GBTCLKx\_M2C clocks.
- VCXO and TCVCXO support the White Rabbit clocking which provides sub-nanosecond synchronization.
- Jitter attenuated clock by programmable clock multiplier.
Based on cross-point switches and programmable clock multipliers, the clock distribution circuit offers a large selection of input clock sources (e.g. the LEMO connectors in the front/rear panel, the AMC clocks, the FMC clocks, or onboard oscillators). This makes the uFC give users the possibility of implementing various high speed serial data protocols for custom applications.
External Power
--------------
In bench-top prototyping, a 12V adapter is used as input power, and a switch helps to bypass the AMC initialization in MMC and 3.3V Management Power.
Configuration
-------------
Xilinx allows configuring and debugging the FPGA through JTAG with download cables such as the Platform Cable USB II or Digilent USB cable. Users can access to the FPGA through the MicroTCA crate or JTAG header. The CPLD in the uFC acts as a bridge selecting the JTAG master source between the JTAG header and AMC JTAG lines (shown in Figure \[fig\_jtag\]). When an FMC card is attached to the uFC, CPLD automatically adds the attached device to the JTAG chain as determined by the FMC\_HPC\_PRSNT\_M2C\_B signal. The attached FMC card must implement a TDI to TDO connection via a device or bypass jumper for the JTAG chain to be completed.
![JTAG programming connections in the uFC[]{data-label="fig_jtag"}](jtag.pdf){width="2.5in"}
Firmware
========
In order to simplify the application-specific development process for users, the uFC delivered a system core implemented all basic functions such as the Gigabit TCP/UDP Ethernet link based on SiTCP[@SITCP], the MMC communication, the control of the clock circuitry and the interface with the DDR3 memory and I2C/SPI device.
Compare with other FPGA-based AMC with dual-FMC
===============================================
With the popularization and development of MicroTCA, various FPGA-based AMCs with dual-FMC have been used in HEP experiments (e.g. LHC, E-XFEL, J-PARC). DAMC-FMC25 is one which developed by DESY[@DAMC-FMC25-DESY], transformed into commercial product by CAENels[@DAMC-FMC25-CAENels]. Its fast links are also dedicated to the MTCA.4 standard use of the board with 42 differential pairs and 2 GTX 6.5 Gbps to the RTM Zone-3 connector. FC7[@FC7], Built upon the success of existing hardware developments - the Gigabit Link Interface Board (GLIB)[@GLIB], is a new generation AMC for generic DAQ and control applications in CMS. Table \[tab\_comparison\] summarizes the differences and similarities between DAMC-FMC25, FC7 and uFC. We chose smaller FPGA considering the tradeoffs between cost and performance, replaced the RTM with SFP+ and LEMO connectors for bench-top prototyping.
[|c|c|c|c|c|]{} & DAMC-FMC25 & FC7 & uFC\
&
------------
XC5VFX70T/
XC5VFX100T
2FFG1136
------------
&
[@c@]{}XC7K420T\
\
FFG1156
&
[@c@]{}XC7K325T\
\
FFG900
\
& 256MB DDR2 & 0.5GB DDR3 & Up to 8GB DDR3 SODIMM\
& IO & 68 & 68 & 116\
& MGT & 2/4 & 12/8 & 4/4\
& SFP+ & - & - & 2\
&
----------------
AMC high-speed
connectivity
----------------
&
---------------------------------
Port 0, 1, 4$\sim$7, 12$\sim$15
Class D.1. for RTM
---------------------------------
&
----------------
Port 0$\sim$11
Without RTM
----------------
&
---------------------
Port 0, 1, 4$\sim$7
Without RTM
---------------------
\
& LEMO/SMA & 1 & 2 & 4\
& - & - & Yes\
Example use in HEPS
===================
The flexibility of the uFC with its variety of interfaces enables it to be used in various configurations. We adopted it as part of the second generation hybrid pixel detector (HEPS-BPIX)[@HEPS-BPIX] for the HEPS in China. This prototype system was assembled with sixteen front-end modules including 1M pixels in total, covering an area of 16.32 cm x 18.3 cm (Figure \[fig\_bpix\]). The data acquisition was provided by a single server through four 10G Ethernet, achieving a data rate of 2.3 GB/s in all at 16-bit, 1.2 kHz frame rate.
![Photo of the second generation HEPS-BPIX detector.[]{data-label="fig_bpix"}](bpix.jpg){width="2.5in"}
Figure \[fig\_bpix\_block\] shows an overview of the system architecture including the 16 front-end modules and one uFC. The uFC distributed clock and trigger signals to front-end modules and forward packets between front-end module and DAQ via 10G Ethernet.
![Block diagram of HEPS-BPIX detector. The assembled front-end modules ¡°plug and play¡± into the uFC in daisy chain via Molex Nano-Pitch I/O^TM^ Interconnect Cable. The uFC connects to DAQ with four 10G Ethernet cables[]{data-label="fig_bpix_block"}](bpix_block.pdf){width="2.5in"}
![uFC with Quad SFP/SFP+ transceiver FMC and Quad Molex Nano-Pitch I/O^TM^ Interconnect FMC mounted.[]{data-label="fig_fmc"}](fmc.jpg){width="2.5in"}
The connectors for two FMC cards and the cooling block for the FPGA can be seen in Figure \[fig\_fmc\]. The two different FMC cards for front-end and back-end were designed. The front-end FMC had four Molex Nano-Pitch I/O^TM^ connectors, and each defined 9 differential pairs for 10 GE, JTAG, clock and trigger signals. The back-end FMC was equipped with four SFP+ optical transceivers connected to data server. The X-ray image taken using the second generation HEPS-BPIX system is shown in Figure \[fig\_xray\].
![X-Ray image of fish. The X-rays were produced by an Au tube powered at 20 kV.[]{data-label="fig_xray"}](xray.jpg){width="2.5in"}
A new 16M pixels detector will be released at the beginning of 2019. Built with 100 front-end modules, this detector will equip with MicroTCA crate to handle high volumes of data, even 115Gbps or more. The current 10 GE links between back-end board and DAQ will be replaced with PCI-Express interface. Thanks to the feasibility of the uFC, no hardware need to be redesign, and most firmware and software can be reused.
Summary
=======
The uFC is an FPGA-based MicroTCA compatible AMC targeting generic system control and data acquisition in HEP experiments. The presence of the HPC FMC sockets is a big advantage as they provide additional clock signals, user-specific I/O and high-speed transceivers that can be used to extend the connectivity as well as the I/O bandwidth. With the prototype system, we have successfully demonstrated the feasibility of the uFC, including some of its important features such as 10G transceivers, clock and trigger function.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported by a grant from the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2016YFA0401301).
[99]{}
PICMG, *2006 MicroTCA short form specification*, see:\
[ https://www.picmg.org/openstandards/microtca/]{}
R. S. Larsen, *PICMG xTCA standards extensions for Physics: New developments and future plans*, 17th IEEE-NPSS Real Time Conference, Lisbon, pp. 1-7, 2010.
Auzinger, G. *Deployment of the CMS Tracker AMC as backend for the CMS pixel detector*. Journal of Instrumentation 11(01): C01056, 2016.
*VITA 57.4: FMC+, FPGA Mezzanine Card*, see:\
[ https://www.vita.com/fmc/]{}
*1000BASE-T SFP transceiver module*, see:\
[ https://www.finisar.com/optical-transceivers/fclf852xp2btl]{}
J. Mendez, *CERN MMC ¡ª User guide*, 2015,\
see: https://espace.cern.ch/ph-dep-ESE-BE-uTCAEvaluationProject/MMC\_project/default.aspx
T. Uchida, *Hardware-Based TCP Processor for Gigabit Ethernet*, in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1631-1637, June 2008.
DAMC-FMC25 from DESY, see:\
[ https://techlab.desy.de/products/amc/damc\_fmc25]{}
DAMC-FMC25 from CAENels, see:\
[ https://www.caenels.com/products/damc-fmc25/]{}
M. Pesaresi, M. B. Marin, et al., *The FC7 AMC for generic DAQ & control applications in CMS*. Journal of Instrumentation 10(03): C03036, 2015.
P. Vichoudis, S. Baron, et al., *The Gigabit Link Interface Board (GLIB), a flexible system for the evaluation and use of GBT-based optical links*. Journal of Instrumentation 5(11): C11007, 2010.
J. Zhang, W. Wei, et al., *HEPS-BPIX, a hybrid pixel detector system for the High Energy Photon Source in China*, Journal of Instrumentation 12(01): C01041, 2017.
[^1]: The authors are with State Key Laboratory of Particle Detection and Electronics, Institute of High Energy Physics, CAS, Beijing 100049 China e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Manuscript received June 24, 2018.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Schrödinger equation with a Lennard-Jones potential is solved by using a procedure that treats in a rigorous way the irregular singularities at the origin and at infinity. Global solutions are obtained thanks to the computation of the connection factors between Floquet and Thomé solutions. The energies of the bound states result as zeros of a function defined by a convergent series whose successive terms are calculated by means of recurrence relations. The procedure gives also the wave functions expressed either as a linear combination of two Laurent expansions, at moderate distances, or as an asymptotic expansion, near the singular points. A table of the critical intensities of the potential, for which a new bound state (of zero energy) appears, is also given.'
author:
- |
J. Sesma[^1]\
\
Departamento de Física Teórica,\
Facultad de Ciencias,\
50009 Zaragoza, Spain.\
date:
title: 'Exact solution of the Schrödinger equation with a Lennard-Jones potential'
---
Introduction
============
The interaction between two atoms is frequently represented by means of a Lennard-Jones potential, $$V(r) = \frac{\hbar^2}{2\,m\,r_{\rm e}^2}\,\lambda\left[\left(\frac{r_{\rm e}}{r}\right)^{12}-2\left(\frac{r_{\rm e}}{r}\right)^{6}\right], \label{i1}$$ alone or with addition of some corrections. In this expression $m$ is the reduced mass of the system of two atoms, $r_{\rm e}$ is the equilibrium distance (minimum of $V(r)$) and $\lambda$ is a dimensionless parameter accounting for the intensity of the interaction. Both $r_{\rm e}$ and $\lambda$ are empirically adjusted for each particular kind of interacting atoms. Other classical interatomic potentials, like the Morse, Rydberg or Buckingham ones, can be simulated, as shown by Lim [@lim], by one of the Lennard-Jones type.
Given a diatomic system and assumed a certain potential to represent the interaction, one is interested, from a theoretical point of view, mainly on the determination of its spectrum of energies, to be compared with the experimentally observed bound states. Nevertheless, in many cases, one needs to know also the corresponding wave functions in order to compute the expected values of quantities that may be obtained in the experiment. A large variety of algebraic methods are discussed in the monographs by Fernández and Castro [@fer1] and by Fernández [@fer2]. References to later developments can be found in recently published papers [@oye1; @acka; @hamz; @oye2]. Numerical methods have been developed, among others, by Simos and collaborators [@vig1; @vig2; @vig3; @vig4]. An extensive bibliography concerning those methods can be found in Section 2 of a recent paper [@simo]. Except for a few familiar potentials, for which the differential equation can be solved exactly [@flug], those methods provide only with approximate values of the energies and wave functions. This may be sufficient in most of cases. However, due to the strong singularity at the origin of the Schrödinger equation with a Lennard-Jones potential, those approximate methods cannot represent faithfully the behaviour of the wave function in the neighbourhood of the origin. This fact, besides of being unsatisfactory from a mathematical point of view, may constitute a serious inconvenient for the computation of the expected values of certain operators.
The purpose of this paper is to call the attention of users of the Lennard-Jones potential towards a method of solution of the Schrödinger equation that is able to give the correct behaviour of the wave function in the neighbourhood of the origin and the infinity, the two singular points of the differential equation. The method is exact, free of approximations, although errors due to the computational procedure are unavoidable. But these errors can be reduced by increasing the number of digits carried along the calculations.
We present, in the next Section, fundamental sets of solutions of the Schrödinger equation that serve as a basis to express the physical solution. The requirement of a regular behaviour of this solution at the singular points establishes a condition, in terms of the connection factors, to be fulfilled by the energies of the bound states. The procedure to determine the connection factors is explained in Section 3. The energies of the bound states in a potential of intensity $0\leq\lambda\leq 100$ are shown in Figure 1. Expressions of the corresponding wave functions are given in Section 4. As $\lambda$ increases, new bound states appear. We denote as [*critical*]{} those values of $\lambda$ for which a state of zero energy exists. In Section 5, a method is suggested to find those critical intensities, which are reported in Table 5. Section 6 contains some pertinent comments. Finally, we recall, in an Appendix, a procedure to solve the nontrivial problem of finding the Floquet solutions.
Solutions of the Schrödinger equation
=====================================
For a given energy $E$ and angular momentum $l$, the Schrödinger equation for the reduced radial wave function, $R(r)$, of a particle of mass $m$ in the potential $V(r)$, given in Eq. (\[i1\]), reads $$-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\left(\frac{d^2R(r)}{dr^2}-\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}R(r)\right)+V(r)\,R(r)=E\,R(r). \label{ii1}$$ As usual, we will express the solutions of this differential equation in terms of dimensionless radial variable, $z$, and energy parameter, $\varepsilon$, defined by $$z\equiv\frac{r}{r_{\rm e}}, \qquad \varepsilon\equiv\frac{2mr_{\rm e}^2}{\hbar^2}E. \label{ii2}$$ For the radial wave function in terms of the new variable we will use $$w(z)\equiv R(r). \label{ii3}$$ Then, the Schrödinger equation becomes $$-z^2\,\frac{d^2w(z)}{dz^2}+\left(\lambda\,z^{-10}-2\lambda\,z^{-4}+l(l+1)-\varepsilon\,z^2\right)\,w(z) = 0. \label{ii4}$$ This differential equation presents two irregular singular points: one of rank 5 at the origin, an another of rank 1 at infinity. The physical solution must be regular at both singular points. To express this solution, we find convenient to consider three different fundamental systems of solutions.
Floquet solutions
-----------------
Except for certain particular values of the parameters $\lambda$ and $\varepsilon$, that we exclude from this discussion, there are two independent [*Floquet*]{} or [*multiplicative*]{} solutions expressed as Laurent power series of the form $$w_i=z^{\nu_i}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} c_{n,i}\,z^n, \quad \mbox{being} \; \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} |c_{n,i}|^2<\infty, \quad i=1,2. \label{ii5}$$ The indices $\nu_i$ are not uniquely defined. They admit addition of any integer (with an adequate relabeling of the coefficients). In the general case, the indices $\nu_i$ and the coefficients $c_{n,i}$ may be complex. The requirement that $w_i(z)$ be a solution of (\[ii4\]) gives the recurrence relation $$\varepsilon\,c_{n-2,i}+\left[(n\! +\! \nu_i)(n\! -\! 1\! +\! \nu_i)-l(l\! +\! 1)\right]\,c_{n,i} +2\lambda\,c_{n+4,i}-\lambda\,c_{n+10,i}=0\,,
\label{ii6}$$ The solution of this difference equation is not trivial. It can be treated as a nonlinear eigenvalue problem. In Appendix A we show an implementation of the Newton method to determine the indices $\nu_i$ and the coefficients $c_{n,i}$.
Thomé solutions for large values of $z$
---------------------------------------
There are two other independent solutions characterized by their behaviour for $z\to\infty$, namely $$w_j(z)\sim\exp\left(\alpha_{j}\,z\right) \,\sum_{m=0}^\infty a_{m,j}\,z^{-m}, \qquad a_{0,j}\neq 0, \qquad j=3, 4. \label{ii7}$$ It can be easily checked, by taking $$\alpha_j=\sqrt{-\varepsilon} \label{ii8}$$ and coefficients $a_{m,j}$ given by (omitting the second subindex, $j$) $$a_{0}=1,\quad 2\alpha\,m\,a_{m}=\left[m(m-1)-l(l+1)\right]a_{m-1}+2\lambda\,a_{m-5}-\lambda\,a_{m-11}\,, \label{ii9}$$ that the right hand side of Eq. (\[ii7\]) is a solution of the differential equation (\[ii4\]). In fact, it is a formal solution, as the series is an asymptotic one that does not converge in general. The two values of the subindex $j$ in Eq. (\[ii7\]) correspond to the two possible values of the right hand side of Eq. (\[ii8\]). In the case of negative energies, we adopt the convention $$\alpha_3=-\sqrt{-\varepsilon},\qquad \alpha_4=+\sqrt{-\varepsilon}. \label{ii10}$$ Accordingly, $w_3(z)$ is physically acceptable, as it vanishes at infinity, whereas $w_4(z)$ diverges and, therefore, should be eliminated from the physical solution. In the case (not to be considered in this paper) of positive energies, both $w_3(z)$ and $w_4(z)$ are oscillating solutions and correspond to incoming and outgoing waves.
Thomé solutions near the origin
-------------------------------
In the neighbourhood of the origin, the role analogous to that of $w_3$ and $w_4$ at infinity is played by two other solutions, $w_5$ and $w_6$, such that, for $z\to 0$, $$w_k(z)\sim\exp\left(\beta_{k}\,z^{-5}/5\right)\,z^{\rho_k}\,\sum_{m=0}^\infty b_{m,k}\,z^{m}, \qquad b_{0,k}\neq 0, \qquad k=5, 6. \label{ii11}$$ Substitution of these expressions in Eq. (\[ii4\]) gives for the coefficients in the exponents $$\beta_k=\sqrt{\lambda}, \qquad \rho_k=3, \label{ii12}$$ and for the coefficients in the series (omitting the second subindex, $k$) $$2\beta\,m\,b_m=2\lambda\,b_{m-1}+\left[(m-3)(m-2)-l(l+1)\right]\,b_{m-5}+\varepsilon\,b_{m-7}, \label{ii13}$$ a recurrence relation that allows one to obtain the $b_{n,k}$ by starting with $$b_{0,k}=1. \label{ii14}$$ The two solutions correspond to the two possible values of the right hand side of the first of Eqs. (\[ii12\]). By convention we take $$\beta_5=-\sqrt{\lambda}, \qquad \beta_6=+\sqrt{\lambda}. \label{ii15}$$ Then, $w_5$ is acceptable, from the physical point of view, whereas $w_6$ should be discarded.
The physical solution
---------------------
As the solutions $w_1$ and $w_2$ of the differential equation constitute a fundamental system, any solution can be written as a linear combination of them. In particular, the physical solution would be $$w_{\rm phys}(z)=A_1\,w_1(z)+A_2\,w_2(z), \label{ii16}$$ with constants $A_1$ and $A_2$, to be determined, such that $w_{\rm phys}(z)$ becomes regular at the origin and at infinity. To impose this condition we need to know the behaviour of $w_1$ and $w_2$ at the singular points. In other words, we need to calculate the [*connection factors*]{} $T$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
w_i(z) &\sim& T_{i,3}\,w_3(z)+T_{i,4}\,w_4(z), \qquad \mbox{for}\quad z\to\infty, \qquad i=1, 2, \label{ii17} \\
w_i(z) &\sim& T_{i,5}\,w_5(z)+T_{i,6}\,w_6(z), \qquad \mbox{for}\quad z\to 0, \qquad i=1, 2. \label{ii18}\end{aligned}$$ In terms of them, the behaviour of the physical solution in the neighbourhood of the singular points would be $$\begin{aligned}
w_{\rm phys}(z) &\sim& (A_1\,T_{1,3}+A_2\,T_{2,3})\,w_3(z)+(A_1\,T_{1,4}+A_2\,T_{2,4})\,w_4(z)\,, \quad \mbox{for}\quad z\to\infty, \nonumber \\
w_{\rm phys}(z) &\sim& (A_1\,T_{1,5}+A_2\,T_{2,5})\,w_5(z)+(A_1\,T_{1,6}+A_2\,T_{2,6})\,w_6(z)\,, \quad \mbox{for}\quad z\to 0. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The regularity of the physical solution at the singular points is guaranteed if $A_1$ and $A_2$ are chosen in such a way that $$A_1\,T_{1,4}+A_2\,T_{2,4}=0 \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad A_1\,T_{1,6}+A_2\,T_{2,6}=0\,, \label{ii19}$$ which is possible if and only if $$T_{1,4}\,T_{2,6}-T_{2,4}\,T_{1,6}=0\,. \label{ii20}$$ For given values of the parameters of the potential, the left hand side of this equation is a function of $\varepsilon$ whose zeros correspond to the values of the energies of the bound states. Equation (\[ii20\]) is, therefore, the quantization condition. Solving it requires to know the connection factors. We present in the next Section our procedure to determine them.
The connection factors
======================
Let us design by $\mathcal{W}[f,g]$ the Wronskian of two functions $f$ and $g$, $$\mathcal{W}[f,g](z)=f(z)\,\frac{dg(z)}{dz}-\frac{df(z)}{dz}\,g(z)\,. \label{iii1}$$ Then, from Eqs. (\[ii17\]) and (\[ii18\]), one obtains immediately $$\begin{aligned}
T_{i,3}&=&\frac{\mathcal{W}[w_i,w_4]}{\mathcal{W}[w_3,w_4]}, \qquad T_{i,4}=\frac{\mathcal{W}[w_i,w_3]}{\mathcal{W}[w_4,w_3]},\qquad i=1, 2, \label{iii2} \\
T_{i,5}&=&\frac{\mathcal{W}[w_i,w_6]}{\mathcal{W}[w_5,w_6]}, \qquad T_{i,6}=\frac{\mathcal{W}[w_i,w_5]}{\mathcal{W}[w_6,w_5]},\qquad i=1, 2. \label{iii3}\end{aligned}$$ All Wronskians in these equations are independent of $z$. Those in the denominators can be calculated directly to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{W}[w_3,w_4]&=&-\mathcal{W}[w_4,w_3]=2\alpha_4\,a_{0,3}\,a_{0,4}=2\sqrt{-\varepsilon}, \label{iii4} \\
\mathcal{W}[w_5,w_6]&=&-\mathcal{W}[w_6,w_5]=-2\beta_6\,b_{0,5}\,b_{0,6}=-2\sqrt{\lambda}. \label{iii5}\end{aligned}$$ The calculation of the numerators is not so easy. In a former paper [@gom1] we suggested a procedure that has been used to find the bound states in a spiked harmonic oscillator [@gom2]. For convenience of the reader, we recall here the procedure, adapted to the present problem.
We consider firstly the Wronskians of each one of the Floquet solutions with the two Tomé solutions at infinity, $\mathcal{W}[w_i,w_j]$ ($i=1, 2,\; j=3, 4$). Let us introduce the auxiliary functions $$u_{i,j}=\exp\left(-\alpha_j\,z/2\right)\,w_i, \qquad u_j=\exp\left(-\alpha_j\,z/2\right)\,w_j\,. \label{iii6}$$ Obviously, $$\mathcal{W}[u_{i,j},u_j]= \exp\left(-\alpha_j\,z\right)\,\mathcal{W}[w_{i},w_j]\,. \label{iii7}$$ Both sides of this equation obey the first order differential equation $$y^\prime=-\alpha_j\,y\,. \label{iii8}$$ A direct computation of the left hand side of Eq. (\[iii7\]), by using the definitions (\[iii6\]) and the expansions (\[ii5\]) and (\[ii7\]), gives the doubly infinite series $$\mathcal{W}[u_{i,j},u_j]\sim \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty \gamma_n^{(i,j)}\,z^{n+\nu_i}\,, \label{iii9}$$ whose coefficients $$\gamma_n^{(i,j)}=\sum_{m=0}^\infty a_{m,j}\big(\alpha_j\,c_{n+m,i}-(n+2m+1+\nu_i)\,c_{n+m+1,i}\big) \label{iii10}$$ are solution of the first order difference equation $$(n+1+\nu_i)\,\gamma_{n+1}^{(i,j)}+\alpha_j\,\gamma_n^{(i,j)} = 0\,. \label{iii11}$$ An expansion of the right hand side of Eq. (\[iii7\]), analogous to that in (\[iii9\]), can be obtained by making use of the so-called Heaviside’s exponential series [@hard] $$\exp (t)\sim \sum_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{t^{n+\delta}}{\Gamma (n+1+\delta)}\,, \qquad |\arg (t)|<\pi, \qquad \delta\; \mbox{arbitrary}. \label{iii12}$$ By taking $t=-\alpha_j\,z$ and choosing $\delta=\nu_i$, one gets an expansion, $$\exp (-\alpha_j\,z)\sim \sum_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{(-\alpha_j)^{n+\nu_i}}{\Gamma (n+1+\nu_i)}\,z^{n+\nu_i}\,, \label{iii13}$$ in series of the same powers of $z$ as in (\[iii9\]) with coefficients obeying the same first order difference equation, $$(n+1+\nu_i)\,\frac{(-\alpha_j)^{n+1+\nu_i}}{\Gamma (n+2+\nu_i)}+\alpha_j\,\frac{(-\alpha_j)^{n+\nu_i}}{\Gamma (n+1+\nu_i)} = 0\,. \label{iii14}$$ Both solutions $\{\gamma_n^{(i,j)}\}$ and $\{(-\alpha_j)^{n+\nu_i}/\Gamma (n+1+\nu_i)\}$ of the difference equation must be related by a multiplicative constant that, in view of Eq. (\[iii7\]), shold be $\mathcal{W}[w_{i},w_j]$. Therefore, $$\mathcal{W}[w_{i},w_j]=\frac{\Gamma (n+1+\nu_i)}{(-\alpha_j)^{n+\nu_i}}\,\gamma_n^{(i,j)}\,, \label{iii15}$$ an expression that, together with Eq. (\[iii4\]), would allow one to calculate the connection factors given by Eq. (\[iii2\]). Nevertheless, the validity of Eq. (\[iii15\]) is subordinate to the fulfilment of the condition $|\arg (-\alpha_j\,z)|<\pi$, necessary for the validity of Eq. (\[iii13\]). Such condition is satisfied in the case $j=3$, as, for $z\in[0,+\infty)$, $\arg(-\alpha_3\,z)=0$. There is no difficulty in computing $T_{i,4}$ by substituting, in the second of Eqs. (\[iii2\]), $$\mathcal{W}[w_{i},w_3]=\frac{\Gamma (n+1+\nu_i)}{(-\alpha_3)^{n+\nu_i}}\,\gamma_n^{(i,3)}\,. \label{iii16}$$ In the case $j=4$, instead, the above mentioned condition is not satisfied and Eq. (\[iii15\]) is not valid for $z\in[0,+\infty)$. In fact, the positive real semiaxis is a Stokes ray for $T_{i,3}$, that should be taken as the average $$T_{i,3}=\frac{1}{2}(T_{i,3}^++T_{i,3}^-) \label{iii17}$$ of its values in the sectors separated by the ray. Equivalently, one may define $$\mathcal{W}[w_{i},w_4]=\frac{1}{2}\big(\mathcal{W}[w_{i},w_4]^+ + \mathcal{W}[w_{i},w_4]^-\big)\,, \label{iii18}$$ an average of the Wronskians for $z$ slightly above and below the positive real semiaxis. The result is $$\mathcal{W}[w_{i},w_4]=(-1)^n\,\cos (\nu_i\pi)\, \frac{\Gamma (n+1+\nu_i)}{(\alpha_4)^{n+\nu_i}}\,\gamma_n^{(i,4)}\,. \qquad i=1, 2 \label{iii19}$$ This equation provides with the needed value of the numerator in the first of Eqs. (\[iii2\]).
The procedure to calculate the Wronskians, $\mathcal{W}[w_i,w_k]$, ($i=1, 2, k=5, 6$) of each one of the Floquet solutions with the two Thomé solutions at the origin is analogous to that just described, with the unavoidable differences due to the fact that the singularity at the origin is of rank five, whereas it was of rank one at infinity. The auxiliary functions are now $$v_{i,k}=\exp\left(-\beta_k\,z^{-5}/10\right)\,w_i, \qquad v_k=\exp\left(-\beta_k\,z^{-5}/10\right)\,w_k\,. \label{iii20}$$ Then, $$\mathcal{W}[v_{i,k},v_k]= \exp\left(-\beta_k\,z^{-5}/5\right)\,\mathcal{W}[w_{i},w_k]\,. \label{iii21}$$ For the left hand side we have the doubly infinite series $$\mathcal{W}[v_{i,k},v_k]\sim \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty \gamma_n^{(i,k)}\,z^{n+\nu_i+\rho_k}\,, \label{iii22}$$ with coefficients $$\gamma_n^{(i,k)}=\sum_{m=0}^\infty b_{m,k}\big(-\beta_k\,c_{n-m+6,i}+(-n+2m-1-\nu_i+\rho_k)\,c_{n-m+1,i}\big), \label{iii23}$$ which obey the fifth order difference equation $$(n-5+\nu_i+\rho_k)\,\gamma_{n-5}^{(i,k)}-\beta_k\,\gamma_n^{(i,k)} = 0\,. \label{iii24}$$ Five independent solutions of this difference equation are constituted by the coefficients of the five Heaviside’s exponential series $$\exp\left(-\beta_k\,z^{-5}/5\right) \sim \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\left(-\beta_k\,z^{-5}/5\right)^{n+\delta_{L}^{(i,k)}}}
{\Gamma(n+1+\delta_{L}^{(i,k)})}, \qquad L=0,1,\ldots, 4\,, \label{iii25}$$ with $$\delta_L^{(i,k)}=(-\nu_i-\rho_k+L)/5\,. \label{iii26}$$ Then, analogously to Eqs. (\[iii16\]) and (\[iii19\]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{W}[w_{i},w_5]&=&\sum_{L=0}^4\frac{\Gamma (n+1+\delta_L^{(i,5)})}{(-\beta_5/5)^{n+\delta_L^{(i,5)}}}\,\gamma_{-5n-L}^{(i,5)}\,, \label{iii27} \\
\mathcal{W}[w_{i},w_6]&=&(-1)^n\sum_{L=0}^4 \,\cos (\delta_L^{(i,6)}\pi)\, \frac{\Gamma (n+1+\delta_L^{(i,6)})}{(\beta_6/5)^{n+\delta_L^{(i,6)}}}\,\gamma_{-5n-L}^{(i,6)}\,. \label{iii28}\end{aligned}$$ Now it is immediate to calculate the connection factors $T_{i,5}$ and $T_{i,6}$ by means of Eq. (\[iii3\]).
Bound states
============
By using the above described procedure, we have determined the values of $\varepsilon$ which are solution of Eq. (\[ii20\]) for different intensities of the potential in the range $0<\lambda<100$ and for five values of the angular momentum, $l=0, 1, \ldots, 4$. The results are shown graphically in Figure 1.
![Energies of bound states in the Lennard-Jones potential. The graph shows the energies of the lowest states of angular momentum $l=0, 1, 2, 3, 4$, and the first excited states with $l=0, 1, 2$, for a varying intensity of the potential in the range $0\leq\lambda\leq 100$. The curves corrresponding to the lowest states with $l=5, 6, 7$, intersect those shown of the first excited states and have been omitted for the sake of clarity of the figure.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](bsLenJon01.eps)
Besides the energies of the bound states, our procedure gives also their wave functions. For the values of $\varepsilon$ satisfying Eq. (\[ii20\]), $A_1$ and $A_2$ can be determined, save for a common arbitrary multiplicative constant, by using any one of Eqs. (\[ii19\]). To fix the arbitrary constant, we may impose, for instance, that $$A_1\,T_{1,3}+A_2\,T_{2,3}=1. \label{iv1}$$ Then $$A_1=\frac{T_{2,4}}{T_{1,3}\,T_{2,4}-T_{2,3}\,T_{1,4}}\,, \qquad A_2=\frac{-\,T_{1,4}}{T_{1,3}\,T_{2,4}-T_{2,3}\,T_{1,4}}\,, \label{iv2}$$ and, in view of Eqs. (\[ii16\]) and (\[ii5\]), the wave function of the bound state becomes $$w_{\rm phys}(z)=\mathcal{N}\left(A_1\,z^{\nu_1}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} c_{n,1}\,z^n+A_2\,z^{\nu_2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} c_{n,2}\,z^n\right), \label{iv3}$$ $\mathcal{N}$ being a normalization constant such that $$\int_0^\infty dz\,|w_{\rm phys}(z)|^2=r_{\mbox{e}}^{-1}\,. \label{iv4}$$ For large values of $z$, the series in Eq. (\[iv3\]) converge slowly and are not convenient for the computation of $w_{\rm phys}(z)$. In this case, it is preferable to use the asymptotic expansion $$w_{\rm phys}(z)\sim\mathcal{N}\,\exp\left(\alpha_{3}\,z\right) \,\sum_{m=0}^\infty a_{m,3}\,z^{-m}\,, \qquad z\to\infty\,, \label{iv5}$$ stemming from $$w_{\rm phys}(z) \sim \mathcal{N}\left((A_1\,T_{1,3}+A_2\,T_{2,3})\,w_3(z)+(A_1\,T_{1,4}+A_2\,T_{2,4})\,w_4(z)\right),$$ bearing in mind Eqs. (\[ii19\]) and (\[iv1\]) and the expansion in Eq. (\[ii7\]). For the same reason, one should use the asymptotic expansion $$w_{\rm phys}(z)\sim\mathcal{N}\,\left(A_1\,T_{1,5}+A_2\,T_{2,5}\right)\,\exp\left(\beta_{5}\,z^{-5}/5\right) \,\sum_{m=0}^\infty b_{m,5}\,z^{m}\,, \qquad z\to 0\,, \label{iv6}$$ in the neighbourhood of the origin.
We have obtained, by way of illustration, the parameters of the four existing bound states in a potential of intensity $\lambda=40$. Tables 1 to 4 show the values of the energy, the indices $\nu_i$ of the Floquet solutions, the connection factors, and the coefficients $A_i$ to be substituted in Eq. (\[iv3\]), for each one of those bound states. For the determination of the indices $\nu_i$ and the coefficients $c_{n,i}$ of the Floquet solutions, we used the Newton iteration method, to be recalled in the Appendix. We benefited from the subroutines `bandec` and `banbks` [@pres pp. 45–46] to obtain the initial values, and from `ludcmp` and `lubksb` [@pres pp. 38–39] in the iteration process. Double precision <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fortran</span> was used in the computation. The iteration was stopped when the correction in the absolute value of $\nu_i$ became less than $10^{-13}$. Usually, two or three iterations were enough. Simultaneously, the coefficients $c_{n,i}$, with $-360\leq n\leq 360$, were obtained. (Due to the fact that Eq. (\[ii6\]) relates coefficients with subindexes of the same parity, the ambiguity in the definition of $\nu_i$, mentioned in Subsection 2.1, allows one to cancel all coefficients $c_{n,i}$ with odd $n$.) According to the condition (\[extra2\]), to be justified in the Appendix, the indices of the Floquet solutions either are real or, being complex, have opposite imaginary parts. In this case, thanks to the ambiguity in the definition of the $\nu_i$, one may choose them to be complex conjugate to each other. Then, $w_2$, $T_{2,j}$, $T_{2,k}$ and $A_2$ are the complex conjugate of, respectively, $w_1$, $T_{1,j}$, $T_{1,k}$ and $A_1$. Consequently, $w_{\rm phys}(z)$ becomes real.
A word of caution about the computation of the wave function is in order. Our double precision calculations have revealed that Eq. (\[iv3\]), with the series truncated to $\sum_{n=-200}^{200}$, allows one to obtain values of $w_{\rm phys}(z)$ with eight correct significant digits whenever roughly $0.7< z < 3.0$, whereas the asymptotic expansions in Eqs. (\[iv5\]) and (\[iv6\]) become useful for $z>4.5$ and $z< 0.4$, respectively. Therefore, double precision is not sufficient for a computation of the values of $w_{\rm phys}(z)$ in the whole interval $0<z<\infty$. Quadruple precision calculations, instead, provide with satisfactory results.
[cc]{} angular momentum & $l=0$\
energy & $\varepsilon = -\,11.909183$\
$\nu_1$ & $0.5\,-\,3.31231657\,i$\
$T_{1,3}$ & $-\,0.10275762$E$+03\,-\,0.20083284$E$+03\;i$\
$T_{1,4}$ & $-\,0.12151177$E$-01\,+\,0.62172400$E$-02\;i$\
$T_{1,5}$ & $-\,0.13871649$E$+04\,-\,0.26958725$E$+04\;i$\
$T_{1,6}$ & $\ \ \,0.49335027$E$-03\,-\,0.25242634$E$-03\;i$\
$A_1$ & $-\,0.10095465$E$-02\,+\,0.19730906$E$-02\;i$\
[cc]{} angular momentum & $l=1$\
energy & $\varepsilon = -\,10.465279$\
$\nu_1$ & $0.5\,-\,2.99607877\,i$\
$T_{1,3}$ & $-\,0.56554657$E$+02\,-\,0.13235260$E$+03\;i$\
$T_{1,4}$ & $-\,0.21626362$E$-01\,+\,0.92410081$E$-02\;i$\
$T_{1,5}$ & $-\,0.11876972$E$+04\,-\,0.27655908$E$+04\;i$\
$T_{1,6}$ & $\ \ \,0.52897583$E$-03\,-\,0.22603293$E$-03\;i$\
$A_1$ & $-\,0.13650231$E$-02\,+\,0.31945090$E$-02\;i$\
[cc]{} angular momentum & $l=2$\
energy & $\varepsilon = -\,7.629685$\
$\nu_1$ & $0.5\,-\,2.26050463\,i$\
$T_{1,3}$ & $-\,0.75165112$E$+01\,-\,0.49967087$E$+02\;i$\
$T_{1,4}$ & $-\,0.82325669$E$-01\,+\,0.12384188$E$-01\;i$\
$T_{1,5}$ & $-\,0.40737562$E$+03\,-\,0.28987415$E$+04\;i$\
$T_{1,6}$ & $\ \ \,0.62067701$E$-03\,-\,0.93367973$E$-04\;i$\
$A_1$ & $-\,0.14719741$E$-02\,+\,0.97851589$E$-02\;i$\
[cc]{} angular momentum & $l=3$\
energy & $\varepsilon = -\,3.530328$\
$\nu_1$ & $0.5\,-\,0.59466296\,i$\
$T_{1,3}$ & $\ \ \,0.42589066$E$+01\,-\,0.28071593$E$+01\;i$\
$T_{1,4}$ & $-\,0.88803914$E$+00\,-\,0.13472965$E$+01\;i$\
$T_{1,5}$ & $\ \ \,0.35206173$E$+04\,+\,0.56914086$E$+03\;i$\
$T_{1,6}$ & $\ \ \, 0.51239569$E$-03\,+\,0.77738566$E$-03\;i$\
$A_1$ & $\ \ \,0.81844039$E$-01\,+\,0.53945596$E$-01\;i$\
Critical values of the intensity
================================
It may be interesting to know the values of $\lambda$ for which a new bound state (of zero energy) appears. Our method of solution of the Schrödinger equation is also applicable in this case, but in a much simpler form. For zero energy, the singular point at infinity is a regular one and the basic Floquet solutions of the general case are replaced by Frobenius solutions whose coefficients can be obtained trivially. The procedure in this case is the same used to obtain the scattering length [@gom3]. In fact, as it is well known, the presence of a new bound state of zero energy is revealed by a pole in the scattering length. We report, in Table 5, some critical values of the intensity $\lambda$ for different values of the angular momentum $l$.
[rrrrrr]{} $l=0$ & $l=1$ & $l=2$ & $l=3$ & $l=4$ & $l=5$\
7.04314 & 13.29573 & 21.48500 & 31.60949 & 43.66864 & 57.66218\
46.61703 & 61.64985 & 78.58395 & 97.43067 & 118.19665 & 140.88604\
121.28583 & 145.10984 & 170.82095 & 198.43005 & 227.94507 & 259.37186\
231.08863 & 263.70031 & 298.19340 & 334.57660 & 372.85712 & 413.04084\
376.02780 & 417.42555 & 460.70191 & 505.86378 & 552.91734 & 601.86799\
Final comments
==============
We have shown the applicability of our method for obtaining global solutions of the Schrödinger equation in the case of bound states in a (12,6) Lennard-Jones potential. The method can be similarly applied to any other Lennard-Jones-type potential, whatever exponents in the attractive and repulsive terms. The physical solution results as a determined linear combination of the two Floquet solutions and its asymptotic expansion at the singular points is proportional to the respective regular Thomé solutions.
Given a value of the intensity $\lambda$ of the potential, a study of the indices $\nu_i$ of the Floquet solutions reveals that they are real for small energy. They may be taken in the interval $0\leq\nu_i\leq 1$, with $\nu_2=1-\nu_1$. As the energy increases, $\nu_1$ increases and $\nu_2$ decreases, both approaching the value 1/2 for a certain energy. As $\nu_1=\nu_2=1/2$, only one multiplicative solution exists: any other independent solution of the Schrödinger equation contains logarithmic terms. Increasing the energy makes both $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ to become complex, with fixed common real part equal to $1/2$ and opposite imaginary parts increasing with the energy. The physical wave function, however, may be taken real by adjusting the arbitrary global phase.
Special mention deserve the critical values of the intensity discussed in Section 5. Our Table 5 allows one to know immediately the number of states, of each angular momentum, bounded by a potential of given intensity.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
We have mentioned in Subsection 2.1 that the computation of the indices and coefficients of the Floquet solutions can be treated as a nonlinear eigenvalue problem, whose solution we are going to consider in this Appendix. Along it we will omit, for brevity, the subindex $i$ in $\nu_i$ and $c_{n,i}$. The condition in Eq. (\[ii5\]) implies that $$\lim_{n\to\pm\infty}|c_n|=0, \label{auno}$$ which allows one to truncate the infinite set of equations (\[ii6\]) and to restrict the label $n$ to the interval $-M \leq n \leq N$, both $M$ and $N$ being positive integers large enough to guarantee that the solution of the truncated problem does not deviate significantly from that of the original infinite one. Algorithms to solve finite-order problems have been discussed by Ruhe [@ruhe]. Here we recall the Newton iteration method suggested by Naundorf [@naun]. The procedure consists in moving from an approximate solution, $\{\nu^{(i)}, c_n^{(i)}\}$, to another one, $\{\nu^{(i+1)}, c_n^{(i+1)}\}$, by solving the system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
& \hspace{-30pt}\varepsilon\,c_{n-2}^{(i+1)} + \left[\big(n\! +\! \nu^{(i)}\big)\big(n\! -\! 1\! +\! \nu^{(i)}\big)-l(l+1)\right]c_n^{(i+1)} + 2\lambda\,c_{n+4}^{(i+1)} - \lambda\,c_{n+10}^{(i+1)}
\nonumber \\
& +\,\big(2n\! -\! 1\! +\! 2\nu^{(i)}\big)c_n^{(i)}\big(\nu^{(i+1)} - \nu^{(i)}\big) = 0, \qquad n=-{M}, \ldots, -1, 0, 1, \ldots, {N},
\label{ados} \\
&\hspace{-132pt}\sum_{n=-{M}}^{N}{c_n^{(i)}}^*c_n^{(i+1)} = 1, \label{atres}\end{aligned}$$ that results, by linearization [@naun], from (\[ii6\]) and from the truncated normalization condition $$\sum_{n=-M}^{N}\left| c_{n}\right|^2 = 1.$$ Obviously, the values of $c_m^{(i)}$ with $m<-{M}$ or $m>{N}$ entering in some of Eqs. (\[ados\]) should be taken equal to zero, in accordance with the truncation done. The iteration process is stopped when the difference between consecutive solutions, $\{\nu^{(i)},\,c_n^{(i)}\}$ and $\{\nu^{(i+1)},\,c_n^{(i+1)}\}$ is satisfactory. The resulting values of $\nu$ and $c_n$ may serve as initial values for a new iteration process, with larger values of ${M}$ and ${N}$, to check the stability of the solution.
Of course, the Newton method just described needs initial values $\{\nu^{(0)}, c_n^{(0)}\}$ not far from the true solution. The two different values of $\nu$ can be obtained from the two eigenvalues $$\exp (2i\pi\nu_i)\,, \qquad i=1, 2\,, \label{acuatro}$$ of the circuit matrix ${\bf C}$ [@waso] for the singular point at $z=0$. The entries of that matrix can be computed by numerically integrating Eq. (\[ii4\]) on the unit circle, from $z=\exp (0)$ to $z=\exp (2i\pi)$, for two independent sets of initial values. If we consider two solutions, $w_a(z)$ and $w_b(z)$, obeying, for instance, the conditions $$\begin{aligned}
w_a(\mbox{e}^0)=1,\qquad w_a^\prime(\mbox{e}^0)=0, \nonumber \\
w_b(\mbox{e}^0)=0,\qquad w_b^\prime(\mbox{e}^0)=1, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
C_{11}=w_a(\mbox{e}^{2i\pi}), \qquad C_{12}=w_b(\mbox{e}^{2i\pi}), \nonumber \\
C_{21}=w_a^\prime(\mbox{e}^{2i\pi}), \qquad C_{22}=w_b^\prime(\mbox{e}^{2i\pi}), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\nu=\frac{1}{2i\pi}\,\ln \left[\frac{1}{2}\left( C_{11}+C_{22}\pm\sqrt{\left(C_{11}\! -\! C_{22}\right)^2+4C_{12}C_{21}}\right)\right].
\label{acinco}$$ The two signs in front of the square root produce two different values for $\nu$, unless the parameters $\lambda$ and $\varepsilon$ in Eq. (\[ii4\]) be such that $\left(C_{11}-C_{22}\right)^2+4C_{12}C_{21}=0$, in which case only one multiplicative solution appears, any other independent solution containing logarithmic terms. The ambiguity in the real part of $\nu$ due to the multivaluedness of the logarithm in the right hand side of (\[acinco\]) reflects the fact already mentioned that the indices $\nu$ are not uniquely defined. Notice that $$\exp (2i\pi\nu_1)\, \exp (2i\pi\nu_2)=\det {\bf C}=\mathcal{W}[w_a,w_b]=1 \label{extra1}$$ and, therefore, $$\nu_1+\nu_2=0\quad (\mbox{mod} \;1). \label{extra2}$$ This may serve as a test for the integration of Eq. (\[ii4\]) on the unit circle.
Although Eq. (\[acinco\]) is exact, the $C_{mn}$ are obtained by numerical integration of a differential equation and are not sufficiently precise. The resulting values of $\nu$ may only be considered as starting values, $\nu^{(0)}$, for the Newton iteration process. As starting coefficients $c_n^{(0)}$ one may use the solutions of the homogeneous system $$\begin{aligned}
&\varepsilon\,c_{n-2}^{(0)}+
\left[(n\! +\! \nu^{(0)})(n\! -\! 1\! +\! \nu^{(0)})-l(l+1)\right]c_{n}^{(0)} +2\lambda\,c_{n+4}^{(0)}-\lambda\,c_{n+10}^{(0)}=0\,, \nonumber \\
&n= -M, \ldots, -1, 0, 1, \ldots, N, \label{aseis}\end{aligned}$$ with the already mentioned truncated normalization condition $$\sum_{n=-M}^N |c_{n}^{(0)}|^2 = 1. \label{asiete}$$
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Financial support from Departamento de Ciencia, Tecnología y Universidad del Gobierno de Aragón (Project E24/1) and Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Project MTM2009-11154) is gratefully acknowledged.
[99]{}
T.C. Lim, Connection among classical interatomic potential functions. J. Math. Chem. [**36**]{}, 261–269 (2004).
F.M. Fernández, E. A. Castro, [*Algebraic methods in Quantum Chemistry and Physics*]{} (CRC Press, Boca Ratón, 1996).
F.M. Fernández, [*Introduction to Perturbation Theory in Quantum Mechanics*]{} (CRC Press, Boca Ratón, 2001).
K.J. Oyewumi, K.D. Sen, Exact solutions of the Schrödinger equation for the pseudoharmonic potential: an application to some diatomic molecules. J. Math. Chem. [**50**]{}, 1039–1050 (2012).
H. Akcay, R. Sever, Analytical solutions of Schrödinger equation for the diatomic molecular potentials with any angular momentum. J. Math. Chem. [**50**]{}, 1973–1987 (2012).
M. Hamzavi, S.M. Ikhdair, K.-E. Thylwe, Equivalence of the empirical shifted Deng-Fan oscillator potential for diatomic molecules. J. Math. Chem. [**51**]{}, 227–238 (2013).
K.J. Oyewumi, O.J. Oluwadare, K.D. Sen, O.A. Babalola, Bound state solutions of the Deng-Fan molecular potential with the Pekeris type approximation using the Nikiforov–Uvarov (N–U) method. J. Math. Chem. [**51**]{}, 976–991 (2013).
T.E. Simos, J. Vigo-Aguiar, A symmetric high order method with minimal phase-lag for the numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation. Int. J. Modern Phys. C [**12**]{}, 1035–1042 (2001).
T.E. Simos, J. Vigo-Aguiar, An exponentially-fitted high order method for long-term integration of periodic initial-value problems. Comput. Phys. Commun. [**140**]{}, 358–365 (2001).
T.E. Simos, J. Vigo-Aguiar, A dissipative exponentially-fitted method for the numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation and related problems. Comput. Phys. Commun. [**152**]{}, 274–294 (2003).
J. Vigo-Aguiar, H. Ramos, Variable stepsize implementation of multistep methods for $y^{\prime\prime}=f(x, y, y^{\prime})$. J. Comput. Appl. Math. [**192**]{}, 114–131 (2006).
T.E. Simos, New high order multiderivative explicit four-step methods with vanished phase-lag and its derivatives for the approximate solution of the Schrödinger equation. Part I: Construction and theoretical analysis. J. Math. Chem. [**51**]{}, 194–226 (2013).
S. Flugge, [*Practical Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Springer, New York, 1974).
F.J. Gómez, J. Sesma, Connection factors in the Schrödinger equation with a polynomial potential. J. Comput. Appl. Math. [**207**]{}, 291–300 (2007).
F.J. Gómez, J. Sesma, Spiked oscillators: exact solution. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**43**]{}, 385302 (2010).
G.H. Hardy, [*Divergent series*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1949).
W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling, B.P. Flannery, [*Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992).
F.J. Gómez, J. Sesma, Scattering length for Lennard-Jones potentials. Eur. Phys. J. D [**66**]{}, 6 (2012).
A. Ruhe, Algorithms for the nonlinear eigenvalue problem, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. [**10**]{}, 674–689 (1973).
F. Naundorf, Ein Verfahren zur Berechnung der charakteristischen Exponenten von linearen Differentialgleichungen zweiter Ordnung mit zwei singulären Stelle, ZAMM [**57**]{}, 47–49 (1977).
W. Wasow, [*Asymptotic expansions for Ordinary Differential Equations*]{} (Dover, Mineola, N. Y., 2002).
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Yufei Wang^1\*^, Tianwei Ni^2\*^\
Carnegie Mellon University
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: |
Meta-SAC: Auto-tune the Entropy Temperature of\
Soft Actor-Critic via Metagradient
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The magnetic inelastic dark matter (MiDM) model, in which dark matter inelastically scatters off nuclei through a magnetic dipole interaction, has previously been shown to reconcile the DAMA/LIBRA annual modulation signal with null results from other experiments. In this work, we explore the unique directional detection signature of MiDM. After the dark matter scatters into its excited state, it decays with a lifetime of order 1 $\mu s$ and emits a photon with energy $\sim$100 keV. Both the nuclear recoil and the corresponding emitted photon can be detected by studying delayed coincidence events. The recoil track and velocity of the excited state can be reconstructed from the nuclear interaction vertex and the photon event vertex. The angular distribution of the WIMP recoil tracks is sharply peaked and modulates daily. It is therefore possible to observe the directional modulation of WIMP-nucleon scattering without a large-volume gaseous directional detection experiment. Furthermore, current experiments such as XENON100 can immediately measure this directional modulation and constrain the MiDM parameter space with an exposure of a few thousand kg $\cdot$ day.'
author:
- Tongyan Lin
- 'Douglas P. Finkbeiner'
bibliography:
- 'midm.bib'
title: 'Magnetic Inelastic Dark Matter: Directional Signals Without a Directional Detector'
---
Introduction
============
Despite decades of direct detection efforts [@Gaitskell:2004gd], the nature of dark matter interactions with regular matter remains elusive. The results from the DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA collaborations suggest that such interactions may be more intricate than originally expected. DAMA has observed an annual modulation in NaI crystals for the past decade [@Bernabei:2000qi; @Bernabei:2008yi; @Bernabei:2010mq], with the expected phase for WIMP-nuclei interactions. There is no experimental evidence corroborating this signal. By now, it appears that the signal is not conventional spin-independent elastic scattering of WIMPs on nuclei.
Among the quantitative explanations of DAMA, it is possible to take a few approaches. One method is to exploit detector effects, such as channeling [@Bernabei:2007hw; @Fairbairn:2008gz; @Savage:2008er]. Another is to introduce a dark matter model with more ingredients (for example, [@Ullio:2000bv; @Foot:2008nw; @Feldstein:2009tr; @Bai:2009cd; @Chang:2009yt; @Chang:2010yk]). A possibility is that the dark matter preferentially scatters off the NaI used in DAMA, as opposed to the nuclei used in other direct detection experiments. In particular, we focus on the fact that iodine is special in having both a relatively large mass and a relatively large magnetic moment [@Chang:2010en].
If dark matter has (weak) electromagnetic moments [@Bagnasco:1993st; @Pospelov:2000bq], it can interact through the charge and magnetic dipole moment of the nuclei. For a summary of the interaction strengths for various nuclei used in direct detection experiments, see [@Banks:2010eh]. This type of interaction has been used to explain some recent direct detection results [@Masso:2009mu; @An:2010kc; @Cho:2010br; @Barger:2010gv; @Fitzpatrick:2010br; @Banks:2010eh], including the positive claim of DAMA. However, there are strong constraints from CDMS [@Ahmed:2009zw] and XENON [@Angle:2009xb; @Aprile:2010um] on this explanation of DAMA.
Inelastic dark matter (iDM) takes advantage of the large iodine mass [@Chang:2008gd]. In iDM, there is an excited state of dark matter with mass splitting $\delta$. It is assumed that dark matter couplings with nuclei are primarily off-diagonal, so that the WIMP is scattered into its excited state. This interaction only occurs if the dark matter has sufficient initial velocity. The minimum velocity $v_{min}$ for a WIMP to scatter with a nuclear recoil of energy $E_R$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
v_{min} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 m_N E_R}} \left( E_R \left(\frac{m_N}{m_\chi}+1 \right) + \delta \right)
\label{eq:vmin}\end{aligned}$$ where $m_N$ is the nucleus mass and $m_\chi$ is the WIMP mass. For splittings of $\delta \sim 100$ keV, experiments are only sensitive to the tail of the WIMP velocity distribution, leading to a much larger annual modulation than in the elastic case. Furthermore, scattering on heavier nuclei like iodine is preferred if $m_\chi$ is of order 100 GeV.
The basic iDM model is now tightly constrained [@SchmidtHoberg:2009gn] by the latest results from CRESST [@CRESST:IDM], ZEPLIN-III [@Akimov:2010vk], XENON [@Angle:2009xb], and CDMS. It is possible to combine inelastic scattering with yet more ingredients. For example, spin-dependent inelastic scattering is discussed in [@Kopp:2009qt].
-- ------------ -- -- ---------- -- -- ---------------------- -- -- ---------- -- -- ----------- -- -- -------------- -- -- ------------------- -- -- ------------- --
$m_{\chi}$ $\delta$ $\mu_\chi/\mu_N$ $\tau$ $\lambda$ $\eta_{.15}$ Angular Rate XENON100
(GeV) (keV) ($\mu$s) (m) $10^{-3}$(cpd/kg) (non-blind)
70\* 123 $6.2\times 10^{-3}$ 1.2 0.4 0.23 11.3 1.4
140\* 109 $2.2\times 10^{-3}$ 12.7 6.2 0.018 2.2 8.1
300\* 103 $2.0\times 10^{-3}$ 18.0 9.7 0.012 1.7 11.6
70 135 $11.2\times 10^{-3}$ 0.26 0.09 0.63 17.6 0.07
140 125 $3.2\times 10^{-3}$ 3.9 2.0 0.06 4.4 3.3
300 117 $2.5\times 10^{-3}$ 7.9 4.4 0.03 2.6 5.8
70 100 $2.5\times 10^{-3}$ 12.6 4.9 0.024 2.7 9.2
140 90 $1.6\times 10^{-3}$ 42.2 20.2 0.006 1.3 22.2
300 90 $1.6\times 10^{-3}$ 42.2 22.1 0.005 1.0 19.3
-- ------------ -- -- ---------- -- -- ---------------------- -- -- ---------- -- -- ----------- -- -- -------------- -- -- ------------------- -- -- ------------- --
Magnetic Inelastic Dark Matter
------------------------------
We focus on magnetic inelastic dark matter (MiDM), because it has a unique and interesting directional signature. Chang et al. [@Chang:2010en] showed MiDM could explain both DAMA and other null results. The model takes advantage of both the magnetic moment and large mass of iodine. In MiDM, the dark matter couples off-diagonally to the photon: $${\mathcal L} \supset \left( \frac{\mu_\chi}{2} \right) \overline \chi^* \sigma_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} \chi + c.c.$$ where the mass of $\chi$ and $\chi^*$ are split by $\delta \sim 100$ keV. The off-diagonal coupling is natural if the dark matter is a Majorana fermion. The excited state has a lifetime $\tau
= \pi/(\delta^3 \mu_\chi^2) \sim 1-10 \mu$s, and emits a photon when it decays. This short lifetime makes it possible to observe both the nuclear recoil and the emitted photon with a meter-scale detector. The two interaction vertices allow reconstruction of the excited state track. Both the velocity and angle can be measured, enabling directional detection even without a directional detector.
A dark matter particle with a permanent electromagnetic dipole moment generally can be constrained by, e.g., gamma-ray measurements, the CMB, or precision Standard Model tests [@Goodman:2010qn; @Sigurdson:2004zp; @Gardner:2008yn]. However, the strongest bounds tend to come from direct detection experiments themselves, at least in the 100 GeV mass range. Furthermore, in MiDM, the inelastic nature of the interaction suppresses interactions with photons and baryons at low energies. If the dark matter is a composite particle, a low compositeness scale can also suppress annihilation to photons.
There are some variants of the MiDM idea. In [@Feldstein:2010su], the parameter values were taken to be $m_\chi \sim 1$ GeV and $\delta
\sim 3$keV. The DAMA signal is produced by the emitted photon. This explanation evades constraints from other direct detection experiments because such low-energy electromagnetic events are typically rejected or not seen by other detectors.
It is also possible that the dark matter couples to a new ‘dark’ $U(1)$, with gauge boson mass $m_A \neq 0$ [@Holdom:1986eq; @Pospelov:2007mp; @An:2010kc]. Here the dark matter has a large dark dipole. If the dark gauge boson couples to regular electromagnetic currents, a sizable interaction with nuclei can be generated. However, the decay rate of the excited state is suppressed because there is no direct interaction with the photon. While these ideas are interesting explanations of the DAMA signals, we do not consider them further because the excited state has a long lifetime.
We study MiDM benchmarks, given in Table \[tab:benchmarks\], which are good fits to the DAMA annual modulation signal [@Chang:2010en]. MiDM models with $m_\chi$ greater than $\sim 300$ GeV are severely constrained by ZEPLIN-III [@Akimov:2010vk], KIMS [@Kim:2008zzn], and XENON100 [@Aprile:2010um]. The benchmarks are subject to form factor and velocity distribution uncertainties [@MarchRussell:2008dy; @Kuhlen:2009vh; @Ling:2009eh; @Vogelsberger:2008qb; @Alves:2010pt], especially for larger masses. The directional signal prediction can change wildly depending on the lifetime and rate.
In order to explore the parameter space, we also considered two extreme points within the DAMA 90$\%$ confidence level region found by [@Chang:2010en], for each of the three masses. For the point with highest $\delta$ and $\mu_\chi$, the expectation for directional detection is better. The point with lowest $\delta$ and $\mu_\chi$, which would not result in many delayed coincidence events, is in any case already tightly constrained by the XENON100 non-blind analysis.
In this paper, we show that the current generation of direct detection experiments can observe a directional signal from MiDM. For concreteness we focus on a XENON100-like detector, for two reasons. First, XENON100 will soon place strong constraints on the MiDM parameter space, making it the most relevant experiment to consider. Second, we wish to emphasize the feasibility of detecting a directional signal with experiments that are currently running.
We compute the distribution of recoil track angles and velocities from MiDM benchmarks. The sensitivity of XENON100 to the MiDM parameter space depends strongly on the lifetime of the excited state. For the benchmark lifetimes of $\sim 1-10 \mu$s, XENON100 can measure the directional modulation at high significance and obtain sharp constraints on the parameter space with just tens of events. This is achievable with around 5000 kg $\cdot$ day in the energy range $10-80$ keVr.
Directional Detection
=====================
Directional detection can clearly test whether any signal comes from WIMP interactions [@Spergel:1987kx]. Due to the Earth’s motion in the Galaxy, there is a “WIMP wind” which is opposite the motion of the Earth. There is a daily modulation in the angle of recoil tracks in the lab frame. This modulation depends only on the rotation of the Earth relative to the WIMP wind, and can be disentangled from the daily rotation of the Earth with respect to the Sun. The experimental directional detection effort focuses on measuring the nuclear recoil track with large-volume, gaseous detectors [@Ahlen:2009ev; @Sciolla:2008vp; @Sciolla:2009ps].
Angular information is a particularly powerful discriminant of WIMP scattering for iDM [@Finkbeiner:2009ug; @Lisanti:2009vy]. Because inelastic interactions have a high velocity threshold, the angular distribution of the nuclear recoil tracks is sharply peaked in the direction of the WIMP wind. There is a kinematic constraint on the recoil angle of the nucleus: $$(\cos \gamma)_{max}(E_R) = \frac{v_{esc} - v_{min}(E_R,\delta)}{v_E}.
\label{eq:cosgamma}$$ Here $\gamma$ is the angle between the velocity of the Earth and the recoil velocity in the Earth frame, $v_E$ is the Earth’s velocity in the Galactic frame, and $v_{esc}$ is the Galactic escape velocity from the Solar neighborhood. For typical iDM models considered in the literature, $\gamma$ is constrained to be within $\sim$100 degrees of the WIMP wind [@Finkbeiner:2009ug]. However, because the signal goes to zero at the bound in Eq. \[eq:cosgamma\], the precise location of this kinematic constraint can be difficult to pinpoint.
MiDM has better directional detection prospects at XENON100, compared to directional detection of iDM. Current directional detectors focus on spin-dependent scattering and use light targets such as CF$_4$ [@Ahlen:2010ub; @Daw:2010ud; @Grignon:2010zg; @Miuchi:2007ga]. Thus, they would not see inelastic scattering events. In the MiDM case, there is also much more event information and thus more sensitivity to the parameter space. One can measure both the velocity ($v_*$) and the angle ($\cos \gamma_*$) of the WIMP recoil track. Once again, this recoil angle is with respect to the Earth’s motion. The tracks are sharply peaked in angle opposite the motion of the Earth.
For the WIMP recoil angle, there is also an energy-dependent maximum recoil angle, which we give in Sec. \[sec:spectrum\]. The most important bound is on the WIMP recoil velocity, $$v_*^{min}(E_R) = \left| \frac{(E_R (m_N/m_\chi -1) - \delta)}{\sqrt{2 m_N E_R}} \right|.
\label{eq:vfmin}$$ Here the signal peaks near the kinematic bound because most events occur near the threshold velocity in Eq. \[eq:vmin\]. Thus having information on both $v_*$ and $E_R$ is an extremely sensitive probe of the model parameters. There is a remaining degeneracy: if $\delta$ and $m_\chi$ are shifted in [*opposite*]{} directions, the bound can remain roughly the same. However, one can fit $\delta$ separately from the spectrum of the nuclear recoils, and from the energy of the emitted photons.
There is also a maximum velocity for the excited state, $$v_*^{max}(E_R) =\sqrt{(v_E + v_{esc})^2 -2 (E_R + \delta)/m_\chi},$$ but the rate is exponentially suppressed at this bound.
XENON100 \[sec:xenon100\]
-------------------------
We model directional detection in XENON100 with a simplified XENON100-like experiment. XENON10 [@Angle:2007uj; @Angle:2009xb] had 316.4 [kg$\cdot$ day ]{}of data in the energy range 4.5-75 keVr. XENON100 has a 40 kg fiducial mass, at even lower backgrounds. The initial 170 [kg$\cdot$ day ]{}non-blind run already constrains the MiDM parameter space (at low $\delta$). The XENON100 detector is a cylinder, with a radius of 15.3 cm and a height of 30.6 cm. The fiducial volume has a radius of 13.5 cm and height of 24.3 cm. The primary scintillation (S1) and ionization (S2) signals of an event are measured. For more details, see [@Aprile:2010bt]. The S2 signal is observed 15-140 $\mu s$ after the S1 signal, for events in the fiducial volume.
The signature of MiDM is two S1 signals separated by roughly .5 $\mu
s$ in time, followed at least 15 $\mu s$ later by two S2 signals. The photon event is identified from the second S1 signal and an S2 peak with energy of $\sim$100 keVee. At 100 keVee, a photon is clearly distinguishable from a nuclear recoil by S2/S1. The other event should be consistent with a nuclear recoil. The time separation of the two S2 signals depends on how the WIMP recoils along the cylinder axis, $z$. In XENON10, events with multiple S2 events at different $z$ positions were rejected.
We refer to the track connecting the two events as the decay track. Events can be localized to a 3D spatial resolution of 3 mm (though the absorption length for the 100 keV photon may blur this) and timing resolution of 10 ns. Meanwhile, the track should be at least 10 cm long. This makes it possible to measure direction and velocity of the decay track to an extremely high accuracy. The head-tail discrimination of the track can be determined using timing information and the S1/S2 ratio.
We wish to obtain the $\chi^*$ recoil track from the decay track. However, because the photon can travel up to $\sim$1 cm after emission, this introduces systematic uncertainties. The observed decay track can be blurred by a few degrees, relative to the $\chi^*$ recoil track direction. This also introduces an uncertainty in the velocity of the $\chi^*$ of roughly 10%.
There are some specific event geometries that can result in more ambiguous events. For example, it could be difficult to resolve the two S2 signals if the decay track is perpendicular to the $z$ axis. Then the two S2 signals arrive at nearly the same time. S2 signals generally have a time width of $\sim1 \mu$s and the PMT spatial resolution is only $\sim$2.5 cm. However, because the drift velocity is 2mm/$\mu$s, this is a small fraction of the total solid angle.
Thus directional events are in principle detectable at XENON100. The background for such delayed coincidence events with both a nuclear recoil and a photon of energy $\sim 100$ keV should be extremely low. There are other ‘mixed’ delayed coincidence events from Bi and Kr contamination, and excitation of metastable states of Xe [@Aprile:2010bt]. However, these have very different energies and decay times. It may be possible to extend the fiducial volume when searching for directional events.
![The efficiency $\eta$ for the best-fit benchmarks from Table \[tab:benchmarks\]. $R_0$ is the size of a spherical detector. We approximate the XENON100 fiducial volume as a sphere with radius $R_0 = 0.15$ m, marked by the vertical black line. The thinner lines show the corresponding results with highest $\delta$, within the 90$\%$ CL region of the best fit.[]{data-label="fig:eff"}](midm_eff_Xe.eps){width=".5\textwidth"}
Detector Efficiency \[sec:detectoreff\]
---------------------------------------
The typical decay length is $1-10$ m in these models, relatively large compared to XENON100. Thus the WIMP can recoil inside the detector volume, but decay outside the detector [^1]. The effective exposure for delayed coincidence events is, in general, lower than the exposure for nuclear recoils because of this geometric effect. Here we compute the detector efficiency, as a function of typical detector size, for the MiDM benchmarks.
The efficiency is $$\eta(t) = \int d^3 \vec v_* f(\vec v_*,t)
\int \frac{dt'}{\tau} e^{-t'/\tau}
\left( \int_{V} \frac{d^3 \vec x}{V}
H(t,\vec x, \vec d,t') \right) \nonumber$$ The term in brackets comprises detector effects. The spatial integral is over the detector volume. $H(t, \vec x, \vec d, t')$ is the efficiency for observing a WIMP decay, given that a nuclear recoil was observed. This depends on the time of the year $t$, the location of the WIMP-nucleus interaction inside the detector, $\vec x$, the decay vector, $\vec d$, and the WIMP decay time (coincidence time), $t'$. Whether a given WIMP decay track is located inside the detector depends on the orientation of the detector with respect to the Earth’s velocity, the decay vector, and the efficiency for the particular event geometry.
The astrophysics and particle physics is captured by the integral over $t'$ and $\vec v_*$. $\tau$ is the lifetime of the excited state. The distribution of recoils depends on the WIMP recoil velocity distribution, $f(\vec v_*)$, and the decay time distribution. We assume that $\vec v_*$ is defined with respect to the Earth’s velocity vector so that $f(\vec v_*)$ does not depend on detector orientation.
For the calculation below, we model the detector as a single sphere of size $R_0$. We assume that $H$ depends only on the interaction position $\vec x$ and the decay length $L = v_* t'$. Here we neglect the smearing arising from the mean free path of the emitted photon, since the emission is isotropic. There is also no dependence on $t$ or recoil angle in this approximation. Then the expression for efficiency above can be simplified to $$\eta = \int dL\ g(L)\ \int_0^{R_0} \frac{3 R^2 dR}{R_0^3} H(R,L)$$ where $L$ is the recoil length. The recoil length distribution $g(L)$ is $$g(L) = \int dv_* \frac{f(v_*)}{v_* \tau} \exp\left( -\frac{L}{v_* \tau}
\right)$$ where now $f(v_*)$ is the distribution for $v_*$, not $\vec v_*$. A good approximation is $g(L) = \exp( -L/\lambda)/\lambda$, where $\lambda = \langle v_* \rangle \tau$ is the average recoil length. Typical $\lambda$ values are given in Table \[tab:benchmarks\].
We approximate the XENON100 detector as a sphere. The fiducial volume has radius $R_0 = 15$ cm, with efficiency $\eta_{.15}$. Results are shown in Fig. \[fig:eff\]. The precise efficiency depends on specifics of the detector, and must take into account the effects mentioned in Sec. \[sec:xenon100\].
a){width=".32\textwidth"} {width=".32\textwidth"} {width=".32\textwidth"}\
b){width=".32\textwidth"} {width=".32\textwidth"} {width=".32\textwidth"}\
Recoil Spectrum \[sec:spectrum\]
================================
There are two electromagnetic scattering channels for magnetic dark matter: dipole-dipole and dipole-charge. In the dipole-dipole scattering case, the dark matter interacts with the magnetic moment of the nucleus. The matrix element is $$\frac{|{\cal M}|^2}{32 \pi m_N m^2_\chi} = 16 \pi \alpha^2 m_N
\left( \frac{\mu_{nuc}}{e}\right)^2
\left( \frac{ \mu_\chi }{e}\right)^2 \frac{S_N+1}{3 S_N},
\label{eq:matrixelementDD}$$ for each isotope. We sum over all isotopes, weighted by their abundances [@Banks:2010eh]. There is, in general, also a factor of $(S_\chi + 1)/(3 S_\chi)$ for the spin of the dark matter. We take $S_\chi = 1/2$.
In the dipole-charge scattering case, the dark matter interacts with the electric charge of the nucleus. The matrix element is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|{\cal M}|^2}{32 \pi m_N m^2_\chi} =& \frac{4 \pi Z^2 \alpha^2}{E_R}
\left( \frac{\mu_\chi }{e}\right)^2
\big[v^2 - E_R\left( \frac{1}{2 m_N} + \frac{1}{m_\chi} \right) \nonumber \\
&-\delta \left( \frac{1}{\mu_{N\chi}} +\frac{\delta}{2 m_N E_R} \right) \big],
\label{eq:matrixelementDZ}\end{aligned}$$ where $v$ is the initial velocity of the WIMP in the lab frame. We have again assumed $S_\chi = 1/2$.
The differential scattering rate for measuring both nuclear recoil energy and WIMP recoil track is $$\frac{dR}{dE_R dv_* dx_*} =
\frac{\eta N_T \rho_\chi}{m_\chi} \int d^3\vec v
\ f(\vec v + \vec v_E)\ v \ \frac{ d\sigma }{dE_R dv_* dx_*}$$ where we have abbreviated $x_* = \cos \gamma_*$. The three-dimensional WIMP velocity distribution is given by $f(\vec v)$. $N_T$ is the number of target nuclei per kg and $\rho_\chi$ is the local WIMP energy density, which we fix to be $0.4$ GeV/cm$^3$ [@Catena:2009mf].
As in [@Finkbeiner:2009ug], we expand $d \sigma$ and change variables to $\vec v' = \vec v + \vec v_E$. The trivial integral over $\vec v'$ imposes the condition $$\vec v' = \vec q/m_\chi + \vec v_* + \vec v_E.$$ $\vec q$ is the recoil momentum of the nucleus. The resulting differential rate is $$\begin{aligned}
dR =
\frac{\eta N_T \rho_\chi}{m_\chi} & d^3 \vec v_*
d^3 \vec q \ f(\vec v')
\left( \frac{|{\cal M}|^2}{64 \pi^2 m_\chi^2 m^2_N} \right) F^2[E_R]
\nonumber \\
& \times \delta^{(1)}
\left( \frac{q^2}{2 m_\chi} + \vec q \cdot \vec v_* - E_R - \delta \right).\end{aligned}$$ $F^2[E_R]$ is a nuclear form factor which depends on the type of interaction.
For a xenon target, dipole-charge scattering, Eq. \[eq:matrixelementDZ\], dominates. For this we use the standard nuclear Helm form factor. Dipole-dipole scattering, Eq. \[eq:matrixelementDD\], is roughly $20\%$ of the total rate. To calculate dipole-dipole scattering a magnetic moment form factor is necessary. The nuclear magnetic moment receives contributions from both spin and angular momentum. We use the spin form factor from [@Ressell:1997kx]. The angular momentum component is $\sim
20-30\%$ at zero momentum for Xe. Since dipole-dipole scattering is already subdominant for Xe, and since we do not have accurate angular momentum form factors, we approximate the entire magnetic moment form factor with the spin component.
We now specialize to the case where $f(\vec v)$ is a normalized, truncated Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, with $v_{esc} = 550$ km/s [@Smith:2006ym] and $v_0 = 220$ km/s. We assume $v_E = 240$ km/s on average and label the normalization factor of the distribution as $n(v_0,v_{esc})$. The result is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dR}{dE_R dv_* dx_*} =\ &
\frac{\eta N_T \rho_\chi v_*}{m_\chi}
\frac{|{\cal M}|^2}{32 \pi m_N m_\chi^2}
F^2[E_R] \Theta(1-|x_q|) \nonumber \\
& \times \int d\phi
\frac{e^{ -(v ')^2/v_0^2}}{n(v_0,v_{esc})} \Theta(v_{esc}-|\vec v'|) \end{aligned}$$ with the following definitions: $$\begin{aligned}
x_q =& -\frac{(E_R (m_N/m_\chi -1) - \delta)}{q v_*}, \ \ \ \text{and} \\
(v')^2 =& v_E^2 +q^2/m_\chi^2 + v_*^2 + 2 v_E v_* x_* + 2 x_q v_* q / m_\chi
\nonumber \\
& + 2 v_E q /m_\chi \left( x_q x_* + \sqrt{1-x_q^2} \sqrt{1-x_*^2}
\cos \phi \right). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ An upper bound on $x_*$ can be extracted from setting $v' = v_{esc}$, with $\cos \phi = -1$. The bound depends on both $v_*$ and $E_R$.
Finally, the matrix elements are given in Eq. \[eq:matrixelementDD\] or in Eq. \[eq:matrixelementDZ\]. Note that in the dipole-charge scattering case we need to replace $v$ in Eq. \[eq:matrixelementDZ\] using the energy conservation relation, $ m_\chi v^2 = 2 E_R + m_\chi
v_*^2 + 2 \delta$.
The normalized total rate spectrum of several benchmark models is shown in Fig. \[fig:rates\].
a\) {width=".45\textwidth"} b) {width=".45\textwidth"}
Sensitivity
===========
XENON100 is collecting several thousand [kg$\cdot$ day ]{}of exposure. We assume a total exposure of 5000 [kg$\cdot$ day ]{}on a 40.6 kg fiducial target, in a nuclear recoil energy range of 10-80 ${{\rm ~keVr}}$. This is consistent with scaling up the results from XENON10 and with preliminary results reported by XENON100.
For the best-fit parameters listed in Table \[tab:benchmarks\], this would imply a minimum of $\sim 100$ nuclear recoils observable by XENON100. Only $\sim 10$ delayed coincidence events are expected, due to the small size of the detector relative to the average recoil track length. Despite these low efficiencies, a study of the delayed coincidence events is still vastly more informative in two ways: (a) it establishes a directional signal correlated with the WIMP wind, and (b) it is much more sensitive to the parameter space.
Directional Detection \[sec:cosgamma\]
--------------------------------------
We first determine the exposures required to establish a correlation with the WIMP wind. The average nuclear recoil angle with respect to the Earth’s motion, $\langle \cos \gamma \rangle$, is a robust model-independent statistic for directional detection [@Morgan:2004ys; @Green:2006cb; @Finkbeiner:2009ug]. Here we use $\langle \cos \gamma_* \rangle$, the WIMP recoil angle with respect to the Earth’s motion. Because of the rotation of the Earth, on average $\langle \cos \gamma \rangle$ or $\langle \cos \gamma_* \rangle$ should be consistent with 0 for standard backgrounds.
Because XENON100 has excellent spatial resolution, we assume that the recoil track angle can be determined to 10 degrees. We compute the exposures required to obtain a $5 \sigma$ result for $\langle \cos
\gamma_* \rangle$ 90$\%$ of the time. We allow for a uniform (isotropic) background, though the XENON100 background should be negligibly low. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:expbench\]. The required exposures roughly correspond to a minimum of 16 events at zero background.
(a)
{width=".3\textwidth"}0.2in {width=".3\textwidth"}0.2in {width=".3\textwidth"}\
(b)
{width=".3\textwidth"}0.2in {width=".3\textwidth"}0.2in {width=".3\textwidth"}\
(c)
{width=".3\textwidth"}0.2in {width=".3\textwidth"}0.2in {width=".3\textwidth"}\
Parameter Estimation \[sec:paramestimation\]
--------------------------------------------
The predicted rate for delayed coincidence events at XENON100 is only a few counts per 1000 kg $\cdot$ day. However, the additional recoil track information makes it possible to obtain an excellent measurement of the model parameters.
We perform a likelihood analysis, as described in [@Finkbeiner:2009ug], over the parameter space of $m_\chi,
\delta$, and $\mu_\chi$. We compute the (relative) log likelihoods for ${\cal E}$ [kg$\cdot$ day ]{}on Xe, with nuclear recoil energy range $10-80{{\rm ~keVr}}$. We neglect the effects of imperfect angular and energy resolution. (The XENON100 energy resolution is $\sim 10\%$ in this energy range, and we estimate an angular resolution of 10 degrees.) The log likelihood is $$\ln{\cal L}_{tot}(p) ={\cal E} \int dx {\bigg(} \mu(x;p_0) \ln \mu(x;p) - \mu(x;p) {\bigg)} $$ where $p$ refers to $(m_\chi, \delta, \mu_\chi)$ and $x$ refers generically to the event space of either $E_R$ or $(E_R,v_*,\cos\gamma_*)$. $p_0$ are the true model parameters. $\mu$ is the rate for parameters $p$. If there is only nuclear recoil energy information, $$\mu(E_R; p) \equiv \frac{dR}{dE_R}(E_R;p) + dR_{BG},$$ in cpd/kg/keVr for parameters $p$. We assume the background rate, $dR_{BG}$ is known and negligibly small.
If there is directional information, $$\mu(E_R,v_*,x_*; p) \equiv
\eta_{.15}(p) \frac{dR}{dE_R dv_* dx_*}(E_R,v_*,x_*;p)
+ \frac{dR_{BG}}{dv_* dx_*},
\nonumber$$ where $x_* = \cos \gamma_*$. $\eta_{.15}(p)$ is the efficiency, for parameters $p$, at XENON100.
In Fig. \[fig:lnlbench\] we show the sensitivity to MiDM parameters if (1) only nuclear recoil information is used and (2) if only delayed coincidence events are considered for 5000 kg $\cdot$ day. We show confidence levels of (68, 90, 95, 99, and 99.9%). We neglect the Earth’s velocity about the Sun since a livetime of order a year is needed for 5000 kg $\cdot$ day.
Despite the reduction by a factor of 10-50 in events, the directional data is a much stronger constraint on $m_\chi$ and $\mu_\chi$. $\delta$ can also be determined from the $E_R$ data or the photon energies. In Fig. \[fig:lnldelta\] we show the sensitivity to $m_\chi$ and $\mu_\chi$ for the $m_\chi = 140$ GeV benchmark, assuming that $\delta$ is already known. The directional information breaks the degeneracy in $m_\chi$ and $\mu_\chi$ when only nuclear recoil information is used.
![Confidence levels for determining $m_\chi$ and $\mu_\chi$ using WIMP recoil tracks, assuming $\delta$ is already measured from the photon energies or nuclear recoil spectrum. Here we take the $m_\chi = 140$ GeV benchmark and assume an exposure of 5000 [kg$\cdot$ day ]{}on Xe in the energy range $10-80{{\rm ~keVr}}$. \[fig:lnldelta\]](mX140eff_delta_muM.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
Measurement of Both Recoils
---------------------------
So far, we considered measurement of the WIMP recoil velocity vector from delayed coincidence events. With a gaseous directional detector, it is also possible to obtain the recoil angle of the nucleus. Then $m_\chi$ and $\delta$ are highly constrained. For such events there are 4 equations and 5 unknowns: $m_\chi$, $\delta$, and $\vec
v$. However, one can obtain $\delta$ from the energy peak of the coincident photons. Then it is possible to measure the WIMP mass and velocity with just 1 WIMP scattering event. The mass is determined by the following equation: $$m_\chi = \frac{ 2 m_N E_R }{ 2 (\delta + E_R) - \sqrt{2 m_N E_R}\
\hat q \cdot \vec v_*}.$$ Since $\vec q$ and $\vec v_*$ are measured, the initial WIMP velocity $\vec v$ is then fixed by momentum conservation. A direct measurement of the WIMP velocity distribution is then also possible.
Conclusions
===========
The magnetic inelastic dark matter model has an interesting and previously unstudied signature at direct detection experiments: a delayed coincident photon with energy $\delta$. Observation of such photons would also allow current direct detection experiments to become excellent directional detectors.
Motivated by the MiDM setup, we studied several benchmark model parameters that can fit the combined DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA data. Given the rapidly improving constraints from other experiments, we feel that MiDM is currently the best hope for a dark matter interpretation of DAMA – *and it predicts a low-background signature detectable with current experiments.*
With 5000 [kg$\cdot$ day ]{}of exposure, XENON100 can detect the angular modulation of the recoils and determine the MiDM model parameters. While we focused on benchmarks in MiDM, we emphasize that such a delayed coincidence signal is worth searching for in general. Such events, if found, carry much more information than simple nuclear recoils, and would provide more direct access to the WIMP velocity distribution in our halo.\
We thank Peter Sorensen, Neal Weiner, and Itay Yavin for useful discussion. We are partially supported by NASA Theory grant NNX10AD85G. This research made use of the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) and the IDL Astronomy User’s Library at Goddard [^2].
[^1]: The reverse can also happen, similar to the idea in [@Feldstein:2010su]. The rate depends on whether the material within $\sim$10m of the Xe detector mostly consists of light or heavy nuclei. Aside from a 20cm layer of lead, the shielding for XENON100 consists of polyethylene, water, and copper.
[^2]: Available at `http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This work proposes an iterative sparse-regularized regression method to recover governing equations of nonlinear dynamical systems from noisy state measurements. The method is inspired by the Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamics (SINDy) approach of [*\[Brunton et al., PNAS, 113 (15) (2016) 3932-3937\]*]{}, which relies on two main assumptions: the state variables are known [*a priori*]{} and the governing equations lend themselves to sparse, linear expansions in a (nonlinear) basis of the state variables. The aim of this work is to improve the accuracy and robustness of SINDy in the presence of state measurement noise. To this end, a reweighted $\ell_1$-regularized least squares solver is developed, wherein the regularization parameter is selected from the corner point of a Pareto curve. The idea behind using weighted $\ell_1$-norm for regularization – instead of the standard $\ell_1$-norm – is to better promote sparsity in the recovery of the governing equations and, in turn, mitigate the effect of noise in the state variables. We also present a method to recover single physical constraints from state measurements. Through several examples of well-known nonlinear dynamical systems, we demonstrate empirically the accuracy and robustness of the reweighted $\ell_1$-regularized least squares strategy with respect to state measurement noise, thus illustrating its viability for a wide range of potential applications.'
address: 'Smead Aerospace Engineering Sciences Department, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA'
author:
- Alexandre Cortiella
- 'Kwang-Chun Park'
- Alireza Doostan
bibliography:
- 'mybibfile.bib'
title: 'Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems via Reweighted $\ell_1$-regularized Least Squares'
---
Nonlinear system identification; sparse regression; Basis pursuit denoising (BPDN); reweighted $\ell_1$-regularization; Pareto curve; SINDy.
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Several branches in science and engineering represent systems that change over time as a set of differential equations that govern the underlying physical behavior. The structure of these differential equations is usually determined by observing the system and inferring relationships between variables, or derived from fundamental axioms and mathematical reasoning. Examples of the empirical method include Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton’s approaches in deriving laws of planetary motion. The accurate measurements of planet trajectories by Tycho Brahe enabled Kepler to empirically determine the laws that govern the motion of elliptic orbits. Newton, in turn, was able to derive the law of universal gravitation by inductive reasoning. Solving models derived from fundamental laws, either analytically or numerically, has proven to be a useful approach in engineering to produce reliable systems. However, the derived models often rely on simplifying assumptions that may not explain complex phenomena, leading to a mismatch between predictions and observations. Moreover, parameters of these models may need to be estimated indirectly from system observables.
Recent advances in data acquisition systems along with modern data science techniques have fostered the development of accurate data-driven approaches, such as inverse modeling and system identification, in modeling physical or biological systems [@Fassois2007]. In particular, system identification, i.e., deducting accurate mathematical models from measured observations, has experienced significant advances in recent years [@ljung2001system; @ljung2010perspectives]. System identification is a key to improved understanding of complex phenomena, dominant feature analysis, design of experiments, and system monitoring and control. Some promising applications include space weather modeling [@balikhin2011using; @boynton2013analysis], development of material constitutive laws [@mahnken2017identification], turbulence modeling [@brunton2015closed], and model predictive control [@morari1999model], to name a few.
In dynamical systems where the underlying physics is not fully understood or simplified for the interest of computational efficiency, system identification may be used to both determine a model structure, e.g., the governing equations, and estimate model parameters from data. When the model structure is unknown, one particular approach that has received increasing attention is to approximate the nonlinear dynamics in an over-complete basis of the state variables and eliminate the expansion terms that do not contribute to the dynamics. Examples of this approach include polynomial NARMAX [@Leontaritis1985], symbolic polynomial regression [@Schmidt81; @Bongard2007], and sparse (polynomial) regression [@Wang2011; @Brunton2016] dubbed SINDy in [@Brunton2016].
System identification via sparse (polynomial) regression employs techniques from compressed sensing – specifically regularization via sparsity promoting norms, such as $\ell_0$- and $\ell_1$-norms, to identify an [*a priori*]{} unknown subset of the basis describing the dynamics. The idea behind sparsity-promoting norms is based on Occam’s razor principle, also known as the law of parsimony, which states: [@OccamsRazor]. The identified model may then be further analyzed to understand the physical behavior of the dynamical system, and can be integrated in time to predict future state variables of the system. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) [@tibshirani1996regression], Least Angle Regression (LARS) [@Efron2004], Sequentially Thresholded Least Squares (STLS) [@Brunton2016], and Basis Pursuit Denoising (BPDN) [@Chen2001] are some sparsity promoting algorithms that may be used for model recovery. In particular, the work by Wang et al. [@Wang2011] proposed a compressive sensing approach to polynomial basis expansion with $\ell_1$-minimization of the coefficients in order to recover nonlinear dynamical systems. Similarly, Brunton et al. [@Brunton2016] proposed SINDy to recover the governing equations of dynamical systems. In their approach, an overdetermined system of equations is solved using a Sequentially Thresholded Least Squares scheme – instead of $\ell_1$-minimization – to enforce sparsity in the expansion coefficient and mitigate the impact of state measurement noise.
A major challenge in model recovery via SINDy is the identification of accurate models when the input data, i.e., state measurements or their time derivatives, are corrupted with noise. Noisy measurements may lead to the identification of incorrect basis terms and inaccurate estimation of the parameters of the model. While algorithms based on standard $\ell_1$-regularization or thresholded least squares lead to accurate recovery of the governing equations for small noise levels, they may produce inaccurate results or wrong sparsity patterns as the noise in the data increases [@zhang2018robust; @kaheman2020sindy]. An exception is a class of chaotic dynamical systems, e.g., Lorenz 63, satisfying certain ergodicity property [@tran2017exact]. In these cases, as shown in [@tran2017exact], the governing equation can be recovered exactly even when the state data is highly noisy and a large fraction of data is corrupted with outliers.
Contribution of this work {#sec:contribution}
-------------------------
The focus of this article is to improve the accuracy and robustness of SINDy in the presence of state measurement noise. We advocate the utility of a weighted $\ell_1$-norm to regularize SINDy’s regression problem. In the fields of sparse regression and compressed sensing, weighted $\ell_1$-minimization has been shown to empirically outperform $\ell_1$-minimization in recovering sparse solutions to certain under-determined linear systems [@zou2006adaptive; @Candes2008]. Similar observations have been made in approximating multivariate functions in orthogonal polynomial bases [@Yang13; @Peng14; @adcock2017infinite]. The weights can be generated iteratively and inversely proportional to the values of the coefficients from the previous iteration [@Candes2008; @Yang13], or based an approximate value of the coefficients [@Peng14] or the $\ell_\infty$-norm of the basis functions [@adcock2017infinite]. In this work, we adopt a reweighted version of the Basis Pursuit Denoising algorithm (WBPDN) to solve an overdetermined system with the aim of mitigating the effects of noise, and thereby recover the governing equations of dynamical systems more accurately. In WBPDN, the sparsity of the recovered model and its accuracy in generating the training data, specifically, the time derivatives of the state variables are balanced via a regularization parameter. We propose the selection of the regularization parameter based on the corner point of a Pareto curve. Additionally, we present a method based on low-rank matrix factorization via interpolative decomposition [@Cheng2005] to identify single constraints of dynamical systems, such as conservation of total energy, from state measurements that are polluted with low noise levels. Beyond learning constraints, the identification and removal of redundant information introduced by the constraints improve the conditioning of SINDy’s regression problem.
A related approach to improving the accuracy and robustness of SINDy is the utility of data associated with short trajectories of the state variables [@schaeffer2018extracting; @wu2019numerical]. The trajectories correspond to multiple (random) initializations of the system. In the present study, however, we assume we have access to only single, but long, trajectories of the system state variables, an assumption that is more relevant when state measurements are obtained experimentally.
We begin, in the next section, by presenting a background on recovering dynamical system equations from state measurements using sparsity promoting regression techniques. In Section \[sec:approach\], we present the WBPDN approach along with discussions on the selection of regularization parameter and the calculation of time derivatives of state variables from their noisy measurements. In Section \[subsec:constrainedsystems\], we introduce our approach for the identification of single constraints from state data. In Section \[sec:numericalexamples\], the performance of the WBPDN method is assessed through several numerical examples of well-known dynamical systems with distinct features. Finally, in Section \[sec:conclusion\], we draw conclusions and discuss relevant aspects of the proposed method, and provide directions for future improvement.
Problem Statement and Background {#sec:statement}
================================
Throughout this work, we assume that a dynamical system has the form $$\dot{\mathbf{x}}(t) = \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}(t)}{\mathrm{d}t} = \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}(t)), \quad \mathbf{x}(0) = \mathbf{x}_0,\label{eq:DynamicalSystem}$$ where $\mathbf{x}(t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ are the known and measurable state variables of the system at time $t \in [0,T]$ and $\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}(t))\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a state-dependent unknown vector that describes the motion of the system. An important observation is that in many systems $\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}):=\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}(t))$ is a [*simple*]{} function of the state variables $\mathbf{x}:=\mathbf{x}(t)$ in that only a small set of state-dependent quantities, e.g., damping or inertial forces, contribute to the dynamics. Given that $\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x})$ is unknown and following [@Wang2011; @Brunton2016], we assume that each state dynamics $\dot{x}_j:=\dot{x}_j(t)$ or, equivalently, $f_j(\mathbf{x})$, $j = 1,\dots,n$, is spanned by a set of $p$ candidate nonlinear (in the state variables) basis functions $\phi_{i}(\mathbf{x})$ weighted by unknown coefficients $\xi_{ji}$, $$\label{eq:dynExpansion}
\dot{x}_j = \sum_{i = 1}^p \xi_{ij} \phi_{i}(\mathbf{x}),\,\,\,\,\,j = 1,\dots,n.$$ As the true dynamics may be described by only a subset of the the considered basis $\{\phi_{i}(\mathbf{x})\}$, the unknown coefficients $\xi_{ij}$ are sparse. Exploiting this sparsity in identifying $\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x})$ is the key idea behind SINDy algorithms. The selection of the basis is crucial as the true $\dot{\mathbf{x}}_j$, while unknown, are assumed to be either exactly or approximately in the span of the basis. For arbitrary dynamical systems, such a selection is non-trivial and physical insight or a trial and error approach must be exercised. One approach to ease the difficulty of basis selection is to build an overcomplete basis, perhaps by concatenating different types of basis, e.g., polynomials and harmonics. However, this may negatively affect the accuracy of the computed $\xi_{ij}$, especially in the presence of large levels of state measurement noise.
To determine the governing equations $\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x})$ via (\[eq:dynExpansion\]), we assume that the state variables $\mathbf{x}$ are known and can be measured at discrete times $t_k$, $k = 1,\dots,m$, where $m$ is the number of measurements. Hence, (\[eq:dynExpansion\]) may be written in matrix form as $$\label{eq:matrix_main_system}
\dot{\mathbf{x}}_j = \bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})\bm{\xi}_j ,\,\,\,\,\,j = 1,\dots,n,$$ where, $$\begin{gathered}
\dot{\mathbf{x}}_j =
\begin{bmatrix}
\dot{x}_j(t_1), & \dot{x}_j(t_2), & \hdots \,, &\dot{x}_j(t_m)
\end{bmatrix}^T \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m};\\ \\
\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x}) =
\begin{bmatrix}
\phi_{1}(\mathbf{x}(t_1)) & \phi_{2}(\mathbf{x}(t_1)) & \hdots & \phi_{p}(\mathbf{x}(t_1))\\
\phi_{1}(\mathbf{x}(t_2)) & \phi_{2}(\mathbf{x}(t_2)) & \hdots & \phi_{p}(\mathbf{x}(t_2))\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\phi_{1}(\mathbf{x}(t_m)) & \phi_{2}(\mathbf{x}(t_m)) & \hdots & \phi_{p}(\mathbf{x}(t_m))\\
\end{bmatrix} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times p};\,\,\,\,\text{and}\\ \\
\bm{\xi}_j =
\begin{bmatrix}
\xi_{1j}, & \xi_{2j}, & \hdots \,, & \xi_{pj}
\end{bmatrix}^T \in {\mathbb{R}}^{p}.\end{gathered}$$ Hereafter, we refer to $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ as the [*measurement*]{} matrix. As we shall describe in Section \[subsec:numericaldifferentiation\], we estimate the dynamics $\dot{\mathbf{x}}_j$ in (\[eq:matrix\_main\_system\]) via time derivatives of the state variables $x_j$, which may require access to a large number of state measurements. Therefore, the present work focuses on over-determined systems (\[eq:matrix\_main\_system\]), where the number of measurements is larger than the number of candidate functions, i.e., $m > p$. This assumption may be relaxed when $\dot{\mathbf{x}}_j$ is directly measured. For the interest of a simpler notation, we henceforth drop the subscript $j$ from $\dot{\mathbf{x}}_j$ and $\bm{\xi}_j$ in (\[eq:matrix\_main\_system\]). Unless otherwise stated, $\dot{\mathbf{x}}$ refers to the measurements of $\dot{x}_j$ and not the dynamics $\dot{\mathbf{x}}$ in (\[eq:DynamicalSystem\]).
The coefficients $\bm{\xi}$ are computed from (\[eq:matrix\_main\_system\]), for each $j$, subject to a sparsity constraint on $\bm{\xi}$. Wang et al. [@Wang2011] achieve this via $\ell_1$-minimization or basis pursuit denoising (BPDN), a widely-used compressed sensing technique, $$\label{eq:L1min}
\min_{\bm{\xi}}{\|\bm{\xi}\|}_1 \quad \text{subject to} \quad {\|\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})\bm{\xi} - \dot{\mathbf{x}}\|}_2 \leq \delta,$$ where $\Vert\bm{\xi}\Vert_1=\sum_{i=1}^p\vert\xi_i\vert$ is the $\ell_1$-norm of $\bm\xi$ and $\delta\ge 0$ is some tolerance parameter to avoid over-fitting. The unconstrained formulation of (\[eq:L1min\]) is given by the second order cone program, $$\label{eq:BPDN}
\text{(BPDN)}\qquad \min_{\bm{\xi}} {\|\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})\bm{\xi} - \dot{\mathbf{x}}\|}_2^2 + \lambda {\|\bm{\xi}\|}_1,$$ which coincides with the unconstrained LASSO [@tibshirani1996regression], and is also referred to as $\ell_1$-regularized least squares [@Kim2007]. In (\[eq:BPDN\]), the regularization parameter $\lambda>0$ creates a trade-off between the accuracy of satisfying (\[eq:matrix\_main\_system\]) and the sparsity of the solution.
The SINDy algorithm of [@Brunton2016] proposes a Sequentially Thresholded Least Squares (STLS) algorithm, which iteratively solves a least squares regression problem and hard-thresholds the coefficients to promote sparsity and thereby regularize the regression problem. The procedure is repeated on the non-zero entries of $\bm{\mathbf{\xi}}$ until the solution converges or the algorithm reaches a maximum number of iterations. In more details, let $\mathcal{S}(\bm\xi):=\{i:\ \xi_i\neq 0\}$ denote the support of an instance of $\bm\xi$. At the $(k+1)$th iteration of STLS, $\bm\xi^{(k+1)}$ is computed from a least squares problem over $\mathcal{S}(\bm\xi^{(k)})$ and its components smaller than some threshold parameter $\gamma>0$ are set to zero, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:STLS}
\text{(STLS)}\qquad &\bm\xi^{(k+1)}\longleftarrow\underset{\bm\xi}{\mathrm{argmin}}\left\{{\|\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})\bm{\xi} - \dot{\mathbf{x}}\|}_2^2 \quad \text{subject to} \quad \mathcal{S}(\bm\xi) = \mathcal{S}(\bm\xi^{(k)})\right\}\\
&\bm\xi^{(k+1)}\longleftarrow \mathcal{T}(\bm\xi^{(k+1)};\gamma),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the thresholding operator $\mathcal{T}(\cdot;\gamma)$ is defined as $$\label{eq: threshold_operator}
\mathcal{T}_i(\bm{\xi};\gamma) =
\begin{cases}
\xi_i& \text{if }\ |\xi_i| > \gamma\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
,\quad i = 1,\dots,p.$$
The choice of the threshold parameter $\gamma$ remains a challenge since the magnitude of each entry of $\bm{\mathbf{\xi}}$ is unknown and depends on the selected candidate basis. Mangan et al. [@Mangan2017] suggest the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) for selecting $\gamma$; however, their approach is computationally expensive since many validation sets are needed to produce accurate results, and they use exact state derivatives instead of computing them from noisy state variables. Later, Rudy et al. [@Rudy2017] and Quade et al. [@Quade2018] proposed a Sequential Thresholded Ridge Regression (STRidge) to solve for $\bm\xi$. STRidge solves a Ridge regression problem – a Tikhonov regularized and an improved variant of least squares regression – and thresholds the coefficients with magnitude smaller than $\gamma$. The aim of STRidge it thus to improve the condition number of the linear system arising from the least squares problem (\[eq:STLS\]) in STLS. The threshold parameter is chosen – from several candidates – based on cross validation or a Pareto curve [@Brunton2016].
In practice, BPDN, STLS, and STRidge lead to accurate recovery of $\bm\xi$ for small state measurement noises. However, as we shall illustrate in the examples of Section \[sec:numericalexamples\], the accuracy of the recovered coefficients for general dynamical systems may deteriorate considerably when the state variables and their time derivatives are polluted with relatively large noise levels. One reason for this lack of robustness to noise is that the measurement matrix $\bm\Phi(\mathbf{x})$ does not in general satisfy the incoherence [@Bruckstein09; @Doostan11a; @Hampton15a] or restricted isometry property [@Candes08c; @rauhut2012sparse; @peng2016polynomial] conditions in the under-sampled case, $m<p$, or the incoherence property [@Cohen13a; @Hampton15b] in the over-sampled case, $m\ge p$. The reason for this is two fold: Firstly, $\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x})$ may be sparse in a basis $\{\phi_{i}(\mathbf{x})\}$ that is not orthonormal, e.g., monomials. Secondly, unlike in standard compressed sensing or least squares regression settings, $\phi_{i}(\mathbf{x})$ are sampled at the state variables $\mathbf{x}$, which follow the dynamics of the system, as opposed to random (or experimentally designed) samples that would lead to well-conditioned measurement matrices; see, e.g. [@Hadigol18].
Notice that, in practice, only noisy measurements of state variables are available and not their true values. Similarly, the time derivatives of state variables are approximated from noise-contaminated state measurements. Therefore, the linear system (\[eq:matrix\_main\_system\]) is indeed a perturbed variant of the true but unattainable system. More precisely, (\[eq:matrix\_main\_system\]) may be written as $\dot{\mathbf{x}}^* + \delta\dot{\mathbf{x}}= \bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x}^* + \delta\mathbf{x})\bm{\xi}$, where $\mathbf{x}^*$ and $\dot{\mathbf{x}}^*$ are the exact state variables and state derivatives, respectively. Here, $\delta\mathbf{x}$ are deviations from the exact state variables caused by the measurement noise, and $\delta\dot{\mathbf{x}}$ are the errors in the exact state derivatives due to the numerical differentiation of noisy state variables.
Approach: Reweighted $\ell_1$-regularized Least Squares {#sec:approach}
=======================================================
To improve the robustness of SINDy with respect to the state and state derivative noise, we propose regularizing the regression problem involving (\[eq:matrix\_main\_system\]) via weighted $\ell_1$-norm of $\bm\xi$, $$\Vert\mathbf{W}\bm\xi\Vert_1 = \sum_{i=1}^p w_i\vert\xi_i\vert.$$ Here, $\mathbf{W}\in\mathbb{R}^{p\times p}$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $w_i>0$, $i=1,\dots,p$. Our approach is inspired by the work in [@zou2006adaptive; @Candes2008; @Yang13; @Peng14; @adcock2017infinite] from the statistics, compressed sensing, and function approximation literature, where weighted $\ell_1$-norm has been shown to outperform the standard $\ell_1$-norm in promoting sparsity, especially in the case of noisy measurements or when the solution of interest is not truly sparse, i.e., many entries of $\bm\xi$ are near zero [@Candes2008; @Yang13; @Peng14; @adcock2017infinite]. Depending on the choice of $\mathbf{W}$, $\Vert\mathbf{W}\bm\xi\Vert_1$ gives a closer approximation to the $\ell_0$-norm of $\bm\xi$, $\Vert\bm\xi\Vert_0:=\#\{i:\xi_i\neq 0\}$, than $\Vert\bm\xi\Vert_1$, and thus better enforces sparsity in $\bm\xi$.
More specifically, we solve the weighted variant of the BPDN problem (\[eq:BPDN\]), $$\label{eq:WBPDN}
(\text{WBPDN})\qquad \min_{\bm{\xi}} {\|\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})\bm{\xi} - \dot{\mathbf{x}}\|}_2^2 + \lambda {\|\mathbf{W}\bm{\xi}\|}_1,$$ which coincides with the adaptive LASSO approach of [@zou2006adaptive]. The problem in (\[eq:WBPDN\]) may be solved via BPDN solvers for standard $\ell_1$-minimization with the simple transformations $\tilde{\bm\xi}:=\mathbf{W}\bm\xi$ and $\tilde{\bm{\Phi}}(\mathbf{x}) = \bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})\mathbf{W}^{-1}$, i.e., $$\label{eq:transformed-BPDN}
\min_{\tilde{\bm{\xi}}} {\|\tilde{\bm{\Phi}}(\mathbf{x})\bm{\xi} - \dot{\mathbf{x}}\|}_2^2 + \lambda {\|\tilde{\bm{\xi}}\|}_1.\nonumber$$ Given the solution $\tilde{\bm\xi}$ to (\[eq:transformed-BPDN\]), $\bm\xi$ is then computed from $\bm\xi = \mathbf{W}^{-1}\tilde{\bm\xi}$. In what follows, we describe the selection of the weight matrix $\mathbf{W}$ and regularization parameter $\lambda$.
Setting weights $\mathbf{W}$ {#sec:weights}
----------------------------
The main goal of using a weighted $\ell_1$-norm – instead of its standard counterpart – is to place a stronger penalty on the coefficients $\xi_i$ that are anticipated to be small (or zero). The obvious choice is to set $w_i$ inversely proportional to $\vert\xi_i\vert$, which is of course not possible as $\xi_i$ is unknown. An alternative approach, proposed first in [@zou2006adaptive; @Candes2008], is to use approximate values of $\vert\xi_i\vert$ to set $w_i$. In details, an iterative approach is devised where, at iteration $k+1$, the WBPDN solution $\bm\xi^{(k)}$ from iteration $k$ is used to generate the weights according to $$\label{eq:WL1weigths}
w_i^{(k+1)} = \frac{1}{|\xi_i^{(k)}|^q + \epsilon},$$ where $q>0$ represents the strength of the penalization and $\epsilon$ is a small value to prevent numerical issues when $\xi_i$ is zero. In our numerical experiments, we set $q=2$ and $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$ as they consistently produce better solution; however, [*optimal*]{} values of $q$ and $\epsilon$ may be selected along with $\lambda$ using the approach discussed in Section \[subsec:modelselection\]. The iterations are started by solving the standard BPDN problem (\[eq:BPDN\]) to compute $\bm\xi^{(0)}$. Algorithm \[alg:WBPDN\], adopted from [@Candes2008], outlines the steps involved in WBPDN.
Similar to BPDN, WBPDN possesses the properties listed below [@Kim2007]:
- Nonlinearity: WBPDN yields a solution $\bm{\xi}$ that is nonlinear in $\dot{\mathbf{x}}$.
- Limiting behavior as $\lambda \rightarrow 0$: the WBPDN solution tends to the ordinary least squares solution as $\lambda \rightarrow 0$.
- Finite convergence to zero as $\lambda \rightarrow \infty$: the WBPDN solution converges to zero for a finite value of $\lambda$ defined as $\lambda \geq \lambda_{\max} = \|2\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})^T \dot{\mathbf{x}}\|_{\infty}$, where $\|\cdot\|_{\infty} \coloneqq \max|\cdot|$ is the infinity norm.
- Regularization path: there are values $0 = \lambda_k < \dots < \lambda_1 = \lambda_{\max}$ such that the solution is a piece-wise linear curve on ${\mathbb{R}}^p$.
Set the iteration counter to $k = 0$ and $w_i^{(0)} = 1, \quad i = 1,\dots,p$.
Solve the WBPDN problem (\[eq:WBPDN\]) for a specific $\lambda$ $$\bm{\xi}^{(k)} = \underset{\bm\xi}{\mathrm{argmin}}\left\{{\|\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})\bm{\xi} - \dot{\mathbf{x}}\|}_2^2 + \lambda {\|\mathbf{W}^{(k)}\bm{\xi}\|}_1\right\}.$$
Update the weights for $i = 1,\dots,p$
$$w_i^{(k+1)} = \frac{1}{|\xi_i^{(k)}|^q + \epsilon}.$$
$k = k + 1$.
Selection of $\lambda$ via Pareto curve {#subsec:modelselection}
---------------------------------------
The Pareto curve is a graph that traces the trade-off between the residual and the regularization constraint by varying the parameter $\lambda$ in (\[eq:WBPDN\]). In Tikhonov regularization, where $\ell_2$-norm is used as a regularizer, the Pareto curve is referred as L-curve when a log-log scale is employed [@Hansen1992Lcurve]. In this work, the Pareto curve is defined as the graph generated by solving (\[eq:WBPDN\]) for different $\lambda$ values in the (${\|\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})\bm{\xi} - \dot{\mathbf{x}}\|}_2$,${\|\mathbf{W}^{(k)}\bm{\xi}\|}_1$) space. Recall that $\lambda$ controls the sparsity of the solution $\bm{\xi}$; setting $\lambda = 0$ yields the ordinary least squares solution, which is not sparse. As $\lambda$ increases, the non-sparse solutions are increasingly penalized. In contrast to the $\ell_2$-norm regularization, where the solution tends to zero as $\lambda$ tends to infinity, the $\ell_1$-norm regularization yields an upper bound on the regularization parameter given by $\lambda_{\max} = {\|2\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})^T \dot{\mathbf{x}}\|}_{\infty}$ (i.e. a $\lambda \geq \lambda_{\max}$ yields the zero solution). As proven in [@VanDenBerg2008], the $\ell_1$-norm Pareto curve is convex, continuously differentiable and non-increasing. Its slope at each point is given by $-1/\lambda$, as shown in Figure \[fig:ParetoCurve\]. Therefore, the regularization parameter that yields an approximation close to the exact $\bm{\xi}$, within a noise-dependent distance, must live within $\lambda_{\min}$ and $\lambda_{\max}$. For $\ell_2$-regularized least squares, Hansen [@Hansen1992Lcurve] suggests the corner point criterion to select $\lambda$ from the L-curve. The underlying idea is that the L-curve has an L-shaped corner located where the solution changes from being dominated by regularization errors, corresponding to the steepest part of the curve, to being dominated by noise errors, where the curve becomes flat. The corner point corresponds to an [*optimal*]{} balance between the sparsity of the solution and the quality of the fit. The present work adopts this corner point criterion to select the $\lambda$ parameter from the log-log $\ell_1$-norm Pareto curve.
![Illustration of the $\ell_1$-norm Pareto curve. Point 1 represents the unregularized least squares solution with infinite slope. Point 2 represents any point along the curve with slope $-1/\lambda$. Point 3 represents the upper bound on $\lambda$ that gives the zero solution.[]{data-label="fig:ParetoCurve"}](ParetoCurveColor.eps){width="60.00000%"}
For continuous Pareto curves, [@Hansen1992Lcurve] suggests defining the corner point as the point with maximum curvature. For discrete curves, however, it becomes more complicated to define the location of the corner point. Hansen et al. [@Hansen2007] highlight the difficulties in computing the corner point from discrete L-curves built using a finite number of $\lambda$ values. The discrete curves may contain small local corners other than the global one that may give sub-optimal regularization parameters. To alleviate this issue, they propose an adaptive pruning algorithm, where the best corner point is computed by using candidate corners from curves at different resolutions. Since the L-curves must be sampled at different scales, the pruning algorithm can be computationally expensive. We instead compute the corner points using a simpler method proposed in Cultrera et al. [@Cultrera2016]. The algorithm iteratively employs the Menger curvature of a circumcircle and the golden section search method to efficiently locate the point on the curve with maximum curvature. The benefit of this algorithm is that it does not require computing the solution for a large set of $\lambda$ values.
Cross-validation (CV) is a popular approach for choosing the best regularization parameter $\lambda$ in regression problems. However, when applied to (\[eq:BPDN\]), it is known that CV prefers smaller values of $\lambda$ that are associated with smaller residual errors and less sparse coefficients. While CV was proposed to select the regularization parameter of adaptive LASSO, as we shall illustrate in the numerical examples of Section \[sec:numericalexamples\], the Pareto curve method produces more accurate results. Similarly, in [@tehrani2012l1], the Pareto method has been shown to outperform CV for sparse approximation using LASSO.
Numerical computation of state time derivatives $\dot{\mathbf{x}}$ {#subsec:numericaldifferentiation}
------------------------------------------------------------------
In most practical applications, only the state trajectories are available, and their derivatives $\dot{\mathbf x}$ must be estimated numerically. To generate the data $\dot{\mathbf x}$ in the WBPDN problem (\[eq:WBPDN\]), we seek to estimate the discrete time derivatives $\dot{{x}}_j(t_i)$, $i = 1,\dots,m$, at each time instances $t_i$ from a set of discrete, noisy state trajectories ${x}_j(t_i)$.
Finite difference method is a common approach to compute derivatives from discrete data. However, if the data is corrupted with noise, the error in the derivative approximation by finite difference will generally be amplified. Several alternatives have been proposed to mitigate the effect of noise when computing derivatives: locally weighted regression [@William1979], Tikhonov regularization [@Cullum1971], total variation regularization [@Chartrand2011], to name a few. Following the work by Knowles et al. [@Cullum1971; @Knowles2014], we employ the second-order Tikhonov regularization approach, wherein the derivative is formulated as the solution to an integral equation and solved for using a Tikhonov-regularized least squares problem. The detail of our implementation is described in Appendix A.
Identifying Single Constraints from Data {#subsec:constrainedsystems}
========================================
Apart from satisfying governing equations of the form (\[eq:DynamicalSystem\]), some dynamical systems evolve under additional constraints on the state variables arising from certain conservation laws. For example, fluids are often assumed to satisfy the incompressibility condition or the total energy of a conservative system is constant. In the case of a single constraint, the dynamical systems can be represented as $$\label{eq:ConstrDynamicalSystem}
\dot{\mathbf{x}} = \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}) \quad \text{subject to} \quad g(\mathbf{x}) = 0,$$ where $g\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is the constraint function. In this article, we focus on learning from data single constraints that are functions of the state variables with no explicit dependence on time. In the noise-free case, assuming that the constraint can be expressed in the same basis $\{\phi_k(\mathbf{x})\}$ for recovering the governing equations in (\[eq:dynExpansion\]), $g(\mathbf{x})$ is given by $$\label{eq:Constraint}
g(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{k=1}^{p}\eta_{k} \phi_k(\mathbf{x})=0,$$ for some unknown coefficients $\eta_k$. As an example, consider an undamped single degree of freedom spring-mass system. The conservation of energy can be put in implicit form as $g(\mathbf{x}) = 2\mathcal{E} - kx_1^2 - mx_2^2$, where $\mathcal{E}$ is the total energy of the system, $k$ the spring stiffness, $m$ the mass, and $x_1$ and $x_2$ the displacement and velocity of the system, respectively. In this case, the active bi-variate monomial basis functions in (\[eq:Constraint\]) are $\phi_1(\mathbf{x}) = 1$, $\phi_4(\mathbf{x}) = x_1^2$, $\phi_6(\mathbf{x}) = x_2^2$ and the corresponding coefficients are respectively $\eta_1 = -2\mathcal{E}$, $\eta_4 = k$ and $\eta_6 = m$.
Evaluating (\[eq:Constraint\]) at the state samples and letting $\bm{\eta} =[\eta_{1}, \dots, \eta_{p}]^T \in {\mathbb{R}}^{p}$, we arrive at $$\label{eq:Constraint_matrix}
\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})\bm{\eta}=\mathbf{0},$$ which implies that $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ has a non-empty null-space, i.e., is rank-deficient, and the solution $\bm{\xi}$ is non-unique. In practice, state measurements contain noise and the constraints are not satisfied exactly. As a result, the columns of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ are [*nearly*]{} linearly dependent and $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ may have a large condition number. This, in turn, results in high sensitivity of the solution $\bm\xi$ to the noise in $\dot{\mathbf x}$. In addition to learning the constraint $g(\mathbf{x})$, the identification of dependent columns of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ provides a means to improve its condition number.
To this end, we perform a low-rank factorization of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ via interpolative decomposition (ID) [@Cheng2005] in order to identify a subset of the columns of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ that form a basis for its range space. In detail, using a rank-revealing QR factorization (RRQR) [@Golub1996], $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ is decomposed to $$\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})\mathbf{P} \approx \mathbf{Q}\mathbf{R},$$ where $\mathbf{P} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{p \times p}$ is a permutation matrix, $\mathbf{Q} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times r}$ has $r$ orthogonal columns, and $\mathbf{R} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{r \times p}$ is an upper triangular matrix. Let $^{\dagger}$ denote the pseudoinverse of a matrix. Partitioning $\mathbf{R}$ into $\mathbf{R}_{1} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{r \times r}$, and $\mathbf{R}_{2} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{r \times (p - r)}$ and assuming the relation $\mathbf{R}_{2} \approx \mathbf{R}_{1} \mathbf{Z}$ for $\mathbf{Z}=\mathbf{R}_{1}^{\dagger}\mathbf{R}_{2}$ yields $$\label{eq:rankrfact}
\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})\mathbf{P} \approx \mathbf{Q}\mathbf{R}_{1}[\mathbf{I}\,\,|\,\,\mathbf{Z}],$$ where $\mathbf{I} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{r \times r}$ is the identity matrix. The rank-$r$ factorization (\[eq:rankrfact\]) can be rewritten as $$\label{eq:rankrfactSC}
\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})\approx \mathbf{S}[\mathbf{I}\,\,|\,\,\mathbf{Z}]\mathbf{P}^T = \mathbf{S}\mathbf{C},$$ where $\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{Q}\mathbf{R}_{1}$ contains $r$ columns of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ – specifically, the first $r$ columns of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})\mathbf{P}$ – and $\mathbf{C} = [\mathbf{I}\,\,|\,\,\mathbf{Z}]\mathbf{P}^T$ is the coefficient matrix specifying the linear combinations of those columns that approximate $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$. Let $\mathcal{I} = \{1,\dots,p\}$ and $\mathcal{J} = \{j_1,\dots,j_r\}\subset \mathcal{I}$ denote, respectively, the set of indices of columns of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ and the subset of those forming $\mathbf{S}$. Given the ID approximation (\[eq:rankrfactSC\]), any column $\bm{\phi}_l(\mathbf{x})$ of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ with index $l \in \mathcal{I}\backslash\mathcal{J}$ therefore satisfies the approximate relation $$\label{eq:constraint_approx}
\sum_{m=1}^r C_{m,l}\bm{\phi}_{j_m}(\mathbf{x}) - \bm{\phi}_l(\mathbf{x}) \approx \mathbf{0},\quad l \in \mathcal{I}\backslash\mathcal{J},$$ in which $C_{m,l}$ is the entry $(m,l)$ of $\mathbf{C}$. Rewriting (\[eq:constraint\_approx\]) in the form of (\[eq:Constraint\_matrix\]), the coefficients $\eta_k$ in (\[eq:Constraint\_matrix\]) are approximated by $$\label{eq:eta_recovery}
\eta_k = \begin{cases}
C_{m,l} & \text{if }\ \quad k = j_m,\quad m= 1,\dots,r,\\
-1 & \text{if }\ \quad k = l,\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Notice that the $\mathbf{C}$ matrix may contain non-zero but small elements due to the noise in the data. We therefore propose a thresholding step by setting to zero the elements of $\mathbf{C}$ whose magnitude is smaller than a threshold parameter $\tau$.
To improve the conditioning of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ in order to calculate $\bm\xi$ several paths may be taken. We may remove columns with indices in $\mathcal{I}\backslash\mathcal{J}$, i.e., replace $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ by $\mathbf{S}$, or remove columns with indices in $\mathcal{I}$ to which the columns in $\mathcal{I}\backslash\mathcal{J}$ depend on. In doing these, for the interest of arriving at a [*simpler*]{} model, we may remove the monomial basis functions of highest degree. If we happen to remove a basis function $\phi_i(\mathbf{x})$ that appears in the original dynamical system, the corresponding components of $\bm\xi$ will not be recovered. However, still a correct $\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x})$ is computed. The procedure to learn single constraints $g(\mathbf{x})$ using ID of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ and remove dependent columns of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ is outlined in Algorithm \[alg:ID\].
Compute the singular values of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$.
Identify a gap on the singular values and find the numerical rank $r$ of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$.
Perform rank-$r$ ID of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}}) \approx \mathbf{S}\mathbf{C}$ given in (\[eq:rankrfactSC\]) and obtain $\mathcal{J} = \{j_1,\dots,j_r\}$. Threshold $\mathbf{C}$ by setting entries of $\mathbf{C}$ smaller than $\tau$ to zero. Given $\mathbf{C}$ and $\mathcal{J} = \{j_1,\dots,j_r\}$, select any column $l \in \mathcal{I}\backslash\mathcal{J}$ and set the $\eta_k$ coefficients in (\[eq:Constraint\]) via (\[eq:eta\_recovery\]).
Remove dependent columns of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$, e.g., set $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}}) \longleftarrow \mathbf{S}$, for calculating $\bm\xi$.
Notice that the ID in (\[eq:rankrfactSC\]) requires the knowledge of the numerical rank of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$, $r$, which may be detected by identifying a gap in the magnitude of the singular values of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$. However, depending on the level of noise in state measurements, such a gap may not exist or clearly identifiable, thus rendering the proposed constraint learning approach inaccurate. In Section \[sec:numericalexamples\], we provide empirical results clarifying this remark.
In case the state variables are constrained by several implicit functions, there is no guarantee we are able to recover each individual one using Algorithm \[alg:ID\]. This is because the state trajectory is confined to the intersection of the constraints, which leads to rank deficiency or ill-conditioning of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$. In the case of exact state measurements, removing the linearly dependent columns of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$, addresses the rank deficiency issue and reveals the constraint intersection, as illustrated in the numerical example of Section \[subsec:EulerRBD\].
Numerical examples {#sec:numericalexamples}
==================
In this section, we present numerical examples to assess the performance of the WBPDN method to recover the ordinary differential equations (ODEs) of five nonlinear dynamical systems. In all cases, we assume no prior knowledge about the governing equations that generated the data, except that they can be sparsely expressed in a multivariate polynomial basis in the state variables with known dimension. We only have access to the noisy state measurements at discrete times $t_k = k \Delta t$ sampled every $\Delta t$ units of time. The exact state variables are computed by integrating the nonlinear ODEs using the fourth-order explicit Runge-Kutta (RK4) integrator implemented in MATLAB 2018b with a tolerance of $10^{-10}$. We then corrupt the exact state variables by adding different levels of noise. In this work, we assume that the state variables are contaminated with independent zero-mean additive white Gaussian noise with variance $\sigma^2$. The noise model is given by $$\begin{aligned}
x_j(t_k) = x_j^*(t_k) + \eta_j(t_k),\end{aligned}$$ where $x_j^*(t_k)$, $j = 1,\dots,n$, denotes the exact state variable at time $t_k,\,\,k = 1,\dots,m$, and $\eta_j(t_k) \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma)$. The noise levels are varied from $\sigma_{\min} $ to $\sigma_{\max}$ depending on the magnitude of the signal for each case. To measure the signal magnitude relative to the noise level, we provide the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for each state $j$. The SNR, expressed in decibels, is defined as $$(\text{SNR}_j)_{\text{dB}} = 10~\text{log}_{10}\bigg(\frac{\sum_{k = 1}^{m}x_j(t_k)^2}{\sigma^2}\bigg).$$ The sampling time is fixed to $\Delta t = 0.01$, and the number of samples depends on the simulation time used to capture the essential behavior of each dynamical system. As discussed in Section \[subsec:numericaldifferentiation\] and Appendix A, we use Tikhonov regularization differentiation with a second-order differential operator as a smoothing constraint to compute the time derivative of state variables. Following the remark in Appendix A, the state time derivatives are computed over an interval that is 5% (from each side) larger than the intended training time span, but only the data over the original training time is retained to compute $\bm\xi$. To show the quality of the resulting derivatives, we report the relative error $$\label{eq:relderivativeerror}
e_{\dot{x}} = \frac{\|\dot{\mathbf{x}} - \dot{\mathbf{x}}^*\|_2}{\|\dot{\mathbf{x}}^*\|_2},$$ where $\dot{\mathbf{x}}$ and $\dot{\mathbf{x}}^*$ is the computed and true value of state derivatives, respectively.
We approximate the governing equations of each example by a multivariate monomial basis of total degree $d$ in $n$ state variables. That is, $\phi_i(\mathbf{x})$ in (\[eq:dynExpansion\]) (and (\[eq:Constraint\])) are given by $$\phi_i(\mathbf{x})=\prod_{j=1}^{n}x_j^{i_j}\qquad \text{such that}\qquad \sum_{j=1}^n i_j \le d, \quad i_j \in \mathbb{N}\cup\{0\},$$ where the non-negative integer $i_j$ denotes the degree of the monomial in state variable $x_j$. The size of the approximation basis is then $p = \binom{n + d}{n}$. For all test cases, we set the total degree of basis $d$ to one more than the highest total degree monomial present in the governing equations. Our primary goal is to demonstrate the consistency and robustness to noise of the WBPDN algorithm to identify an accurate approximation of the governing equations, as well as to enable the accurate prediction of future states of the system. We run the WBPDN optimization procedure using solveBP routine from the open-source SparseLab 2.1 package [@Donoho2009sparselab; @donoho2007sparselab] and report the relative solution error defined as $$\label{eq:relsolerror}
e_{\xi} = \frac{\|\bm{\xi} - \bm{\xi}^*\|_2}{\|\bm{\xi}^*\|_2},$$ where $\bm{\xi}$ and $\bm{\xi}^*$ are the approximate and exact solution vectors for each state variables, respectively.
The considered nonlinear dynamical systems are as as follows: the Lorenz 63 system as a base model for identifying chaotic dynamics, the Duffing and Van der Pol oscillators as nonlinear stiffness and damping models, and the harmonic single degree of freedom spring-mass system, and Euler Rigid Dynamics equations as conservative models satisfying physical constraints.
Lorenz 63 system {#subsec:Lorenz63}
----------------
The Lorenz 63 system is a canonical model for nonlinear chaotic dynamics that was developed by Lorenz as a simplified model for atmospheric convection [@Lorenz1963]. This system of nonlinear ODEs has been fundamental for the study of chaotic systems, wherein the future states of the system are highly sensitive to initial conditions. The state trajectories are three-dimensional, chaotic, deterministic, non-periodic and confined within a butterfly-shaped attractor, making them hard to predict. The Lorenz 63 model is given by the following system of first-order equations
\[eq:Lorenz63\] $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\dot{x} = \gamma(y - x), &\quad x(0) = x_0,\label{eq:Lorenz63_a}\\
\dot{y} = x(\rho - z) - y, &\quad y(0) = y_0,\label{eq:Lorenz63_b}\\
\dot{z} = xy - \beta z, &\quad z(0) = z_0,\label{eq:Lorenz63_c}\end{aligned}$$
where the parameter values are set to $\gamma = 10$, $\rho = 28$ and $\beta = 8/3$, and the initial condition is $(x_0,y_0,z_0) = (-8,7,27)$. Note that the first state derivative is linear in the state variables, and the second and third ones contain quadratic nonlinearities. Assuming a degree $d=3$ expansion for the right-hand-side of (\[eq:Lorenz63\]), is described exactly by seven of the $p = 20$ monomials.
We simulated the Lorenz 63 system from $t=0$ to $t=2.2$ time units to obtain the state trajectories. We then sampled the exact state variables at $\Delta t = 0.01$ resulting in $m=220$ samples, and perturbed them with noise at different levels $\sigma$. The first step to recover the governing equations is to numerically compute state derivatives from noisy measurements. We performed Tikhonov-regularized numerical differentiation and truncated the discrete state trajectory and resulting state derivatives yielding 200 samples from $t = 0.1$ to $t = 2.1$ time units. Figure \[fig:LorenzTikDiff\] (left) shows the relative error in the state derivatives with respect to different noise levels. The flat region on Figure \[fig:LorenzTikDiff\] (left) is dominated by time discretization errors $\sim \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^2)$ (independent of noise) when computing derivatives via numerical differentiation, whereas the steep region is dominated by noise. The Pareto curves are computed for each state at a noise level $\sigma = 10^{-2}$ in Figure \[fig:LorenzTikDiff\] (right). For clarity, the curves were normalized between $[-1,1]$. The locations of the computed corner points match well with the optimal points corresponding to which the solution error is minimal.
Figure \[fig:Lorenzerrorcoeff\] (left) illustrates the relative solution error as a function of the noise level $\sigma$. For small noise levels, the curve is almost flat and the solution error starts to rapidly increase around $\sigma \approx 10^{-2}$. Figure \[fig:Lorenzerrorcoeff\] (right), shows the effectiveness of iteratively reweighting the coefficients; few iterations are required (one in this example) to converge and considerably reduce the error in the computed coefficients. Notice that iteration $0$ of WBPDN is basically the standard BPDN solution.
The Pareto curves for each state at iteration 0 and noise level $\sigma = 10^{-2}$ are shown in Figure \[fig:LorenzWBPDNLcurve\_it0\]. We observe that the corner point criterion to select $\lambda$ yields near optimal regularization. Here, we also compare the corner point criterion with K-fold CV with $K = 5$ to select the regularization parameter $\lambda$. As seen, $\lambda$ obtained with CV matches the optimal and corner point for the $x$ and $y$ state variables, but is quite suboptimal for the $z$ state. The reason for this discrepancy is that CV hinges upon selecting the regularization parameter that minimizes the mean residual error over the folds, and does not take into account the $\ell_1$-norm of the solution. In our experience, the CV function (mean residual error vs. $\lambda$) is usually flat for a wide range of $\lambda$, meaning that there exist many $\lambda$ values that produce similar mean residual errors.
We now assess the performance of WBPDN by examining the prediction accuracy. Figure \[fig:LorenzWBPDNPredicted\] (left) compares the exact trajectory of the Lorenz 63 system with the predicted trajectory of the identified model for $\sigma = 10^{-2}$. The exact trajectory is computed by integrating (\[eq:Lorenz63\]), whereas the predicted one is computed using the identified model starting at the same initial conditions. The training set used to identify the system – red points in Figure \[fig:LorenzWBPDNPredicted\] (right) – ranges from $t=0.1$ to $t=2.1$, and the total simulation time is until $t=10$. As shown, the predicted trajectory agrees with the exact one for a relatively long time span, even though the system is chaotic.
Lastly, we compare WBPDN with STLS and STRidge algorithms proposed in [@Rudy2017; @Quade2018]. The implementation details and original STLS[^1] and STRidge[^2] codes used in this article are publicly available online. In the case of STLS, we used two model selection criteria: K-fold CV with $K = 5$ and the $\ell_0$-based Pareto curve, i.e., residual error versus $\ell_0$-norm of $\bm\xi$, and corner point criterion to select the threshold parameter, as suggested in the supporting information for [@Brunton2016]. For CV, we used 200 samples (80% training and 20% validation split) over 2 time units, and default tolerances and maximum number of iterations. The state derivatives were computed using the same Tikhonov regularization differentiation algorithm. The results are illustrated in Figure \[fig:Lorenz63\_WBPDNvsSTR\]. All three algorithms exhibit similar solution error trends with respect to the noise level; a flat region for low noise levels and an error increase for high noise levels. Except for $\sigma = 10^0$ where all methods fail to recover the equations, WBPDN outperforms STLS and STRidge for all states and noise levels. STLS with $\ell_0$-based Pareto curve produced the closest solution errors to WBPDN; however, it yielded considerable error for the $y$ state.
Duffing oscillator {#subsec:Duffing}
------------------
The Duffing oscillator features a cubic nonlinearity and can exhibit chaotic behavior. Physically, it models a spring-damper-mass system with a spring whose restoring force is $F(\zeta) = -\kappa \zeta - \varepsilon \zeta^3$. When $\varepsilon > 0$, it represents a *hard spring*. Conversely, for $\varepsilon < 0$ it represents a *soft spring*. The unforced Duffing equation is given by $$\label{eq:DuffingSys}
\ddot{\zeta} + \gamma \dot{\zeta} + (\kappa + \varepsilon \zeta^2)\zeta = 0,$$ which can be transformed into a first-order system by setting $x = \zeta$ and $y = \dot{\zeta}$, giving
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\dot{x} = y, &\quad x(0) = x_0,\label{eq:DuffingSys_a}\\
\dot{y} = -\gamma y - \kappa x - \varepsilon x^3, &\quad y(0) = y_0.\label{eq:DuffingSys_b}\end{aligned}$$
The parameters of the system ($\ref{eq:DuffingSys}$) are set to $\kappa = 1$, $\gamma = 0.1$ and $\varepsilon = 5$, and the initial conditions to $(x_0,y_0) = (1,0)$. For these parameter values, the Duffing oscillator does not present chaotic behavior. The number of state variables is $n = 2$ and the degree of the polynomial basis is set to $d = 4$, yielding $p = 15$ monomial terms. Out of these, only 4 describe the dynamics. In this case, the displacement $x$ and velocity $y$ are measured and we used 200 samples over 2 time units, from $t$ = 0.1 to $t$ = 2.1, to recover the system. The errors of the state variable derivatives and the Pareto curves are shown in the left and right panels of Figure \[fig:DuffingTikDiff\], respectively.
As shown, the $\lambda$ associated with the corner point agrees with the optimal one, yielding accurate state derivatives for each noise level. The effect of noise on the solution error, presented in Figure \[fig:Duffingerrorcoeff\], is consistent with previous results. As in the Lorenz problem, the WBPDN converges in only one iteration for $\sigma = 10^{-3}$.
Figure \[fig:DuffingWBPDNLcurve\_it0\] shows the effectiveness of the corner point criterion to find a regularization parameter close to the optimal, as opposed to the CV approach, which yields quite suboptimal $\lambda$ estimates. The predicted trajectory matches the exact one, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:DuffingWBPDNPredicted\].
In this example, we also compared the performance of STLS, STRidge and WBPDN in recovering the coefficient vector $\bm{\xi}$. As in the Lorenz 63 example, we used an 80% training and 20% validation data split for both STLS with CV and STRidge. Figure \[fig:Duffing63\_WBPDNvsSTRvsSTLS\] displays the error in $\bm\xi$ at different noise levels. Overall, WBPDN outperforms both STLS and STRidge. In the case of STRidge, the solution happens to be unstable even for low noise levels. This may be because the default regularization parameters of the algorithm are not suitable for this problem and need careful tuning. In the STLS case, we also used CV and the Pareto criterion to set the threshold parameter $\gamma$. On the one hand, we noticed that the CV function, i.e., mean residual versus regularization parameter, is flat for the region where the regularization parameter with minimum solution error was located. This yields a minimum mean residual regularization parameter far from the optimal one, and therefore, inaccurate solution. On the other hand, we noticed that the corner point of the Pareto curve may not be well defined. Therefore, any algorithm trying to find the corner of the Pareto curve is deemed to fail. This fact may explain the sudden jumps in Figure \[fig:Duffing63\_WBPDNvsSTRvsSTLS\] for the STLS (Pareto) case.
Van der Pol oscillator {#subsec:VanderPol}
----------------------
The Van der Pol model is a second-order oscillator with a nonlinear damping term. It was originally proposed by Van der Pol as a model to describe the oscillation of a triode in an electrical circuit [@VanDerPol1920]. The Van der Pol model exhibits a limit cycle behavior around the origin. The governing equation for this system is given by the following ODE $$\label{eq:VanDerPolSys}
\ddot{\zeta} + (\gamma + \varepsilon\zeta^2)\dot{\zeta} + \kappa\zeta = 0,$$ which can be transformed into a first-order system as,
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\dot{x} = y, &\quad x(0) = x_0,\label{eq:VanDerPolSys_a}\\
\dot{y} = -\kappa x -\gamma y - \varepsilon x^2y, &\quad y(0) = y_0.\label{eq:VanDerPolSys_b} \end{aligned}$$
The parameters of the system ($\ref{eq:VanDerPolSys}$) are set to $\kappa = 1$, $\gamma = 1$ and $\varepsilon = 2$, and the initial conditions to $(x_0,y_0) = (1,0)$. As in the Duffing system, the sparsity of this system is 4, the number of state variables is $n = 2$, and the degree of the polynomial basis is set to $d = 4$, giving $p = 15$ monomial terms. Again, the number of samples used in this example is 200 over 2 time units, ranging from $t = 0.1$ to $t = 2.1$. The performance of Tikhonov regularization differentiation with respect to different noise levels is shown in Figure \[fig:VanderPolTikDiff\] (left), whereas Figure \[fig:VanderPolTikDiff\] (right) shows the Pareto curves with corner points matching optimal $\lambda$ values. This case illustrates a difficulty in locating [*global*]{} corner points instead of [*local*]{} ones. The Pareto curves for both state variables present two corner points for the range of $\lambda$ used to generate them. The convergence to the wrong corner point can be avoided by selecting the one with higher curvature, by restricting the range of $\lambda$ to some region close to the estimated residual given by the discrepancy principle [@Morozov1966], or by visually inspecting the Pareto curve plot and picking the corner point manually. Fortunately, the algorithm proposed in [@Cultrera2016] is robust enough to select the right corner in this case.
The relative solution error agrees with the previous cases, as shown in Figure \[fig:VanderPolerrorcoeff\_and\_convergence\]. For low noise levels, the discretization errors on the state derivatives dominate the overall error of the solution. As we increase the noise level, the solution error is dominated by noise and starts to grow rapidly. Again, only one iteration is sufficient to converge and reduce the BPDN error by two orders of magnitude (for $\sigma = 10^{-3}$).
We observe from Figure \[fig:VanderPolWBPDNLcurve\_it0\] that, similar to previous cases, the Pareto curve criterion leads to better estimates of the optimal regularization parameter $\lambda$, as compared to the CV approach. Similar to previous examples, the predicted and exact trajectories match well for $\sigma = 10^{-3}$; see Figure \[fig:VanderPolWBPDNPredicted\].
Finally, the comparison among WBPDN, STRidge and STLS is displayed in Figure \[fig:Lorenz63\_WBPDNvsSTRvsSTLS\]. Similarly to previous examples, WBPDN yields the most accurate solution error. In this example, STRidge and STLS with CV produce inaccurate solutions for almost all noise levels. STLS with Pareto curve yields almost identical results as WBPDN for the $x$ state variable. However, in general, it fails to recover the $y$ state solution accurately.
Single degree of freedom spring-mass system {#subsec:springmass}
-------------------------------------------
The single degree of freedom spring-mass system is a second-order harmonic oscillator that, when perturbed from its equilibrium, experiences a restoring force proportional to its displacement. In the absence of damping forces, the total energy of the system is conserved, resulting in a continuous transfer between potential and kinetic energy. The unforced harmonic oscillator is given by $$m\ddot{\zeta} + k\zeta = 0,$$ where $m$, $k$ and $\zeta$ are the mass, stiffness and displacement, respectively. The system can be transformed to a first order system as
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\dot{x} = y, &\quad x(0) = x_0, \label{eq:spring-mass_a}\\
\dot{y} = -\omega^2x, &\quad y(0) = y_0, \label{eq:spring-mass_b}\end{aligned}$$
where $x = \zeta$, $y = \dot{\zeta}$, and $\omega = \sqrt{\frac{k}{m}}$ is the natural frequency of the system. In this example, the mass and stiffness are set to $m = 1 $, $k = 10$, and the initial conditions to $(x_0,y_0) = (1,0)$. The number of state variables is $n = 2$ and the sparsity of this system in the polynomial basis is 2. The number of samples used in this example is 200 over 2 time units, from $t = 0.1$ to $t = 2.1$.
The total energy $\mathcal{E}$ is the sum of kinetic $\mathcal{T}$ and potential $\mathcal{V}$ energies given by $$\label{eq:cons_energy_springmass}
\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{V} + \mathcal{T} = \frac{1}{2}k x^2 + \frac{1}{2}m y^2,$$ which represents the equation of an ellipse centered at the origin and semi-axis given by $a = \sqrt{2\mathcal{E}/k}$ and $b = \sqrt{2\mathcal{E}/m}$. It is straight-forward to verify that the corresponding constraint function $g(\mathbf{x})$ is given by $$\label{eq:constraintmanifold_sdof}
g(\mathbf{x}) = -1.0 \phi_1(\mathbf{x}) + 1.0 \phi_4(\mathbf{x}) + 0.1 \phi_6(\mathbf{x}),$$ where $\phi_i(\mathbf{x}) \in \{1, x, y, x^2, xy, y^2, x^3, x^2y, xy^2, y^3,\dots\},\,\,i = 1,\dots,p$, i.e., $\phi_4(\mathbf{x}) = x^2$. Figure \[fig:SpringMass\_svDecay\] displays the singular values of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ for polynomial degrees $d = 2$ (left) and $d = 3$ (right) to find the true ranks $r=5$ and $r=7$, respectively. As shown, the gap between the 5th and 6th largest singular values in the $d = 2$ case and the 7th and the 6th in the $d = 3$ case becomes smaller as we increase the noise level $\sigma$.
To identify the energy constraint, we then follow the procedure outlined in Algorithm \[alg:ID\] in Section \[subsec:constrainedsystems\] with the calculated numerical ranks. In the case of $d=2$, the ID of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ leads to $\mathcal{J}=\{2,\dots,6\}$ as the indices of independent columns, i.e., first column of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ depends linearly on the rest. This dependency is illustrated in Figure \[fig:SpringMass\_LDMatrix\_dCases\] (left) in the form of a [*dependency matrix*]{}, where the horizontal axis is the index of each column of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ and the vertical axis is the index of columns it depends on. White blocks show no dependency and the colored blocks show dependency with a magnitude obtained from the ID coefficient matrix $\mathbf{C}$ in (\[eq:rankrfactSC\]). As can be observed, the first column of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ depends on the $4$th and $6$th columns. Following (\[eq:eta\_recovery\]), the recovered constraint function for the case of $d = 2$ and $\sigma = 10^{-3}$ is $$\label{eq:constraintmanifold_sdof_approx}
g(\mathbf{x}) \approx -1.0000 \phi_1(\mathbf{x}) + 0.9999 \phi_4(\mathbf{x}) + 0.1000 \phi_6(\mathbf{x}),\nonumber$$ which closely matches (\[eq:constraintmanifold\_sdof\]), as also depicted in Figure \[fig:SpringMass\_constraintplot\]. Figure \[fig:SpringMass\_LDMatrix\_dCases\] (right) shows the dependency matrix for the case of $d=3$ at $\sigma = 10^{-3}$. Note that increasing the polynomial degree adds additional dependent columns in $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$, which are trivial variants of (\[eq:constraintmanifold\_sdof\]). Specifically, one constraint is of the form $x = 0.9998x^3 + 0.1000xy^2$ or equivalently $x(-1+ 0.9998\phi_4 + 0.1000\phi_6)\approx xg(\mathbf{x})\approx 0$ and the other one $y = 1.0001x^2y + 0.1000y^3$ or equivalently $y(-1 + 1.0001\phi_4 + 0.1000\phi_6)\approx yg(\mathbf{x})\approx 0$.
We proceed with computing $\bm\xi$ using degree $d=2$ basis by first removing one of the dependent columns of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ to improve its conditioning. We may chose to eliminate either the $1$st, $4$th, or the $6$th column of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$. With the aim of arriving at a [*simpler*]{}, i.e., lower order, model of the system, we remove the column associated with the highest polynomial degree, i.e., the $6$th column in the case of $d=2$. By doing so, the condition number of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ is lowered from $1.46\cdot 10^3$ to $3.16$ for $\sigma = 10^{-3}$. The error of the state derivatives as well as the Pareto curves for the spring-mass system are illustrated in Figure \[fig:SpringMassTikDiff\]. The same trend as in the previous examples is shown in Figure \[fig:SpringMasserrorcoeff\_and\_convergence\] for the relative solution error and the convergence of WBPDN for $\sigma = 10^{-3}$.
The Pareto curves of Figure \[fig:ParetoCurveWBPDNLcurve\_it0\] are smooth, and the location of the corner point is not as evident as in other examples. In fact, the corner points do not coincide with the optimal ones. This may be caused by the well-conditioning of the truncated $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$. Because of this, the solution error does not depend on the regularization parameter as strongly. The exact and predicted state trajectories shown in Figure \[fig:SpringMassWBPDNPredicted\] agree well.
Euler rigid body dynamics {#subsec:EulerRBD}
-------------------------
In classical mechanics, Euler’s rotation equations describe the rotation of a rigid body in a rotating reference frame with axes fixed to the body and parallel to the body’s principal axes of inertia. These equations are widely known in the spacecraft dynamics community, where attitude performance is essential to meet pointing requirements. For instance, Earth observation satellites must achieve extreme accuracy to point antennas, optical instruments or other remote sensing devices toward specific targets. By improving spacecraft models and estimating physical parameters more accurately, one can enhance the overall performance of the mission. The equations in component form and derived with respect to the principal directions are given by
\[eq:EulerRBD\] $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
I_1 \dot{\omega}_1 + (I_3 - I_2) \omega_2\omega_3 = \tau_1, &\quad \omega_1(0) = \omega_{1,0},\label{eq:EulerRBD_a}\\
I_2 \dot{\omega}_2 + (I_1 - I_3) \omega_3\omega_1 = \tau_2, &\quad \omega_2(0) = \omega_{2,0},\label{eq:EulerRBD_b}\\
I_3 \dot{\omega}_3 + (I_2 - I_1) \omega_1\omega_2 = \tau_3, &\quad \omega_3(0) = \omega_{3,0}.\label{eq:EulerRBD_c}\end{aligned}$$
where $I_k, \omega_k, \tau_k$, $k=1,2,3$, are the principal moments of inertia, the angular velocities, and the applied external torques, respectively. In this example, we assume no external torques excite the system, i.e., $\tau_1=\tau_2=\tau_3=0$. In the torque-free case, the Euler system (\[eq:EulerRBD\]) is conservative and satisfies two integrals of motion: conservation of kinetic energy (\[eq:cons\_kinetic\]) and conservation of angular momentum (\[eq:cons\_angmom\])
\[eq:EulerRBD\_conservation\] $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
2\mathcal{T} = I_1 \omega_1^2 + I_2 \omega_2^2 + I_3 \omega_3^2,\label{eq:cons_kinetic}\\
\Vert\bm{L}\Vert^2_2 = I_1^2 \omega_1^2 + I_2^2 \omega_2^2 + I_3^2 \omega_3^2,\label{eq:cons_angmom}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathcal{T}$ and $\bm{L}$ are the kinetic energy and angular momentum vector, respectively. The above constraints represent two ellipsoid-shaped manifolds in the $(\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$-space whose intersection curve is known as the polhode (Figure \[fig:polhode\]). As the true state variables satisfy these two constraints, they lie on their intersection. The purpose of this example is to show that, while the proposed ID approach (Algorithm \[alg:ID\]) is not able to learn these two constraints individually, it is able to learn their intersection for small noise levels.
In this example, the moments of inertia are set to $I_1 = 1 $, $I_2 = 2$ and $I_3 = 3$, yielding a tri-inertial body, and the initial conditions to $(\omega_1, \omega_2, \omega_3) = (1,1,1)$. These specific values give $\mathcal{T}=3$ and $\Vert\bm{L}\Vert^2_2 = 14$. The number of state variables is $n = 3$ and the degree of the polynomial basis is set to $d = 3$, giving $p = 20$ monomial terms. The sparsity of this system in a polynomial basis is 3. We used 1000 samples over 10 time units, from $t = 0.5$ to $t = 10.5$. The ellipsoid constraint functions associated with (\[eq:EulerRBD\_conservation\]) are expressed as a linear combination of multivariate monomials as
\[eq:EulerRBD\_ellipconstraints\] $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
g_1(\mathbf{x}) = 1\phi_1(\mathbf{x}) - \frac{1}{6}\phi_5(\mathbf{x}) - \frac{1}{3}\phi_7(\mathbf{x}) - \frac{1}{2}\phi_{10}(\mathbf{x});\\
g_2(\mathbf{x}) = 1\phi_1(\mathbf{x}) - \frac{1}{14}\phi_5(\mathbf{x}) - \frac{2}{7}\phi_7(\mathbf{x}) - \frac{9}{14}\phi_{10}(\mathbf{x}),\end{aligned}$$
where $\phi_i(\mathbf{x})\in \{1,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3,\omega_1^2,\omega_1\omega_2,\omega_2^2,\omega_1\omega_3,\omega_2\omega_3,\omega_3^2,\dots\}, i=1,\dots,p$. Similar to the previous example, we compute the singular values of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ for polynomial degree $d = 3$ at different noise levels $\sigma$ to find the numerical rank. As shown in Figure \[fig:svDecay\_EulerRBD\], except for the case of $\sigma=10^{-6}$, there is no clear gap in the singular values. This presents an issue when learning the constraint via Algorithm \[alg:ID\] and subsequently computing $\bm{\xi}$.
We performed Algorithm \[alg:ID\] knowing the true rank [*a priori*]{}, which is 12 in this example. Figure \[fig:LDMatrix\_EulerRBD\] illustrates the linear dependence matrix for $d = 3$ at two different noise levels $\sigma = 10^{-5}$ (left) and $\sigma = 10^{-3}$ (right). The ID leads to $\mathcal{J} = \{5,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17\}$ as the indices of the independent columns of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ for $\sigma = 10^{-5}$, which is the nose level we use for the results presented next. Larger noise levels, lead to several small $\eta_k$ coefficients, which motivate future research in developing better denoising strategies for constraint identification. We select the 1st and 10th columns of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ corresponding to the subset $\mathcal{I}\backslash\mathcal{J} = \{1,2,3,4,10,18,19,20\}$ of linearly dependent columns to generate the following recovered constraint functions
\[eq:constraintmanifold\_mdof\_approx\] $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\hat{g}_1(\mathbf{x}) = -1.0000\phi_1(\mathbf{x}) + 0.5002\phi_5(\mathbf{x}) + 0.5001\phi_7(\mathbf{x});\nonumber\\
\hat{g}_2(\mathbf{x}) = 0.6625\phi_5(\mathbf{x}) + 0.3308\phi_7(\mathbf{x})-1.0000\phi_{10}(\mathbf{x}),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
also depicted in Figure \[fig:EulerRBD\_constraintplot\]. In obtaining (\[eq:constraintmanifold\_mdof\_approx\]), we have thresholded the $C_{m,l}$ coefficients in (\[eq:eta\_recovery\]) with a threshold parameter of size $10^{-3}$. Notice that the recovered constraints $\hat{g}_1(\mathbf{x})$ and $\hat{g}_2(\mathbf{x})$ are different from the exact constraints $g_1(\mathbf{x})$ and $g_2(\mathbf{x})$, respectively, hence the $\ \hat{}\ $ notation for the recovered constraints. This can be observed also by comparing Figures \[fig:polhode\] and \[fig:EulerRBD\_constraintplot\]. However, the intersection of $\hat{g}_1(\mathbf{x})$ and $\hat{g}_2(\mathbf{x})$ matches well with that of $g_1(\mathbf{x})$ and $g_2(\mathbf{x})$, which is again what constraints the state variables. We note that selecting other columns with indices in $\mathcal{I}\backslash\mathcal{J}$ results in constraints that are trivial variants of $\hat{g}_1(\mathbf{x})$ and $\hat{g}_2(\mathbf{x})$.
This example shows the difficulty in uniquely identifying more than one constraints given by implicit functions of the state variables and using the ID approach. Given a basis $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$, there exist a family of different hypersurfaces that contain the state trajectory, defined by their intersection. This is caused by the non-uniqueness of the solution to $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})\bm{\eta} = \mathbf{0}$; any linear combination of the null space vectors of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ will also contain the state trajectory. Recovering constraints in the data poses new challenges in system identification. A thorough analysis of the conditions under which constraints can be uniquely identified is still being investigated and will be addressed in a future work.
In this case, Tikhonov regularization differentiation also performs well in computing derivatives from noisy measurements for all state variables. The Pareto curves are well defined, and the corners coincide with the optimal regularization parameters, as shown in Figure \[fig:EulerRBDDXerror\].
![Left: Relative error of the angular accelerations with respect to different noise levels. The signal-to-noise ratios are: $\text{SNR}_{\omega_1} = 58.18~\text{dB}$ and $\text{SNR}_{\omega_2} = 60.68~\text{dB}$, $\text{SNR}_{\omega_3} = 59.75~\text{dB}$. Right: Pareto curves for each angular velocity at noise level $\sigma = 10^{-3}$ []{data-label="fig:EulerRBDDXerror"}](EulerRBD_TikhonovNumDiff_dxerror_1000samp.eps){width=".49\textwidth"}
Before performing WBPDN, we remove the linearly dependent columns of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ in the subset $\mathcal{I}\backslash\mathcal{J}$ to lower the condition number of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ from $3.40\cdot 10^4$ to $1.96\cdot 10^3$ for $\sigma = 10^{-3}$. The solution error and the convergence agree with the previous examples. We assume that the rank and the dimension of the null space of $\bm{\Phi}({\mathbf{x}})$ are known. If we run the WBPDN on the numerically rank deficient matrix, we may obtain a different $\bm{\xi}$, yielding similar residuals and predicted trajectories caused by the non-uniqueness of the solution due to the ill-conditioning of $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$. Figure \[fig:EulerRBD\_res\_error\_rankdef\] displays results for the reduced $\bm{\Phi}(\mathbf{x})$ with $p = 12$ columns and the original one. For low noise levels both solutions happen to coincide, but for $\sigma = 10^{-2}$ and $\sigma = 10^{-1}$ the solution diverges and the residual remains similar.
From Figure \[fig:EulerRBDWBPDNLcurve\_it0\] no significant differences are observed in the Pareto curves with respect to the previous examples. The curves are well-defined and the corner points match the optimal ones. The regularization parameters given by CV only coincide with the optimal ones for the $\omega_1$ state. Similarly, the exact and predicted trajectories agree until $t=50$ (Figure \[fig:EulerRBDPrediction\]).
![Exact and predicted trajectories of the Euler rigid body dynamics for $\sigma = 10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig:EulerRBDPrediction"}](PredictedEulerRBDData.eps){width="80.00000%"}
Discussion and Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
=========================
In summary, the motivation of this work was to improve the accuracy and stability of sparse regression techniques, a.k.a SINDy, for the identification of governing equations of nonlinear dynamical systems from noisy state measurements. As in SINDy, the governing equations are approximated in a multi-variate basis of state variables, here of monomial type. To identify the expansion coefficients, we proposed a strategy based on the iteratively reweighted Basis Pursuit Denoising (WBPDN) or Adaptive LASSO techniques, previously used in the context of compressed sensing and sparse regression. Penalizing the weighted $\ell_1$-norm of the coefficients via solution-dependent weights enhances sparsity and the stability of the regression problem. The selection of the regularization parameter balancing the sparsity of the recovered coefficients and the proximity of the model to data – the time derivatives of the state variables – was done using the Pareto curve criterion. We observed that the corner point of the Pareto curve yielded near optimal selection of regularization parameters, and that the Pareto curve criterion consistently outperforms the commonly used K-fold cross validation. For the range of noise levels we used, the Pareto curves showed well-defined corner points that agreed with regularization parameters that provided minimum solution error. We demonstrated empirically that the WBPDN approach outperformed Sequentially Thresholded Least Squares (STLS) and Sequential Thresholded RidgeRegression (STRidge) techniques previously utilized within the SINDy framework.
We also addressed the recovery of a single constraint on dynamical systems, e.g., conservation of total energy, given by an implicit function of the state variables. This was achieved by generating the interpolative decomposition (ID) of the sampled basis matrix used to approximate the governing equations. We illustrated the utility of ID in recovering a single constraint for small levels of state measurement noise.
In light of the effectiveness of WBPDN for recovering governing equations of non-linear dynamical systems, it is desirable to extend this work to high-dimensional Partial Differential Equations (PDE) along with novel model reduction techniques to learn the dynamics of multi-physics or multi-scale systems. Robust identification of physical constraints from data – specifically in the presence of large noise levels – or the imposition of physical constraints to inform the identification of the governing equations are other directions to further investigate in future work.
Acknowledgements
================
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grant CMMI-1454601.
Appendix A {#sec:appendix_A .unnumbered}
==========
The discrete derivatives are computed at the midpoints of $(t_i, t_{i+1})$ using the midpoint integration rule $$\label{eq:finitediff}
x_{i+1} = x_{i} + \dot{x}_{i+1/2}\,\Delta t, \quad i = 1,\dots,m-1.$$ The discretization (\[eq:finitediff\]) yields the linear system $$\label{eq:midpointMat}
\mathbf{A}\dot{\mathbf{x}} = \hat{\mathbf{x}},$$ where $\mathbf{A} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{(m-1)\times(m-1)}$ is the discrete integral operator, $\dot{\mathbf{x}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m-1}$ are the approximate derivatives at the midpoints, and $\hat{\mathbf{x}} = \{x_j - x_1\}_{j = 2}^{m} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m-1}$. Since noisy state variables may amplify the error in the derivatives, we regularize (\[eq:midpointMat\]) by introducing a differential operator $\mathbf{D}$. The regularized problem then becomes $$\label{eq:TikRegDiffmin}
\min_{\dot{\mathbf{x}}} \| \mathbf{A}\dot{\mathbf{x}} - \hat{\mathbf{x}}\|_2^2 + \alpha\|\mathbf{D}\dot{\mathbf{x}}\|_2^2,$$ where $\alpha$ is a non-negative parameter that controls the smoothness of the solution $\dot{\mathbf{x}}$. In (\[eq:TikRegDiffmin\]), $\mathbf{D}$ is defined as $$\mathbf{D} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{I}, & \mathbf{D}_1, & \mathbf{D}_2
\end{bmatrix}^T \in {\mathbb{R}}^{(3m-6) \times (m-1)},$$ where $\mathbf{I}$ denotes the identity matrix, and $\mathbf{D}_1$ and $\mathbf{D}_2$ are the discrete first and second difference operators. The minimization problem (\[eq:TikRegDiffmin\]) is convex, differentiable, and admits a closed-form solution. The $\alpha$ parameter modulates the balance between the fidelity to the data and the smoothness of the derivative. For a given value of $\alpha$, the optimal solution is given by $$\dot{\mathbf{x}}_{\alpha} = (\mathbf{A}^T\mathbf{A} + \alpha \mathbf{D}^T\mathbf{D})^{-1}\mathbf{A}^T \hat{\mathbf{x}}.$$ We found that Tikhonov regularization differentiation was robust, computationally efficient and easy to implement. We remark that the accuracy of the state derivatives depends on the sample size $m$, sampling rate $\Delta t$ and level of noise $\sigma$ in the data. Assuming the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem [@shannon1949communication] is satisfied and the noise is zero-mean independent and identically distributed, the midpoint integration yields a discrete approximation error (bias) $\sim \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^2)$ and noise amplification (variance) that scales as $\sim \mathcal{O}(\frac{\sigma^2}{\Delta t^2})$ [@spall2005introduction]. In our numerical experiments, we observed that the condition number of $\mathbf{A}$ scales linearly with the sample size; the larger the condition number, the larger the least squares error may be. Tikhonov regularization attempts to lower the condition number of $\mathbf{A}$ and reduce the effect of noise by appropriately selecting $\alpha$. However, it introduces bias in the computed solutions [@Hansen2010].
In our experience, the L-curve criterion for choosing $\alpha$ yields the best results. In the case of Tikhonov regularization, Regi[ń]{}ska [@Reginska1996] proves that the log-log L-curve is always strictly convex at its ends for $\alpha \leq \sigma_n$ and $\alpha \geq \sigma_1$ ($\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_n$ being the largest and smallest singular values of $\mathbf{A}$, respectively). Let $\mathbf{u}_i$, $i = 1,\dots,m-1$, denote the right singular vectors of $\mathbf{A}$ associated with the $i$th largest singular value of $\mathbf{A}$. The L-curve can be concave if $|\mathbf{u}_i^T \hat{\mathbf{x}}|$ are monotonic with respect to $i$ or are constant [@Hansen1999].
Numerical differentiation may produce inaccurate results around the boundaries of a function if boundary conditions are unknown. This is the case in the present application where the time derivatives of states are not known at the ends of the training time period. As such, we here compute the time derivatives over a time interval that is 5% larger than the intended training time span (from each side), but use the state data and estimated time derivatives over the original training time span.
[^1]: STLS (MATLAB): http://faculty.washington.edu/sbrunton/sparsedynamics.zip
[^2]: STRidge (Python): https://github.com/snagcliffs/PDE-FIND
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'C. Martayan'
- 'Y. Frémat'
- 'A.-M. Hubert'
- 'M. Floquet'
- 'J. Zorec'
- 'C. Neiner'
date: 'Received /Accepted'
subtitle: 'I: Large Magellanic Cloud, field of NGC2004.'
title: 'Effects of metallicity, star formation conditions and evolution in B and Be stars.'
---
Introduction
============
The study of physical properties of B stars with respect to the relative frequency of Be stars in young open clusters and their surrounding field can provide important insights into the origin of the Be phenomenon. Indeed, our knowledge of mass-loss conditions, which lead to the formation of an anisotropic envelope around a fraction of B stars, is still very poor. Several physical processes could be involved, such as rapid rotation, non-radial pulsations, magnetic fields, evolutionary effects, binarity... Although the Be phenomenon has frequently been considered as a rapid rotation-related phenomenon in OB stars, it is not yet established whether only a fraction or all of the rapidly rotating early-type stars evolve into Be stars.
Several recent studies tackled the major question of the influence of metallicity and evolution on rapid rotators. The Be phenomenon could be favoured in stars of low metallicity (Maeder et al. 1999). Preliminary results by Royer et al. (2004) could confirm this metallicity effect, although they use limited stellar samples. The appearance of the Be phenomenon could also depend on stellar ages (Fabregat & Torrejón 2000). Accounting for the effects of fast rotation and of gravitational darkening, Zorec et al. (2005) concluded that Be stars spread over the whole Main Sequence (MS) evolutionary phase. However, they find that in massive stars the Be phenomenon tends to be present at smaller age ratios than in less massive stars. Moreover, Keller (2004) found that young clusters host more rapid rotators than their surrounding field. This assessment is valid for the LMC, as well as in the Galaxy. A similar trend was found by Gies & Huang (2004) from a spectroscopic survey of young galactic clusters.
Up to now, spectroscopic surveys were only obtained with a resolution power R$<$5000 and/or a low signal to noise ratio (S/N). The new instrumentation FLAMES-GIRAFFE installed at the VLT-UT2 at ESO is particularly well suited to obtain high quality spectra of large samples needed for the study of stellar populations. Thus, we have undertaken the determination of fundamental parameters for a large sample of B and Be stars in regions of different metallicity: (i) to check whether the low metallicity favours the formation of rapid rotators and in particular of Be stars; and (ii) to investigate the evolutionary status of Be stars. In a first paper (Martayan et al. 2005, hereafter Paper I), we reported the identification of numerous B-type stars, the discovery of new Be stars and spectroscopic binaries in the young cluster LMC-NGC2004 and its surrounding field with the help of medium resolution spectra obtained with the FLAMES instrumentation. The present paper deals with fundamental parameters and evolutionary status of a very large fraction of those objects, taking into account rotational effects (stellar flattening, gravitational darkening) when appropriate.
Observations
============
This work makes use of spectra obtained with the multifibre spectrograph VLT-FLAMES in Medusa mode (132 fibres) at medium resolution (R=6400) in setup LR02 (396.4 - 456.7 nm). Observations (ESO runs 72.D-0245B and 73.D-0133A) were carried out in the young cluster LMC-NGC2004 and in its surrounding field, as part of the Guaranteed Time Observation programmes of the Paris Observatory (P.I.: F. Hammer). The observed field (25 in diameter) is centered at $\alpha$(2000) = 05h 29m 00s and $\delta$(2000) = -67$^{\circ}$ 14 00. Besides the young cluster NGC2004, this field contains several high-density groups of stars (KMHK943, 971, 963, 991, 988 and BSDL2001). Spectra were obtained on November 24, 2003 and April 12, 2004; at these dates, the heliocentric velocities are smaller than 1.5 . The strategy and conditions of observations, as well as the spectra reduction, are described in Paper I. A significant sample of the B stars population (168 objects), 6 O and 2 A stars were observed during the two observing runs. Since the V magnitude of the selected targets ranges from 13.7 to 17.8 mag, we chose a 2-hour integration time. This corresponds to an average S/N $\simeq$ 120, with individual values ranging from $\sim$20 to $\sim$150 for the fainter and brighter stars, respectively.
The colour diagram V versus B-V (Fig. \[figcoul\]), derived from our instrumental photometry, shows the B and Be stars in our sample compared to all the stars in the EIS-LMC33 field. Several stars present a strong reddening and are mainly located either in the clusters NGC2004, KMHK943, KMHK971, ‘unknown2’ and in the galactic open cluster HS66325, either at the periphery of the region LHA120-N51A, or in the field, but without explicit link between all these regions. The locations of the observed O, B and A-type stars are shown in the LMC33 field from the EIS pre-FLAMES survey (Fig. \[figure0\]).
Finally, among the 124812 stars which we have listed in the EIS LMC33 field, our pre-selection with photometric criteria gives 1806 B-type stars. And we have observed 177 B-type stars among the 1235 B-type stars which are observable in the VLT-FLAMES/GIRAFFE field. The ratio of observed to observable B-type stars represents 14.3%. Consequently, this sample is statistically significant.
Fundamental parameters determination {#FPD}
====================================
Atom Ion Number of levels
----------- ------------ ---------------------------------
Hydrogen H [i]{} 8 levels + 1 superlevel
H [ii]{} 1 level
Helium He [i]{} 24 levels
He [ii]{} 20 levels
He [iii]{} 1 level
Carbon C [ii]{} 53 levels all individual levels
C [iii]{} 12 levels
C [iv]{} 9 levels + 4 superlevels
C [v]{} 1 level
Nitrogen N [i]{} 13 levels
N [ii]{} 35 levels + 14 superlevels
N [iii]{} 11 levels
N [iv]{} 1 level
Oxygen O [i]{} 14 levels + 8 superlevels
O [ii]{} 36 levels + 12 superlevels
O [iii]{} 9 levels
O [iv]{} 1 level
Magnesium Mg [ii]{} 21 levels + 4 superlevels
Mg [iii]{} 1 level
: Atoms and ions treated in the computations assuming NLTE. The number of levels taken into account for each ion is given.[]{data-label="tab:desc"}
One important step in the analysis of the data collected with FLAMES is the determination of the stellar fundamental parameters. In order to derive the effective temperature (), surface gravity (), projected rotational velocity () and radial velocity (RV) in an homogeneous and coherent way for the whole stellar sample, we use the GIRFIT least squares procedure, which is able to handle large datasets and was previously developed and described by Frémat et al. (2005a). GIRFIT fits the observations with theoretical spectra interpolated in a grid of stellar fluxes computed with the SYNSPEC programme and from model atmospheres calculated with TLUSTY (Hubeny & Lanz 1995, see references therein) or/and with ATLAS9 (Kurucz 1993; Castelli et al. 1997). It accounts for the instrumental resolution through convolution of spectra with a Gaussian function and for Doppler broadening due to rotation. Use is made of subroutines taken from the ROTINS computer code provided with SYNSPEC (Hubeny & Lanz 1995).
It is worth noting that the spectra obtained in this way do not take into account the second order effects of fast rotation (stellar flattening and gravitational darkening), which are expected to be strong in Be stars. To introduce these effects in our discussion, stellar parameters are corrected afterwards by adopting a grid of synthetic stellar spectra computed by Frémat et al. (2005b) with the FASTROT computer code assuming a solid-body-type rotation. In the following sections, the terms ’apparent’ and ’parent non-rotating counterpart’ (pnrc) are used as defined by Frémat et al. (2005b).
We introduce in the following sections the grid of model atmospheres (Sect. \[subsec:grid\]) we use, the fitting criteria we adopt in the GIRFIT procedure (Sect. \[subsec:girfit\]) and the corrections for fast rotation we apply on the Be stars’ fundamental parameters (Sect. \[subsec:effects\]). The calibrations that allow us to estimate the spectral type of each non-Be target from the equivalent width of the hydrogen and helium lines are detailed in Sect. \[subsec:mktyp\].
Grid of model atmospheres {#subsec:grid}
-------------------------
The models we use to build the GIRFIT input grid of stellar fluxes are computed in two consecutive steps. To account in the most effective way for line-blanketing, the temperature structure of the atmospheres is computed using the ATLAS9 computer code (Kurucz 1993; Castelli et al. 1997). Non-LTE level populations are then estimated for each of the atoms we consider using TLUSTY (Hubeny & Lanz 1995) and keeping fixed the temperature and density distributions obtained with ATLAS9.
Table \[tab:desc\] lists the ions that are introduced in the computations. Except for , the atomic models we use in this work were downloaded from TLUSTY’s homepage (http://tlusty.gsfc.nasa.gov) maintained by I. Hubeny and T. Lanz. is treated with the MODION IDL package developed by Varosi et al. (1995) and the atomic data (oscillator strengths, energy levels, and photoionization cross-sections) from the TOPBASE database (Cunto et al. 1993). It reproduces the results obtained by Sigut (1996).
In this way, and for each spectral region studied in the present work, the specific intensity grids are computed for effective temperatures and surface gravities ranging from 15000 K to 27000 K and from 2.5 to 5.0 dex, respectively. For $<$ 15000 K and $>$ 27000 K we use LTE calculations and the OSTAR 2002 NLTE model atmospheres grid (Lanz & Hubeny 2003), respectively.
The metallicities of the model atmospheres are chosen to be as close as possible to the NGC2004 averaged value, $[m/H]~=~-0.45$ (where $[m/H] = \log(m/H)_{\rm LMC} -
\log(m/H)_\odot$), estimated from the results by Korn et al. (2002, Table 3). The Kurucz and OSTAR 2002 models we use are therefore those calculated for \[m/H\]$=-0.5$. Finally, the complete input flux grid is built assuming the averaged element abundances derived by Korn et al. (2002) for C, N, O, Mg, Si, and Fe. The other elements, except hydrogen and helium, are assumed to be underabundant by $-0.45$ dex relative to the Sun.
The GIRFIT procedure: fitting criteria and continuum level {#subsec:girfit}
----------------------------------------------------------
The procedure we adopt to derive the stellar fundamental parameters mainly focuses on the spectral domain ranging from 4000 to 4500 Å, which gathers two hydrogen lines (H$\gamma$ and H$\delta$),8 strong helium lines (He[i]{} $\lambda$ 4009, 4026, 4121, 4144, 4169, 4388, 4471 and [ii]{} $\lambda$ 4200) and several weak lines of silicon and carbon. The $\chi^{2}$ parameter is computed on different spectral zones generally centred on these temperature- and gravity-sensitive diagnostic features. However, due to the moderate spectral resolution and frequent high apparent rotational velocities of targets, other criteria such as those based on silicon lines cannot be used. Furthermore It is worth noting that even the / line ratios used to estimate and values are less accurate for early B-type stars (B1-B0) than for later types, the simultaneous fit of several hydrogen and helium line-profiles enables us to obtain the sought stellar parameters quite easily, within the error boxes given in Table \[tab:sn\] (see also Fig. 1 in Frémat et al. 2005b). In the most dubious cases, the overall agreement between observed and synthetic spectra was checked over the complete spectral range.
In Be stars, which often display circumstellar emission/absorption in their spectra, the zones are further defined to exclude any part of the spectral lines that could be deformed by line emission or shell absorption (e.g. hydrogen line cores). Note that, as the parameters derived for Be stars at this stage of the procedure do not take into account the effects of fast rotation (see Sect. \[subsec:effects\]), they will be further called apparent fundamental parameters.
During the spectra fitting procedure, 4 free parameters are considered: the effective temperature, the surface gravity, the projected rotational velocity and the radial velocity. To reduce as much as possible the impact of noise on the location of the stellar continuum, we also include a fifth parameter standing for the wavelength-independent ratio (i.e. a scaling factor) between the mean “flux” level of the normalized observed and theoretical spectra. Assuming a Poisson noise distribution to compute a reference spectrum, Fig. \[fig:sn\] shows how the derived fundamental parameters can be affected by a decrease of S/N, while Table \[tab:sn\] lists the averaged absolute errors on the fundamental parameters expected for different values of S/N.
For each star of the sample, we repeat the GIRFIT procedure several times with different fitted zones and initial parameters values in order to scan the complete space of solutions. The solutions we finally select are those with the lowest $\chi^{2}$ recomputed over the same wavelength range: the whole spectrum for O, B, and A-type stars without emission, and only the blue part of the spectrum (4000–4250 Å) for Be stars in order to avoid, as much as possible, the influence of line emission in the hydrogen lines. After a final visual check of the adjusted spectra, the determinations obtained at the end of the GIRFIT procedure are compared to the values directly measured on the observations. If this ultimate verification is successful, the process stops. Otherwise, the fitting spectral zones are modified and the procedure is restarted. Examples of fitted spectra, for a B, an O-B and a Be star are given in Fig. \[fits\].
Following Bouret et al. (2003), who used the same atomic data, there is no difference between fits obtained with TLUSTY-SYNSPEC (Hubeny & Lanz 1995) and with the CMFGEN code (Hillier & Miller 1998), which takes into account not only NLTE effects and line-blanketing but also a wind model with mass loss. This effect is present in O stars, but is not critical for B-type stars. Bouret et al. (2003) presented several fits for their sample of O and B stars and obtained similar apparent fundamental parameters with these two codes for early B-type stars. This study validates our choice of code for determining the fundamental parameters of B stars.
Spectral classification determination {#subsec:mktyp}
-------------------------------------
The spectral type and luminosity class of the B-type stars we observed are determined in two different ways. First, we use an iterative method we developed, which has the advantage of being fast and easy to use. We estimate the spectral type from the equivalent width of the H$\gamma$ line by assuming, in a first step, that our sample is only composed of dwarf stars. The spectral type is combined with the equivalent width of the 4471 line to derive, in a second step, the luminosity class, which is then used to rederive the spectral type. Several iterations are required to obtain a combination of spectral type/luminosity class fully coherent with the equivalent widths of the selected lines (H$\gamma$ and 4471). The equivalent width calibrations we adopt in this procedure are those proposed by Azzopardi (1987) and Jaschek & Jaschek (1995) for H$\gamma$ and by Didelon (1982) for the 4471 line.
-------- ------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
S/N $\Delta$($T_{\rm eff}$) $\Delta$($\log~g$) $\Delta$($V\!\sin i$)
(%) (%) (%)
30 20 10 30
40 15 10 20
50 12 10 16
60 10 9 16
70 8 8 10
80 6 6 10
90 6 6 7
100 5 5 5
120 5 5 5
$>$140 $<$5 $<$5 $<$5
-------- ------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
: Averaged absolute errors on the fundamental parameters introduced by different S/N. For $\le$ 50 , the error is estimated to $\pm$20 (due to the intermediate resolution) and the minimum error in is $\pm$10 for the other cases.
\[tab:sn\]
The second method transcribes the set of fundamental parameters we derived by fitting the observed spectra into spectral type and luminosity class, with the help of effective temperature and surface gravity calibrations given by Gray & Corbally (1994) and Zorec (1986) for B stars, and by Bouret et al. (2003) for hotter stars.
The differences in the results provided by these two methods are, on average, half a spectral subtype and half a luminosity class for stars between B0 and B5, affecting both the equivalent width measurements and the derived stellar fundamental parameters. However, the first method fails to give a reliable spectral classification for the few hotter (late O) and cooler (B5-A0) stars in the sample. Moreover, for Be stars, the spectral classification determination is only performed using the derived apparent fundamental parameters (second method), since the emission contamination, often present in H$\gamma$ and in several cases in the 4471 line, makes the first method particularly inappropriate for early Be stars.
\
\
Effects of fast rotation {#subsec:effects}
------------------------
As mentioned in the introduction, Be stars are fast rotators with angular velocities probably around 90% of their breakup velocity (Frémat et al. 2005b). It is further expected that solid-body-type fast rotation flattens the star, which causes a gravitational darkening of the stellar disk due to the variation of the temperature and density distribution from pole to equator. For Be stars, we therefore have to account for these effects on the stellar spectra and, consequently, on the determination of the fundamental parameters. In the present paper, these effects are introduced as corrections directly applied to the apparent fundamental parameters we derived. These corrections are computed by systematically comparing a grid of spectra taking into account the effects of fast rotation obtained with the FASTROT code for different values of pnrc (i.e. parent non-rotating counterpart) stellar parameters (, , ) and of angular velocity (, where $\Omega$$_{c}$ is the break-up angular velocity) to a grid of spectra computed using usual plane-parallel model atmospheres. Adopting the same spectroscopic criteria than those described in Section \[subsec:girfit\] (i.e. hydrogen and helium lines), we obtain different sets of pnrc and apparent stellar parameters (, , ). The corrections we apply to the apparent stellar parameters of the Be stars in the sample (Section \[subsec:girfit\]) are interpolated in this grid using an iterative procedure. Generally, only a few iterations are needed (to reach differences smaller than 500 K for and 0.05 dex for ) to obtain the final pnrc parameters for a given . The radius, mass, and luminosity of the non-rotating stellar counterparts are estimated by (; )–interpolation in the theoretical evolutionary tracks (Charbonnel et al. 1993).
Results
=======
In this section we present the results on stellar parameters and spectral classification determination we obtain as described in Sect. \[FPD\] for non-emission line O-B-A stars, for Be stars, and for some spectroscopic binary systems. The $\alpha$(2000) and $\delta$(2000) coordinates, the instrumental V magnitude and the instrumental (B-V) colour index for individual stars are extracted from EIS pre-FLAMES (LMC33) survey images, as reported in Paper I. The S/N we measure in the spectra may differ for objects with the same magnitude depending either on the position of the fibres within the GIRAFFE field, either on transmission rate differences, or on the presence of clouds partly obscuring the observed field (the field of GIRAFFE has a 25 diameter on the sky). All these informations are given in Tables \[table3\], \[tableBe\], and \[tablebin\] for the different groups of stars mentioned above, respectively.
O-B-A stars
-----------
### Fundamental parameters of O-B-A stars
Early-type stars that do not show intrinsic emission lines in their spectrum and have not been detected as spectroscopic binaries are listed in Table \[table3\] sorted by their MHF catalogue number. Moreover, three stars with a KWBBe name, reported as Be stars by Keller et al. (1999) but not confirmed or in a temporary B phase at epochs of VLT/FLAMES observations, are added at the end of the Table. The fundamental parameters , , , and obtained by fitting the observed spectra, as well as the spectral classification deduced on one hand from – plane calibration (CFP determination, method 2) and on the other hand from equivalent width diagrams (CEW determination, method 1), are reported in columns 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively. As the heliocentric velocities are smaller than 1.5 and the mean error on are 9-10 km s$^{-1}$, we do not correct from the heliocentric velocity.
### Luminosity, mass, and radius for O-B-A stars {#subsec:HRtracks}
Once the fundamental parameters of O, B, and A stars are known, to derive their luminosity, mass and radius, we interpolate in the HR-diagram grids calculated for the LMC metallicity (Z = 0.004; Korn et al. 2002, Rolleston et al. 1996) and for stars without rotation in Charbonnel et al. (1993).
In order to justify the use of non-rotating models, we estimate the mean radius, mean mass and mean in various mass bins (e.g. 5 $<$ M $<$ 7 M$\odot$, 7 $<$ M $<$ 9 M$\odot$, etc). We then obtain a mean equatorial velocity for a random angle distribution using:\
$$V_{e} = \frac{4}{\pi} <V\!\sin i_{\rm~\!app.}>,
\label{eqVevsini}$$ where $<$$>$ is the mean .
We calculate the critical velocity with the classical formula:\
$$V_{c} \simeq 436.7 \left(\frac{<M>}{<R>}\right)^{1/2},
\label{veqc}$$ where $<$M$>$ and $<$R$>$ are the mean mass in M$_{\odot}$ and mean radius in R$_{\odot}$.
This gives the $V_{e}/V_{c}$ ratio, and we can then obtain thanks to formulae taken from Chauville et al. (2001):
$$$\omc$ = \frac{1}{0.724} V_{e}/V_{c} [1 - 0.276 (V_{e}/V_{c})^{2}].
\label{omc}$$
----------- ---------------- ------------- ------------
Star = 85%
MHF57079 25000$\pm$2900 4.4$\pm$0.4 327$\pm$50
MHF57975 21500$\pm$1600 4.1$\pm$0.3 357$\pm$35
MHF95555 21000$\pm$1200 4.0$\pm$0.2 331$\pm$30
MHF98629 22500$\pm$1700 4.1$\pm$0.3 348$\pm$35
MHF106613 19500$\pm$1100 4.0$\pm$0.2 338$\pm$25
MHF107458 22000$\pm$1600 4.0$\pm$0.3 350$\pm$35
MHF116094 23000$\pm$2100 4.1$\pm$0.3 384$\pm$60
MHF131188 31000$\pm$1500 4.4$\pm$0.2 333$\pm$16
KWBBe1169 16500$\pm$2400 4.4$\pm$0.4 294$\pm$57
----------- ---------------- ------------- ------------
: Corrections for = 85% for rapidly rotating B stars in the sample. The units are K for , dex for , and for .
\[tabBnfastrot\]
For B stars $<$$>$ is close to 110 km s$^{-1}$, thus $V_{e}/V_{c}$ $\simeq$ 27% and $\simeq$ 37%. As the effects of fast rotation appear for $>$ 50% (Zorec et al. 2005), we do not need to correct B stars for fast rotation effects except for 9 of them which have a strong .
We obtain in this way the luminosity, mass and radius of most O, B and A stars of the sample (see Table \[tabLMR\]). The position of these stars in the HR diagram is shown in Fig. \[hr2\].
Corrections for rapidly rotating B-type stars {#Bnstars}
---------------------------------------------
The 9 B-type stars MHF57079, MHF57975, MHF95555, MHF98629, MHF106613, MHF107458, MHF116094, MHF131188, and KWBBe1169 have a high rotational velocity, although they do not show emission lines as Be stars. The star KWBBe1169 was previously observed like a Be star by Keller (1999) but, in our observations, it does not show any emission. This could be due to the transient nature of the Be phenomenon. Results on fundamental parameters taking into account fast rotation effects are given in Table \[tabBnfastrot\] and Fig. \[hr2\].
\
Be stars
--------
### Fundamental parameters of Be stars
The total number of Be stars in the sample is 47. It includes 22 known Be stars, called KWBBe in Keller et al. (1999), for which the H$\alpha$ emissive character has been confirmed, and 25 new Be stars reported in Paper I and called MHFBe. For a description of the emission line characteristics of these stars we refer to Paper I. The apparent fundamental parameters (, , , and ) we derive in a first step for these stars are reported in Table \[tableBe\]. The spectral classification derived from apparent fundamental parameters is also given in the last column of the Table. Without correction for fast rotation nearly all Be stars would have a sub-giant or giant luminosity class. The apparent position of Be stars in the HR diagram compared to B stars is also shown in Fig. \[hr2\].
\
### Rapid rotation corrections for Be stars {#befastcalculs}
The pnrc (i.e. parent non rotating counterpart) fundamental parameters (, , ) we obtain after correction with FASTROT (see Sect. 3.4) are given in Table \[tabBefastrot\] for different rotation rates . We estimate the rotation rate to be used for the selection of the probable most suitable pnrc fundamental parameters of Be stars in the LMC thanks to the equations mentioned above. We obtain $V_{e}/V_{c}$ $\simeq$ 70% and $\simeq$ 85% on average. As for O-B-A stars and with the pnrc fundamental parameters corresponding to the rotation rate = 85%, we derive $\log(L/L_{\odot}$), $M/M_{\odot}$, and $R/R_{\odot}$ for Be stars. These parameters are given in Table \[tabLMRBe\]. After correction for rapid rotation, Be stars globally shift in the HR diagram towards lower luminosity and higher temperature, as illustrated in Fig.\[hr2\]. It clearly demonstrates that Be stars are less evolved than their apparent fundamental parameters could indicate.
Spectroscopic binaries
----------------------
The determination of fundamental parameters was undertaken for 15 spectroscopic binaries that show a single line spectrum (SB1, see Table 2 in Paper I). However, since we usually obtained only one spectrum for each suspected SB1 binary, the influence of the secondary component on the spectrum is not known. Results are given in Table \[tablebin\]. We note a fair agreement between spectral classifications derived from fundamental parameters and from the equivalent width of the H$\gamma$ and 4471 lines, except for one star (MHF91603). The mean for these binaries is 100 .
\
Characteristics of the sample {#charsample}
-----------------------------
To characterize the sample of stars, we study the distribution in spectral types, luminosity classes and masses for stars in clusters and in the field. These results are presented in the following subsections.
### O-B-A stars {#charBstars}
We present in Fig. \[LCSTBLMC\] the distribution of O-B-A stars with respect to spectral type and luminosity class. The classification used here is the one obtained from the fundamental parameters determination.
Fig. \[LCSTBLMC\] indicates that the B stars in the sample are essentially early B-type stars (B0 to B3) and are mainly dwarfs (class V), in the field as well as in clusters.
\
### Be stars
As in Sect. \[charBstars\], we present the distribution of Be stars with respect to luminosity class and spectral type. Again the classification used here is the one obtained from the fundamental parameters determination. We also compare the distribution obtained before and after correction of fast rotation effects.
Fig. \[LCBeLMC\] shows that Be stars after fast rotation treatment appear less evolved than apparent parameters would suggest: some stars in classes III and IV are redistributed in classes IV and V, but about 60% of the Be stars still appear as giants and subgiants.
Fig. \[STBeLMC\] presents the distribution in spectral types for Be stars before and after fast rotation treatment. The stars corrected for rotation effects appear hotter than apparent fundamental parameters would suggest. In particular there are more B1 types. Nevertheless, in both distributions the sample is composed of early-type stars (B0 to B3).
### Masses
In addition, we investigate the mass distribution of B and Be stars (Fig. \[fmasse\]). The sample shows a distribution peaking around 7 and 10 M$_{\odot}$ for B and Be stars, respectively. Among the stars with $M$ $\le$ 9 $M_{\odot}$ 18% are Be stars, whereas among the stars with $M$ $>$ 9 $M_{\odot}$ 62% are Be stars. This is probably due to a bias effect in the target selection procedure, since the sample includes 61% of Be stars among stars brighter than V=15.
Rotational velocity and metallicity: results and discussion
===========================================================
In the following subsections, we first give some preliminary remarks about the study by Gies & Huang (2004) on B-type stars in clusters of the Milky Way (MW), which are used as a central thread in our study. Then we summarize results on we obtained for B and Be stars in the LMC. Finally, we compare these results with previous studies in the LMC and in the MW, and we discuss the effect of age and metallicity on rotational velocity.
Ages, , and Be stars
--------------------
Gies & Huang (2004, hereafter GH04) studied the link between rotational velocity and age in clusters of the MW. They noted a good agreement for the rotational velocity between data and predictions by Meynet & Maeder (2000) for a 12 M$_{\odot}$ star and for clusters with $\log(t)$ $\le$ 7. However, clusters with $\log(t)$ $ >$ 7 seem to rotate faster than predicted. According to GH04, there could be several explanations: binarity, initial spin rates, and rotational velocity dependence on mass. For $\log(t)$ $\le$ 7 the mean fraction of binaries calculated from the fraction given by GH04 for each cluster is $\frac{SB}{all}$ = 15%, whereas for $\log(t)$ $>$ 7, $\frac{SB}{all}$ = 19%. Therefore, binaries do not seem to be at the origin of the difference in rotational velocity.
As GH04 merged B and Be stars in their sample and as Be stars are fast rotators, a possible explanation of the differences in rotational velocity may be the proportion of Be stars in the clusters. We therefore searched in the WEBDA database[^1] for the amount of Be stars in the clusters studied by GH04 and calculated the average percentages of Be stars for clusters younger or older than $\log(t)$ = 7 in their sample. We obtained that for $\log(t)$ $\le$ 7 the fraction of Be stars is $\frac{Be}{all}$ = 4.8%, whereas for $\log(t)$ $>$ 7, $\frac{Be}{all}$ = 22%.Thus, the high proportion of Be stars in the clusters with $\log(t)$ $>$ 7 and their high rotational velocities may explain the discrepancy between the observed and predicted for a 12 M$_{\odot}$ star of the same clusters. The high proportion of Be stars found in clusters with $\log(t)$ $>$ 7 is also in agreement with results by Fabregat & Torrejón (2000), who found that Be stars reached the maximun abundance between 13 and 25 Myr.
Another explanation is related to the mass function of the sample stars of GH04. They used the prediction in rotational velocity across the main sequence for a 12 M$_{\odot}$. However, the behaviour in during evolution is not identical for a 12 M$_{\odot}$ and a 7 M$_{\odot}$ star. In the latter case, following Meynet & Maeder (2000), the mass loss is much weaker than for massive stars (M $\ge$ 10 M$_{\odot}$) and the evolutionary track presents an increase of velocity instead of a decrease. This may explain why B-type stars are more likely to increase their rotational velocity during their MS life than the more massive O-type stars.
Results for the LMC and comparison with the MW
----------------------------------------------
In the following sub-sections we compare the obtained apparent fundamental parameters to previous studies, which generally did not take fast rotation effects into account in the determination of fundamental parameters.
For all stars in the LMC stellar sample studied in this paper, we find the following mean (in ) for B and Be stars in the field and clusters, where the given errors are the mean errors and the number in brackets is the number of stars used in the average:
------------------------ ----------------------
Be$_{field+clusters}$: = 272 $\pm$20 (47),
B$_{field+clusters}$: = 119 $\pm$20 (106)
Be$_{field}$: = 268 $\pm$20 (27),
B$_{field}$: = 117 $\pm$20 (93),
(B+Be)$_{clusters}$: = 223 $\pm$20 (33),
Be$_{clusters}$: = 278 $\pm$20 (20),
B$_{clusters}$: = 140 $\pm$20 (13).
------------------------ ----------------------
Field B stars Field Be stars Clusters B stars Clusters Be stars
---------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------------- -------------------
LMC this study 121 $\pm$ 10 (81) 268 $\pm$ 30 (26) 144 $\pm$ 20 (10) 266$ \pm$ 30 (19)
LMC Keller (2004) 112 $\pm$ 50 (51) 146 $\pm$ 50 (49)
MW Glebocki et al. (2000) 124 $\pm$ 10 (449) 204 $\pm$ 20 (48)
MW Levato et al. (2004) 108 $\pm$ 10 (150)
MW Yudin (2001) 207 $\pm$ 30 (254)
MW Chauville et al. (2001) 231 $\pm$ 20 (56)
MW WEBDA $\log(t)$ $<$ 7 127 $\pm$ 20 (44) 199 $\pm$ 20 (8)
MW WEBDA $\log(t)$ $>$ 7 149 $\pm$ 20 (59) 208 $\pm$ 20 (45)
\[Vsinifield\]
These mean values cannot be compared directly with values in the MW, because they are affected by ages and evolution, mass function of samples, etc. We must therefore select B and Be stars in the same range of spectral types and luminosity classes or of masses (when they are known) and ages for samples in the LMC and in the MW. Then, to investigate the effect of metallicity and age on the rotational velocity, we first compare the mean of the B and Be stars in the LMC to the ones in the MW.
We calculate rotational velocities evolutionary tracks for different initial velocities and for a 7 M$_{\odot}$ star, which corresponds to the maximum of the mass function for the B-type stars sample. We have obtained these curves by interpolation thanks to the Figure 5 published in Meynet & Maeder (2002) for the tracks of a 7 M$_{\odot}$ with an initial velocity at the ZAMS=300 . And we have used the Figure 12 published in Meynet & Maeder (2000), and more particularly the Figure 5 from Maeder & Meynet (2001) in order to obtain tracks for different initial rotational velocities (V0=100, 200, 300, 400, 500 ). The use of tracks with a metallicity Z=0.00001 for a 7 M$_{\odot}$ is justified because the tracks for a star with 9 M$_{\odot}$ at metallicity Z=0.004 or Z=0.00001 are quasi identical, then we expect that the tracks for a 7 M$_{\odot}$ are identical at Z=0.00001 and at Z=0.004.
Let us note that due to fast internal angular momentum redistribution in the first $\simeq$ 10$^{4}$ years in the ZAMS, the surface rotational velocities decrease 0.8 times their initial value. Then, for the comparison sake with our observational data, the values plotted are not $V$ but are average $=(\pi/4)V$ (see eq. \[eqVevsini\]). For example, for an initial rotational velocity equals to 300 , the angular momentum redistribution leads roughly to V$_{ZAMS}=$ 240 , which corresponds to $=(\pi/4) \times 240$ $\simeq$ 190 . The curves are only slightly affected by mass loss effects. Due to the low metallicity LMC environment, the mass-loss dependent effects are even less noticeable.
In the present work, the purpose of these curves is only to give a rough interpretation of the behavior observed of $<$$>$.
We determine the ages of stars of the field and of several clusters or associations in our observations. For this purpose, we use HR evolutionary tracks (for non-rotating stars) for the stars of the sample unaffected by rapid rotation and for Be stars corrected for the effects of fast rotation with = 85%. For the cluster NGC2004, we obtain $\log(t)$ = 7.40, which is close to the value obtained in previous studies: $\log(t)$ = 7.30 (Keller 1999) and 7.40 (Maeder et al. 1999). This comparison validates our method to determine ages for clusters.
### Field B and Be stars {#BBefield}
\
The mean obtained for B stars in the field of the LMC closely agrees with Keller’s (2004) results in the same age range (see Table \[Vsinifield\] and Fig. \[agevsinifield\], upper panel). To compare the rotational velocity of B stars in the LMC with the MW, we use the studies of Levato & Grosso (2004) and Glebocki & Stawikowski (2000). In these studies, we select stars with spectral types ranging from B1 to B3 and luminosity classes from V to III, because ages and masses were not determined. To compare the rotational velocity of Be stars in the LMC with the MW, we use Chauville et al. (2001), Glebocki & Stawikowski (2000) and Yudin (2001) with the same selection criteria as for B stars. The comparison of in the LMC and the MW for B and Be stars in the field is presented in Table \[Vsinifield\] and Fig. \[agevsinifield\], upper panel. The range of stellar ages is reported as the dispersion in age in the figure. For samples with an unknown age, we adopt as error bar the duration of the Main Sequence for a 7 M$_{\odot}$ star, which overestimates the age uncertainty. The curves in Fig. \[agevsinifield\], upper panel, show the evolutionary tracks of rotational velocity during the Main Sequence for different initial velocity for a 7 M$_{\odot}$ star, which corresponds to the maximum of the mass function of the B-stars sample.
In order to know if the samples contain a sufficient number of elements for the statistic to be relevant and give an average not biased by inclination effects, we calculate averages for samples with different number of elements. The deviation of the averages gives the statistical error. If this statistical error is smaller than the error on the data, the value determined for the data is statistically significant and does not represent an effect of inclination. Thanks to this test, we find that our samples in the LMC and in the MW are statistically significant even in the cases when the number of stars does not exceed 10. For example, in Table \[Vsinifield\], we have found no difference between the cluster B stars (=144 , 10 stars) following our results and according to Keller (2004) (=146 , 49 stars).
We complete the statistical studies by a Student’s t–test (see Table \[testStudent1\]) in order to know whether the differences observed in the samples are significant. The Student test gives:\
(i) for field B stars: There is no significant difference between the LMC studies carried-on in this paper and Keller’s (2004). The test further gives no significant difference between LMC and MW studies, when the data used for the MW are those of Glebocki & Stawikowski (2000). There are, however, significant differences when the comparison is based on data taken from Levato & Grosso (2004). It is therefore difficult to conclude whether B stars have similar rotational velocities in the LMC and the MW fields.\
(ii) for field Be stars: A significant difference between studies in the LMC (this paper) and the MW. Field Be stars in the LMC have a rotational velocity higher than in the MW.
### B and Be stars in clusters {#BBecl}
As for B stars in the field, we find that the mean of B stars in the LMC clusters ($\log(t)$ $>$ 7) determined from our observations closely agrees with Keller’s (2004) results (see Table \[Vsinifield\] and Fig. \[agevsinifield\], lower panel). In the MW, we selected young clusters with $\log(t)$ $<$ 8 (some of them were observed by GH04) in the WEBDA database for which published and MK classification exist. We distinguish two groups: the younger clusters with $\log(t)$ $<$ 7 and older clusters with $\log(t)$ $>$ 7. The younger clusters (given by increasing age) are: IC1805, Trumpler14, IC2944, NGC6193, NGC2362, NGC2244, NGC6611, NGC2384, NGC3293, and NGC1502. The older clusters (given by increasing age) are: NGC869, NGC884, NGC4755, IC2395, NGC7160, and NGC2422. Their difference in age gives the age–dispersion reported in Fig \[agevsinifield\], lower panel. The ages are those given by GH04 and in WEBDA.
The results concerning B stars in the LMC clusters and MW Be stars with $\log(t)$ $<$ 7 must be taken cautiously. In fact, the samples are not numerous enough to have the inclination angle effects, in averages, entirely removed so as to reflect the <V>-dependent information properly. For the stars in these clusters, the Student’s t–test (see Table \[testStudent1\]) gives:\
(i) for B stars: A slight difference between younger ($\log(t)$ $<$ 7) and older ($\log(t)$ $>$ 7) clusters in the MW, which may be explained by the effect of evolution on rotational velocity, but no significant difference between the LMC and the MW clusters with $\log(t)$ $>$ 7. B stars in the LMC and MW clusters seem to have a similar rotational velocity when intervals of similar ages are compared.\
(ii) for Be stars: A significant difference between the LMC and the MW clusters. Be stars in the LMC clusters have a rotational velocity higher than in the MW clusters. However, the number of Be stars observed in LMC clusters, as well as the number of Be stars identified in young MW clusters, is poor and may affect the statistics.
Fig. \[agevsinifield\], lower panel, illustrates the comparison of the mean in the LMC and the MW for B and Be stars in clusters. As in Fig \[agevsinifield\], upper panel, the curves show the evolutionary tracks of rotational velocity during the Main Sequence for different initial velocity for a 7 M$_{\odot}$ star.
### Comparison between field and clusters
Results on rotational velocity of B and Be stars in the field and clusters presented in Sect. \[BBefield\] and \[BBecl\] (see also Table \[Vsinifield\] and Table \[testStudent1\]) lead to the following conclusions:\
(i) According to Meynet & Maeder (2000), the lower the mass-loss in massive stars is, the lower the metallicity is. We can the expect that stars in low-metallicity regions may lose less angular momentum and then better preserve the initial high rotational rates. Such a metallicity effect seems to be present in Be stars, as we see that they rotate faster in the field and clusters of the LMC than in the MW. However, we were not able to detect such an effect in B stars.\
(ii) Be stars rotate more rapidly than B stars in the field as well as in clusters, in the LMC, and the MW. Be stars would begin their life on the MS with an initial rotational velocity higher than the one of B stars. The lower the metallicity environment is, the higher the initial rotational velocity of Be stars would be. Moreover, we note that these objects would require an initial rotational velocity of at least $\sim$250 .\
(iii) No significant differences can be found between the rotational velocity of field and cluster Be stars, neither in the LMC nor in the MW.\
(iv) No significant differences can be found between rotational velocities of young field and cluster B stars in the LMC and in the MW. However, there is a significant difference between the rotational velocity of older field and cluster B stars in the MW. This fact can be explained in terms of evolution of rotational velocities.
### Be stars: mass and rotation {#Bemasses}
The number of Be stars is too low to make a statistical study by mass range on in clusters and in the field of the LMC separately. As mentioned in the previous section, we did not find significant differences in mean values for Be stars between clusters and the field. Therefore we compare Be stars only by intervals of mass, regardless of their location.\
(i) for $5 < M < 10 M_{\odot}$, the sub-sample contains 21 stars. The determined mean parameters are: $<M>$ = 7.7 $M_{\odot}$, $<R>$ = 5.8 $R_{\odot}$, and $<$$>$ = 285 , which correspond to a mean ratio $\simeq$ 85% $\pm$ 9 %\
(ii) for $10 < M < 12 M_{\odot}$, the sub-sample contains 13 stars. The determined mean parameters are: $<M>$ = 11.0 $M_{\odot}$, $<R>$ = 9.3 $R_{\odot}$, and $<$$>$ = 259 , which correspond to a mean ratio $\simeq$ 83% $\pm$ 9 %;\
(iii) for $18 > M > 12 M_{\odot}$, the sub-sample contains 10 stars. The determined mean parameters are: $<M>$ = 14.6 $M_{\odot}$ close to 15 $M_{\odot}$, $<R>$ = 12.7 $R_{\odot}$, and $<$$>$ = 224, which correspond to a mean ratio $\simeq$ 73% $\pm$ 9 %.
These results are plotted in Fig. \[MBecomp\] and compared to the theoretical evolutionary tracks for a 7 and 15 M$_{\odot}$ star for different values of initial rotational velocity (Maeder & Meynet 2001). These curves can be considered as envelopes of evolutionary tracks of our sample of Be stars in the LMC. This figure shows that stars follow the theoretical rotational velocity evolution in a low metallicity environment: the mean decreases as the mass increases. This trend can be explained by a difference in mass loss between massive and less massive stars.
### Star formation conditions and magnetic field
According to Stepién (2002), the sufficient condition for a star to rotate rapidly on the ZAMS is the presence of a weak or moderate stellar magnetic field and the existence of an accretion disk for at least 10% of its pre-Main Sequence (PMS) phase. The magnetic field and its interactions with the disk or wind and other phenomena such as accretion have an impact on rotational velocity during the PMS and affect the initial rotational velocity (spin down for strong values of magnetic field) in the Main Sequence (MS). For stars in the MW, the progenitors of all Be stars would possess a fossil magnetic field with a surface intensity between 40 and 400 G and, due to the short PMS phase for the early types, they would conserve their strong rotational velocity during the MS. On the opposite, stars with a magnetic field stronger than 400 G would become slowly rotating magnetic B stars. In the LMC and other environments of low metallicity, the magnetic field has less braking impact on the velocity as explained by Penny et al. (2004) due to the lower abundances of metals. It may explain why Be stars in the LMC can rotate initially with higher velocities than in the MW, as shown in Fig. \[agevsinifield\], upper panel. Note that a weak magnetic field is suspected in the classical Be star (Neiner et al. 2003).
Evolutionary status of Be stars in the LMC {#evol}
------------------------------------------
Using the same approach as the one described by Zorec et al. (2005), we studied the evolutionary status of the LMC Be stars in our sample. We used evolutionary tracks with an initial velocity V$_0$ = 300 provided by Maeder & Meynet (2000). These evolutionary tracks for rotating stars are only available for stars in the MW. They show a slight shift towards lower temperatures and an extension of the time a star may spend on the MS ($\tau_{MS}$), compared to evolutionary tracks of non-rotating stars. Therefore, a star placed in a HR diagram for non-rotating stars has a different age ($\tau$) and a different evolutionary status than if it would be placed in an HR diagram for rotating stars. Fig. \[evolBeLMCveil\] shows the evolutionary status of Be stars in the sample. It appears that more massive Be stars in our sample in the LMC seem to be evolved, since they are localized mainly in the second part of the MS. Contrary to previous similar studies (Zorec et al. 2005, Frémat et al. 2005), in our Be star sample, massive stars (M$\ga$10M$_{\odot}$) by the end of the MS evolutionary phase represent a high fraction of the total number of the studied stars (60%). The distribution obtained cannot correspond only to differences in the mass-dependent evolutionary sampling, but it could reflect some star formation history in the region: stars with M$\ga$10M$_{\odot}$ in $\tau/\tau_{\rm MS}\ga0.5$ have an average age $<\!\!\tau\!\!>\sim(1.5\pm0.4)\times10^7$ yr, stars with M$\la$10M$_{\odot}$ in $\tau/\tau_{\rm MS}\ga0.5$ have $<\!\!\tau
\!\!>\sim(2.9\pm0.2)\times10^8$ yr, while those with M$\la$10M$_{\odot}$ and $\tau/\tau_{\rm MS}\la0.5$ have $<\!\!\tau\!\!>\sim(0.7\pm0.6)\times10^7$ yr.
The observed trend is only indicative, because evolutionary tracks for massive stars are mass loss dependent and the initial rotational velocities of Be stars are higher than 300 . Nevertheless, according to Zorec et al. (2005), changes of initial velocities from V$_0$ = 300 to higher values do not seem to strongly affect evolutionary tracks.
However, several Be stars with lower mass seem to be close to the ZAMS, which is inconsistent with the assumption that the Be star phenomenon occurs preferentially in the second half of the MS life. Those objects, for which spectra were mostly obtained with low S/N ratio, need to be reobserved to clearly confirm their fundamental parameters.
Conclusions
===========
With the VLT-GIRAFFE spectrograph, we obtained spectra of a large sample of B and Be stars in the LMC-NGC2004 and in its surrounding field. We determined fundamental parameters for B stars in the sample, and apparent and parent non-rotating counterpart (pnrc) fundamental parameters for fast rotators such as Be stars.
From the study for B and Be stars in the LMC and its comparison with the MW, we conclude that Be stars begin their life on the MS with a stronger initial velocity than B stars. Moreover, this initial velocity is sensitive to the metallicity. Consequently, only a fraction of B stars can become Be stars. This result may explain the differences in the proportion of Be stars in clusters with similar age.
Our results support Stepien’s scenario (2002): massive stars with a weak or moderate magnetic field and with an accretion disk during at least 10% of their PMS lifetime would reach the ZAMS with sufficiently high initial rotational velocity to become Be stars.
We find no clear influence of the metallicity on rotational velocity in B-type stars. The low metallicity may favour the PMS evolution of high velocity stars by minimizing the braking due to magnetic field interactions with the disk, but the influence of metallicity during the life of B-type stars in the MS is not preponderant. As Be stars are not critical rotators, an additional process, such as magnetic field by transfering momentum to the surface or non-radial pulsations (see Rivinius et al. 1998), must provide additional angular momentum to eject material from the star.
The effects of metallicity, the star formation conditions and the evolutionary status of B and Be stars discussed in this paper will be investigated in a forthcoming paper in the Small Magellanic Cloud, which has a lower metallicity than the Large Magellanic Cloud, in order to enlarge the results presented here.
We would like to thank Dr H. Flores for performing the observing run in November 2003 with success and good quality. We thank Drs M.R. Cioni and J. Smoker for their help during the observing run in April 2004. We also thank the referee Dr S. J. Smartt for his constructive remarks. This research has made use of the Simbad database and Vizier database maintained at CDS, Strasbourg, France, as well as of the WEBDA database.
Azzopardi, M. 1987, A&AS, 69, 421
Ballereau, D., Zorec, J. & Chauville, J. 1995, A&AS, 111, 423
Bica, E.L.D., Geisler, D., Dottori, H., et al. 1998, AJ, 116,723
Bouret, J. C., Lanz, T., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2003, AJ, 595, 1182
Castelli, F., Gratton, R. G., & Kurucz, R. L. 1997, A&A, 318, 841
Charbonnel, C., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., et al. 1993, A&AS, 101, 415
Chauville, J., Zorec, J., Ballereau, D., et al. 2001, A&A, 378, 861
Cunto, W., Mendoza, C., Ochsenbein, F., & Zeippen, C. J. 1993, A&A, 275, L5
Didelon, P. 1982, A&ASS, 50, 199
Fabregat, J. & Torrejón, J. M. 2000, A&A, 357, 451
Frémat, Y., Neiner, C., Hubert, A.-M. et al. 2005a, A&A, in press, astroph$/$0509336
Frémat, Y., Zorec, J., Hubert, A.-M. & Floquet, M. 2005b, A&A, 440, 305
Gies, D. R. & Huang, W. 2004, IAUS, 215, 57 (GH04)
Glebocki, R. & Stawikowski, A. 2000, Acta Ast., 50, 509
Gray, R. O. & Corbally, C. J. 1994, AJ, 107, 742
Hillier, D.J. & Miller, D.L. 1998, ApJ, 496, 407
Hubeny, I. & Lanz, T. 1995, ApJ, 439, 875
Jaschek, C. & Jaschek, M. 1995, Cambridge University Press, The behavior of chemical elements in stars
Keller, S.C. 1999, AJ, 118, 889
Keller, S.C. 2004, PASA, 21, 310
Keller, S.C., Wood, P.R. & Bessell, M.S. 1999, A&AS, 134, 489
Korn, A.J., Keller, S.C., Kaufer, A., et al. 2002, A&A, 385, 143
Kurucz, R. L. 1993, Kurucz CE-ROM No.13. Cambridge, Mass.: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.
Lanz, T. & Hubeny, I. 2003, ApJS, 146, 417
Levato, H. & Grosso, M. 2004, IAUS, 215, 51
Martayan, C., Hubert, A.-M., Floquet, M., et al. 2005, A&A, in press, astroph0509339
Maeder, A., Grebel, E.K. & Mermilliod, J.C. 1999, A&A, 346, 459
Maeder, A. & Meynet, G. 2000, ARAA, 38, 143
Maeder, A. & Meynet, G. 2001, A&A, 373, 555
Meynet, G. & Maeder, A. 2000, A&A, 361, 101
Meynet, G. & Maeder, A. 2002, A&A, 390, 561
Neiner, C., Hubert, A.-M., Frémat, Y.,et al. 2003, A&A, 409, 275
Penny, L. R., Sprague, A. J., Seago, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 1316
Rivinius, Th., Baade, D., Stefl, S., et al. 1998, BeSN, 33, 15
Rolleston, W. R. J., Brown, P. J. F., Dufton, P. F., Howarth, I. D. 1996, A&A, 315, 95
Royer, F., Melo, C., Mermilliod, J.-C., et al. 2004, IAUS, 215, 71
Sigut, T. A. A. 1996, ApJ, 473, 452
Stepién, K. 2002, A&A, 383, 218
Varosi, F., Lanz, T., deKoter, A., et al. 1995, ftp://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/contrib/varosi/modion
Yudin, R. V. 2001, A&A, 368, 912
Zorec, J., Frémat, Y. & Cidale, L. 2005, A&A, 441, 235
Zorec, J. 1986, PhD Thesis: Structure et rotation différentielle dans les étoiles B avec et sans émission (Paris: Université VII, 1986)
[^1]: The WEBDA database is maintained by J.C. Mermilliod. See http://obswww.unige.ch/webda/navigation.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
---
**[Mohammed Elhassani CHARKANI ]{}**
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences
Dhar-Mahraz-F$\grave{e}$s, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University
Fez-Atlas, 30003, Morocco
**Joël KABORE [^1]**
Department of Mathematics
University Joseph Ki-Zerbo
Ouagadougou, Burkina-Faso
[**Abstract.**]{} Let $R$ be a commutative local finite ring. In this paper, we construct the complete set of pairwise orthogonal primitive idempotents of $R[X]/<g>$ where $g$ is a regular polynomial in $R[X]$. We use this set to decompose the ring $R[X]/<g>$ and to give the structure of constacyclic codes over finite chain rings. This allows us to describe generators of the dual code $\mathcal{C}^\bot$ of a constacyclic code ${\mathcal{C}}$ and to characterize non-trivial self-dual constacyclic codes over finite chain rings.
[**Keywords:**]{} *Finite chain ring, Idempotent, Constacyclic code, Self-dual code.*
Introduction
============
Constacyclic codes over finite commutative rings are an important class of linear block codes. Let $R$ be a commutative ring with identity, it’s well-known that for a given unit $\lambda$, the $\lambda$-constacyclic codes over $R$ are ideals of the ring $R[X]/<X^n- \lambda>$. When studying constacyclic codes over finite chain rings, many authors assume that the code length is prime with the characteristic of its residue field. This ensures that the polynomial $X^n - \lambda$ have no multiple factor; in this case the codes are called simple root constacyclic codes, else they are called repeated root constacyclic codes. Simple root constacyclic codes have been extensively study by many authors [@ref35; @ref36; @ref37; @ref44; @ref46; @ref70].
P. Kanwar and S. Lopez-Permouth gave the structure of cyclic codes over $\mathbb{Z}_{p^m}$, the ring of integers modulo $p^m$ [@ref35]. Q. Dinh and S. Lopez-Permouth extended this structure to cyclic codes and negacyclic codes of odd length over finite chain ring [@ref46]. They gave some necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of non-trivial self-dual cyclic codes. E. Martínez-Moro and I. F. Rúa generalized these results to multivariable codes over finite chain rings. S.T. Dougherty studied the cyclic codes of arbitrary length over the ring of integers modulo $m$ [@ref55].
Using this results, A. Batoul et al. considered the self-duality of cyclic codes over finite chain rings [@ref72]. Some additionally necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of non-trivial negacyclic and cyclic self-dual codes are given in [@ref70] with a different method from that given in [@ref35; @ref46].\
The idempotents are very excellent tools to describe finitely generated modules over a decomposable commutative ring $A\,=\,\prod_{i=1}^{n}A_{i}$. Indeed if $A\simeq\,\prod_{i=1}^{n}A_{i}$ is a decomposable ring then the studying of the structure of finitely generated modules over the ring $A$ is reduced to studying the structure of finitely generated modules over each component ring $A_{i}$. Idempotents have been used intensively to describe minimal cyclic codes over finite fields (see [@ref2] ).
In this paper, we use idempotents of the quotient ring $R[X]/<X^n-
\lambda>$ to determine the structure of constacyclic codes over finite chain rings. Our method standardize the results of [@ref35; @ref46; @ref70; @ref72]. We first construct a complete set of primitive pairwise orthogonal idempotents of $R[X]/<g>$, where $R$ is a commutative finite local ring and $g$ is a regular polynomial in $R[X]$. We use this family of idempotents to construct simple root constacyclic codes over finite chain rings.
We also investigate the dual code $\mathcal{C}^\bot$ of a constacyclic code ${\mathcal{C}}$ and characterize non-trivial self-dual constacyclic codes over finite chain ring. We show that all non-trivial constacyclic self-dual codes can be determined by non-trivial cyclic or non-trivial negacyclic self-dual codes.
Preliminaries
=============
Let $R$ be a finite local commutative ring, ${\mathfrak{m}}$ be the maximal ideal of $R$ and ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ its residue field. Let $\bar{}$ be the natural surjective ring morphism given by: $$\begin{array}{l l l l}
\bar{}:& R &\longrightarrow & {\mathbb{F}}_q \\
& r &\longmapsto & r + {\mathfrak{m}}.
\end{array}$$ This map extends naturally to a ring morphism from $R[X]$ to ${\mathbb{F}}_q[X]$ by sending $X$ to $X$.\
An ideal $I$ in $R$ is primary if $I \neq R$ and whenever $xy \in
I,$ then either $x \in I$ or $y^n \in I$ for some positive integer $n$. We say that two ideals $I$ and $J$ are coprime in $R$ if $I+ J= R$. A polynomial $f$ in $R[X]$ is called primary if $f R[X]$ is a primary ideal; regular if $f$ is not a zero divisor; basic irreducible if $\bar{f}$ is irreducible in ${\mathbb{F}}_q[X].$\
Two polynomials $f, g \in R[X]$ are called coprime if $f R[X]$ and $g R[X]$ are coprime in $R[X]$; that is to say, there exists $u$ and $v$ in $R[X]$ such that $ f u+ g v= 1.$ This last relation is well-known as Bézout Identity. Let Recall the Gauss Lemma which is an additive property.
\[gauss\] Let $R$ be a commutative ring with identity. Let $f$ and $g$ be two coprime polynomials in $R[X]$. If $f$ divides the product $h g$ in $R[X]$ then $f$ divides $h$ in $R[X]$.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Indeed, if $f$ and $g$ are two coprime polynomials in $R[X],$ then there exists $u$ and $v$ in $R[X]$ such that $fu+ gv=1.$ This implies that $h= hfu+hgv$. Since $f$ divides $h g,$ then there exists $w$ in $R[X]$ such that $hg=wf$ and $h= hfu+ wfv= f(hu +
wv)$. Therefore $f$ divides $h$ in $R[X]$.
[ ]{}\[pro1\] Let $R$ be a commutative local finite ring and $f$ be a regular polynomial in $R[X]$. Then $f= \delta g_1...g_r$ where $\delta$ is a unit and $g_1, g_2, ..., g_r$ are regular primary pairwise-coprime polynomials.\
Moreover, $g_1,..., g_r$ are unique in the sense that if $f= \delta g_1...g_r = \beta h_1...h_s,$ where $\delta, \beta$ are units, and $\{g_i\},~ \{h_i\}$ are regular primary coprime polynomials, then $r =s,$ and after renumbering $g_i R[X] =h_i R[X],~ 1 \leq i \leq r.$
The following result is very useful for determining coprime. polynomials
\[coprimcrit\] Let $R$ be a finite chain ring. Let $f$ and $g$ be two regular polynomials in $R[X]$. Then $f$ and $g$ be two coprime polynomials in $R[X]$ if and only if $\overline{f}$ and $\overline{g}$ be two coprime polynomials in $k[X]$.
The following result shows that we can reduce a study with regular polynomials to monic polynomials.
\[pro2\] Let $R$ be a commutative finite local ring and $f$ be a regular polynomial in $R[X]$. Then there is a monic polynomial $g$ with $\bar{f}= \bar{g}$ and, for an element $a$ in $R$, $f(a)=0$ if and only if $g(a)=0.$ Further, there is a unit $\delta$ in $R[X]$ with $\delta f= g$.
A code ${\mathcal{C}}$ of length $n$ over $R$ is nonempty subset of $R^n$; if in addition the code is a submodule of $R^n$, it is called linear code. In this paper all codes are assumed to be linear. For a given unit $\lambda \in R$, the $\lambda$-constacyclic shift $\sigma$ on $R^n$ is defined by $$\sigma(a_0,...,a_{n-1})=(\lambda a_{n-1},a_0,...,a_{n-2})$$ and a code of length $n$ over $R$ is said to be $\lambda$-constacyclic if it is invariant under the $\lambda$-constacyclic shift $\sigma$. Cyclic and negacyclic codes are examples of $\lambda$-constacyclic codes for $\lambda = 1$ and $-1$ respectively. The $\lambda$-constacyclic codes of length $n$ over $R$ are identified with ideals of $\frac{R[X]}{<X^n-\lambda>}$ by the identification: $$(a_0,a_1,...,a_{n-1})\longmapsto a_0+a_1x+...a_{n-1}x^{n-1};$$ where $x= X + <X^n-\lambda>$ is the equivalence class of $X$ in $\frac{R[X]}{<X^n-\lambda>}.$\
Given codewords $a=(a_0,a_1,...,a_{n-1})$, $b=(b_0,b_1,...,b_{n-1}) \in R^n$, their inner product is defined in the usual way: $$a.b= a_0b_0+a_1b_1+...a_{n-1}b_{n-1},~\text{evaluated in}~ R.$$ The codewords $a$, $b$ are called orthogonal if $a.b=0$. The dual code $\mathcal{C}^\bot$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$ is the set of $n$-tuples over $R$ that are orthogonal to all codewords of ${\mathcal{C}}:$ $${\mathcal{C}}^\bot=\{a~ |~ a.b=0,\forall a \in {\mathcal{C}}\}.$$ A code ${\mathcal{C}}$ is called self-orthogonal code if ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{C}}^{\bot}$ and self-dual code if ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}^\bot$.\
Let $\lambda$ be a unit in $R$, the dual of a $\lambda$-constacyclic code is a $\lambda^{-1}$-constacyclic code.
Let $f$ be the polynomial $f= a_0 +a_1 x+...+a_{n-1} x^{n-1} \in R[x]$, where $x=X+ <X^n- \lambda>$ and $a_0, a_1,...,a_{n-1} \in R$. The reciprocal polynomial of $f$ denoted by $f^*$ is defined as $f^*= a_0 x^{n-1}+a_{1}x^{n-2}+...+a_{n-1}$. Note that $(f^*)^*= f.$\
The following result is easy to check.
Let $f$ and $g$ be two polynomials in $R[x]$ with $\deg f \geq \deg g.$ Then the followings hold:
- $(f + g)^* = f^* + x^{\deg f - \deg g} g^*;$
- $(f g)^*= f^* g^*.$
Let $\lambda$ be a unit in $R$ and ${\mathcal{C}}$ be an ideal of $R[X]/ <X^n- \lambda>.$ We define ${\mathcal{C}}^*$ by ${\mathcal{C}}^*=\{ f(x)^* \in R[x] : f(x) \in I\}.$ We let $${\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}})= \{g(x) \in R[x]: f(x)g(x)=0, ~\forall~ f(x) \in {\mathcal{C}}\}.$$ The set ${\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}})$ is an ideal of $R[X]/ <X^n- \lambda>$ called annihilator of ${\mathcal{C}}.$
\[c11\][ ]{} Let $\lambda$ be a unit in $R$, ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $\lambda$-constacyclic code of length $n$ over $R$ and ${\mathcal{C}}^{\bot}$ be the dual code of ${\mathcal{C}}.$ Then $${\mathcal{C}}^{\bot}= {\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}})^{*}.$$
The quotient ring $R[X]/<g> $ and the idempotents
=================================================
Let $R$ be a commutative ring with identity. An element $e$ of $R$ is called idempotent if $e=e^2;$ two idempotents $e_1, e_2$ are said to be orthogonal if $e_1e_2=0.$ An idempotent of $R$ is said primitive if it is non-zero and cannot be written as sum of non-zero orthogonal idempotents.\
A set $\{e_1,...,e_r\}$ of elements of $R$ is called a complete set of idempotents if $\sum_{i=1}^r e_i=1.$
If $\{e_1,...,e_r\}$ is a complete set of pairwise orthogonal idempotents of $R$, it’s easy to show that $R = \oplus_{i=1}^r e_i R.$
\[primi\]([@ref88], Proposition 22.1)[ ]{} Let $R$ be a commutative ring with identity. There exists at most one complete set of pairwise orthogonal primitive idempotents $\{e_1,...,e_r\}$ of $R$. Moreover, any idempotent in $R$ is uniquely written as a finite sum of primitive idempotents of this set.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Let $\{e_1,...,e_r\}$ be a complete set of pairwise orthogonal primitive idempotents in $R$. If $\theta$ is an idempotent in $R,$ then $1- \theta$ is also an idempotent in $R$ and we have: $1 = \theta + (1- \theta).$ This implies that $e_i= \theta e_i + (1- \theta)e_i.$ Since $e_i$ is primitive for all $i \in \{1,..,r\},$ then $\theta e_i=0$ or $\theta e_i = e_i.$ There exists $I \subseteq \{1,..,r\}$ such that $\theta=\sum_{i=1}^r \theta e_i= \sum_{i \in I } \theta e_i= \sum_{i \in I } e_i.$ Moreover, if $\theta$ is primitive, then there exists $i \in \{1,..,r\}$ such that $\theta = e_i,$ whence the set $\{e_1,...,e_r\}$ is unique.\
We suppose that there exists $J \subseteq \{1,..,r\}$ such that $J \neq I$ and $\theta= \sum_{i \in I } e_i= \sum_{i \in J } e_i.$ Then, there exists $j \notin I \cap J$ such that $\theta e_j = e_j$ and $\theta e_j=0,$ absurd.
Let $R$ be a finite local commutative ring and $g$ be a regular polynomial in $R[X]$. From Propositions \[pro1\] and \[pro2\], we can assume $g$ is a monic polynomial in $R[X]$ and factors uniquely as a product of monic primary pairwise coprime polynomials: $g= \prod_{i=1}^r g_i.$ We let $\hat{g}_i=\frac{g}{g_i}.$ Note that $g_i$ and $\hat{g}_i$ are coprime and regular polynomials.
\[general\] Let $R$ be a finite local commutative ring and $g$ be a monic polynomial in $R[X]$ such that $g = \prod_{i=1}^{r} g_i$ is the unique factorization of $g$ into a product of monic primary pairwise coprime polynomials. Let $x = X + <g>$ be the equivalence class of $X$ in $R[X]/<g>.$ The ring $R[X]/<g>$ admits a unique complete set of primitive pairwise orthogonal idempotents $\{e_1, e_2,...,e_r\}$ given by: $$e_i= v_i(x) \hat{g}_i(x),~\text{where}~ v_i(x) \in R[x].$$\
Moreover $e_i R[x] \cong \frac{R[X]}{<g_i>}$ and $R[x]=\oplus_{i=1}^r e_i R[x].$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Let $g = \prod_{i=1}^{r} g_i$ be the unique factorization of $g$ into a product of monic primary pairwise coprime polynomials of $g$ in $R[X]$. Since $g_i$ and $\hat{g}_i= g/g_i$ are coprime in $R[X]$, then there exists $u_i, v_i \in R[X]$ such that $u_i g_i +
v_i \hat{g}_i=1.$ We let $e_i= v_i(x) \hat{g}_i(x)$ where $x = X +
<g>$ is the equivalence class of $X$ in $R[X]/<g>.$ We have: $$e_i^{2}= v_i(x) \hat{g}_i(x)(1- u_i(x)v_i(x))= v_i(x) \hat{g}_i(x)=e_i.$$ If $i \neq j,$ then $e_i e_j= v_i(x) \hat{g}_i(x)v_j(x) \hat{g}_j(x)=0.$ Hence $\{e_1, e_2,...,e_r\}$ is a set of pairwise orthogonal idempotents.\
The proposition \[gauss\] (Gauss Lemma) ensures the uniqueness of $e_i.$ Indeed, assume $(u_i^{'}, v_i^{'})$ is another pair of polynomials in $R[X]$ such that: $u_i^{'}g_i+ v^{'}_i \hat{g}_i=1;$ then $ u_i^{'} g_i + v_i^{'} \hat{g}_i = u_i g_i + v_i \hat{g}_i,$ which gives $(u_i^{'}- u_i)g_i = (v_i-v_i^{'})\hat{g}_i.$ Since $g_i$ and $\hat{g}_i$ are coprime and regulars, then $g_i$ divides $v_i- v_i{'}$ from Gauss Lemma. Then there exists $h$ in $R[X]$ such that: $v_i-v_i^{'}= h g_i.$ Hence $v_i= h g_i+ v_i^{'},$ and $e_i = v_i(x)\hat{g}_i(x)= v_i^{'}(x)\hat{g}_i(x).$\
Since $\hat{g}_1, \hat{g}_2,..., \hat{g}_r$ are coprime, there exists $v_1, v_2,...,v_r \in R[X]$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^r v_i \hat{g}_i=1;$ hence $\sum_{i=1}^{r} e_i=1.$\
Let $$\begin{array}{l l l l}
T:& R[X] &\longrightarrow & e_i R[x]\\
& h & \longmapsto & e_i h= v_i(x)\hat{g_i}(x) h.
\end{array}$$ $T$ is an onto ring homomorphism and by the Gauss Lemma (Proposition \[gauss\]) we see that $\ker T=< g_i>,$ and hence by the first isomorphism theorem, we deduce $R[X]/<g_i> \cong e_i
R[x].$ Since $g_i$ is primary in $R[X],$ then $R[X]/<g_i>$ is a local ring, so it is an indecomposable ring. Therefore $\{e_1,
e_2,...,e_r\}$ is a set of primitive idempotents.
Constacyclic codes over finite chain ring
=========================================
A finite chain ring is a finite commutative ring with identity such that its ideals are linearly ordered by inclusion. The following result is well know and characterizes finite chain rings.
Let $R$ be a finite commutative ring with identity, the following conditions are equivalent:
1. $R$ is a local ring and the maximal ideal of $R$ is principal,
2. $R$ is a local principal ideal ring,
3. $R$ is a chain ring.
If $R$ is a finite chain ring with maximal ideal $\gamma R;$ then $\gamma$ is nilpotent with nilpotency index some integer $t$ and the ideals of $R$ form the following chain: $$0 = \gamma^{t} R \subsetneq \gamma^{t-1} R \subsetneq... \subsetneq {\gamma} R \subsetneq R.$$ We denote the residue field $R/ <\gamma>$ by ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^r}.$\
It’s well-known that for linear codes of length $n$ over a finite chain ring $R$, $|{\mathcal{C}}||{\mathcal{C}}^\bot|=|R|^n$ (see [@ref37]).
\[prince\] Let $R$ be a finite chain ring with maximal ideal $\gamma R,$ index of nilpotency $t$ and residue field ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}.$ Let $f$ be a monic basic irreducible polynomial in the ring $R[X]$ and $x= X+ <f>$ be the equivalence class of $X$ in $\frac{R[X]}{<f>}.$ Then $\frac{R[X]}{<f>}$ is a finite chain ring with maximal ideal $\gamma R[x]$ and index of nilpotency $t$.
Since $(n, p)= 1,$ the polynomial $X^n - \lambda$ factors uniquely as a product of monic basic irreducible pairwise coprime polynomials in $R$ ([@ref46], Proposition 2.7). In the rest of paper we denote by $x= X+ <X^n - \lambda>$ the equivalence class of $X$ in $R[X] /<X^n - \lambda>,$ thus $R[X] /<X^n - \lambda>= R[x].$
Let $R$ be a finite chain ring with maximal ideal $\gamma R,$ index of nilpotency $t$ and residue field ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}.$ Let $\lambda$ be a unit in $R$, $X^n-\lambda= f_1 f_2...f_r$ be the unique decomposition of $X^n-\lambda$ into product of monic basic irreducible pairwise coprime polynomials and $\{e_1,...,e_r\}$ be the complete set of primitive pairwise orthogonal idempotents in $R[X] /<X^n - \lambda>=R[x].$\
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $\lambda$-constacyclic code of length $n$ over $R$. Then there exists a unique sequence of integers $(s_1,...,s_r)$ such that $0 \leq s_i \leq t$ and $${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=1}^r \gamma^{s_i} e_i R[x].$$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{} Since $R[x]= \oplus_{i=1}^r e_i R[x];$ then any ideal $I$ in $R[x]$ is written in the form $I= \oplus_{i=1}^r I_i,$ where $I_i$ is an ideal of $e_i R[x].$ By Theorem \[general\], we have $ e_i R[x] \cong R[X]/<f_i>.$ From previous lemma, we know that ideals of $R[X]/<f_i>$ are in the form $\gamma^j (R[X]/<f_i>),~ 0 \leq j \leq t;$ therefore $I_i =\gamma^j e_i R[x],~0 \leq j \leq t.$
\[joe1\] Let $R$ be a finite chain ring with maximal ideal $\gamma R,$ index of nilpotency $t$ and residue field ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}.$ Let $\lambda$ be a unit in $R$ and ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $\lambda$-constacyclic code of length $n$ over $R$. Then there exists a complete set of pairwise orthogonal idempotents $\{\theta_0,...,\theta_l\}$ in $R[X] /<X^n - \lambda>= R[x]$ such that:
$${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x];$$ with $0 \leq r_0 < r_1 <...<r_{l-1}< r_l= t$ and $\sum_{i=0}^l \theta_i=1.$
Moreover there exists a unique family of pairwise coprime polynomials $g_0, g_1,...,g_l$ in $R[X]$ such that:\
$\theta_i R[x] \cong R[X]/<g_i>, ~ \forall~ i \in \{0,1,...,l\}$ et $ \prod_{i=0}^l g_i= X^n- \lambda.$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Let $X^n-\lambda= f_1 f_2...f_r$ be the decomposition of $X^n-\lambda$ into product of monic basic irreducible pairwise coprime polynomials in $R$ and $\{e_1,...,e_r\}$ be the complete set of primitive pairwise orthogonal idempotents of $R[X] /<X^n - \lambda>=R[x].$\
From the previous theorem: ${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=1}^r \gamma^{s_i} e_i R[x],~ 0 \leq s_i \leq t.$ By reordering if necessary according to the powers of $\gamma$, we can write ${\mathcal{C}}$ in the form: $${\mathcal{C}}= \bigoplus_{j~|s_j = r_0} \gamma^{r_0} e_j R[x] \bigoplus_{j~|s_j = r_1} \gamma^{r_1} e_j R[x] \bigoplus...\bigoplus_{j~|s_j = r_{l-1}} \gamma^{r_{l-1}} e_j R[x]$$
with $0 \leq r_1 < r_2 <...<r_l= t.$ We let $\theta_i=
\sum_{j~|s_j=r_i} e_j,~ \forall i \in \{0,..., l-1\}$ and $\theta_l=1\,-\,\sum_{i=0} ^{l-1} \theta_i$. Therefore, the set $\{\theta_0, \theta_1,..., \theta_l\}$ is a complete set of pairwise orthogonal idempotents; by construction this set is unique. We have: $${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x].$$
Since $e_j R[x] \cong \frac{R[X]}{<f_j>},~\forall~ 1 \leq j \leq r,$ then $\theta_i R[x]\cong \prod_{j~|s_j=r_i} \frac{R[X]}{<f_j>} \cong \frac{R[X]}{<\prod_{j~|s_j=r_i} f_j>},$ by the Chinese Remainder Theorem. We let $g_i= \prod_{j~|s_j=r_i} f_j,~ \forall~ 0 \leq i \leq l.$ It is clear that $\prod_{i=0}^l g_i =X^n -\lambda.$
Under the same assumptions as the Theorem \[joe1\], let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $\lambda$-constacyclic code of length $n$ over $R$. Then
$${\mathcal{C}}= (\oplus_{i=0}^{l-1}\gamma^{r_i} \theta_i) R[x].$$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}From previous theorem, we have: ${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=0}^{l-1}
\gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x]$ with $0 \leq r_0 < r_1 <...<r_l= t.$ We let $w= \sum_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i.$ It’s clear that $w
R[x] \subseteq {\mathcal{C}}.$ Reciprocally, if $b \in {\mathcal{C}}$, then $b=\sum_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i b_i$ with $b_i \in R[x],
~\forall~ 0 \leq i \leq l-1.$ For any idempotent $\theta_j \in R[x]$, we have: $\theta_j b= \gamma^{r_j} \theta_j b_j= \theta_j w b_j.$ Therefore $b =\sum_{j=0}^{l-1} \theta_j b= \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} \theta_j
w b_j =( \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} \theta_j b_j) w;$ hence $b \in w R[x].$
\[card1\] Under the same assumptions as the Theorem \[joe1\], let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $\lambda$-constacyclic code of length $n$ over $R$ such that $${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x]$$ with $0 \leq r_0 < r_1 <...<r_l= t.$ Then:
$$|{\mathcal{C}}|= |{\mathbb{F}}_q|^{\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}(t- r_i) \deg g_i}.$$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Since $\theta_i R[x] \cong R[X]/<g_i>$ then $$|\gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x]|=|\gamma^{r_i}(R[X]/<g_i>)|.$$ We let $A_i=R[X]/<g_i>.$ The map $$\begin{array}{l l l l}
\phi_i:& A_i& \longrightarrow & \gamma^{r_i}A_i\\
& h &\longmapsto& \gamma^{r_i} h
\end{array}$$ is an epimorphism and $\ker \phi_i = \gamma^{t-r_i}A_i.$ By the first isomorphism theorem $A_i/(\gamma^{t-r_i} A_i) \cong \gamma^{r_i} A_i.$ But $A_i/(\gamma^{t-r_i} A_i) \cong R_i[X]/<\widetilde{g}_i>,$ where $R_i = R/<\gamma^{t-r_i}>$ and $\widetilde{g}_i = g_i + <\gamma^{t-r_i}>.$ Therefore: $$\begin{array}{l l}
|\gamma^{r_i} A_i|& =|A_i/(\gamma^{t-r_i} A_i)|= |R_i[X]/<\widetilde{g}_i>|=|R_i|^{\deg g_i}\\
& = (\frac{|R|}{|\gamma^{t-r_i} R|})^{\deg g_i}= |{\mathbb{F}}_q|^{(t-r_i) \deg g_i}.
\end{array}$$
We deduce: $$|{\mathcal{C}}|= \prod_{i=0}^{l-1} |\gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x]|= |{\mathbb{F}}_q|^{\sum_{i=0}^{l-1} (t- r_i) \deg g_i}.$$
Let $R$ be a commutative ring.
- If $e_1$ et $e_2$ are orthogonal idempotents in $R[X]$ then $(e_1+ e_2)^*= e_1^* +e_2^*.$
- If $e$ is a primitive idempotent in $R[X]$, then $e_1^*$ is a primitive idempotent in $R[X]$.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}
- If $e_1$ et $e_2$ are orthogonal idempotents in $R[X]$, then $e= e_1 +e_2$ is also an idempotent. Since $e e_i= e_i,$ for all $i \in \{1, 2\}$ we have $(e e_i)^*=e^* e_i^*= e_i^*,$ for all $i \in \{1, 2\}.$ Then $e^*$ is written in the form: $e^*= e_1^* + e_2^* + \theta$ where $e_1^*, e_2^*, \theta$ are pairwise orthogonal idempotents. Likewise $$e_1+ e_2= e =(e^*)^*= (e_1^*)^* + (e_2^*)^* + \theta^* + \beta = e_1 + e_2 + \theta^* + \beta,$$ where $e_1, e_2, \theta^*, \beta$ are pairwise orthogonal idempotents. We deduce $\theta^* + \beta= \theta^*= \beta=0;$ whence $(e_1+ e_2)^*= e_1^* +e_2^*.$
- It’s obvious from $i).$
Let $I$ be an ideal of $R[x]$ such that $I = \oplus_{1 \leq i \leq r}~ h_i R[x],$ then $I^{*}= \oplus_{1 \leq i \leq r}~ h_i^* R[x].$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Let $I$ be an ideal of $R[X]/<X^n -\lambda>=R[x]$ such that $I=
h_1 R[x] + h_2 R[x];$ it is clear that $I^*= h_1^* R[x] + h_2^*
R[x].$ Let $f \in h_1^* R[x]~ \cap~ h_2^* R[x],$ then $f = h_1^* u=
h_2^* v$ with $u, v \in R[x].$ If $f$ is non zero then $f^*= h_1
u^* = h_2 v^*$. This implies that $f^* \in h_1 R[x] \cap h_2 R[x]$ and hence we deduce that $f^*=0$. We deduce that $h_1^* R[x] \cap
h_2^* R[x]= \{0\}.$
\[joe2\] Under the same assumptions as the Theorem \[joe1\], let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $\lambda$-constacyclic code of length $n$ over $R$ such that $${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x],$$ with $0 \leq r_0 < r_1 <...<r_l= t.$ Then:
$${\mathcal{C}}^{\bot}= \oplus_{i=0}^l \gamma^{t-r_i} \theta_i^{*} R[x].$$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Let $D= \oplus_{i=0}^l \gamma^{t-r_i} \theta_i R[x].$ For all $i, j \in \{0,...,l\},$ we have:\
$(\gamma^{r_i} \theta_i)(\gamma^{t-r_j}\theta_j)=0,$ then $D \subseteq {\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}}).$
From Corollary \[card1\], $|D|=|{\mathbb{F}}_q|^{\sum_{i=0}^l r_i \deg g_i}.$ We recall that $|{\mathcal{C}}||{\mathcal{C}}^\bot|=|R|^n$ ( see [@ref37]). Then: $$\begin{array}{l l}
|{\mathcal{C}}^{\bot}|&= \frac{|R|^n}{|{\mathcal{C}}|}=|{\mathbb{F}}_q|^{nt-\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}(t-r_i) \deg g_i}\\
& = |{\mathbb{F}}_q|^{nt- \sum_{i=0}^{l-1} t \deg g_i+ \sum_{i=0}^{l-1} r_i\deg g_i}\\
&= |{\mathbb{F}}_q|^{t \deg g_l + \sum_{i=0}^{l-1} r_i\deg g_i}\\
\end{array}$$ Therefore: $|{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}})|= |{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}})^*|=|{\mathcal{C}}^{\bot}|=|D|;$ whence $D ={\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{C}}).$ We conclude that $${\mathcal{C}}^{\bot}= D^*= \sum_{i=0}^l \gamma^{t-r_i} \theta_i^{*} R[x].$$
Let $\lceil \frac{t}{2} \rceil$ be the smallest integer greater than or equal to $t/2.$ If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a linear code over $R$ such that ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq \gamma^{\lceil \frac{t}{2} \rceil} R^n,$ it is easy to see that ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{C}}^{\bot}.$ These codes are called trivial self-orthogonal codes. Moreover, if $t$ is even, then the code ${\mathcal{C}}= \gamma^{t/2} R^n$ is self-dual and called trivial self-dual code.
Let ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq R^n$ be a linear code. The submodule quotient of ${\mathcal{C}}$ by $r \in R$ is a linear code defined by $$({\mathcal{C}}:r)=\{a \in R^n : r a \in {\mathcal{C}}\}.$$ We have the following tower of linear codes over $R$ $${\mathcal{C}}=({\mathcal{C}}: \gamma^0) \subseteq ...\subseteq ({\mathcal{C}}: \gamma^{t-1})$$ and its projection to ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^r}$ $$\overline{{\mathcal{C}}}=\overline{({\mathcal{C}}: \gamma^0)} \subseteq ...\subseteq \overline{({\mathcal{C}}: \gamma^{t-1})}.$$
For a unit $\lambda \in R,$ note that if ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a $\lambda$-constacyclic code over $R$, then $({\mathcal{C}}:\gamma^{i})$ is a $\lambda$-constacyclic code over $R$ and $\overline{({\mathcal{C}}:\gamma^{i})}$ is a $\overline{\lambda}$-constacyclic code over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^r},$ for $i \in \{0,1,..., t-1\}.$
The following result generalises Lemma 3.3 in [@ref33] to finite chain rings.
\[p1.1\] Let $R$ be a finite chain ring with maximal ideal $<\gamma>,$ index of nilpotency $t$ and residue field ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}.$ Let $\lambda$ be a unit in $R$ and ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a non-trivial $\lambda$-constacyclic self-orthogonal code over $R$. Then $\overline{\lambda}= \pm 1.$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}We suppose ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a nontrivial $\lambda$-constacyclic self-orthogonal code over $R$. If $\overline{{\mathcal{C}}} \neq \{0\},$ then $\overline{{\mathcal{C}}}$ is a $\overline{\lambda}$-constacyclic self-orthogonal code over ${\mathbb{F}}_q.$ It is well-known that the only constacyclic self-orthogonal codes over a finite field are cyclic and negacyclic codes([@ref33], Proposition 2.4); whence $\overline{\lambda}= \pm 1.$
If $\overline{{\mathcal{C}}} = \{0\},$ then there exists a smallest positive integer $i$ with $1 \leq i \leq e-1$ such that any codeword $c \in {\mathcal{C}}$ can be written as: $c=\gamma^{i}a,$ with $a \in R^n.$ Without loss of generality, we can suppose ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq <\gamma^{i}>.$ Since ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a non-trivial $\lambda$-constacyclic self-orthogonal code over $R$, then $i < \lceil \frac{e}{2} \rceil,$ that is to say $2i < e$ and $\overline{({\mathcal{C}}:\gamma^{i})}$ is self-orthogonal. Indeed if $a, b \in ({\mathcal{C}}:\gamma^{i}),$ then $c_1=\gamma^{i} a$ and $c_2=\gamma^{i} b$ verify $c_1.c_2=\gamma^{2i}(a.b)=0;$ hence $a.b=0.$ Then $\overline{({\mathcal{C}}:\gamma^{i})}$ is self-orthogonal over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ and $\bar{\lambda}=\pm 1.$
The following result shows us there exists a one-to-one correspondence between cyclic codes (respectively negacyclic codes) and $(1+ \gamma^i \beta)$-constacyclic codes (respectively $(1+ \gamma^i \beta)$-constacyclic codes) over $R$, with $\beta \in R.$
[ ]{}\[ken\] Let $R$ be a finite chain ring with maximal ideal $\gamma R,$ index of nilpotency $t$ and residue field ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}.$ Let $n$ be a positive integer such that $(n, q)=1,$ $\lambda \in 1+ \gamma R$ and $\beta \in -1+ \gamma R.$ Then there exists a ring isomorphism between $R[X]/<X^n -1>$ (respectively $R[X]/<X^n +1>$) and $R[X]/<X^n - \lambda>$ ( respectively $R[X]/<X^n - \beta>$).
From Proposition \[p1.1\] and Proposition \[ken\], we can reduce the study of non-trivial constacyclic self-dual codes over $R$ to non-trivial cyclic and negacyclic self-dual codes over $R$.
Self-dual cyclic codes
======================
\[joe3\] Under the same assumptions as the Theorem \[joe1\], let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $\lambda$-constacyclic code of length $n$ over $R$ such that $${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x]$$ with $0 \leq r_0 < r_1 <...<r_l= t.$ Then ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a non-trivial self-dual code if and only if $\theta_i$ and $\theta_j^{*}$ are associated and $r_i+ r_j= t$, for all $i, j \in \{0,...,l-1\}$ such that $i+ j \equiv 0 \mod l-1$.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}If ${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x],$ then by Theorem \[joe2\], $${\mathcal{C}}^{\bot}=\sum_{i=0}^l \gamma^{t-r_i} \theta_i^{*} R[x].$$ If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is self-dual we must have $\theta_l= 0.$ In this case ${\mathcal{C}}^{\bot}=\sum_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{t-r_i} \theta_i^{*} R[x]$ with $\sum_{i=0}^{l-1} \theta_i =1$ and $0 \leq r_0 < r_1 <...< r_{l-1}<t.$ We obtain the result by comparing $\gamma$ exponents.
Under the same assumptions as the Theorem \[joe1\], let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a cyclic code of length $n$ over $R$ such that $${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x]$$ with $0 \leq r_0 < r_1 <...<r_l= t.$ If there exists a non-trivial cyclic self-dual code over $R$, then $t$ is necessary even.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is self-dual, then by Theorem \[joe3\], ${\mathcal{C}}=
\oplus_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x],$ with $0 \leq r_0 <
r_1 <...<r_{l-1}< t.$ Let $X^n-1= \prod_{i \in I} f_i$ be the decomposition of $X^n-1$ into a product of monic basic irreducible pairwise coprime polynomials in $R[X]$. Let $\{e_i\}_{i \in I}$ be the complete set of primitive pairwise orthogonal idempotents of $R[X]/<X^n-1>= R[x]$ given in Theorem \[general\]; For $i \in I$, there exists $u_i \in R[x]$ such that $e_i = u_i(x)\hat{f_i}(x)$. Let $\theta_{i_0} \in \{\theta_0,..., \theta_{l-1}\}$ the idempotent containing $e_0,$ that is to say $\theta_{i_0}= e_0 + \beta$ where $\beta$ is an idempotent orthogonal to $e_0.$\
Since that $f_0= X-1,$ and $e_0$ is unique, we have $$e_0^{*}= u_0^*(x) \hat{f_0}^*(x)=-x^{n-2}u_0^*(x)\hat{f_0}= \eta e_0$$ where $\eta$ is inversible in $R[x]$. Hence $\theta_{i_0}^*= e_0^{*} + \beta^* = \eta (e_0 + \mu \beta^*) = \eta \theta_{i_0}$ where $\eta \mu= 1$ in $R[x]$.
Let $i_1 \in \{0,...,l-1\}$ such that $i_1 + i_0 \equiv 0 \mod l-1.$ If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is self-dual then $\theta_{i_1}$ and $\theta_{i_0}^*$ are associated, hence $\theta_{i_1}$ and $\theta_{i_0}$ are associated. This gives $i_1 = i_0$ and $2r_{i_0}=t,$ whence $t$ is even.
\[similar\] Under the same assumptions as the Theorem \[joe1\], let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a cyclic code of length $n$ over $R$ with even index of nilpotency $t$ such that $${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x]$$ with $0 \leq r_0 < r_1 <...<r_l= t.$
Then there exists a non-trivial cyclic self-dual code over $R$ if and only if there exists an idempotent $\theta_i \in \{\theta_0,..., \theta_{l-1}\}$ such that $\theta_i$ and $\theta_i^*$ are not associated.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Assume that there exists $\theta_i \in \{\theta_0,..., \theta_{l-1}\}$ such that $\theta_i$ and $\theta_i^*$ are not associated. We have $1 + x^{n-1}= \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} \theta_j + \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} \theta_j^{*}= \theta_i + \theta_i^{*}+ \beta$, with $\beta = 1+ x^{n-1} - \theta_i - \theta_i^{*}$. Note that $\beta^{*} = \beta$. Let $${\mathcal{C}}= \gamma^{t/2-1} \theta_i R[x] \oplus \gamma^{t/2} \beta R[x] \oplus \gamma^{t/2+1} \theta_i^{*} R[x].$$ From Theorem \[joe2\], we deduce that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is self-dual.\
Reciprocally, let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a non-trivial self-dual cyclic code such that ${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x],$ with $0 \leq r_0 < r_1 <...r_{l-1}< t.$ Assume that for all $i \in \{0,...,l-1\}$, $\theta_i$ and $\theta_i^{*}$ are associated. Then by Theorem \[joe3\], we must have $r_i= t/2, ~\forall~ 0 \leq i \leq l-1.$ Then ${\mathcal{C}}$ is thus written in the form: ${\mathcal{C}}=\gamma^{t/2} \oplus_{i=0}^{l-1} \theta_i R[x],$ which is absurd, since ${\mathcal{C}}$ is assumed to be non-trivial self-dual code.
We give a non-trivial cyclic self-dual code of length $6$ over $\mathbb{Z}_{7^2}$.
Let $x= X +<X^6-1>$. The irreducible factors of $X^6 - 1$ over $\mathbb{Z}_7$ are: $f_0 = X-1; f_1=X-3; f_2=X-2; f_3=X-6; f_4= X-4; f_5= X-5$ and the complete set of primitive pairwise orthogonal idempotents of $\mathbb{Z}_{7}[X]/<X^6-1>$ is given by: $$\begin{array}{l l}
\theta_{0}=& 6 (x^5+ x^4+x^3+x^2+x+1);\\
\theta_{1}=& 4x^5+5x^4+x^3+3x^2+2x+6;\\
\theta_{2}=& 5x^5+3x^4+6x^3+5x^2+3x+6;\\
\theta_{3}=&x^5+6x^4+x^3+6x^2+x+6;\\
\theta_{4}=&3x^5+5x^4+6x^3+3x^2+5x+6;\\
\theta_{5}=&2x^5+3x^4+x^3+5x^2+4x+6.\\
\end{array}$$ From Theorem $5.4$ of [@ref35], we deduce the complete set of primitive pairwise orthogonal idempotents of $\mathbb{Z}_{7^2}[X]/<X^6-1>$: $$\begin{array}{l l l}
e_0=& \theta_0^7=& 41(x^5+ x^4+x^3+x^2+x+1);\\
e_1=& \theta_1^7=& 46x^5+ 5x^4+8x^3+3x^2+44x+41;\\
e_2=& \theta_2^7=& 5x^5+ 3x^4+41x^3+5x^2+3x+41;\\
e_3=& \theta_3^7=& 8x^5+41 x^4+8x^3+41x^2+8x+41;\\
e_4=& \theta_4^7=& 3x^5+ 5x^4+41x^3+3x^2+5x+41;\\
e_5=& \theta_5^7=& 44x^5+ 3x^4+8x^3+5x^2+46x+41.\\
\end{array}$$ This gives: $$\begin{array}{l l l}
e_0^{*}=& 41(x^5+ x^4+x^3+x^2+x+1)=&e_0;\\
e_1^{*}=& 41x^5+ 44x^4+3x^3+8x^2+5x+46=& 31e_5;\\
e_2^{*}=& 41x^5+ 3x^4+5x^3+41x^2+3x+5=& 30e_4;\\
e_3^{*}=& 41x^5+8 x^4+41x^3+8x^2+41x+8=& 48e_3;\\
e_4^{*}=& 41x^5+ 5x^4+3x^3+41x^2+5x+3=& 18 e_2;\\
e_5^{*}=& 41x^5+ 46x^4+5x^3+8x^2+3x+44=& 19 e_1.\\
\end{array}$$ We let $\beta= 1+x^5-e_2-e_2^*= 4x^5+43x^4+3x^3+3x^2+43x+4$. It’s clear that $\beta^{*}=\beta$. By the previous theorem, we have the following self-dual cyclic code $$\mathcal{C}= e_2 \mathbb{Z}_{49}[x] \oplus 7\beta \mathbb{Z}_{49}[x].$$
Let $0 \leq i \leq n-1$ and $C_q(i,n)$ be the set defined by: $C_q(i,n)=\{i, iq, iq^2,...,i q^{m_i-1}\}$where $m_i$ is the smallest positive integer such that $iq^{m_i} \equiv i \mod n.$ This set is called the $q$-cyclotomic coset of $n$ containing $i$. Let $I$ be a complete set of representatives of the $q$-cyclotomic cosets modulo $n$. We recall that the decomposition of $X^n- 1$ into a product of basic irreducible pairwise coprime polynomials in $R[X]$ is given by: $X^n-1=\prod_{i \in I} f_{i}(X),$ where $f_i(X)=\prod_{j \in C_q(i,n)}(X- \xi^j),$ and $\xi$ is a primitive $nth$-root of unity. It is well-known that $f_i$ and $f_i^*$ are associated if and only if $ C_q(i,n) = C_q(n-i,n)$ if and only if $q^{l}\equiv -1 \mod n$ for some integer $l$ (see [@ref46; @ref35]).
\[carcy\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a cyclic code of length $n$ over $R$ with even index of nilpotency $t$. There exists a non-trivial self-dual code of length $n$ over $R$ if and only if $q^{i} \not\equiv -1 \mod n,$ for all positive integers $i.$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Assume that there exists a non-trivial self-dual code ${\mathcal{C}}$ over $R$ such that ${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x],$ with $0 \leq r_0 < r_1 <...<r_{l-1}< t,$ then by previous theorem, there exists $\theta_i \in \{\theta_0,..., \theta_{l-1}\}$ such that $\theta_{i}$ and $\theta_i^{*}$ are not associated. We can write $\theta_i$ in the form $\theta_i= \sum \limits_{\substack{j \in J \\ J \subset I}} e_j,$ where $(e_j)_{j \in J}$ is a subset of the complete set of primitive pairwise orthogonal idempotents of $R[X]/<X^n-1>= R[x]$. Since $\theta_{i}$ and $\theta_i^{*}$ are not associated, then $e_j$ and $e_j^{*}$ are not associated $\forall ~j \in J$. From Theorem \[joe1\], there exists $u_i \in R[x]$ such that $ e_j= u_j(x) \hat{f}_j(x)$. Then $e_j$ and $e^*_j$ are associated if and only if $\hat{f}_j$ and $\hat{f}_j^{*}$ are associated if and only if $f_j$ and $f_j^*$ are associated. But $f_j$ and $f_j^*$ are associated if and only if $C_q(j,n)= C_q(n-j,n)$ if and only if $q^k \equiv -1 \mod n$ for some integer $k$.
The following result characterizes non-trivial cyclic self-dual codes over $R$ of odd or oddly even length.
[ ]{}\[kenz\] Let $n$ be an odd integer and $R$ be a finite chain ring with even index of nilpotency $t$. There exists non-trivial cyclic self-dual codes of length $n$ or $2n$ over $R$ if and only if the multiplicative order of $q$ modulo $n$ is odd.
The following two results are consequences of Theorem \[carcy\] and Theorem \[kenz\].
[ ]{} Let $R$ be a finite chain ring with even index of nilpotency $t$ and residue field ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^r}.$ If $n$ is prime, then non-trivial self-dual codes of length $n$ do not exist in the following cases:
- $p=2, ~n\equiv 3,5 \mod 8;$
- $p=3, ~n \equiv 5,7 \mod 12;$
- $p=5, ~n \equiv 3,7,13,17 \mod 20;$
- $p=7, ~n \equiv 5,11,13,15,17,23 \mod 28;$
- $p=11, ~n \equiv 3,13,15,17,21,23,27,29,31,41 \mod 44.$
[ ]{} Let $R$ be a finite chain ring with even index of nilpotency $t$ and residue field ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^r}.$
1. Let $n=\prod_{i=1}^s p_i^{k_i}$ be the prime factorization of an odd integer $n$. If $q$ is a quadratic residue of $p_i^{k_i}$ and $p_i \equiv -1 \mod 4,~ \forall~ 1 \leq i \leq s;$ then there exists a non-trivial self-dual code of length $n$ over $R$.
2. Let $n$ be an odd prime integer such that $n \equiv -1 \mod 4.$ Then there exists a non-trivial self-dual code of length $n$ over $R$ if and only if $p$ is a quadratic residue of $n^k;$ for $k$ a non-zero positive integer.
Self-dual negacyclic codes
==========================
Note that if $n$ is odd, then there exists a one-to-one correspondence between cyclic and negacyclic codes of length $n$ over $R$ (see Theorem $4.3$ in [@ref78] or Proposition $5.1$ in [@ref46]). For this reason, we only consider negacyclic codes of even length.
The following result and its proof are similar to Theorem \[similar\].
Under the same assumptions as the Theorem \[joe1\], let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a negacyclic code of even length $n$ over $R$ with index of nilpotency $t$, such that $${\mathcal{C}}= \oplus_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma^{r_i} \theta_i R[x],$$ with $0 \leq r_0 < r_1 <...<r_l= t.$
- If $t$ is even, there exists a non-trivial self-dual code over $R$ if and only if there exists an idempotent $\theta_i \in \{\theta_0,..., \theta_{l-1}\}$ such that $\theta_i$ and $\theta_i^*$are not associated.
- If $t$ is odd, there exists a negacyclic self-dual code over $R$ if and only if $\theta_i$ and $\theta_i^*$ are not associated for all $\theta_i \in \{\theta_0,..., \theta_{l-1}\}$.
Since $X^n+1 =(X^{2n}-1)/(X^n-1),$ then $X^n+1$ can be factored uniquely into monic irreducible pairwise coprime polynomials as follows (see [@ref70]):
$X^n+1=\prod_{i \in I_{2n} \cap O_{2n}} f_i(X)$ with $f_i= \prod_{i \in C_q(i,2n) \cap O_{2n}}(X- \xi^{i}_{2n}),$ where $I_{2n}$ is a complete set of representatives of cyclotomic cosets modulo $2n$, $O_{2n}$ is the set of odd integers from $1$ to $2n-1$ and $\xi_{2n}$ is a $2nth$-root of unity.\
Similarly to Theorem \[carcy\], we have the following result.
\[carne\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a cyclic code of even length $n$ over $R$. There exists a non-trivial cyclic self-dual code over $R$ if and only if $q^{i} \not\equiv -1 \mod 2n,$ for all positive integers $i.$
[99]{}
.
.
, [*A First Course in Noncommutative Ring*]{}, [ Graduate Texts in Mathematics 131]{}, [Springer-Verlag New York ]{}, [(1990)]{}.
, [*Finite Rings with Identity*]{}, [Dekker, New York ]{}, [(1974)]{}.
, [*Introduction to Coding Theory*]{}, [G.T.M 86, Springer-Verlag, New York, Second edition (1991)]{}.
[^1]: Corresponding author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In two previous papers, the Kerman-Klein-Dönau-Frauendorf (KKDF) model was used to study rotational bands of odd deformed nuclei. Here we describe backbending for odd nuclei using the same model. The backbending in the neighboring even nuclei is described by a phenomenological two band model, and this core is then coupled to a large single-particle space, as in our previous work. The results obtained for energies and $M1$ transition rates are compared with experimental data for $^{165}$Lu and for energies alone to the experimental data for $^{179}$W. For the case of $^{165}$Lu comparison is also made with previous theoretical work.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6396'
- ' Department of Physics, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, P. O. Box 88, Manchester, M60 1QD, United Kingdom'
author:
- 'Pavlos Protopapas [^1] and Abraham Klein [^2]'
- 'Niels R. Walet [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: ' Application of a semi-microscopic core-particle coupling method to the backbending in odd deformed nuclei'
---
Introduction {#section:BackBending}
============
In two previous applications [@pavlos:1; @pavlos:2], the Kerman-Klein- Dönau-Frauendorf (KKDF) model was used to study rotational bands of selected odd deformed nuclei. In both applications the system was described by an effective interaction which includes a monopole pairing and a quadrupole-quadrupole interaction. In the first application a large single-particle space was coupled to the ground-state band of the neighboring nuclei, whereas in the second application the same large single-particle space was not only coupled to the ground-state band but also to some of the excited bands of the core.
As a second class of applications, we want to describe backbending for odd nuclei using the KKDF model. As has been known for more than two decades, deformed nuclei commonly show a rotational anomaly (known as backbending), where the energetically favored, or yrast, collective band undergoes an abrupt increase in its moment of inertia (as a function of frequency, for example). The generally accepted interpretation is that backbending of an even nucleus occurs when two neutrons (or protons) with high $j$ break their pairing bond and rotationally align perpendicular to the symmetry axis [@Stephens]. The rotational-aligned sequence of states is called the s-band. In this application, instead of following a microscopic approach to backbending that incorporates this physics, we have chosen to take a purely phenomenological approach using a model of two coupled bands. These will then be coupled to the extra odd particle in order to achieve a description of the corresponding phenomena in the neighboring odd nuclei. The reason for utilizing a phenomenological description of the even cores is that this provides a more accurate fit to the data than existing microscopic calculations.
In the next section we will present the description of the cores, including the phenomenological model and the results. In Sec. \[sec:W179\] the results of the energy calculations for $^{179}$W will be presented, and in Sec. \[sec:Lu165\] the results for both energies and $M1$ transitions will be given for $^{165}$Lu. There is a brief concluding section.
Core Phenomenology
==================
In this section we develop a phenomenological description of the backbending phenomenon for the even neighboring nuclei. It is not our purpose to build a complete and sophisticated model but to reproduce the energy levels and the values of the quadrupole matrix elements as accurately as possible, because the results of these calculations will be used as input to the calculations for the odd nuclei. The purpose of the model is simply to provide input data to our theory when experimental values are not sufficiently abundant.
Consider two bands, the ground-state band and an excited band that “cross” at a certain angular momentum $I$. From experimental observations we know that if such a situation occurs, the bands repel each other (avoided crossing). From the mixture of the bands, we can conclude that the Hamiltonian of the system is in general not axially symmetric, and as a result, the projection $K$ is not a good quantum number. We write the Hamiltonian of such a system as $$H = H_{0}+ H_{1},$$ where $H_{0}$ is the axially symmetric part of Hamiltonian and $H_{1}$ is the $K$ quantum number non-conserving Hamiltonian which gives rise to the avoided crossing. The unperturbed Hamiltonian, $H_{0}$, describes the ground-state rotational band and one excited band. The excitations in such bands can have the form of the simple rigid rotor, or of the variable moment of inertia model (VMI model) [@VMI1; @VMI2], or even more general form (see below). For the uncoupled systems, we take the angular momentum $I$, its projection $M$, and the projection on the body fixed axis $K$ as good quantum numbers. Therefore, we denote the eigenstates of the unperturbated system as $ | IMK \rangle
$. Expressed in the unperturbated basis, the Hamiltonian for a given angular momentum will take the following form, $$H= \frac{\hbar^{2}}{2}\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
f_{1}( {\hat I}^{2} ) & 0
\\
0 & E_{o}+ f_{2}( {\hat I}^{2})
\end{array}
\right] + \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & C( {\hat I}) \\ C( {\hat I}) & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right],$$ where $ {\hat I} = I(I+1) $ and $E_{o}$ is the bandhead energy. The perturbation has, for the moment, a general ${\hat I}$ dependence. The functions $f_{i}({\hat I}) $ which describe the angular momentum dependence of the uncoupled band $i$ ($i=1,2$) are often represented as a polynomial in $I(I+1)$, $$f_{i} ( {\hat I}^{2} ) = \frac{ I(I+1) }{ {\cal I}^{0}_{i}
} + \frac{ (I(I+1))^{2} }{ {\cal I}^{1}_{i} } + \cdots,$$ with expansion coefficients ${\cal I}^{0}$, ${\cal I}^{1}$. This conventional expansion has poor convergence properties at large $I$. A better expansion of energy as a function of angular momentum is given by the [*variable moment of inertia*]{} model (VMI) [@VMI] in which the moment of inertia is a function of angular momentum $$E(I, {\cal I})= \frac{ I(I+1)}{ 2 {\cal I}(I)} + \frac{1}{2} C\, \left( {\cal I}(I) -{\cal I}_{0}\right)^{2},$$ with two parameters $C$ and ${\cal I}_{0}$. The variable moment of inertia ${\cal I}(I)$ is determined through use of the variational condition $$\left. \frac{ d E(I)}{d {\cal I}(I)} \right| _{I}=0.$$ This model can be shown to be equivalent [@Klein_VMI] to the two-term approximation to the Harris (cranking) formula [@Harris]. The latter is an expansion of the energy in powers of the “rotational frequency” $\omega$, given by $$E(\omega) = {\cal A}^{0} \, \omega^{2} +
{\cal A}^{1} \, \omega^{4}+ {\cal A}^{2} \, \omega^{6} + \cdots ~,
\label{eq:wexp}$$ where ${\cal A}^{0}$ , ${\cal A}^{1}$ etc are parameters that are fitted to experimental values. Since the concept of continuous angular frequency is not well defined for quantum mechanical systems, the definition used is derived from the corresponding classical definition. In classical mechanics we have, $$\omega(I) = \frac{ dE(I)}{ dI},$$ where $E(I)$ is the energy at angular momentum $I$. In quantum mechanics we take a cue from this definition and choose the discrete definition $$\omega(I) = \frac{ E(I_{+1}) - E(I) }{ {\hat I_{+1}} - {\hat I}}
,$$ where $I_{+1}$ is the next angular momentum value that the system can take. In our calculations we choose to use the Harris formula to the third order.
At this point we have to specify what form the coupling will take. The exact form of the inter-band interaction is not known. We have chosen to perform the calculations using the standard band coupling formalism [@ref:B_M_book]. Since the ground state has $K=0$, the possible cases are limited by the values of $K$ chosen for the excited band. In the following we allow $K=0,1~\rm and~ 2$. $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm For} ~ K=0 \rightarrow K=1: & & \hspace{1cm}
C(I) = C \sqrt{I(I+1)},
\\
{\rm For}~ K=0 \rightarrow K=0: & &\hspace{1cm}
C(I) = C I(I+1),
\\
{\rm Constant}~{\rm interaction}: & & \hspace{1cm}
C(I) = C.
\\
{\rm For} ~ K=0 \rightarrow K=2: & &\hspace{1.0cm}
C(I) = C (I+1) (I+2)(I-1).\end{aligned}$$ The actual angular momentum dependence of the coupling term is not decisive for the following reason: The mixture of two uncoupled band states with the consequent distortion of the shapes of the energies as functions of the angular momentum depends on the strength and the form of the coupling term as well as on the energy difference of the unperturbed states. The bands will be close to each other (in the Energy vrs. $J$ plot) only for a single value of angular momentum, and therefore the mixture will be insignificant for all other values of angular momentum. As soon as the strength of the coupling term is fitted at this angular momentum, the actual functional dependence of the coupling strength becomes irrelevant. For the actual calculations we tried different forms of the coupling and we state in Table \[table:back1\] which ones yield the best fit for the nucleus under study.
At this point we have a complete phenomenological description for the backbending phenomena. If we use to the expansion Eq. (\[eq:wexp\]) up to the third order, we then have eight free parameters to fit, namely the six coefficients for the two uncoupled bands, $ {\cal A}^{0}_{1}$, $ {\cal A}^{1}_{1}$, $ {\cal A}^{2}_{2}$, $ {\cal A}^{0}_{2}$, $ {\cal A}^{1}_{2}$ and $ {\cal A}^{2}_{2}$, the band-head energy $E_{0}$, and finally the coupling $C$. This is not a difficult task, and we will describe the details and show the results in the following section.
To calculate the $BE(2)$’s we have to express the matrix elements of the quadrupole operator as a function of the matrix elements in the uncoupled system. To be more specific with the notation, states of the unperturbated Hamiltonian that belong to the ground-state band will be denoted by $ | IM0 \rangle $ and states that belong the excited band $
| IMK \rangle $. For the coupled system states have good angular momentum $I$, its projection $M$, but $K$ is not a good quantum number any more. We denote states of the complete system as $ | IM1 \rangle
$ and $ | IM2 \rangle $. After diagonalizing the Hamiltonian, we can express the eigenstates of the full system as a linear combination of the unperturbed states $$\begin{aligned}
|IM1 \rangle &=& \lambda_{0}(I) | IM0 \rangle + \lambda_{1}(I)
| IMK \rangle , \nonumber \\
|IM2 \rangle &=& \mu_{0}(I) | IM0 \rangle + \mu_{1}(I)
| IMK \rangle
,\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_{0}(I)$, $\lambda_{1}(I)$, $\mu_{0}(I)$ and $\mu_{1}(I)$ will be provided from the diagonalization of the Hamiltonian. Consequently we can express the matrix elements of the quadrupole operator, in the coupled case, as a function of the matrix elements of the unperturbated case, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ME}
\left< IM1 | {\hat Q} | I'M'1 \right> & =&
\lambda_{0}(I) \lambda_{0}(I') \left< IM0 | {\hat Q} | I'M'0 \right>
+ \lambda_{1}(I) \lambda_{1}(I') \left< IMK | {\hat Q} | I'M'K \right>
\nonumber \\
& +& \lambda_{0}(I) \lambda_{1}(I') \left< IM0 | {\hat Q} | I'M'K \right>
+ \lambda_{1}(I) \lambda_{0}(I') \left< IMK | {\hat Q} | I'M'0 \right> \nonumber ,
\\
\left< IM1 | {\hat Q}_{\mu} | I'M'2 \right> & =&
\lambda_{0}(I) \mu_{0}(I') \left< IM0 | {\hat Q} | I'M'0 \right>
+ \lambda_{1}(I) \mu_{1}(I') \left< IMK | {\hat Q} | I'M'K \right>
\nonumber \\
& +& \lambda_{0}(I) \mu_{1}(I') \left< IM0 | {\hat Q} | I'M'K \right>
+ \lambda_{1}(I) \mu_{0}(I') \left< IMK | {\hat Q}| I'M'0 \right> \nonumber ,
\\
\left< IM2 | {\hat Q}_{\mu} | I'M'2 \right> & =&
\mu_{0}(I) \mu_{0}(I') \left< IM0 | {\hat Q} | I'M'0 \right>
+ \mu_{1}(I) \mu_{1}(I') \left< IMK | {\hat Q} | I'M'K \right>
\nonumber \\
& +& \mu_{0}(I) \mu_{1}(I') \left< IM0 | {\hat Q} | I'M'K \right>
+ \mu_{1}(I) \mu_{0}(I') \left< IMK | {\hat Q} | I'M'0 \right> \nonumber .
\nonumber \\
& & \end{aligned}$$ The reduced matrix elements of the quadrupole operator $ {\hat Q} $ for the uncoupled case are taken from the phenomenological Bohr-Mottelson model, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:BM}
\left< I0 \parallel {\hat Q} \parallel I'K \right> &=& \sigma_{K'}~
q^{{\rm band1} \rightarrow {\rm band2}} \sqrt{2I+1}
\sqrt{2I'+1} \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
I & I' & 2 \\ 0 & K & -K \\
\end{array}
\right), \\ \sigma_{K'} &=& \left \{
\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{2} \hspace{1cm} K' \neq 0 \\ 1 \hspace{1.2cm} K' =0
\end{array} \right. \nonumber ,\end{aligned}$$ where $q^{{\rm band1} \rightarrow {\rm band2}}$ are the intrinsic quadrupole moments of any inter or intra-band transitions. Consequently we have three more parameters to fit, namely the three intrinsic quadrupole moments. From measured $BE(2)$’s we fix these three parameters and then calculate the rest of the $BE(2)$’s that are needed in the calculation but not available experimentally.
For the first application, $^{179}$W, we need the excitation energies and the quadrupole matrix elements of the neighboring even-even nuclei $^{178,180}$W. Since we assume particle-number non-conservation the difference between the two neighboring nuclei should be small, and since there are not enough experimental data for $^{178}$W, we did the calculations for $^{180}$W only. In the special case where the excited band has odd values of angular momentum the fitting can be simplified further. These odd angular momentum states do not interact with the states of the ground state band, and since they belong to the same band, the parameters ${\cal A}$ of this band can be calculated independently. First, we fit the parameters $ {\cal
A}_{\rm{exc}}^{0,1,2}$ for the states with odd value angular momentum, and then we fit the other 5 parameters. For example the excited band of $^{180}$W (see Fig. (\[fig:W180\_lev\])) has states with odd value $I$. Therefore, we fitted the upper band first and when the $ {\cal
A}_{\rm{exc}}^{0,1,2}$ were found, we fitted the rest. The results are shown in Table (\[table:back1\]) along with Fig. (\[fig:W180\_lev\]).
For the $BE(2)$’s we utilize the few experimental data available. As stated above, there are three parameters to fit, $q_{0}$, $q_{K}$ and $q_{K0}$. With these parameters fixed, we calculated all transitions that will be needed for the calculations of the odd nuclei. The results of the fit are given in Fig. (\[fig:W180\_be2\]) and Table (\[table:back1\]).
As a second application we considered the odd proton nucleus $^{165}$Lu. The neighboring even nuclei are $^{164}$Yb and $^{166}$Hf. There are enough experimental values for both these nuclei, and therefore we have fitted both nuclei and taken the average values of the excitation energies and quadrupole matrix elements for application to the odd nucleus. The calculation was done as described above for $^{180}$W with one modification however. We realized that the fitting of the $BE(2)$ values is more sensitive to the strength of the coupling $C(I)$ than are the excitation energies. Therefore, we first do a preliminary fit of the excitations energies. We then adjust the wavefunctions found from these calculations to fit the $BE(2)$ values by allowing $C$ to vary once more, in addition to the necessary choice of intrinsic quadrupole moments. The results are shown in Fig. (\[fig:Yb164\_be2\]) and in Table (\[table:back1\]). Then the excitation energies are re-calculated with an already fixed coupling strength $C$, and we find new values for the ${\cal A}$’s. The results of final fitting of the excitation energies are shown in Fig. (\[fig:Hf\_Yb\]) and in Table (\[table:back1\]).
Calculations and results for $^{179}$W {#sec:W179}
======================================
The equations of motion (EOM), as well as the normalization conditions, for the case of backbending are not formally different from those presented in the two previous applications [@pavlos:1] and therefore will not be repeated. In contrast to these applications, the quadrupole field $\Gamma$ will not take one of the simplified forms of the Bohr-Mottelson theory, such as Eq. (\[eq:BM\]). Instead, it will take values that are determined from the calculation described in the previous section, culminating in Eq. (\[eq:ME\]). The form of $\Gamma$ is given by, $$\Gamma_{aIn,cI'n';J} =
-\frac{1}{2} \, \kappa (-)^{j_{c}+I+J}
{\setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
{\scriptstyle j_{a}}&{\scriptstyle j_{c}}&{\scriptstyle 2}
\\
{\scriptstyle I'}&{\scriptstyle I}&{\scriptstyle J}
\end{array}\right\}}
\left< In \| Q \| I'n' \right>,$$ where $n=1,2$ , $n'=1,2$, and the quadrupole matrix elements, $\left< In \| Q \| I'n'\right>$, were calculated in the previous section. Notice that $\Gamma$ depends on the total angular momentum $J$ in contrast to the two previous cases. In the previous calculations, because we assumed axial symmetry, $\Gamma$ was independent of J. In this application the symmetry is lost, with implications that will be discussed later.
Similarly to the previous two examples, we used a large single-particle space (including all states from 5 major shells). The energies and matrix elements of these single-particle levels were calculated using the Woods-Saxon potential. The core excitations $\omega_{I}$ were taken from calculations for the core described in the previous section. At this point all input parameters are fixed and the only thing remaining to be done is to solve the eigenvalue problem given by the EOM. In the same way as before, the strength of the quadrupole field is treated as a free parameter and the values of the single-particle energies found from Woods-Saxon calculations are allowed to vary by $\pm 5 \%$.
Two remaining technical problems should be discussed before we present the results of the calculations. The first difficulty in solving the EOM is that the set of solutions is over-complete by a factor of two, as has previously been discussed. This is a consequence of the fact that the basis states form an over-complete (and, therefore, non-orthogonal set). Consequently half of the states found by solving the EOM are not physical and have to be removed. A technique has been developed to do so and was presented in [@pavlos:1]. In [@pavlos:2], an extension of the technique to the case of avoided crossings, was discussed. In this paper, we summarize only the essential points. The Hamiltonian is first decomposed into anti-symmetric and symmetric parts with respect to particle-hole conjugation. If only the anti-symmetric part is diagonalized, then for every positive energy eigenvalue there is a negative partner. From the BCS theory we know that the positive eigenvalues are the physical solutions and the negative solutions the non-physical ones. Then the symmetric part was turned on “slowly” and at every step the physical solutions were identified using the projection operator for the physical space built from the wavefunctions of the previous step. The projection operator has an eigenvalue 1 for all real states and 0 for the non-physical states. Since this operator is constructed from wavefunctions of the previous step we expect that it will give an expectation value close to 1 for physical and close to 0 for the non-physical states of the current step. This procedure continues until the symmetric part is turned on fully. In [@pavlos:2], we explained the case where physical and non-physical states of the same angular momentum come very close to each other, and consequently the corresponding wavefunctions change rapidly. In this instance the projection operator method is not valid unless the steps taken are extremely small, making the actual calculation numerically very slow. In this case we utilized the fact that states of the same angular momentum can not actually cross. As stated previously, the two bands involving the near crossing interchange the characters of their wavefunctions as they pass near each other. Since the projection operator method is basically a comparison of wavefunctions, the form of this operator just prior to the crossing would classify a physical state as unphysical and vice versa when used in coarse steps involving the near-crossing. Therefore when this occurs, we adjust the projection operator appropriately in order to make the correct identification in future steps. The problem in now reduced to determining if there is a crossing. This was done by comparing the energy differences between two states at two consecutive steps. This method worked extremely well both in the example of the previous work [@pavlos:1; @pavlos:2] and in the present case.
The second technical problem is the classification of states into different bands. In the first two applications where $K$ was a good quantum number, the identification of bands was done based on the $K$ value of the band. The technique was explained in [@pavlos:1] and again we repeat only essential aspects. In the case that the core is approximated as a rigid rotor, and the formulas of the geometrical model are valid, it turns out that the quadrupole field is independent of the total angular momentum $J$. This is because of the assumed axial symmetry. As a result when only the antisymmetric part of the Hamiltonian is considered the Hamiltonian has no $J$ dependence. It follows that for a given $K$, i.e. a given band, all eigenstates with different $J$ are degenerate. We first solve our equation for a minimum possible angular momentum, $J=\frac{1}{2}$. This identifies the $K=\frac{1}{2}$ bands. At $J=\frac{3}{2}$, we find a set of energies equal to those previously found and possibly additional solutions identified as the band heads for $K=\frac{3}{2}$. Continuing in this way we assemble all solutions into a series of flat bands with identified $K$ values.
In the case that backbending occurs, even when the core excitations are neglected (symmetric part of H set to zero) the remaining Hamiltonian is J dependent. Therefore, we can not use the method described above. We can however, take the additional steps of turning off the coupling between the two core bands to return to the axially symmetric case. Then the previous procedure can be used, but there is the additional complication of having to turn on both the symmetric part and the coupling between the two core bands. We can do that in any order, i.e. we can first turn on the coupling between the core bands and then the core excitation (symmetric part of the Hamiltonian) or the other way around. We choose to do the former. First we turn on the band coupling slowly, and as a result we break the axial symmetry. At every step we compare the wavefunctions at two consecutive steps by calculating the overlap integral. It turns out that even though the $J$ degeneracy is lifted the wavefunctions of the axial and non-axial cases (not including the core excitations) are very similar. Only for a few eigenstates was the mixture between states belonging to different $K$ bands so big we had to turn on the coupling slowly. In most cases large steps were sufficient.
The first application made was to the nucleus $^{179}$W. Recent observations [@Walker1; @Walker2] have been interpreted as showing that for this odd-neutron nucleus, an alignment to an axis intermediate between the deformation axis and the collective rotational axis (Fermi alignment [@Frauend]), gives rise to a backbending at $J \sim \frac{31}{2}$. (Frauendorf [@Frauend] has called the associated rotational structure a t-band, since the cranking-model description requires a [*tilting*]{} of the cranking axis away from the principal axes of the intrinsic prolate spheroidal shape.) Nevertheless we have chosen to try the standard two-band model.
Energy levels of $^{179}$W calculated from the present work are presented in Fig. (\[fig:W179\]). As can be seen from the figure, the yrast band ($K=7/2$) is reproduced with high accuracy. The same can be said of the first excited band ($K=7/2$ or tilted-band). Then follow two $K=1/2$ bands which agree very well with the theory. The most striking feature is the exact reproduction of the staggering nature of the first $K=1/2$ band. At about 1 MeV above the ground state, theory predicts a $K=5/2$ band which experimentally is not observed. We believe that this a weakness of the fitting routine for the following reasons. The relative band-head energies were fitted, using a standard fitting routine, to the observed values by varying the strength of the quadrupole field, $\kappa $. The fitting was done by minimizing the $\chi^{2}$. In the absence of an experimental value and the presence of a a theoretical prediction the contribution to the $\chi^{2}$ is 0. In other words for the fitting routine (at least for the one we used), if the theory predicts a band at low energy that is not observed experimentally it does not increase the $\chi^{2}$. We are currently working to build a better fitting routine which will be able to avoid such a problem. The result shown in Fig. \[fig:W179\] already represents some improvement over the fitting procedure used initially.
Results for $^{165}$Lu {#sec:Lu165}
======================
The second backbending application we tried was to the proton spectra of $^{165}$Lu. This nucleus was studied previously by methods related to those of this paper by Chen [*et al*]{} [@ref:Chen]. Since it is generally accepted that the s-band in an even nucleus is formed by the decoupling of a pair of quasiparticles from the ground-state band, these authors, among others, decided that it was necessary to use a semi-microscopic description of the backbending in the neighboring even nuclei. However, their fit to the spectra above the backbend leaves something to desired. For this reason, we have chosen to separate the problem of fitting the backbend in the even nuclei from that of fitting the corresponding spectra in the odd nuclei by using a phenomenological two-band mixing model for the even nuclei, which allows, simultaneously an accurate fit to the the spectrum of the crossing bands and to all observed B(E2) values (see previous section). In Fig. (\[fig:Lu165\]), we compare our fit for both negative and positive signature ($\alpha = -\frac{1}{2}$, $\alpha = \frac{1}{2}$) crossed bands in $^{165}$Lu with those of Chen. The closeness of our fit compared to that of the previous authors appears simply to reflect corresponding deviations in the spectra of the even neighbors.
We next study magnetic transitions of the yrast band and compare the result to experiment and other theories. In [@pavlos:1] we have presented the equations for the $M1$ matrix element and calculations for the $B(M1)$ transitions of the ground state band of $^{155,157}$Gd. To calculate $B(M1)$ rates, we must first evaluate the matrix element of the $M1$ operator between states of the even neighboring cores $\langle I \| M \| I \rangle$ and the matrix elements of the same operator between single particle states ($m_{ac}$). In the case of $\langle I \| M \| I \rangle$, and because of the limitation on the availability of the experimental data, we have chosen to use a phenomenological model for the value of $g$, that is derived in [@Frau81], namely $$g = g_{R} + ( g_{j} -g_{R} )\, i/ I ,$$ where $g_{R}$ refers to the ground band, $i$ is the aligned angular momentum, and $g_{j}$ is the single particle $g$ factor for the $j$ shell in which alignment occurs. For the $\nu_{13/2}$ level, $g_{j}$ takes the value of $-0.20$ and $g_{R}=0.31$. In Fig. \[fig:Hf166\_m1\] we show the $g$ factors for the yrast band of $^{166}$Hf obtained from the cranking model, the two-quasiparticle plus rotor model, and from the simple formula shown above. For the single particle matrix elements we used a simple formula from [@ref:Ring_Shung], Eq. (44) of [@pavlos:1].
Results from different calculations of $B(M1)$ rates of the yrast band of $^{165}$Lu are summarized in Fig. \[fig:Lu165\_m1\]. Figure \[fig:Lu165\_m1\] shows experimental values from [@Jons84], the result from the cranking calculation of [@ref:Chen], a core-particle coupling model also presented in [@ref:Chen] and finally our calculations. Our work reproduces the experimental values quite well and clearly better than the other works.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have presented yet another distinct application of the KKDF model. Calculations for $^{165}$Lu and $^{179}$W were performed starting from a phenomenological description of the neighboring even nuclei. The results are sufficiently satisfactory to encourage us to consider still more sophisticated applications of the model utilized. A fundamental approximation that all applications so far shared was that the incorporation of particle-number conservation into the equations has little effect on the results, because the properties of the neighboring nuclei are so smooth and slowly-varying with particle number. It therefore behooves us to study a case where the incorporation of exact number conservation is essential because we are in a transitional region. Such an has been worked out [@pavlos:thesis].
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. 40264-5-25351.
------------ ---------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- -----------
nucleus ${\cal A}^{1}_{\rm{gs}}$ ${\cal A}^{2}_{\rm{gs}}$ ${\cal A}^{3}_{\rm{gs}}$ ${\cal A}^{1}_{\rm{exc}}$ ${\cal A}^{2}_{\rm{exc}}$ ${\cal A}^{3}_{\rm{exc}}$ Band-Head
$[ \frac{\hbar^{2}}{keV}]$ $[ \frac{\hbar^{4}}{keV^{3}}]$ $[ \frac{\hbar^{6}}{keV^{5}}]$ $[ \frac{\hbar^{2}}{keV}]$ $[ \frac{\hbar^{4}}{keV^{3}}]$ $[ \frac{\hbar^{6}}{keV^{5}}]$ $[ keV]$
$ ^{180}W$ 17.16 -2.19 $10^{-2}$ $1.95~ 10^{-5}$ $6.45$ $4.00 ~10^{-3}$ 1.7 $10^{-6}$ 1663.50
$^{164}Yb$ 18.79 -2.56 10$^{-2}$ $2.10~ 10^{-5}$ 6.03 2.21 $10^{-3}$ 2.10 $10^{-5}$ 1603.34
$^{166}Hf$ 20.55 -2.62 10$^{-2}$ $ 1.90 ~ 10^{-5}$ 6.10 -2.62 $10^{2}$ 1.92 $10^{-5}$ 1675.34
------------ ---------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- -----------
: \[table:back1\] Values obtained for the parameters for the phenomenological model of the even cores. The subscribe “exc” on ${\cal A}_{\rm{exc}}$ identifies the values of the excited bands.
------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------------------------- ----------------
nucleus $q_{0}$ $q_{K}$ $q_{0K}$ Coupling Type Coupling
$[b^{2}]$ $[b^{2}]$ $[b^{2}]$ $[keV]$ $[keV]$
$ ^{180}W$ 0.711 0.031 0.66 $C(I)=C\, (I+1)(I+2)(I-1)$ 4.21 $10^{-5}$
$^{164}Yb$ 0.540 0.021 0.41 $C(I)=C \, I \,(I+1)$ 1.30 $10^{-1}$
$^{166}Hf$ 0.560 0.019 0.39 $C(I)=C \, I \,(I+1)$ 1.37 $10^{-1}$
------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------------------------- ----------------
: \[table:back1\] Values obtained for the parameters for the phenomenological model of the even cores. The subscribe “exc” on ${\cal A}_{\rm{exc}}$ identifies the values of the excited bands.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
$$$$
**COMPLETE WAVE OPERATORS\
IN NON-SELFADJOINT KATO MODEL OF\
SMOOTH PERTURBATION THEORY**
**S.A.Stepin**
[**Abstract.**]{} Subject of the paper deals with the perturbation theory of linear operators acting in Hilbert space. For a certain class of perturbations the question is considered about existence of transformation operators implementing linear similarity of perturbed and unperturbed operators. In this context some results of complex analysis prove to be useful as well as the relationship with the theory of operator semi-groups.
[**Keywords:**]{} wave operators, scattering theory technique, Schroedinger operator
[**2010 Mathematical Subject Classification:**]{} 34L15, 34L25
**§1. Introduction**
The fundamental notion of relative smoothness was suggested by T.Kato \[1\] within the framework of stationary scattering theory technique elaborated therein for a certain class of not necessarily selfadjoint operators. The goal of the approach worked out in \[1\] was construction of wave operators intertwining perturbed and unperturbed operators $\,T+V\,$ and $\,T.\,$ As a matter of fact the original Kato paper deals with small perturbations of the form $\,V=B^*A\,$ with operators $\,A\,$ and $\,B\,$ smooth relatively to $\,T\,$ and $\,T^*\,$ respectively (for precise definitions see Section 2). Besides it was assumed in \[1\] that spectrum of $\,T\,$ is real and purely continuous while operator $\,Q_0(\lambda)=A\,(T-{\lambda}I)^{-1}B^*\,$ has to be bounded uniformly for non-real $\,\lambda.\,$ Wave operators constructed in this context prove to be invertible and thus implement similarity of initial and perturbed operators. Moreover the statement of the problem also goes back to \[1\] about conditions under which the approach in question admits a generalization to the case of arbitrary (not necessarily small) perturbations of the class under consideration. Note that the technique of factorizing perturbation $\,V\,$ into the form $\,B^*A\,$ originated in \[2\].
Subsequent development of stationary scattering theory in the case of relatively smooth perturbations basically dealt with selfadjoint operators (see \[3\]). As regards applications of the technique elaborated in \[1\] to non-selfadjoint operators $\,T+V\,$ when perturbation $\,V=B^*A\,$ is not assumed to be small, such attempts essentially reduced (see e.g. \[4\],\[5\]) to construction of local wave operators which supply with (and require) information on the structure of perturbed operator $\,T+V\,$ in the subspace corresponding to a certain segment of continuous spectrum. One of the goals of of the present paper is to formulate conditions under which stationary scattering theory approach in the framework of non-selfadjoint Kato model context admits an extension to the case of not necessarily small perturbations. Wave operators to be constructed within this approach prove to possess completeness property and thus realize the passage to spectral representation of the perturbed operator implemented with regard for (and in terms of) spectral continuity of the initial one.
Construction of local wave operators in the paper \[5\] was carried out under the condition that operator $\,(I+Q_0({\lambda}))^{-1}$ is uniformly bounded in the neighborhood of the corresponding continuous spectrum segment of operator $\,T.\,$ In the present paper complete wave operators intertwining $\,T+V\,$ and $\,T,\,$ are going to be constructed provided that given resolvent $\,R_V({\lambda})=(T+V-{\lambda}I)^{-1}\,$ the operator function $\,Q_V(\lambda)=AR_V({\lambda})B^*\,$ is bounded uniformly for the values of its argument separated away from discrete spectrum of $\,T+V.\,$ As regards the question how to effectively verify this condition it can be reduced to searching for a scalar analytic function, most likely an appropriate Fredholm determinant, such that all the singularities of operator function $\,Q_V({\lambda})\,$ after being multiplied by it become removable in $\,\mathbb
C_{\pm}.\,$ By virtue of resolvent identity $$R_V({\lambda})\,\,=\,\,R_0({\lambda})\,\,-\,\,R_0({\lambda})B^*(I+Q_0({\lambda}))^{-1}AR_0({\lambda})$$ condition suggested above is less restrictive compared to that required in \[5\] while the class of perturbations $\,V=B^*A\,$ considered here is wider in due turn.
As an application we shall consider one-dimensional Schroedinger operator $\,L\,=\,-d^2/dx^2+V(x)\,$ on half-axis $\,\mathbb R_+\,$ with complex potential $\,V(x)\,$ and Dirichlet boundary condition at zero. Such an operator proves to be quite a simple and rather capacious model which displays a number of effects typical for perturbation theory in non-selfadjoint setting (see \[6\] and \[7\]). Besides that Schroedinger operator with complex potential is known (see \[8\]) to appear in the study of open quantum mechanical systems with energy dissipation.
The approach elaborated in \[1\] reveals the following condition $$\int_0^{\infty}\!x\,|\,V(x)|\,dx\,\,<\,\,1$$ which guarantees similarity of $\,L\,$ and selfadjoint operator $\,T=-d^2/dx^2\,$ corresponding to $\,V(x)\equiv 0.\,$ One of the principal results of the present paper implies a criterion of the similarity in question valid for the class of potentials $\,V(x)\,$ possessing a finite first momentum which extends and supplements Kato sufficient condition \[1\].
**§2. Statement of basic results**
As an unperturbed one consider closed operator $\,T\,$ with domain $\,D(T)\,$ dense in Hilbert space $\,\cal H\,$ possessing purely continuous spectrum $\,\sigma(T)\subset\mathbb R\,$ such that resolvent $\,R_0({\lambda})=(T-{\lambda}I)^{-1}\,$ is analytic in $\,\mathbb
C_{\pm}.\,$ In accordance with \[1\] closed operator $\,A\,$ is said to be smooth relative to $\,T\,$ if $\,AR_0({\lambda})\varphi\in{\rm
H}_2^{\pm}\,$ for arbitrary $\,\varphi\in\cal H,\,$ where $\,{\rm
H}_2^{\pm}\,$ denote Hardy classes corresponding to half-planes $\,\mathbb C_{\pm},\,$ i.e. $$\sup_{\varepsilon>0}\,\int_{\mathbb R}\|AR_0(k\pm
i\varepsilon)\varphi\|^2\,dk\,<\,\infty\,.$$ Moreover for almost all $\,k\in\mathbb R\,\,$ limits $\,\,AR_0(k\pm i0)\varphi\,:=\,\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\downarrow
0}AR_0(k\pm i\varepsilon)\varphi\,\,$ exist (see \[9\]) and besides $\,\, AR_0(k\pm i\varepsilon)\varphi\,\to\,AR_0(k\pm
i0)\varphi\,\,$ in mean square sense as $\,\varepsilon\downarrow
0.$
Along with $\,T\,$ introduce perturbed operator $\,L=T+V\,$ where $\,V=B^*A\,$ so that $\,A\,$ is smooth relative to $\,T\,$ while $\,B\,$ is smooth relative to $\,T^*.\,$ Below throughout the following requirements are assumed to be fulfilled:
$(i)$ [*resolvent $\,R_V({\lambda})\,$ is meromorphic in $\,\mathbb C\setminus\sigma(T)\,$ so that its poles are just the eigenvalues of $\,L\,$ with multiplicities taken into account;*]{}
$(ii)$ [*discrete spectrum $\,\sigma_d(L)\,$ of operator $\,L\,$ is a finite set while the complementary component $\,\sigma_c(L)\,$ of its spectrum coincides with $\,\sigma(T);$*]{}
$(iii)$ [*operator function $\,Q_V({\lambda})=AR_V({\lambda})B^*\,$ is uniformly bounded in $\,\mathbb C_{\pm}\,$ provided that the argument $\,{\lambda}\,$ is separated away from $\,\sigma_d(L).\,$*]{}
For the sake of simplicity all the considerations will be carried out here in the situation when $\,A\,$ and $\,B\,$ are bounded operators and thus $\,D(L)=D(T).\,$ By means of contour integral define Riesz projection $$P\,\,=\,-\,\frac1{2\pi i}\oint_{\Gamma}R_V({\lambda})\,d{\lambda}$$ onto the linear span $\,{\cal H}_d:=P\cal H\,$ of root (eigen and associated) vectors of operator $\,L\,$ parallel to the subspace $\,{\cal H}_c:=(I-P)\cal H;\,$ here $\,\Gamma\,$ is appropriately oriented closed contour separating mutually complementary spectral components $\,\sigma_d(L)\,$ and $\,\sigma_c(L).\,$ Operator $\,L\,$ can be decomposed with respect to direct sum representation $\,{\cal H}={\cal H}_c\,\dot{+}\,{\cal H}_d\,$ in the following (see \[10\]) sense $$PD(L)\subset D(L)\,,\quad L{\cal H}_c\subset{\cal H}_c\,,\quad
L{\cal H}_d\subset{\cal H}_d\,,$$ while $\,\sigma(L|{\cal H}_c)=\sigma_c(L)\,$ and $\,\sigma(L|{\cal
H}_d)=\sigma_d(L).\,$ By $\,R_V^*({\lambda})\,$ and $\,{\cal
H}^*_d\,,\,{\cal H}^*_c\,$ let us denote the resolvent of operator $\,L^*\,$ and its invariant subspaces corresponding to disjoint spectral components $\,\sigma_d(L^*)\,$ and $\,\sigma_c(L^*)\subset\mathbb R.\,$
[**Theorem 1.**]{} [*Assume that operator $\,T\,$ has purely continuous spectrum $\,\sigma(T)\subset\mathbb R,\,$ operator $\,V\,$ admits factorization $\,V=B^*A\,$ where $\,A\,$ and $\,B\,$ are smooth relative to $\,T\,$ and $\,T^*\,$ respectively, operator function $\,Q_0({\lambda})=AR_0({\lambda})B^*\,$ is bounded in $\,\mathbb C_{\pm},\,$ while operator $\,L=T+V\,$ satisfies conditions $\,(i)-(iii).\,$ Then there exist bounded stationary wave operators $\,\,W\,$ and $\,Z\,$ being determined by their bilinear forms [:]{} $$\big(W\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\,\,\big(\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,-\,\,\frac1{2\pi
i}\int_{\mathbb R}\big(AR_0(k+i0)\varphi,BR_V^*(k+i0)\psi\big)\,dk
\label{form1}$$ for $\,\psi\in{\cal H}_c^*\,$ and $\,(W\varphi,\psi)=0\,$ if $\,\psi\in{\cal H}_d^*\,;$ $$\big(Z\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\,\,\big(\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,+\,\,\frac1{2\pi
i}\int_{\mathbb
R}\big(AR_V(s+i0)\varphi,BR_0^*(s+i0)\psi\big)\,ds\,,
\label{form2}$$ when $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}_c\,$ and $\,(Z\varphi,\psi)=0\,$ for $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}_d.\,$ Besides $\,\,ZW=I\,\,$ and, moreover, wave operators possess completeness property $\,\,W Z=I-P,\,\,$ where $\,P\,$ is a projection onto $\,{\cal H}_d=\ker Z\,$ parallel to $\,W{\cal H}={\cal H}_c.$* ]{}
The proof of Theorem 1 is given in Sections 3 and 4 and it follows the scheme of the approach elaborated in \[1\]. However in contrast with \[1\] operators $\,A\,$ and $\,B\,$ are by no means smooth relative to $\,L\,$ and $\,L^*\,$ respectively when $\,\sigma_d(L)\ne\varnothing\,$ and such a crucial circumstance proves to be of a considerable difficulty. Nevertheless the construction of wave operators can be somewhat modified to treat the setting in question due to the fact that $\,AR_V({\lambda})\varphi\,$ and $\,BR_V^*({\lambda})\psi\in{\rm H}_2^{\pm}\,$ provided $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}_c\,$ and $\,\psi\in{\cal H}^*_c.\,$ To establish the fundamental properties of modified direct and inverse wave operators we take advantage of the following relationship of commutator type $$\frac1{2\pi
i}\,\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\int_{\mathbb
R}R_0(k-i\varepsilon)\,[P,V]\,R_0(k+i\varepsilon)\,dk\,\,=\,\,P\,,$$ where $\,[P,V]\,=\, PV-VP.\,$ Content of section 5 is summarized by
[**Theorem 2.**]{}
*Under the assumptions of Theorem [1]{} direct and inverse wave operators $\,W\,$ and $\,Z\,$ determined by formulas [(\[form1\])]{} and [(\[form2\])]{} implement similarity of $\,\,T\,\,$ and $\,\,L_c=L|{\cal H}_c\,$ so that $\,\,L_c\,=\,WTZ.\,$ If additionally $\,T=T^*\,$ then one has the following representations*
$\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
W\,\,=\,\,s$-$\!\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}\exp(itL)(I-P)\exp(-itT)\,,$
$\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
Z\,\,\,=\,\,\,s$-$\!\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}\exp(itT)\exp(-itL)(I-P)\,.$
As an application of the approach developed here we shall consider in Section 6 non-selfadjoint Schroedinger operator $$L\,\,=\,\,T\,+\,V\,\,=\,\,-\,d^2/dx^2\,+\,V(x)$$ defined in the space $\,{\cal H}={\rm L}_2(\mathbb R_+)\,$ with the domain $\,D(L)=\big\{y\in{\cal H}\!:y'$ absolutely continuous, $y''\in{\cal H},$ $\,y(0)=0\big\},\,$ where potential $\,V(x)\,$ is a bounded complex-valued function. Provided that $\,V\in{\rm
L}_1(\mathbb R_+)\,$ equation $$-\,y''\,\,+\,\,V(x)y\,\,=\,\,k^2y \label{form3}$$ for any $\,k\in\mathbb C_+\,$ possesses Jost solution $\,e(x,k)\,$ which is asymptotically equivalent to $\,e^{ikx}\,$ at infinity. In this situation spectrum of operator $\,L\,$ is known to consist of continuous and discrete components $$\sigma_c(L)=\mathbb
R_+\,,\,\,\,\sigma_d(L)=\big\{{\lambda}=k^2\!:\,e(k)=0, k\in\mathbb
C_+\big\}\,,$$ where $\,e(k):=e(0,k).\,$ The set of eigenvalues $\,\sigma_d(L)\,$ is bounded, at most countable and its accumulation points (if any) belong to the half-axis $\,\mathbb R_+,\,$ whereas operator $\,L\,$ has no eigenvalues embedded into continuous spectrum (see \[6\]). Furthermore Jost function $\,e(k)\,$ is analytic in the open half-plane $\,\mathbb C_+\,$ and admits extension by continuity to $\,\mathbb R\setminus\{0\},\,$ while its real zeroes correspond to distinguished points $\,{\lambda}=k^2\,$ of continuous spectrum $\,\sigma_c(L)\,$ called spectral singularities (see \[2\]).
[**Theorem 3.**]{} [*Suppose that non-selfadjoint Schroedinger operator $$L\,\,=\,\,T\,+\,V\,\,=\,\,-\,d^2/dx^2\,+\,V(x)$$ defined in $\,{\cal H}={\rm L}_2(\mathbb R_+)\,$ by Dirichlet boundary condition at zero and complex bounded potential $\,V(x)\,$ satisfying condition $$\int_0^{\infty}\!x\,|\,V(x)|\,dx\,\,<\,\,\infty\, \label{form4}$$ has no spectral singularities. Then $\,L\,$ admits decomposition with respect to direct sum $\,{\cal H}={\cal H}_c\,\dot{+}\,{\cal
H}_d\,$ generated by finite-dimensional Riesz projection $\,P\,$ onto the linear span $\,{\cal H}_d\,$ of eigen and associated vectors of operator $\,L\,$ parallel to its continuous spectrum invariant subspace $\,{\cal H}_c.\,$ Furthermore direct and inverse stationary wave operators $\,W\,$ and $\,Z\,$ exist and all the conclusions of Theorems [1]{} and [2]{} hold true.*]{}
Absence of eigenvalues and spectral singularities in the context of Theorem 3 leads to a criterion for similarity of operator $\,L\,$ and selfadjoint operator $\,T\,$ and thus oblige $\,L\,$ to be spectral in the sense of Dunford. In the case when operator $\,L\,$ does not have any spectral singularities results of papers \[6\] and \[7\] enable one to produce transformation operators intertwining $\,L\,$ and $\,T\,$ under rather restrictive condition $$\int_0^{\infty}(1+x^2)\,|\,V(x)|\,dx\,\,<\,\,\infty\,.$$ However the corresponding procedure clarifies the relationship between construction of wave operators and generalized eigenfunction expansion problem for operator $\,L\,$ (cf. \[11\]). Szoekefalvi-Nagy and Foias functional model technique was employed by the author to construct wave operators given dissipative Schroedinger operator with potential satisfying condition (\[form4\]) (see \[12\] and also references therein). The results of the present paper in dissipative case were announced in \[13\] (cf. \[14\]).
**§3. Completeness of wave operators**
In what follows hypotheses of Theorem 1 are supposed to be fulfilled.
[**Lemma 1.**]{} [*Given $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}_c\,$ and $\,\psi\in{\cal H}^*_c\,$ vector functions $\,AR_V({\lambda})\varphi\,$ and $\,BR^*_V({\lambda})\psi\,$ belong to Hardy classes $\,{\rm
H}_2^{\pm}.$* ]{}
In fact, provided that point $\,{\lambda}\not\in\sigma_d(L)\,$ is contained inside $\,\Gamma\,$ by virtue of resolvent identity for arbitrary $\,f\in{\cal H}\,$ one has $$R_V({\lambda})Pf\,\,=\,-\,\frac1{2\pi
i}\oint_{\Gamma}R_V({\lambda})R_V(\mu)f\,d\mu\,=
\,R_V({\lambda})f\,-\,\frac1{2\pi
i}\oint_{\Gamma}\frac{R_V(\mu)f}{\mu-{\lambda}}\,d\mu\,.$$ Hence given $\,\varphi=f-Pf\in{\cal H}_c\,$ vector function $$AR_V({\lambda})\varphi\,\,=\,\,\frac1{2\pi
i}\oint_{\Gamma}\frac{AR_V(\mu)f}{\mu-{\lambda}}\,d\mu$$ admits analytic continuation to the points of discrete spectrum $\,\sigma_d(L).\,$ Finally making use of relation $\,AR_V({\lambda})\varphi=(I-Q_V({\lambda}))AR_0({\lambda})\varphi,\,$ where $\,AR_0({\lambda})\varphi\in{\rm H}_2^{\pm},\,$ and taking conditions $\,(i)-(iii)\,$ into account we come to the required conclusion $$\sup_{\varepsilon>0}\,\int_{\mathbb R}\|AR_V(k\pm
i\varepsilon)\varphi\,\|^2\,dk\,<\,\infty\,.$$ Similarly given $\,\psi\in{\cal H}^*_c\,$ vector function $\,BR^*_V({\lambda})\psi\,$ extends analytically to the points $\,{\lambda}\in\sigma_d(L^*)\,$ so that $$\sup_{\varepsilon>0}\,\int_{\mathbb R}\|BR^*_V(k\pm
i\varepsilon)\psi\,\|^2\,dk\,<\,\infty\,.$$
[**Corollary.**]{} [*Provided that $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}_c$ and $\,\psi\in{\cal H}^*_c\,$ boundary values $\,AR_V(k\pm
i0)\varphi:=\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}AR_V(k\pm
i\varepsilon)\varphi\,$ and $\,BR^*_V(k\pm i0)\psi:=$ $\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}BR^*_V(k\pm
i\varepsilon)\psi\,$ are well-defined for almost all $\,k\in\mathbb R\,$ and moreover $\,AR_V(k\pm
i\varepsilon)\varphi\,\to\,AR_V(k\pm i0)\varphi\,$ and $\,BR^*_V(k\pm i\varepsilon)\psi\,\to\,BR^*_V(k\pm i0)\psi\,$ in mean square sense as $\,\varepsilon\downarrow 0.$*]{}
According to Lemma 1 and subsequent corollary the bilinear forms (\[form1\]) and (\[form2\]) are bounded uniformly in $\,\varphi,\psi\in\cal H,\,$ subject to normalization condition $\,\|\varphi\|=\|\psi\|=1,\,$ and thus they determine properly bounded operators $\,W\,$ and $\,Z.\,$ By corresponding definitions one has $\,{\cal H}_d\subset\ker Z\,$ and $\,W{\cal
H}\perp{\cal H}^*_d\,$ where $\,{\cal H}^*_d\perp{\cal H}_c\,$ and hence $\,W{\cal H}\subset{\cal H}_c.$
[**Statement 1.**]{} [*Wave operators $\,W\,$ and $\,Z\,$ possess the completeness property[:]{} $$\,\,WZ\,=\,I-P.$$* ]{}
[**Proof.**]{} If $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}_d\subset\ker Z\,$ then clearly $\,WZ\varphi=0.\,$ So one should verify that $\,WZ\varphi=\varphi\,$ for arbitrary $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}_c.\,$ Since $\,W{\cal H}\subset{\cal H}_c\,$ one has $\,\big(WZ\varphi,\psi\big)=0\,$ when $\,\psi\in{\cal H}^*_d.\,$ Hence it suffices to show that $\,\big(WZ\varphi,\psi\big)=\big(\varphi,\psi\big)\,$ for $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}_c\,$ and $\,\psi\in{\cal H}^*_c.\,$ To this end making use of (\[form1\]) and (\[form2\]) consider expression $$\begin{gathered}
\big((W-I)(Z-I)\varphi,\psi\big)\,=\,\big((Z-I)\varphi,(W^*-I)\psi\big)\,\,=\\
=\,\,\frac1{2\pi i}\,\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\,\int_{\mathbb
R}\big(AR_V(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_0^*(s+i\varepsilon)(W^*-I)\psi\big)\,ds\,,\end{gathered}$$ where the integrand takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
\big(AR_V(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_0^*(s+i\varepsilon)(W^*-I)\psi\big)\,=\,
\big((W-I)R_0(s-i\varepsilon)B^*AR_V(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\psi\big)\,=\\
=\,\,-\,\frac1{2\pi i}\,\int_{\mathbb
R}\big(AR_0(k+i0)R_0(s-i\varepsilon)B^*AR_V(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_V^*(k+i0)\psi\big)\,dk\,.\end{gathered}$$ Here $\,\,AR_0(k+i0)R_0(s-i\varepsilon)B^*\,=\,(k-s+i\varepsilon)^{-1}\big(Q_0(k+i0)-\,Q_0(s-i\varepsilon)\big)\,\,$ while boundary values $\,\,Q_0(k+i0)\,:=\,{\rm
s}\,$-$\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}Q_0(k+
i\varepsilon)\,\,$ are well-defined almost everywhere and thus $$\begin{gathered}
\big((W-I)(Z-I)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\\
=\,\,\frac1{4\pi^2}\,\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow
0}\,\bigg\{\int_{\mathbb R}dk\int_{\mathbb
R}(k-s+i\varepsilon)^{-1}\big(Q_0(k+i0)AR_V(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_V^*(k+i0)\psi\big)\,ds\,\,-\\
-\,\int_{\mathbb R}ds\int_{\mathbb
R}(k-s+i\varepsilon)^{-1}\big(Q_0(s-i\varepsilon)AR_V(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_V^*(k+i0)\psi\big)\,dk\bigg\}\,.\end{gathered}$$ Note that $\,AR_V({\lambda})\varphi\,$ and $\,BR_V^*({\lambda})\psi\,$ belong to $\,{\rm H}_2^{\pm}\,$ by virtue of Lemma 1 and one can apply Cauchy integral formula to calculate transformations of Hilbert type: $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\mathbb
R}(k-s+i\varepsilon)^{-1}\big(Q_0(k+i0)AR_V(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_V^*(k+i0)\psi\big)\,ds\,\,=\\
=\,-\,2\pi
i\,\big(AR_V(k+2i\varepsilon)\varphi,Q_0(k+i0)^*BR_V^*(k+i0)\psi\big)\,,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\mathbb
R}(k-s+i\varepsilon)^{-1}\big(Q_0(s-i\varepsilon)AR_V(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_V^*(k+i0)\psi\big)\,dk\,\,=\\
=\,-\,2\pi
i\,\big(Q_0(s-i\varepsilon)AR_V(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_V^*(s+i\varepsilon)\psi\big)\,.\end{gathered}$$ In order to pass to the limit in the right-hand side of equality $$\begin{gathered}
\big((W-I)(Z-I)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\\
=\,\,\frac1{2\pi i}\,\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow
0}\,\bigg\{\int_{\mathbb R}\big(AR_V(k+2i\varepsilon)\varphi,Q_0(k+i0)^*BR_V^*(k+i0)\psi\big)\,dk\,\,-\\
-\,\int_{\mathbb
R}\big(Q_0(s-i\varepsilon)AR_V(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_V^*(s+i\varepsilon)\psi\big)\,ds\bigg\}\,,\end{gathered}$$ we shall use corollary subsequent to Lemma 1 and besides the existence of boundary values $\,Q_0(k\pm i0)\,$ almost everywhere on the real axis. As a result (cf. \[1\]) it follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\big((W-I)(Z-I)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\\
=\,\,\frac1{2\pi i}\,\bigg\{\int_{\mathbb R}\big(Q_0(k+i0)AR_V(k+i0)\varphi,BR_V(k-i0)^*\psi\big)\,dk\,\,-\\
-\,\int_{\mathbb
R}\big(AR_V(s+i0)\varphi,Q_0(s-i0)^*BR_V(s-i0)^*\psi\big)\,ds\bigg\}\,\,=\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
=\,\,\frac1{2\pi i}\,\bigg\{\int_{\mathbb R}\big(AR_0(k+i0)\varphi,BR_V(k-i0)^*\psi\big)\,dk\,\,-\\
-\,\int_{\mathbb
R}\big(AR_V(s+i0)\varphi,BR_0(s-i0)^*\psi\big)\,ds\bigg\}\,,\end{gathered}$$ since $\,\,Q_0({\lambda})AR_V({\lambda})\,=\,AR_0({\lambda})-AR_V({\lambda})\,\,$ and $\,\,Q_0({\lambda})^*BR_V({\lambda})^*\,=\,BR_0({\lambda})^*-BR_V({\lambda})^*.\,$ Thus we get $$\big((W-I)(Z-I)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\,\,\big((I-W)\varphi,\psi\big)\,+\,\big((I-Z)\varphi,\psi\big)$$ and hence $\,\big(WZ\varphi,\psi\big)=\big(\varphi,\psi\big)\,$ for arbitrary $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}_c,\,\psi\in{\cal H}^*_c.\,$
[**Corollary.**]{} [*Under the above assumptions one has $\,W{\cal H}={\cal H}_c\,$ and $\,\,\ker Z={\cal H}_d.$* ]{}
**§4. Inverse wave operator**
Along with projection $\,P\,$ introduce the complementary projection $\,\widetilde{P}=I-P\,$ onto the subspace $\,{\cal
H}_c\,$ parallel to the linear span $\,{\cal H}_d\,$ of eigen and associated vectors of operator $\,L.\,$
[**Lemma 2.**]{} [*Under the hypotheses $\,(i)-(iii)\,$ operator function $\,\widetilde{Q}({\lambda})=AR_V({\lambda})\widetilde{P}B^*\,$ is analytic and bounded in $\,\mathbb C_{\pm}.$*]{}
Indeed, due to conditions $\,(i)-(ii)\,$ operator function $\,AR_V({\lambda})\widetilde{P}B^*\,$ being extended by the expression $$\frac1{2\pi
i}\oint_{\Gamma}\,\frac{AR_V(\zeta)\widetilde{P}B^*}{\zeta-{\lambda}}\,\,d\zeta$$ to singular points $\,{\lambda}\in\sigma_d(L)\,$ becomes analytic in $\,\mathbb C_{\pm}\,$ and bounded in certain neighborhood of $\,\sigma_d(L).\,$ Provided that $\,{\lambda}\in\mathbb C_{\pm}\,$ is separated away from $\,\sigma_d(L)\,$ operator function $$\widetilde{Q}({\lambda})\,+\,AR_V({\lambda})PB^*\,=\,AR_V({\lambda})B^*$$ is uniformly bounded by condition $\,(iii).\,$ Hence it suffices to show that operator function $\,AR_V({\lambda})PB^*\,$ is bounded uniformly when its argument $\,{\lambda}\in\mathbb C_{\pm}\,$ does not approach $\,\sigma_d(L).\,$ In this context according to \[15\] operator $\,P\,$ proves to be the sum of Riesz projections onto root subspaces corresponding to the points of discrete spectrum $\,\sigma_d(L).\,$ Given an eigenvalue $\,\mu\,$ of operator $\,L\,$ with geometric multiplicity $\,n\,$ the associated Riesz projection is of the form $$P_{\mu}\,\,=\,\,\sum_{j=1}^n\,\big\{\,(\,\cdot\,,g_j^{(m_j-1)}\big)f_j^{(0)}\,+\,\ldots\,+
\,\,(\,\cdot\,,g_j^{(0)}\big)f_j^{(m_j-1)}\big\}\,.$$
Eigenvectors $\,f_j^{(0)},\,j=1,\ldots,n,\,$ span the eigensubspace $\,\ker(L-\mu I)\,$ of dimension $\,n,\,$ while $\,f_j^{(1)},\ldots, f_j^{(m_j-1)}\,$ is a Jordan chain of associated vectors adjoint to $\,f_j^{(0)},\,$ so that $\,m=m_1+\ldots+m_n\,$ is the algebraic multiplicity of $\,\mu.\,$ In due turn $\,g_j^{(0)},g_j^{(1)},\ldots, g_j^{(m_j-1)}\,$ is the chain of eigen and associated vectors of operator $\,L^*\,$ corresponding to its eigenvalue $\,\overline\mu\,$ subject to normalization condition $\,(f_j^{(p)},g_j^{(q)})\,=\,1\,$ where $\,p+q=m_j-1.\,$ Since $\,P_{\mu}\,$ reduces to the sum of rank 1 operators $\,\,\widehat{P}_{\mu}=\big(\,\cdot\,,g^{(q)}_j\big)f_j^{(p)}\,$ it suffices to consider operator function $\,AR_V({\lambda})\widehat{P}_{\mu}B^*\,$ which by virtue of the estimate $$\|AR_V({\lambda})\widehat{P}_{\mu}B^*\|\,\,\leqslant\,\,\sum_{r=0}^p\,|{\lambda}-\mu\,|^{r-p-1}\|Af_j^{(r)}\|\,\|Bg_j^{(q)}\|\,$$ proves to be uniformly bounded in $\,\mathbb C_{\pm}\,$ outside some neighborhood of $\,\sigma_d(L).\,$
[**Corollary.**]{} [*Boundary values $\,\,\,\widetilde{Q}(k\pm
i0)\,\,:=\,\,{\rm s}\,$-$\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\downarrow
0}\widetilde{Q}(k\pm i\varepsilon)\,\,\,$ exist for almost all $\,k\in\mathbb R.\,$* ]{}
[**Statement 2.**]{} [*Operator $\,Z\,$ is the left inverse to the direct wave operator $\,W.$* ]{}
[**Proof.**]{} For arbitrary $\,\varphi,\psi\in\cal H\,$ one has $$\begin{gathered}
\big(ZW\varphi,\psi\big)\,=\,\big(W\varphi,Z^*\psi\big)\,\,=\\
=\,\,\big(\varphi,Z^*\psi\big)\,\,-\,\,\frac1{2\pi
i}\,\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\,\int_{\mathbb
R}\big(AR_0(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR^*_V(s+i\varepsilon)Z^*\psi\big)\,ds\,,\end{gathered}$$ where $\,Z^*\psi\in{\cal H}^*_c,\,$ so that the integrand in virtue of (\[form2\]) takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
\big(ZR_V(s-i\varepsilon)VR_0(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\,\,
\big(\widetilde{P}R_V(s-i\varepsilon)VR_0(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,+\\
+\,\,\frac1{2\pi i}\int_{\mathbb
R}\big(AR_V(k+i0)\widetilde{P}R_V(s-i\varepsilon)VR_0(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_0(k-i0)^*\psi\big)\,dk\,.\end{gathered}$$ Thus we get $$\begin{gathered}
\big(ZW\varphi,\psi\big)\,=\,\big(Z\varphi,\psi\big)\,-\,
\frac1{2\pi i}\,\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\,\int_{\mathbb R}
\big(\widetilde{P}R_V(s-i\varepsilon)VR_0(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\psi\big)\,ds\,\,\,+\\
+\,\,\frac1{4\pi^2}\,\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\,\int_{\mathbb
R}ds\int_{\mathbb
R}\big(AR_V(k+i0)\widetilde{P}R_V(s-i\varepsilon)B^*AR_0(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_0(k-i0)^*\psi\big)\,dk\,\end{gathered}$$ and according to resolvent identity $$AR_V(k+i0)\widetilde{P}R_V(s-i\varepsilon)B^*\,\,=\,\,
(k-s+i\varepsilon)^{-1}\big(\widetilde{Q}(k+i0)\,-\,\widetilde{Q}(s-i\varepsilon)\big)\,$$ let us split the above iterated integral into two summands $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\mathbb R}ds\int_{\mathbb
R}\big(AR_V(k+i0)\widetilde{P}R_V(s-i\varepsilon)B^*AR_0(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_0(k-i0)^*\psi\big)\,dk\,\,=\\
=\,\,\int_{\mathbb R}dk\int_{\mathbb
R}(k-s+i\varepsilon)^{-1}\big(AR_0(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\widetilde{Q}(k+i0)^*BR_0(k-i0)^*\psi\big)\,ds\,\,\,-\\
-\,\,\int_{\mathbb R}ds\int_{\mathbb
R}(k-s+i\varepsilon)^{-1}\big(\widetilde{Q}(s-i\varepsilon)AR_0(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_0(k-i0)^*\psi\big)\,dk\,.\end{gathered}$$
Making use of Cauchy integral formula (cf. the proof of Statement 1) one can compute Hilbert-type transforms: $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\mathbb
R}(k-s+i\varepsilon)^{-1}\big(AR_0(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\widetilde{Q}(k+i0)^*BR_0(k-i0)^*\psi\big)\,ds\,\,=\\
=\,\,-\,2\pi
i\,\big(AR_0(k+2i\varepsilon)\varphi,\widetilde{Q}(k+i0)^*BR_0(k-i0)^*\psi\big)\,,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\mathbb
R}(k-s+i\varepsilon)^{-1}\big(\widetilde{Q}(s-i\varepsilon)AR_0(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_0(k-i0)^*\psi\big)\,dk\,\,=\\
=\,\,-\,2\pi
i\,\big(\widetilde{Q}(s-i\varepsilon)AR_0(s+i\varepsilon)\varphi,BR_0(s-i\varepsilon)^*\psi\big)\,;\end{gathered}$$ now passing in the expression for $\,\big(ZW\varphi,\psi\big)\,$ to the limit as $\,\varepsilon\downarrow 0\,$ leads to the following representation $$\begin{gathered}
\big(ZW\varphi,\psi\big)\,=\,\big(Z\varphi,\psi\big)\,-\,
\frac1{2\pi i}\,\int_{\mathbb R}
\big(AR_0(s+i0)\varphi,BR_V(s-i0)^*\widetilde{P}^*\psi\big)\,ds\,\,\,+\\
+\,\,\frac1{2\pi i}\,\int_{\mathbb R}
\big(\widetilde{Q}(k+i0)AR_0(k+i0)\varphi,BR_0(k-i0)^*\psi\big)\,dk\,\,\,-\\
-\,\,\frac1{2\pi i}\,\int_{\mathbb R}
\big(AR_0(s+i0)\varphi,\widetilde{Q}(s-i0)^*BR_0(s-i0)^*\psi\big)\,ds\,.\end{gathered}$$ Due to equalities $\,\,\widetilde{Q}({\lambda})AR_0({\lambda})=A\widetilde{P}R_0({\lambda})\,-\,AR_V({\lambda})\widetilde{P}\,$ and $\,\widetilde{Q}({\lambda})^*BR_0({\lambda})^*=\,B\widetilde{P}^*R_0({\lambda})^*-BR_V({\lambda})^*\widetilde{P}^*\,$ for arbitrary $\,\varphi,\psi\in{\cal H}\,$ and almost all $\,k\in\mathbb R\,$ in virtue of Lemmas 1 and 2 there exist boundary values $\,\,A\widetilde{P}R_0(k+i0)\varphi,\,B\widetilde{P}^*R_0(k-i0)^*\psi\in{\rm
L}_2(\mathbb R).\,$ This fact enables one to reduce bilinear form of operator $\,ZW\,$ to the following expression $$\begin{gathered}
\big(ZW\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\,\,\big((I-P)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,+\,\,
\frac1{2\pi i}\,\int_{\mathbb R}
\big(A\widetilde{P}R_0(k+i0)\varphi,BR_0(k-i0)^*\psi\big)\,dk\,\,-\\
-\,\,\,\frac1{2\pi i}\,\int_{\mathbb R}
\big(AR_0(k+i0)\varphi,B\widetilde{P}^*R_0(k-i0)^*\psi\big)\,dk\,\,=\,\,\big((I-P)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,+\\
+\,\,\frac1{2\pi i}\,\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\int_{\mathbb
R}\big[\big(R_0(k-i\varepsilon)PVR_0(k+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\psi\big)-
\big(R_0(k-i\varepsilon)VPR_0(k+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\psi\big)\big]\,dk\,,\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
R_0(k-i\varepsilon)PVR_0(k+i\varepsilon)\,-\,R_0(k-i\varepsilon)PVR_0(k+i\varepsilon)\,\,=\\
=\,\,PR_0(k+i\varepsilon)\,-\,R_0(k-i\varepsilon)P\,-\,2i\varepsilon
R_0(k-i\varepsilon)PR_0(k+i\varepsilon)\,.\end{gathered}$$
In order to complete the proof we only need to establish the relationship $$\begin{gathered}
\frac1{2\pi i}\,\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\int_{\mathbb
R}\big[\big(PR_0(k+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\psi\big)\,-\,\big(R_0(k-i\varepsilon)P\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,-\\
-\,\,2i\varepsilon
\big(R_0(k-i\varepsilon)PR_0(k+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\psi\big)\big]\,dk\,\,=\,\,\big(P\varphi,\psi\big)\,.
\label{form6}\end{gathered}$$ Since operator $\,P\,$ turns out to be the sum of Riesz projections $\,P_{\mu}\,$ corresponding to points of discrete spectrum $\,\mu\in\sigma_d(L)\,$ it suffices to verify relation (\[form6\]) separately for each elementary rank 1 summand $\,\widehat{P}_{\mu}=\big(\,\cdot\,,g\big)f,\,$ where $\,f=f_j^{(p)},\,g=g_j^{(q)},$ $\,p+q=m_j-1\,$ and $\,\big(f,g\big)=1.\,$ Note that $$\big(\widehat{P}_{\mu}R_0(k+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\psi\big)\,-\,\big(R_0(k-i\varepsilon)\widehat{P}_{\mu}\varphi,\psi\big)\,-
\,2i\varepsilon
\big(R_0(k-i\varepsilon)\widehat{P}_{\mu}R_0(k+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\\$$ $$\begin{gathered}
=\,\,\big(R_0(k+i\varepsilon)\varphi,g\big)\big(f,\psi\big)\,-\,\big(\varphi,g\big)\big(R_0(k-i\varepsilon)f,\psi\big)\,\,-\\
-\,\,2i\varepsilon\big(R_0(k+i\varepsilon)\varphi,g\big)\big(R_0(k-i\varepsilon)f,\psi\big)\,.\end{gathered}$$ Taking representations $\,\,\displaystyle{f\,=\,-\sum_{r=0}^p
R_0(\mu)^{p-r+1}Vf_j^{(r)},\,\,g\,=\,-\sum_{s=0}^qR^*_0(\overline{\mu})^{q-s+1}V^*g_j^{(s)}}\,\,$ into account according to resolvent identity we get $$\begin{aligned}
\big(R_0(k+i\varepsilon)\varphi,g\big)&=&-\,\,\frac{\big(\varphi,g\big)}{k-\mu+i\varepsilon}\,\,-\,\,
\frac{\xi(k+i\varepsilon)}{k-\mu+i\varepsilon}\,,\\
\big(R_0(k-i\varepsilon)f,\psi\big)&=&-\,\,\frac{\big(f,\psi\big)}{k-\mu-i\varepsilon}\,\,-\,\,
\frac{\eta(k-i\varepsilon)}{k-\mu-i\varepsilon}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\,\,\displaystyle{\xi(z)\,=\sum_{s=0}^q\big(R_0(\mu)^{q-s}\varphi,R_0(z)^*V^*g_j^{(s)}\big),\,\,
\eta(z)\,=\sum_{r=0}^p\big(R_0(z)Vf_j^{(r)},R_0^*(\overline{\mu})^{p-r}\psi\big)}\,\,$ belong to Hardy classes $\,{\rm H}_2^{\pm}\,$ so that $$\begin{gathered}
\big(\widehat{P}_{\mu}R_0(k+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\psi\big)\,-\,
\big(R_0(k-i\varepsilon)\widehat{P}_{\mu}\varphi,\psi\big)\,-\,2i\varepsilon
\big(R_0(k-i\varepsilon)\widehat{P}_{\mu}R_0(k+i\varepsilon)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\\
=\,\,\frac{\big(\varphi,g\big)}{k-\mu+i\varepsilon}\,\eta(k-i\varepsilon)\,\,-\,\,\frac{\big(f,\psi\big)}{k-\mu-i\varepsilon}\,
\xi(k+i\varepsilon)\,\,
-\,\,\frac{2i\varepsilon}{(k-\mu)^2+\varepsilon^2}\,\xi(k+i\varepsilon)\,\eta(k-i\varepsilon)\,.\end{gathered}$$ In the case when $\,{\rm Im}\,\mu>0\,$ by Cauchy integral formula one has $$\frac1{2\pi i}\,\int_{\mathbb
R}\frac1{k-\mu-i\varepsilon}\,\xi(k+i\varepsilon)\,dk\,\,=\,\,
\xi(\mu+2i\varepsilon)\,\,\to\,\,-\,\big(\varphi,g\big)\,,\enspace
\varepsilon\downarrow 0\,,$$ while for sufficiently small $\,\varepsilon>0\,$ $$\int_{\mathbb
R}\frac1{k-\mu+i\varepsilon}\,\eta(k-i\varepsilon)\,dk\,\,=\,\,0\,.$$ Besides the following estimate is valid $$\begin{gathered}
\left|\int_{\mathbb
R}\frac1{(k-\mu)^2+\varepsilon^2}\,\xi(k+i\varepsilon)\,\eta(k-i\varepsilon)\,dk\,\right|\,\,\,\leqslant\\
\leqslant\,\,\,\frac1{(\,{\rm
Im}\,\mu)^2-\varepsilon^2}\,\bigg(\int_{\mathbb
R}|\,\xi(k+i\varepsilon)|^2dk\bigg)^{1/2}\bigg(\int_{\mathbb
R}|\,\eta(k-i\varepsilon)|^2dk\bigg)^{1/2},\end{gathered}$$ where the right-hand side is bounded uniformly provided $\,\varepsilon>0\,$ is small enough. Thus given eigenvalue $\,\mu\in\mathbb C_+\,$ the limiting relationship (\[form6\]) is established for $\,\widehat{P}_{\mu}\,$ and similarly it can be derived if $\,\mu\in\sigma_d(L)\cap\mathbb C_-.\,$ As regards the case of real $\,\mu\in\sigma_d(L)\,$ one should take into account analyticity of resolvent $\,R_0({\lambda})\,$ at such points to carry out passage to the limit as $\,\varepsilon\downarrow 0\,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac1{2\pi i}\,\int_{\mathbb
R}\frac1{k-\mu-i\varepsilon}\,\xi(k+i\varepsilon)\,dk\,\,&=&\,\,
\xi(\mu+2i\varepsilon)\,\,\to\,\,-\,\big(\varphi,g\big)\,,\\
\frac1{2\pi i}\,\int_{\mathbb
R}\frac1{k-\mu+i\varepsilon}\,\eta(k-i\varepsilon)\,dk\,\,&=&\,\,
-\,\eta(\mu-2i\varepsilon)\,\,\to\,\,\big(f,\psi\big)\,.\end{aligned}$$ By the same argument we get $$\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow
0}\,\frac{\varepsilon}{\pi}\int_{\mathbb
R}\frac1{(k-\mu)^2+\varepsilon^2}\,\xi(k+i\varepsilon)\,\eta(k-i\varepsilon)\,dk\,\,=\,\,
\big(\varphi,g\big)\,\big(f,\psi\big)\,,$$ and so the above calculations imply relationship (\[form6\]) for rank 1 operator $\widehat{P}_{\mu}$ in question.
**§5. Non-stationary wave operators**
Let us first verify that wave operators constructed in Theorem 1 and possessing completeness property implement similarity of operator $\,T\,$ and the restriction of operator $\,L\,$ to the subspace $\,{\cal H}_c.$
[**Statement 3.**]{} [*Wave operator $\,W\,$ intertwines the resolvents of perturbed and unperturbed operators $\,L\,$ and $\,T$[:]{} $\,\, R_V({\lambda})\,W\,=\,WR_0({\lambda}).$* ]{}
[**Proof.**]{} To be specific we shall consider the case $\,{\rm
Im}\,{\lambda}>0.\,$ Given $\,\psi\in{\cal H}^*_d\,$ for arbitrary $\,\varphi\in\cal H\,$ one has $\,\big(WR_0({\lambda})\varphi,\psi\big)=0\,\,$ and $\,\big(R_V({\lambda})W\varphi,\psi\big)$ $=\big(W\varphi,R_V({\lambda})^*\psi\big)$ $=0\,$ since $\,R_V({\lambda})^*\psi\in{\cal H}^*_d.\,$
If $\,\psi\in{\cal H}^*_c\,$ then $\,BR_V^*({\lambda})\psi\in{\rm
H}_2^{\pm}\,$ by virtue of Lemma 1. According to (\[form1\]) the following representation $$\big((W-I)R_0({\lambda})\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\,\,-\,\frac1{2\pi
i}\int_{\mathbb
R}\big(AR_0(k+i0)R_0({\lambda})\varphi,BR_V^*(k+i0)\psi\big)\,dk\,$$ is valid and due to resolvent identity $$AR_0(k+i0)R_0({\lambda})\varphi\,\,=\,\,(k-{\lambda})^{-1}\big(AR_0(k+i0)\varphi-AR_0({\lambda})\varphi\big)$$ we hence get $$\big((W-I)R_0({\lambda})\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\,\,-\,\frac1{2\pi
i}\int_{\mathbb
R}(k-{\lambda})^{-1}\big(AR_0(k+i0)\varphi,BR_V^*(k+i0)\psi\big)\,dk\,$$ because $$\int_{\mathbb
R}(k-{\lambda})^{-1}\big(AR_0({\lambda})\varphi,BR_V^*(k+i0)\psi\big)\,dk\,\,=\,\,0\,.$$
Similarly noting that $\,R_V^*({\lambda})\psi\in{\cal H}_c^*\,$ one can carry out the following transformation $$\begin{gathered}
\big(R_V({\lambda})(W-I)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\,\,\big((W-I)\varphi,R_V({\lambda})^*\psi\big)\,\,=\\
=\,\,\frac1{2\pi i}\int_{\mathbb
R}(k-{\lambda})^{-1}\big(AR_0(k+i0)\varphi,BR_V({\lambda})^*\psi\big)\,dk\,\,\,-\\
-\,\,\frac1{2\pi i}\int_{\mathbb
R}(k-{\lambda})^{-1}\big(AR_0(k+i0)\varphi,BR_V^*(k+i0)\psi\big)\,dk\,,\end{gathered}$$ where the first summand on the right-hand side by virtue of Cauchy integral formula reduces to the expression $$\big(AR_0({\lambda})\varphi,BR_V({\lambda})^*\psi\big)\,=\,\big(R_V({\lambda})VR_0({\lambda})\varphi,\psi\big)\,=\,
\big(R_0({\lambda})\varphi,\psi\big)-\big(R_V({\lambda})\varphi,\psi\big)\,.$$ Finally we get the equality $$\big(R_V({\lambda})(W-I)\varphi,\psi\big)\,=\,\big(R_0({\lambda})\varphi,\psi\big)-\big(R_V({\lambda})\varphi,\psi\big)+
\big((W-I)R_0({\lambda})\varphi,\psi\big)\,$$ and thus for arbitrary vectors $\,\varphi,\psi\in\cal H\,$ the required relationship $\,\big(R_V({\lambda})W\varphi,\psi\big)=\big(WR_0({\lambda})\varphi,\psi\big)\,$ holds.
[**Corollary.**]{} [*Under hypotheses of Theorem [1]{} one has $\,\,L_c=\,WTZ.$*]{}
In the case of selfadjoint unperturbed operator $\,T\,$ along with unitary group $\,\,U_0(t):=\exp\big(itT\big)\,$ we put into context a one-parameter operator family
$\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\exp\big(itL\big)\,\,=\,\,s$-$\!\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\big(I-itL/n\big)^{-n}.$
[**Lemma 3.**]{} [*For arbitrary $\,t\in\mathbb R\,$ exponents $\,\,\exp\big(itT\big)\,$ and $\,\,\exp\big(itL\big)\,$ satisfy the equation $$U_V(t)\,:=\,\exp\big(itL\big)\widetilde{P}\,\,=\,\,W\,U_0(t)\,Z.$$* ]{}
Indeed, the intertwining relation for the resolvents $\,R_V({\lambda})\,$ and $\,R_0({\lambda})\,$ (Statement 3) implies the equality $$\big(I-itL/n\big)^{-n}W\,\,=\,\,W\,\big(I-itT/n\big)^{-n},$$ which by the use of completeness property for wave operators (Statement 1) can be rewritten in the form $$\big(I-itL/n\big)^{-n}(I-P)\,\,=\,\,W\,\big(I-itT/n\big)^{-n}Z.$$ It thus follows that for arbitrary $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}\,$ the limit $$\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\big(I-itL/n\big)^{-n}\widetilde{P}\,\varphi\,\,=\,\,WU_0(t)Z\,\varphi$$ exists, i.e. $\,U_V(t)=WU_0(t)Z.\,$ Remark that exponent $\,\exp\big(itL\big)\,$ is well-defined on the whole space $\,\cal
H:\,$ namely if $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}_c\,$ then $\,\,\exp\big(itL\big)\varphi\,=\,WU_0(t)Z\varphi,\,$ while one calculates the value $\,\exp\big(itL\big)\varphi\,$ for $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}_d\,$ taking notice of the action formulas $$\exp\big(itL\big)\,f_j^{(r)}\,\,=\,\,\,e^{it\mu}\,\sum_{s=0}^r\,\frac{(it)^{r-s}}{(r-s)!}\,\,f_j^{(s)}$$ in the Jordan basis $\,\{f_j^{(0)},f_j^{(1)},\ldots,f_j^{(m_j-1)}\}_{j=1}^n\,$ of the root subspace corresponding to eigenvalue $\,\mu\,$ of operator $\,L.\,$
[**Corollary.**]{} [*One-parameter operator family $\,U_V(t)\,$ possesses semigroup property $\,\,U_V(t+s)\,=\,U_V(t)\,U_V(s)\,\,$ and is related to operator function $\,R_V({\lambda})\widetilde{P}\,$ by means of Laplace transform.* ]{}
[**Statement 4.**]{}
*If additionally to the hypotheses of Theorem [1]{} unperturbed operator $\,T\,$ is assumed to be selfadjoint then direct and inverse wave operators $\,W\,$ and $\,Z\,$ admit representations*
$\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
W\,=\,s$-$\!\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}U_V(t)\,U_0(-t)\,, \quad
Z\,=\,s$-$\!\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}U_0(t)\,U_V(-t)\,.$
[**Proof**]{} follows the scheme of the approach suggested in \[1\]. Making use of Lemmas 1 and 3 and taking into account smoothness of operator $\,A\,$ relative to $\,T\,$ we come to a conclusion that for $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}\,$ and $\,\psi\in{\cal
H}^*_c\,$ images of vector functions $\,\,AR_0(k+i0)\varphi\,\,$ and $\,\,BR^*_V(k+i0)\psi\,\,$ under the action of Fourier-Plancherel transform are given by the expressions $\,\,i\,\sqrt{2\pi}\,\theta(t)AU_0(-t)\varphi\,\,$ and $\,\,i\,\sqrt{2\pi}\,\theta(t)BU^*_V(-t)\psi,\,\,$ where $\,\theta(t)\,$ is Heaviside step function and $\,\,U_V^*(-t)\,=\,\exp\big(-itL^*\big)\widetilde{P}^*=\,U_V(t)^*.\,\,$ Therefore by virtue of Parseval identity one has $$\int_{\mathbb
R}\big(AR_0(k+i0)\varphi,BR_V^*(k+i0)\psi\big)\,dk\,\,=\,\,
2\pi\int_0^{\infty}\!\!\big(AU_0(-t)\varphi,BU^*_V(-t)\psi\big)\,dt\,.$$ Due to this fact and with regard for intertwining relationship $\,\,U_V(s)W=WU_0(s)\,\,$ and semigroup property $\,\,U_V(t+s)=U_V(t)U_V(s)\,\,$ (corollary subsequent to Lemma 3) bilinear form of wave operator $\,W\,$ is reduced to the expression $$\begin{gathered}
\big(W\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=\,\,\big(WU_0(-s)\varphi,U_V^*(-s)\psi\big)\,\,\,=\\
=\,\,\,\big(U_V(s)U_0(-s)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,+\,\,\,i\int_s^{\infty}\!\!\big(AU_0(-t)\varphi,BU^*_V(-t)\psi\big)\,dt\,\end{gathered}$$ which implies the estimate $$\big|\big(W\varphi-U_V(s)U_0(-s)\varphi,\psi\big)\big|\,\leqslant\,
\bigg(\!\int_s^{\infty}\!\!\|AU_0(-t)\varphi\|^2\,dt\bigg)^{1/2}\!\!
\bigg(\!\int_0^{\infty}\!\!\|BU^*_V(-t)\psi\|^2\,dt\bigg)^{1/2}\!,$$ where $$\int_0^{\infty}\!\!\|BU^*_V(-t)\psi\|^2\,dt\,\,\,=\,\,\,\frac1{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb
R}\|BR^*_V(k+i0)\psi\|^2\,dk\,.$$ Given $\,\psi\in{\cal H}^*_c\,$ by virtue of Lemma 1 and the subsequent corollary a constant $\,C>0\,$ exists such that the inequality $$\big|\,\big(W\varphi-U_V(s)U_0(-s)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\big|\,\,\leqslant\,\,C\,
\bigg(\int_s^{\infty}\!\!\|AU_0(-t)\varphi\|^2\,dt\bigg)^{1/2}\!\!\|\psi\|$$ is valid for arbitrary $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}.\,$ If however $\,\psi\in{\cal H}^*_d\,$ then $\,\big(W\varphi,\psi\big)=0\,$ by the definition of $\,W\,$ and moreover $\,\big(U_V(s)U_0(-s)\varphi,\psi\big)=0\,$ because $\,U_V(s)U_0(-s)\varphi\in{\cal H}_c\perp{\cal H}^*_d.\,$ Thus one has $$\big\|\,W\varphi-U_V(s)U_0(-s)\varphi\,\big\|\,\,\leqslant\,\,C\,
\bigg(\int_s^{\infty}\!\!\|AU_0(-t)\varphi\|^2\,dt\bigg)^{1/2},$$ where $\,AU_0(-t)\varphi\in{\rm L}_2(\mathbb R_+)\,$ for arbitrary $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}\,$ and therefore wave operator $\,W\,$ coincides with the strong limit of $\,U_V(s)\,U_0(-s)\,$ as $\,s\to\infty.\,$
Similarly with Lemmas 1 and 3 taken into account and in view of smoothness of operator $\,B\,$ relative to $\,T^*\,$ the equality $$\int_{\mathbb
R}\big(AR_V(k+i0)\varphi,BR_0(k+i0)\psi\big)\,dk\,\,=\,\,
2\pi\int_0^{\infty}\!\!\big(AU_V(-t)\varphi,BU_0(-t)\psi\big)\,dt\,$$ can be established for arbitrary $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}_c\,$ and $\,\psi\in{\cal H}.\,$ Further by the usage of intertwining relationship $\,\,ZU_V(s)=U_0(s)Z\,\,$ and semigroup property $\,\,U_V(t+s)=U_V(t)U_V(s)\,\,$ one gets $$\big(Z\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,-\,\,\big(U_0(s)U_V(-s)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\,=
\,\,-\,i\int_s^{\infty}\!\!\big(AU_V(-t)\varphi,BU_0(-t)\psi\big)\,dt\,$$ and hence the inequality $$\big|\,\big(Z\varphi-U_0(s)U_V(-s)\varphi,\psi\big)\,\big|\,\,\leqslant\,\,C\,
\bigg(\int_s^{\infty}\!\!\|AU_V(-t)\varphi\|^2\,dt\bigg)^{1/2}\!\!\|\psi\|$$ is valid with a certain constant $\,C>0\,$ which does not depend on $\,\varphi\,$ and $\,\psi.\,$ Given $\,\varphi\in{\cal H}_c\,$ this implies the estimate $$\big\|\,Z\varphi-U_0(s)U_V(-s)\varphi\,\big\|\,\,\leqslant\,\,C\,
\bigg(\int_s^{\infty}\!\!\|AU_V(-t)\varphi\|^2\,dt\bigg)^{1/2},$$ which extends to the whole $\,\cal H\,$ because $\,{\cal
H}_d\subset\ker Z\,$ and $\,U_V(t)=WU_0(t)Z.\,$ Finally, since $\,AU_V(-t)\varphi\in{\rm L}_2(\mathbb R_+)\,$ for arbitrary $\,\varphi\in{\cal H},\,$ we arrive at the conclusion that $\,U_0(s)U_V(-s)\,$ converges strongly to $\,Z\,$ as $\,s\to\infty.$
**§6. One-dimensional Schroedinger operator**
Proof of Theorem 3 reduces to verification of hypotheses imposed in Theorem 1 in conformity with the Schroedinger operator $\,\,L\,=\,T+V\,=\,-\,d^2/dx^2+V(x)\,$ acting in $\,{\cal H}={\rm
L}_2(\mathbb R_+)\,$ and determined in Section 2 by Dirichlet boundary condition at zero. Henceforth bounded complex-valued potential $\,V(x)\,$ is assumed to satisfy condition (\[form4\]).
[**Statement 5**]{}(see\[6\]). [*Resolvent $\,R_V({\lambda})=(L-\lambda I)^{-1}$ of Schroedinger operator $\,L\,$ is meromorphic in $\,\mathbb C\setminus\mathbb R_+\,$ and its poles coincide with eigenvalues of $\,L\,$ counting their multiplicities. Discrete spectrum $\,\sigma_d(L)\,$ is finite provided that operator $\,L\,$ has no spectral singularities, while $\,\sigma_c(L)=\mathbb R_+.\,$* ]{}
Note that for $\,{\lambda}=k^2,\,\,{\rm Im}\,k>0,\,$ the resolvent $\,R_V({\lambda})\,$ of operator $\,L\,$ proves to be an integral operator with the kernel $$R_V(x,\xi,{\lambda})\,\,=\,\,\frac1{e(k)}\,\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}s(x,k)\,e(\xi,k),&&x\leqslant\xi\\
e(x,k)\,s(\xi,k),&&\xi\leqslant x\\
\end{array}\right.$$ where $\,s(x,k)\,$ is the solution of equation (\[form3\]) satisfying initial conditions $\,s(0,k)=0,$ $\,s_x'(0,k)=1,\,$ while Jost solution $\,e(x,k)\,$ to equation (\[form3\]) is determined by asymptotics $\,e(x,k)\sim e^{ikx}\,$ at infinity.
[**Lemma 4**]{} (cf. \[16\]). [*For $\,\,k\in\mathbb C_+\,$ and $\,\,x\in\mathbb R_+\,$ the following inequalities are valid $$\big|s(x,k)\,e^{ikx}\big|{\enspace}\leqslant{\enspace}\min\left\{x,\frac1{|k|}\right\}\,\exp\left(\int_0^x\!\xi\,|V(\xi)|\,d\xi\right)\,,
\label{form6}$$ $$\big|e(x,k)\,e^{-ikx}-1\big|{\enspace}\leqslant{\enspace}\exp\left(\int_x^{\infty}\!\!\min\left\{\xi,\frac1{|k|}\right\}\,|V(\xi)|\,d\xi\right)\,
-\,1\,. \label{form7}$$* ]{}
In order to evaluate $\,s(x,k)\,$ note that it proves to be a solution to integral equation $$s(x,k)\,\,\,=\,\,\,\frac{\sin kx}{k}\,\,\,+\,\,\int_0^x\frac{\sin
k(x-\xi)}{k}\,V(\xi)\,s(\xi,k)\,d\xi\,,$$ whose integral kernel admits the estimate $$\left|\,\frac{\sin k(x-\xi)}{k}\,\right|{\enspace}\leqslant
{\enspace}\min\left\{x,\frac1{|k|}\right\}\,\exp\big({\rm
Im}\,k\,(x-\xi)\big)\,$$ and consequently one has $$\big|s(x,k)\,e^{ikx}\big|\,\,\,\leqslant\,\,\,\min\left\{x,\frac1{|k|}\right\}
\left(1\,+\,\int_0^x|\,V(\xi)|\,|\,s(\xi,k)\,e^{i\xi
k}|\,d\xi\right).$$ Estimate (\[form6\]) now follows immediately by virtue of Gronwall-Bellman inequality. As regards estimation of Jost solution $\,e(x,k)\,$ one should take into account integral equation $$e(x,k)\,\,\,=\,\,\,e^{ikx}\,\,\,-\,\,\int_x^{\infty}\frac{\sin
k(x-\xi)}{k}\,V(\xi)\,e(\xi,k)\,d\xi\,$$ of Lippmann-Schwinger type which can be solved by iterations method: $$e(x,k)\,e^{-ikx}\,=\,\,\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\,\varepsilon^{(n)}(x,k)\,,\quad
\varepsilon^{(0)}(x,k)=1\,,$$ $$\varepsilon^{(n)}(x,k)\,=\,\int_x^{\infty}\frac{e^{2ik(\xi-x)}-1}{2ik}\,V(\xi)\,
\varepsilon^{(n-1)}(\xi,k)\,d\xi\,.$$ With regard for the inequality $$\,\,\displaystyle{\left|\,\frac{e^{2ik(\xi-x)}-1}{2ik}\,\right|\,\leqslant\,\min\left\{\xi,\frac1{|k|}\right\}},$$ valid for $\,\xi\geqslant x,\,$ induction argument applies to evaluate successive approximations $$|\,\varepsilon^{(n)}(x,k)|\,\,\,\leqslant\,\,\,\frac1{n!}\left(\int_x^{\infty}\min\left\{\xi,\frac1{|k|}\right\}
|V(\xi)|\,d\xi\right)^n\!$$ and thus ensures estimate (\[form7\]).
Denote by $\,A\,$ and $\,B\,$ operators of multiplication by functions $\,a(x)\,$ and $\,b(x)\,$ to be chosen such that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle a
\rangle&:=&\left(\int_0^{\infty}x|\,a(x)|^2\,dx\right)^{1/2}<\,\infty\,,\\
\langle b
\rangle&:=&\left(\int_0^{\infty}x|\,b(x)|^2\,dx\right)^{1/2}<\,\infty\,.\end{aligned}$$
[**Statement 6.**]{} [*Provided condition [(\[form4\])]{} is satisfied operator function $\,e(k)AR_V(k^2)B^*\,$ extends analytically to $\,\mathbb C_+\,$ and, moreover, for all $\,k\in\mathbb C_+\,$ the inequality holds $$\big\|\,e(k)AR_V(k^2)B^*\,\big\|\,\,\,\leqslant\,\,\, K\,\langle a
\rangle\,\langle b \rangle\,,\quad K=\,\exp\,\langle
\sqrt{|\,V|}\,\rangle^2.$$* ]{}
[**Proof.**]{} By virtue of (\[form6\]) and (\[form7\]) integral kernel of the resolvent $\,R_V({\lambda}),\,$ ${\lambda}=k^2,\,$ admits the estimate $$\big|\,R_V(x,\xi,{\lambda})\,\big|\,\,\,\leqslant\,\,\,\frac{K}{|\,e(k)|}\,\min\{x,\xi\}\,,\quad
K\,=\,\exp\left(\int_0^{\infty}\!x\,|V(x)|\,dx\right).$$ As a consequence for arbitrary $\,f\in{\rm L}_2(\mathbb R_+)\,$ one has $$\begin{gathered}
\|\,e(k)AR_V(k^2)B^*f\,\|^2\,\,\leqslant\,\,
K^2\int_0^{\infty}\!|\,a(x)|^2\,\bigg(\int_0^{\infty}\!\!\min\{x,\xi\}\,|\,b(\xi)|\,|f(\xi)|\,d\xi\,\bigg)^2dx\,\,\leqslant\\
\leqslant\,\,K^2\int_0^{\infty}\!\!\!|\,a(x)|^2\bigg(\int_0^{\infty}\!\!\!\big(\min\{x,\xi\}\big)^2|\,b(\xi)|^2\,d\xi\bigg)
\bigg(\int_0^{\infty}\!\!|f(\xi)|^2\,d\xi\bigg)\,dx\,\,\leqslant\\
\leqslant\,\,K^2\,\langle a \rangle^2\,\langle b \rangle^2\,
\|f\|^2\,.\end{gathered}$$ Thus operator function $\,e(k)AR_V(k^2)B^*\,$ is analytic and according to the above estimate bounded in the vicinity of each pole of the resolvent $\,R_V(k^2)\,$ and therefore it has a removable singularity therein.
[**Corollary**]{} (cf. \[1\]). [*For arbitrary $\,k\in\mathbb
C_+\,$ the inequality $\,\,\displaystyle{
\big\|AR_0(\lambda)A^*\big\|\,\leqslant\,\langle a \rangle^2}$ is valid which implies smoothness of operator $\,A\,$ relative to $\,T=T^*.$* ]{}
Statements 5 and 6 guarantee that Theorem 1 applies to Schroedinger operator $$\,\,L\,=\,T+V\,=\,-\,d^2/dx^2+V(x)\,\,$$ with bounded potential $\,V(x)\,$ possessing finite first momentum (\[form4\]). In fact, the unperturbed operator $\,T\,=\,-\,d^2/dx^2\,$ has purely continuous spectrum $\,\sigma(T)=\mathbb R_+\,$ and according to Statement 5 conditions $\,(i)\,$ and $\,(ii)\,$ are satisfied provided that operator $\,L\,$ has no spectral singularities.
Further, polar decomposition $\,V=J\,|V|,\,$ where $\,|V|=\sqrt{V^*V},\,$ while $\,J={\rm sgn}\,V\,$ is a partial isometry, produces an appropriate for our purposes factorization $\,V=B^*A,\,$ so that $\,A=\sqrt{|V|}\,$ and $\,B=\sqrt{|V|}\,J^*\,$ are operators of multiplication by functions $$a(x)\,=\,\sqrt{|V(x)|}\,,\quad b(x)\,=\,\big(\,{\rm
sign}\,\overline{V(x)}\big)\,a(x)$$ respectively, where $\,{\rm sign}\,z=z/|z|\,$ and $\,{\rm
sign}\,0=0.\,$ Under the condition (\[form4\]) by virtue of Statement 6 and the subsequent corollary operators $\,A\,$ and $\,B\,$ are smooth relative to $\,T\,$ and, moreover, operator function $\,Q_0({\lambda})=AR_0({\lambda})B^*\,$ is analytic and bounded in $\,\mathbb C_\pm.\,$ If potential $\,V(x)\,$ decreases at infinity at an appropriate rate $\,Q_0(\lambda)\,$ takes the values in the trace class and Jost function $\,e(k)\,$ coincides (see. \[17\]) with Fredholm determinant $$e(k)\,\,=\,\,\det\big(I\,+\,AR_0(k^2)B^*\big).$$
Finally, due to the fact that Jost function $\,e(k)\,$ is analytic in $\,\mathbb C_+,\,$ continuous up to the real axis and in virtue of estimate (\[form7\]) separated from zero at infinity, Statement 6 implies condition $\,(iii)\,$ since and when operator $\,L\,$ has no spectral singularities. Thus Schroedinger operator $\,L=T+V\,$ under consideration satisfies all the hypotheses of Theorem 1 and therefore its conclusion applies completing the proof of Theorem 3.
[**Corollary.**]{} [*Under the assumptions of Theorem [3]{} condition $\,\sigma_d(L)=\varnothing\,$ gives a criterion of similarity of operators $\,L\,$ and $\,T.\,$* ]{}
In conclusion we remark that Kato sufficient condition which ensures similarity of operators $\,L\,$ and $\,T\,$ (see Section 1) is optimal in the sense that among the potentials $\,V(x)\,$ for which first momentum exceeds the critical value $1$ there exist (see \[10\]) such that $\,\sigma_d(L)\ne\varnothing.\,$ The estimates for the total number of eigenvalues and spectral singularities of Schroedinger operator with complex potential were obtained by the author in \[13\] and \[18\].
**References**
1. Kato T. Wave operators and similarity for some non-selfadjoint operators, Math. Annalen, 1966, v.162, p.258-279.
2. Schwartz J. Some non-selfadjoint operators, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 1960, v.13, p.609-639.
3. Jafaev D.R. Mathematical scattering theory, Transl. Math. Monogr., v.105, Amer. Math. Soc., 1992.
4. Mochizuki K. On the large perturbation by a class of non-selfadjoint operators, J. Math. Soc. Japan, 1967, v.19, p.123-158.
5. Kako T., Yajima K. Spectral and scattering theory for a class of non-selfadjoint operators, Sci. Papers of Coll. of Gen. Educ. Univ. Tokyo, 1976, v.26, n.2, p.73-89.
6. Naimark M. A. Investigation of the spectrum and the expansion in eigenfunctions of a non-selfadjoint differential operator of the second order on a semi-axis, Proc. Mos. Math. Soc., 1954, v.3, p.181-270.
7. Levin B. Ya. Transformations of Fourier and Laplace types by means of solutions of differential equations of second order, Doklady Math., 1956, v.106, n.2, p.187-190.
8. Glazman I. M. Direct methods of qualitative spectral analysis of singular differential operators, Israel Prog. Scientific Transl., 1965.
9. Hoffman K. Banach spaces of analytic functions, Prentice-Hall, 1962.
10. Kato T. Perturbation theory for linear operators, Springer-Verlag, 1966.
11. Marchenko V. A. Expansion in eigenfunctions of non-selfadjoint singular second-order differential operators, Sbornik Math., 1960, v.52, n.2, p.739-788.
12. Stepin S. A. Dissipative Schroedinger operator without a singular continuous spectrum, Sbornik Math., 2004, v.195, n.6, p.897-915.
13. Stepin S. A. On spectral components of the Schroedinger operator with a complex potential, Russian Math. Surveys, 2013, v.68, n.1, p.186-188.
14. Stankevich I. V. On linear similarity of certain non-selfadjoint operators to selfadjoint operators and on the asymptotic behavior for $t\to\infty$ of the solution of a non-stationary Schroedinger equation, Sbornik Math., 1966, v.69, n.2, p.161-207.
15. Keldysh M. V. On the completeness of the eigenfunctions of some classes of non-selfadjoint linear operators, Russian Math. Surveys, 1971, v.26, n.4, p.15-44.
16. Faddeev L. D. The inverse problem in the quantum theory of scattering, Russian Math. Surveys, 1959, v.14, n.4, p.57-119.
17. Simon B. Resonances in one dimension and Fredholm determinants, J. Funct. Anal., 2000, v.178, n.2, p.396-420.
18. Stepin S. A. Estimate for the number of eigenvalues of the non-selfadjoint Schroedinger operator, Doklady Math., 2014, v.89, n.2, p.202-205.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The study of nonlinear phenomena in systems with many degrees of freedom often relies on complex numerical simulations. In trying to model realistic situations, these systems may be coupled to an external environment which drives their dynamics. For nonlinear field theories coupled to thermal (or quantum) baths, discrete lattice formulations must be dealt with extreme care if the results of the simulations are to be interpreted in the continuum limit. Using techniques from renormalization theory, a self-consistent method is presented to match lattice results to continuum models. As an application, symmetry restoration in $\phi^4$ models is investigated.'
address: ' Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 '
author:
- 'Julian Borrill and Marcelo Gleiser[^1][^2]'
title: 'Matching numerical simulations to continuum field theories: A lattice renormalization study'
---
The study of nonlinear phenomena has changed dramatically during the last two decades or so, as an increasing number of once forbidding problems have become amenable to treatment by faster and cheaper computers. From coupled anharmonic oscillators to gravitational clustering, from plasma physics to the dynamics of phase transitions, numerical simulations are often the only tool to probe the physics of complex nonlinear systems [@Nonlin].
Typically, we are interested in investigating the behavior of a particular physical system described by ordinary or partial nonlinear differential equations. In the present work, focus will be mostly on the latter case, which can be thought of as representing systems with finitely or infinitely many coupled degrees of freedom. Apart from very few exceptions, such as kink solutions for sine-Gordon or $\phi^4$ models [@Solitons], nonlinear partial differential equations have no analytical solutions. The situation is even worse if we attempt to model realistic behavior by coupling the system to an external environment. This external environment often represents a thermal or quantum bath, adding an element of stochasticity to the deterministic evolution equations. In order to gain some insight into the role of nonlinearities, perturbation theory is frequently used. However, examples ranging from the simple pendulum equation [@Pendulum] to critical phenomena during phase transitions [@Crit-phen] remind us that perturbation theory breaks down precisely in the region of parameter space where nonlinear effects become predominant.
The alternative is to address the problem numerically, solving the equations of interest using a computer. In the case of partial differential equations, the problem is set up on a lattice which represents a particular choice of discretization procedure. For a function of $d$-dimensional position and time, $f({\bf x},t)$, satisfying some partial differential equation with given initial and boundary conditions, we typically construct a $d$-dimensional lattice of a given geometry, say cubic or triangular, to represent space at a particular instant, and replicate it at (usually regular) intervals to represent time. The continuous function may then be discretized following well-prescribed rules by which continuous derivatives are approximated by finite ratios of the lattice variables [@Num-Rec].
The use of a spatial lattice introduces two artificial length scales; the ‘macroscopic’ size of the lattice in each dimension, $L$, and the ‘microscopic’ distance between neighbouring lattice points, $\delta x$. These length scales provide bounds on the wavelengths of modes which can be represented on the lattice, whilst the total the number of lattice points $N$ (for cubic lattices being $N = (L/\delta x)^d$) is the restricted number of degrees of freedom being integrated at each time step. Computational physicists (and computers) spend a considerable amount of time trying to get around the limitations that these length scales introduce to numerical studies of continuum systems. Occasionally, one or other of these limitations may become insignificant due to the particular physical behavior of the system; for example, close to the critical point of a second order phase transition the divergence of the characteristic length scale of the system means that its bulk properties (and in particular its critical exponents) are determined by the long wavelength modes alone, doing away with the need for the high spatial resolution given by a small lattice spacing $\delta x$ [@Crit-phen]. In general, however, since the continuum corresponds to the limit $L \rightarrow \infty, \delta x
\rightarrow 0, N \rightarrow \infty$, a better approximation is obtained from a larger and finer lattice, leading to the notion of the continuum limit of a discrete system. For continuum systems described by continuous functions, such as fluids, fields, or deformable bodies, our discrete representation should have a well-defined continuum limit, [*i.e.*]{}, one that is stable as $\delta x\rightarrow 0$ (at fixed $L$). Moreover, we should also demand that it is a [*good*]{} continuum limit, in that it matches the original continuum system. As discussed below, for systems coupled to external environments, even if the continuum limit can be achieved on the lattice it is not always clear how to match the lattice results to a continuum theory. These two questions — how to achieve a continuum limit in lattice simulations, and how to ensure that it is a good limit, in the sense of matching the appropriate continuum theory — are the focus of this work.
For linear systems, achieving a continuum limit does not usually present any difficulties. Typically there is a minimal length-scale in the problem which can be used as a guideline for the choice of $\delta x$. For example, when solving the wave equation, it is possible to find a small enough $\delta x$ and show that the same results are obtained if smaller values are used, provided one makes sure the discretization of time is appropriately chosen so that the evolution is stable.
For nonlinear systems, the situation is more complicated. If we think for a moment in terms of a Fourier decomposition of the function $f({\bf x},t)$, the effect of nonlinearities is to couple different wavelength modes in a nontrivial way; the dynamics of short wavelength modes will influence the dynamics of long wavelength modes and [*vice-versa*]{}. Mechanisms to handle this problem are sensitive both to the particular system under study and to which of its properties are of interest, often seeming to be more an art than a science. For example, if we are solely interested in the dynamics of long wavelength modes with slow relaxation time-scales, it may be possible to add extra artificial terms to the evolution equations which damp the behavior of faster modes. For situations in which nonlinear fields are coupled to an external environment with stochastic properties, say a thermal (or quantum) bath, a detailed investigation of how to approach the continuum limit on the lattice is lacking. This does not imply that this problem has been completely overlooked, but that it may have received less attention than it deserves.
In the context of classical field theories at finite temperature there has been some work on obtaining such a continuum limit. For example, Parisi [@Parisi] suggested the addition of renormalization counterterms, a proposal then implemented by Alford and Gleiser [@AG] in the context of 2-dimensional nucleation studies (albeit with a somewhat [*ad hoc*]{} match to a continuum theory), and by Kajantie [*et al.*]{} [@Shaposhnikov] in lattice gauge simulations of the electroweak phase transition. Alford and Gleiser in particular showed that neglecting lattice spacing effects in the numerical determination of nucleation rates can lead to severe errors in the measured values. This conclusion is not particular to systems exhibiting metastable states, but to any nonlinear field model in contact with external stochastic environments. Thus, the issues that are raised here are of concern to a wide range of physical systems modelled through the separation of system and environment, from quantum field theories to effective field theories describing condensed matter systems.
Even if a continuum limit can be achieved on the lattice, we must still ensure that the numerical results correspond to the appropriate continuum theory. In general, the coupling to a stochastic environment modifies the effective lattice theory, which cannot be naively matched to the original continuum model. The question then becomes what theory is the lattice simulating, and can we extract it in a self-consistent way? These questions will be addressed below in the context of two continuous nonlinear models in 2+1 dimensions, one temperature independent and the other temperature dependent (the well-known Ginzburg-Landau model). Both models describe phase transitions in the Ising universality class. Extensions to $d+1$ dimensions should be straightforward.
[**Formulating continuum models on a lattice: The issues**]{}
Consider a single scalar field $\phi({\bf x}, t)$ in a potential $V_0(\phi)$ which may or not be temperature dependent. This potential can model interactions of $\phi$ with itself and with other fields. For example, a linear term of the form $\phi
{\cal H}$ is often used to represent the coupling of $\phi$ to an external magnetic field for models of ferromagnetic transitions. In this report, focus will be on potentials which are simple polynomials of even power in $\phi$, although our approach is equally valid for potentials with odd powers of $\phi$, typical of nucleation studies. The Hamiltonian for this system is, (in units of $c=k_B=1$) $$\label{e:hamiltonian}
{{H[\phi]}\over {T}}={1\over {T}}\int d^2x\left [{1\over 2}\left (
\nabla \phi \cdot \nabla \phi \right )+V_0(\phi)\right ]~.$$
The field $\phi$ can be thought of as representing a scalar order parameter in models of phase transitions in the Ising universality class, such as ferromagnets, binary fluid mixtures, metal alloys, or in studies of domain wall formation in cosmology. As such, it is convenient to model its dynamics in contact with a heat bath by means of a generalized Langevin equation, $$\label{e:langevin}
{\partial^2\phi\over\partial t^2} = \nabla^2\phi - \eta
{\partial\phi\over\partial t}
- {\partial V_0 \over \partial \phi} + \xi({\bf x},t)~~,$$ where the viscosity coefficient $\eta$ is related to the stochastic force of zero mean $\xi({\bf x},t)$ by the fluctuation-dissipation relation, $$\label{e:fluct-diss}
\langle \xi({\bf x}, t) \xi({\bf x}', t') \rangle = 2 \eta T
\delta({\bf x} - {\bf x}') \delta(t - t')~.$$ This approach guarantees that $\phi$ will be driven into equilibrium, although the time-scale $\eta^{-1}$ is arbitrary. It has been extensively used in numerical simulations of thermal creation of kink-antikink pairs [@Kinks], nucleation [@AG; @Num-nuc], spinodal decomposition [@Spin-dec], and pattern formation in the presence of external noise [@Pattern], to mention but a few examples. Note that in the high viscosity limit the second-order time derivative can be neglected, as is common practice in systems with slower dynamical time-scales.
The next step is to discretize this system and cast it on a lattice. Using a standard second-order staggered leapfrog method we can write, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:lattice_equation}
\dot{\phi}_{i,m+1/2} & = & \frac{(1 - \frac{1}{2} \eta \delta t)
\dot{\phi}_{i,m-1/2} + \delta t (\nabla^{2} \phi_{i,m} -
V'_0(\phi_{i,m}) + \xi_{i,m})}{1 + \frac{1}{2} \eta \delta t}
\nonumber \\
\phi_{i,m+1} & = & \phi_{i,m} + \delta t \dot{\phi}_{i,m+1/2}\end{aligned}$$ where $i$-indices are spatial and $m$-indices temporal, overdots represent derivatives with respect to $t$ and primes with respect to $\phi$. The discretised fluctuation-dissipation relation now reads $$\langle \xi_{i,m} \xi_{j,n} \rangle = 2 \eta T
\frac{\delta_{i,j}}{\delta x^{2}} \frac{\delta_{m,n}}{\delta t}$$ so that $$\xi_{i,m} = \sqrt{\frac{2 \eta T}{\delta x^{2} \delta t}} G_{i,m}$$ where $G_{i,m}$ is taken from a zero-mean unit-variance Gaussian.
Note that as a first guess we have used $V_0(\phi)$ in the lattice formulation of the model. Is this the correct procedure? It is well-known that classical field theory in more than one spatial dimension is ultraviolet divergent, the Rayleigh-Jeans ultraviolet catastrophe [@UVcatas]. Formulating the theory on a lattice takes care of the problem, as a sharp momentum cutoff is introduced by the lattice spacing $\delta x$, with $\Lambda=\pi/\delta x$. However, a finite lattice spacing creates two difficulties. First, the lattice theory is coarse-grained on the scale $\delta x$; in other words, the lattice theory is not equivalent to the continuum theory we started with, and our results will depend on $\delta x$, unless this dependence is handled by a proper renormalization procedure. Second, if the lattice theory is not equivalent to the continuum theory we started with, to what continuum theory is it equivalent to? Fortunately, there is a well-defined procedure that addresses both difficulties at once. Within its validity, it is possible to establish a one-to-one correspondence between lattice simulations and field theories in contact with stochastic baths.
[**Formulating continuum models on a lattice: The procedure**]{}
In order to recover the continuum limit on the lattice we must eliminate any dependence on the cutoff. The coupling to the heat bath will induce fluctuations on all possible scales. Since the cutoff sets the scale for the smallest possible spatial fluctuations in the system, we may incorporate the effects of all fluctuations down to the smallest scale using perturbation theory. Thus, the lattice theory must be equivalent to a continuum theory with a sharp ultraviolet cutoff. For classical field theories, the one-loop corrected effective potential with a large momentum cutoff is given by [@CFT], $$V_{\rm 1L}(\phi)=V_0 + {T\over 2}\int_0^{\Lambda}{{d^2p}\over
{(2\pi)^2}}{\rm ln}\left (p^2 + V_0''\right ) +{\rm counterterms}~.$$ These theories describe fluctuations with $\hbar \omega \ll
k_BT$. In semi-classical language, the excitations of the field contain many fundamental quanta. Note that there is a one-to-one correspondence between classical statistical field theory in $d+1$ dimensions and Euclidean quantum field theory in $d$ dimensions. While the loop expansion is in powers of $T$ for the former, it is in powers of $\hbar$ for the latter. For $d=2$, the only divergences are at one loop, although higher loops can generate finite terms which modify the effective Hamiltonian. The dependence on the cutoff $\Lambda$ can be handled by introducing proper counterterms.
Integration gives, $$V_{\rm 1L}(\phi)= V_0 + \frac{T}{8 \pi} V''_0 \left [1 - \ln
\left(\frac{V''_0}{\Lambda^{2}}\right)\right ] + {\rm
counterterms}~.$$ The form of $V_0$ will determine the counterterms needed to cancel the dependence on $\Lambda$. For polynomial potentials of order $\phi^n$, one typically needs counterterms up to order $\phi^{n-2}$. In the case of interest here, degenerate double-well potentials, only one quadratic counterterm is needed, of form $a\phi^2$, with $a$ constant. As usual, the value of $a$ is fixed by imposing a renormalization condition. Because of the logarithmic divergence, the renormalization condition must be imposed at some energy scale $M$, which is chosen to be, $$V''_{\rm 1L}(\phi = \sqrt M) = V''_{\rm 0}(\phi = \sqrt M)~.$$ The renormalized one-loop corrected potential is then, $$\label{e:oneloop}
V_{\rm 1L}(\phi) = V_{\rm 0} + \frac{T}{8 \pi} V''_{\rm 0} \left
[1 - \ln \left (\frac{V''_{\rm 0}}{\Lambda^{2}}\right )\right ]
+ \frac{T}{16 \pi} \left (V''''_{\rm 0} \ln \left. \left
(\frac{V''_{\rm 0}}{\Lambda^{2}}\right ) + \frac{(V'''_{\rm
0})^{2}}{V''_{\rm 0}}\right )\right |_{\phi = \sqrt M} \phi^{2}$$
The above procedure incorporates thermal fluctuations to the original potential $V_0(\phi)$ at some energy scale $M$ to one-loop order. As with any perturbative approach, it will break down wherever large amplitude fluctuations are present, and in particular close to the critical point $T_c$. Although there are techniques to improve the perturbative expansion in the neighborhood of the critical point, such as $\varepsilon$-expansion methods [@Varepsilon] (not too reliable for 2-d), in this work we will concentrate on the matching of the continuum theory to the lattice simulation in regions of the parameter space where the one-loop calculation is valid. Close to criticality the theory of Eq. \[e:oneloop\] breaks down, and we restrict our investigation to the extraction of the critical exponent controlling the divergence of the order parameter.
How is this continuum theory matched to the lattice simulation? The procedure we propose is quite simple. Since the continuum theory above incorporates fluctuations from momentum scales up to $\Lambda$, we write the lattice potential as, $$V_{\rm latt}(\phi) = V_0 + a\phi^2~,$$ where $a$ is fixed by the renormalization condition in the continuum, but with $\Lambda = \pi/\delta x$. That is, $$\label{e:goodcontlimit}
V_{\rm latt}(\phi) = V_0 + \frac{T}{16 \pi} \left (V''''_{\rm 0}
\ln \left. \left (\frac{V''_{\rm 0}}{(\pi/\delta x)^{2}}\right )
+ \frac{(V'''_{\rm 0})^{2}}{V''_{\rm 0}}\right )\right |_{\phi =
\sqrt M}\phi^2~.$$ As we show below, this procedure takes care of the two problems raised by formulating the continuum theory on the lattice, namely, the dependence of lattice results on lattice spacing and the matching of the lattice theory to the continuum at some renormalization energy scale $M$. The generic emergence of a good continuum limit from Eq. \[e:goodcontlimit\] is the central result of this work.
[**Applications**]{}
We will apply the above procedure to two cases, with potentials which are temperature independent and temperature dependent, respectively. Consider first the temperature-independent potential, $$V_{\rm 0}(\phi) = - \frac{1}{2} m^{2} \phi^{2} + \frac{1}{4}
\lambda \phi^{4}~.$$ Choosing the renormalization point to be $\phi_{RN} = \sqrt \frac{M^{2} + m^{2}}{3 \lambda}$, the renormalized continuum potential is, from Eq. \[e:oneloop\], $$\label{e:renorm-cont}
V_{\rm 1L}(\phi) = - \frac{1}{2} m^{2} \phi^{2} + \frac{1}{4}
\lambda \phi^{4} + \frac{3 \lambda T}{8 \pi} \left( 1 + 2 \;
\frac{M^{2} + m^{2}}{M^{2}} \right) \phi^{2} - \frac{T}{8 \pi}
(3 \lambda \phi^{2} - m^{2}) \ln \left( \frac{3 \lambda \phi^{2}
- m^{2}}{M^{2}} \right)~.$$ It is convenient to introduce dimensionless variables (because there is no $\hbar$ in this theory, $m$ has dimensions of (length)$^{-1}$ while $\phi$ has dimensions of (energy)$^{1/2}$), $\tilde{x} = x m, \; \tilde{t} = t m, \;
\tilde{\phi} = \phi \lambda^{1/2} m^{-1}, \; \tilde{\eta} = \eta
m^{-1}, \; \theta = T \lambda m^{-2}, \; \tilde{M} = M m^{-1},
\; \tilde{\Lambda} = \Lambda m^{-1}$. From the discussion in the previous section, the lattice-spacing independent lattice potential is, using dimensionless variables (and dropping the tildes), $$V_{\rm latt}(\phi) = - \frac{1}{2} \phi^{2} + \frac{1}{4}
\phi^{4} + \frac{3 \theta}{4 \pi} \left( \ln \left( \frac{M
\delta x}{\pi} \right) + \frac{M^{2} + 1}{M^{2}} \right)
\phi^{2}~.$$ Fig. 1 shows the impact of the added counterterm to the lattice results. We display the time evolution of the spatially averaged field, ${\bar \phi}={1\over A}\int dA \phi$, starting from a broken symmetric phase ${\bar \phi}=-1$, without the counterterm (Fig. 1a) and with the counterterm (Fig. 1b). The parameters $\theta,~ M$, and physical lattice size $L$, were kept fixed, and only the lattice spacing $\delta x$ was varied. (Throughout this work we keep the viscosity coefficient $\eta=1$ as we are only interested in final equilibrium quantities.) Clearly, omitting the counterterm leads to severe lattice spacing dependence of the results, even to the point of having symmetry restoration. Experiments varying $\theta$ and $M$ showed that the procedure is robust, with excellent $\delta x$-independence being achieved, even close the critical point, as long as the expansion parameter $\theta/8\pi \ll 1$.
The next step is to compare the lattice results with the continuum models of Eq. \[e:renorm-cont\] in their domain of validity. Being perturbative, we expect the continuum models to break down when the fluctuations become large, at high temperatures or close to the critical point. By contrast, the lattice models incorporate fluctuations up to the limiting size $L$, and so may remain valid even when the continuum models break down. The continuum potential gives a prediction for the critical temperature of $$\theta_{c} = \frac{2 \pi}{3 (1 + M^{-2} + \ln M)}~.$$ Note that $\theta_c$ has its maximum value at $M^2 = 2$; as we move away from this point in either direction $\theta_c$ decreases, and we should expect perturbation theory to continue to be a valid approximation closer and closer to the critical point. Ultimately, however, the phase transition is nonperturbative, the field fluctuations become large, and perturbation theory must fail. Fig. 2 shows the variation in the equilibrium mean field value $\bar{\phi}_{\rm eq}$ with temperature $\theta$, squares from the lattice and lines from the continuum, for values of the renormalization energy-scale $M=0.1$ (Fig. 2a), $M=\sqrt{2}$ (Fig. 2b), and $M=10$ (Fig. 2c). The discontinuities in the continuum are related to the concavity of the corrected potential between the inflection points, which gives rise to an imaginary part. As shown by Weinberg and Wu [@WW], the imaginary part of the potential represents unstable physical states typical of the process of phase separation; the figure shows only the real part of the corrected potential. There is indeed excellent agreement at low temperatures, which is progressively lost as the temperature increases.
At the one-loop level, perturbation theory is equivalent to mean field theory. Close to the critical point, where mean field theory breaks down, we expect the equilibrium value of ${\bar
\phi}$ to diverge as a power law, $$\bar{\phi}_{\rm eq} \propto \left( \frac{\theta_{c} -
\theta}{\theta_{c}} \right)^{\beta}$$ with the critical exponent $\beta=1/2$ for mean field theory and $\beta=1/8$ for the 2-d Ising model. Figure 3 shows the behavior of the lattice and continuum equilibrium mean field values $\bar{\phi}_{\rm eq}$ with reduced temperature $\theta_{r} \equiv
(\theta_{c} - \theta)/\theta_{c}$ for $M = 0.1$ — squares being results from the lattice simulations, triangles the predicted behavior from the continuum, and the lines indicating the two slopes $\beta =1/2$ and $\beta =1/8$. We see that the continuum perturbation theory behaves as a mean field theory, whilst the lattice theory in the neighborhood of the critical point is in the universality class of the 2-d Ising model as expected.
We now consider the case of a temperature-dependent potential. The goal is to show that the above procedure works equally well in this case; both lattice-spacing independence and the matching to a continuum theory can be achieved in a consistent way. Coupling a temperature-dependent potential to a heat bath does not necessarily imply a double counting of the thermal degrees of freedom. The choice of potential $V_0$ simply reflects different physical models. For example, one may include phenomenological temperature-dependent terms in $V_0$, as in the Ginzburg-Landau model, or may obtain temperature corrections by integrating out from the partition function either other fields coupled to $\phi$ or short wavelength modes of the field $\phi$ itself [@GR]. In either case, the heat bath may then be representing stochastic forces not included in the integration process, or simply an external environment coupled to $\phi$ phenomenologically, which drives the system to its final equilibrium state. As an example, we choose the Ginzburg-Landau potential, $$V_{\rm 0}(\phi) = \frac{1}{2} a (T - T_{c}') \phi^{2} + \frac{1}{4}
\lambda \phi^{4}~,$$ where the prime is a reminder that the critical temperature has an arbitrary value in the mean field model. Fixing the renormalization energy scale at $\phi_{RN} = \sqrt \frac{M^{2} -
a (T - T_{c}')}{3 \lambda}$, the renormalized continuum potential becomes, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\rm 1L}(\phi) & = & \frac{1}{2} a (T - T_{c}') \phi^{2} +
\frac{1}{4} \lambda \phi^{4} + \frac{3 \lambda T}{8 \pi} \left (
1 + 2 \; \frac{M^{2} - a (T - T_{c}')}{M^{2}} \right ) \phi^{2}
\nonumber \\ && - \frac{T}{8 \pi} \left [3 \lambda \phi^{2} + a
(T - T_{c}')\right ] \ln \left ( \frac{3 \lambda \phi^{2} + a (T
- T_{c}')}{M^{2}} \right )~.\end{aligned}$$ Following the same steps as before and arbitrarily setting $\theta_{c}' = 1$, this theory is matched on the lattice to $$V_{\rm latt}(\phi) = \frac{1}{2} (\theta - 1) \phi^{2} +
\frac{1}{4} \phi^{4} + \frac{3 \theta}{4 \pi} \left [ \ln \left(
\frac{M \delta x}{\pi} \right) + \frac{M^{2} - (\theta - 1)}{M^{2}}
\right ] \phi^{2}~.$$ Fig. 4 compares the lattice results without (Fig. 4a) and with (Fig. 4b) the renormalization counterterm. The prescription to obtain lattice-spacing independence works equally well in this case. Fig. 5 again compares the lattice simulations (squares) and the continuum model (lines) for renormalization scales $M=0.1$ (Fig. 5a), $M=\sqrt{2}$ (Fig. 5b), and $M=10$ (Fig. 5c). For low temperatures excellent agreement is obtained, as in the temperature independent case. Note that this also confirms that our model has not been ‘twice-cooked’; had it been, no such agreement would be possible. Finally, in Fig. 6, we show the critical behavior of the lattice (squares) and continuum (triangles) for $M=0.1$. Again the lattice obtains the Ising critical exponent, $\beta=1/8$, close to criticality.
In summary, we have presented a self-consistent method to match lattice simulations to nonlinear field theories in contact with an external stochastic environment. This approach is of potential interest in a wide range of physical problems, from noise-induced pattern-forming instabilities and phase separation in condensed matter physics to symmetry breaking in high energy physics and cosmology. It was shown that adding the right renormalization counterterms to the lattice potential provides a good continuum limit, independent of the lattice-spacing and matching the appropriate continuum theory. That this matching breaks down at high temperatures and/or close to a critical point is not surprising, as it reflects the limitations of perturbation theory in probing critical phenomena quantitatively. The procedure was demonstrated to work well for a large class of widely-used potentials — both temperature independent and dependent — and over a wide range of the renormalization energy scale $M$.
[99]{}
Introductions to numerical methods in physics can be found in P. L. DeVries, [*A First Course in Computational Physics*]{}, (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994); D. W. Heermann, [*Computer Simulation Methods in Theoretical Physics*]{}, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990).
See, e.g., R. K. Dodd, J. C. Eilbeck, J. D. Gibbon, H. C. Morris, [*Solitons and Nonlinear Wave Equations*]{}, (Academic, New York, 1982).
H. Goldstein, [*Classical Mechanics*]{}, 2nd Ed., (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachussets, 1980).
N. Goldenfeld, [*Lectures on Phase Transitions and the Renormalization Group*]{}, Frontiers in Physics, vol. 85, (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1992).
W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, [*Numerical Recipes*]{}, 2nd Ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1992).
G. Parisi, [*Statistical Field Theory*]{} (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1988).
M. Alford and M. Gleiser, Phys. Rev. D[**48**]{}, 2838 (1993).
K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B[**458**]{}, 90 (1996); D. Bodeker, L. McLerran, and A. Smilga, Phys. Rev.D[**52**]{}, 4675 (1995).
M. Alford, H. Feldman, and M. Gleiser, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1645 (1992); F. J. Alexander and S. Habib, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 955 (1993).
M. Alford, H. Feldman, and M. Gleiser, Phys. Rev. D[**47**]{} (RC), 2168 (1993); O. T. Valls and G. F. Mazenko, Phys. Rev. B[**42**]{}, 6614 (1990); for a review see, J. D. Gunton, M. San Miguel and P. S. Sahni, in [*Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena*]{}, Vol. [**8**]{}, Ed. C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (Academic Press, London, 1983).
See, for example, M. Schöbinger, S. W. Koch, and F. F. Abraham, J. Stat. Phys. [**42**]{}, 1071 (1986); M. Laradji, M. Grant, M. J. Zuckerman, and W. Klein, Phys. Rev. B[**41**]{}, 4646 (1990); R. Toral and A. Chakrabarti, Phys. Rev. B[**42**]{}, 2445 (1990).
C. R. Doering, H. R. Brand and R. E. Ecke, eds. [*External Noise and Its Interaction with Spatial Degrees of Freedom in Nonlinear Dissipative Systems*]{}, Workshop Proceedings, J. Stat. Phys. [**54**]{}, 1111-1540 (1989); J. García-Ojalvo, A. Hernández-Machado, and J. M. Sancho, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 1542 (1993); A. Becker and L. Kramer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 955 (1994), and references therein.
I. Bialynicki-Birula, M. Cieplak, and J. Kaminski, [*Theory of Quanta*]{}, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1992); D. Bohm, [*Quantum Theory*]{}, (Dover Publications, New York, 1979).
P. Ramond, [*Field Theory: A Modern Primer*]{}, 2nd Ed. (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1990).
E. Brézin, in [*Methods in Field Theory*]{}, Les Houches 1975, Session XXVIII, ed. R. Balian and J. Zinn-Justin, (North-Holland, Amsterdam 1976).
E. Weinberg and A. Wu, Phys. Rev. D[**36**]{}, 2474, (1987).
M. Gleiser and R. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D[**50**]{}, 2441 (1994); B. L. Hu, J. P. Paz and Y. Zhang, in [*The Origin of Structure in the Universe*]{}, ed. E. Gunzig and P. Nardone (Kluwer Acad. Publ. 1993); D. Lee and D. Boyanovsky, Nucl. Phys. B[**406**]{}, 631 (1993); S. Habib, in [*Stochastic Processes in Astrophysics*]{}, Proc. Eighth Annual Workshop in Nonlinear Astronomy (1993).
Julian Borrill was supported by a National Science Foundation grant no. PHY-9453431. Marcelo Gleiser was partially supported by the National Science Foundation through a Presidential Faculty Fellows Award no. PHY-9453431 and by a National Aeronautics and Space Administration grant no. NAGW-4270.
Figure 1. The time evolution of the mean field $\bar{\phi}(t)$ at five different lattice spacings $\delta x = 0.125, \, 0.25,
\, 0.5, \, 1.0$ and $2.0$ for the temperature independent potential — (a) without the renormalisation counterterms added ($\delta x$ increasing downwards), and (b) with the renormalisation counterterms added.\
Figure 2. The variation in the equilibrium mean field $\bar{\phi}_{\rm eq}$ with the dimensionless temperature $\theta$ from the lattice (squares) and the continuum (lines) for the temperature independent potential — (a) for $M=0.1$, (b) for $M = \sqrt 2$, and (c) for $M = 10$.\
Figure 3. The variation in the equilibrium mean field $\bar{\phi}_{\rm eq}$ with the reduced dimensionless temperature $\theta_{r}$ from the lattice (squares) and the continuum (triangles) for the temperature independent potential. The dashed lines have slopes of $1/8$ and $1/2$.\
Figure 4. The time evolution of the mean field $\bar{\phi}(t)$ at five different lattice spacings $\delta x = 0.125, \, 0.25,
\, 0.5, \, 1.0$ and $2.0$ for the temperature dependent potential — (a) without the renormalisation counterterms added ($\delta x$ increasing downwards), and (b) with the renormalisation counterterms added.\
Figure 5. The variation in the equilibrium mean field $\bar{\phi}_{\rm eq}$ with the dimensionless temperature $\theta$ from the lattice (squares) and the continuum (lines) for the temperature dependent potential — (a) for $M=0.1$, (b) for $M
= \sqrt 2$, and (c) for $M = 10$.\
Figure 6. The variation in the equilibrium mean field $\bar{\phi}_{\rm eq}$ with the reduced dimensionless temperature $\theta_{r}$ from the lattice (squares) and the continuum (triangles) for the temperature dependent potential. The dashed lines have slopes of $1/8$ and $1/2$.\
[^1]: NSF Presidential Faculty Fellow
[^2]: email: [email protected], [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Nicolas-Auguste Tissot (1824–1897) was a French mathematician and cartographer. He introduced a tool which became known among geographers under the name *Tissot indicatrix*, and which was widely used during the first half of the twentieth century in cartography. This is a graphical representation of a field of ellipses, indicating at each point of a geographical map the distorsion of this map, both in direction and in magnitude. Each ellipse represented at a given point is the image of an infinitesimal circle in the domain of the map (generally speaking, a sphere representing the surface of the earth) by the projection that realizes the geographical map.
Tissot studied extensively, from a mathematical viewpoint, the distortion of mappings from the sphere onto the Euclidean plane, and he also developed a theory for the distorsion of mappings between general surfaces. His ideas are close to those that are at the origin of the work on quasiconformal mappings that was developed several decades after him by Grötzsch, Lavrentieff, Ahlfors and Teichmüller.
Grötzsch, in his papers, mentions the work of Tissot, and in some of the drawings he made for his articles, the Tissot indicatrix is represented. Teichmüller mentions the name Tissot in a historical section in one of his fundamental papers in which he points out that quasiconformal mappings were initially used by geographers.
The name Tissot is missing from all the known historical reports on quasiconformal mappings. In the present article, we report on this work of Tissot, showing that the theory of quasiconformal mappings has a practical origin.
The final version of this article will appear in Vol. VII of the Handbook of Teichmüller Theory (European Mathematical Society Publishing House, 2020).
AMS Mathematics Subject Classification: 01A55, 30C20, 53A05, 53A30, 91D20.
Keywords: Quasiconformal mapping, geographical map, sphere projection, Tissot indicatrix.
address: 'Athanase Papadopoulos, Universit[é]{} de Strasbourg and CNRS, 7 rue René Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France'
author:
- Athanase Papadopoulos
title: 'A note on Nicolas-Auguste Tissot: At the origin of quasiconformal mappings'
---
Introduction
============
Darboux, starts his 1908 ICM talk whose title is *Les origines, les méthodes et les problèmes de la géométrie infinitésimale* (The origins, methods and problems of infinitesimal geometry) with the words: “Like many other branches of human knowledge, infinitesimal geometry was born in the study of practical problems," and he goes on explaining how problems that arise in the drawing of geographical maps, that is, the representation of regions of the surface of the Earth on a Euclidean piece of paper, led to the most important developments in geometry made by Lagrange, Euler, Gauss and others.
The theory of quasiconformal mappings has its origin in the problems of drawing geographical maps. Teichmüller, in the last part of his paper *Extremale quasikonforme Abbildungen und quadratische Differentiale* (Extremal quasiconformal mappings and quadratic differentials), published in 1939 [@T20], which is the main paper in which he develops the theory that became known as *Teichmüller theory*, makes some comments on this origin, mentioning the work of the French mathematician and geographer Nicolas-Auguste Tissot (1824–1897). Grötzsch, in his paper *Über die Verzerrung bei nichtkonformen schlichten Abbildungen mehrfach zusammenhängender schlichter Bereiche* (On the distortion of non-conformal schlicht mappings of multiply-connected schlicht regions), published in 1930 [@Groetzsch1930], mentions several times the name Tissot, referring to the *Tissot indicatrix* which he represents in the pictures he drew for his article. The directions of the major and minor and minor axes of this ellipse constitute are important element in some of his results. A geographical map is the image of a mapping—henceforth called a projection—from the surface of the Earth, considered as a sphere or spheroid, onto the Euclidean plane. The Tissot indicatrix is a device introduced by Tissot, who called it the *indicating ellipse* (ellipse indicatrice, which was used by geographers until the middle of the twentieth century. It is a field of ellipses drawn on the geographical map, each ellipse representing the image by the projection—assumed to be differentiable—of an infinitesimal circle[^1] at the corresponding point on the sphere (or spheroid) representing the surface of the Earth. Examples of Tissot indicatrices are given in Figure \[Snyder\].
![[]{data-label="Snyder"}](Snyder3.png "fig:"){width="5.9cm"} ![[]{data-label="Snyder"}](Snyder4.png "fig:"){width="5.6cm"} ![[]{data-label="Snyder"}](Snyder1.png "fig:"){width="5.5cm"} ![[]{data-label="Snyder"}](Snyder2.png "fig:"){width="6.2cm"}
In Figure \[Groe\], we have reproduced drawings from a paper of Grötzsch in which he represents the Tissot indicatrix of the maps he uses.
![[]{data-label="Groe"}](Groetzsch1.png "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![[]{data-label="Groe"}](Groetzsch2.png "fig:"){width="6.2cm"}
Although the work of Tissot is closely related to the theory of quasiconformal mappings, his name is never mentioned in the historical surveys of this subject, and the references by Grötzsch and by Teichmüller to his work remained unnoticed. In this note, I will give a few indications on this work.
Before surveying the work of Tissot in §\[s:work\], I will give, in §\[s:bio\], a short biographical note on him.
Biographical note on Tissot {#s:bio}
===========================
Nicolas-Auguste Tissot was born in 1824, in Nancy, which was to become, 26 years later, the birthplace of Henri Poincaré (whom we shall mention soon). Tissot entered the École Polytechnique in 1841. He started by occupying a career in the Army[^2] and defended a doctoral thesis on November 17, 1851; cf. [@Tissot-these]. On the cover page of his thesis, he is described as “Ex-Capitaine du Génie." Tissot became later a professor at the famous Lycée Saint-Louis in Paris, and at the same time examiner at the École Polytechnique, in particular for the entrance exam. He eventually became an assistant professor (*répétiteur*) in geodesy at the École Polytechnique.
After having published, in the period 1856–1858, several papers and *Comptes Rendus* notes on cartography, in which he analyzed the distortion of some known geographical maps (see [@Tissot-CR00], [@Tissot-1858], [@Tissot-CR0]), Tissot started developing his own theory, on which he published three notes, in the years 1859–1860, [@Tissot-CR1; @Tissot-CR2; @Tissot-CR3], and then a series of others in the years 1865–1880 [@Tissot-CR4; @Tissot1878; @Tissot1878a; @Tissot1878b; @Tissot1879; @Tissot1879a; @Tissot1880]. He then collected his results in the memoir [@Tissot1881], published in 1881, in which he gives detailed proofs. In a note on p. 2 of this memoir, Tissot declares that after he published his first *Comptes Rendus* notes on the subject, the statements that he gave there without proof were reproduced by A. Germain in his *Traité des projections des cartes géographiques* [@Germain] and by U. Dini in his memoir *Sopra alcuni punti della teoria delle superfici* [@Dini]. He notes that Germain and Dini gave their own proofs of these statements, which are nevertheless more complicated than those he had in mind and which he gives in the memoir [@Tissot1881]. He also writes that Dini showed that the whole theory of curvature of surfaces may be deduced from the general theory that he had developed himself. In fact, Dini applied this theory to the representation of a surface on a sphere, using Gauss’s methods. Tissot also says that his ideas were used in astronomy, by Hervé Faye, in his *Cours d’astronomie de l’École Polytechnique* [@Faye]. The texts of the two *Comptes rendus* notes [@Tissot-CR3] and [@Tissot-CR0] of Tissot are reproduced in the Germain’s treatise [@Germain].
Besides his work on geographical maps, Tissot wrote several papers on elementary geometry. We mention incidentally that several preeminent French mathematicians of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century published papers on this topics. We mention Serret, Catalan, Laguerre, Darboux, Hadamard and Lebesgue; see e.g. [@Tissot2; @Tissot3; @Tissot1].
On the title page of Tissot’s memoir [@Tissot1881] (1881), the expression *Examinateur à l’École Polytechnique* follows his name, as he was in charge of the entrance examination. In his *Éloge historique de Henri Poincaré* [@Darboux-Eloge], Darboux relates the following episode about Tissot, examining Poincaré:[^3]
> Before asking his questions to Poincaré, Mr. Tissot suspended the exam during 45 minutes: we thought it was the time he needed to prepare a sophisticated question. Mr. Tissot came back with a question of the Second Book of Geometry. Poincaré drew a formless circle, he marked the lines and the points indicated by the examiner, then, after wandering long enough in front of the blackboard, with his eyes fixed on the ground, he concluded loudly: “It all comes down to proving the equality $AB=CD$. This is a consequence of the theory of mutual polars, applied to the two lines." Mr. Tissot interrupted him: “Very good, Sir, but I want a more elementary solution." Poincaré started wandering again, this time not in front of the blackboard, but in front of the table of the examiner, facing him, almost unconscious of his acts; then suddenly he developed a trigonometric solution. Mr. Tissot objected: “I would like you to stay in Elementary Geometry." Almost immediately after that, the examiner of Elementary Geometry was given satisfaction. He warmly congratulated the examinee and announced that he deserves the highest grade.[^4]
Poincaré kept a positive momory of Tissot’s examinations. He expresses this in a letter to his mother sent on May 6, 1874, opposing them to the 10-minute examinations (known as “colles") that he had to take regularly at the École Polytechnique and which he said are pitiful. He writes:[^5] “When I think about the exams of Tissot and others, I can not help but take pity of these 10 minutes little *colles* where one puts in danger his future with an expression which is more or less exact or a sentence which is more or less well crafted, and where a person is judged upon infinitesimal differences."[^6]
On the work of Tissot on geographical maps {#s:work}
==========================================
Tissot studied at the École Polytechnique, an engineering school where the students had a high level of mathematical training and at a period where the applications of the techniques of differential geometry to all the domains of science were an integral part of the curriculum. His work is part of a well-established tradition where mathematical tools are applied to the craft of map drawing. This tradition passes through the works of preeminent mathematicians such as Ptolemy [@Ptolemy-geo; @BJ], Lambert [@Lambert-Bey; @Lamb-Anmer], Euler [@Euler-rep-1777; @Euler-pro-1777; @Euler-pro-Desli-1777] Lagrange [@Lagrange1779; @Lagrange1779a], Gauss [@Gauss-Copenhagen], Chebyshev [@Cheb1; @Cheb2], Beltrami [@Beltrami1865], Liouville (see the appendices to [@Monge]), Bonnet [@Bonnet-these] Darboux [@Darboux-Chebyshev; @Darboux-Lagrange; @Darboux-Tissot], and there are others. It was known since antiquity that there exist conformal (that is, angle-preserving) projections from the sphere to the Euclidean plane.[^7]But it was noticed that these projections distort other quantities (length, area, etc.), and the question was to find projections that realize a compromise between these various distorsions. For instance, one question was to find the closest-to-conformal projection among the maps that are area-preserving. Hence, the idea of “closest-to-conformal" projection came naturally. Among the mathematicians who worked on such problems, Tissot came closest to the notion of quasiconformality.
Let us summarize a few of his results on this subject.
An important observation made by Tissot right at the beginning of his memoir [@Tissot1881] (p. 1) is that finding the most appropriate mode of projection depends on the shape of the region—and not only its size, that is, on the properties of its boundary,. Finding maps of small “distorsion" (where, as we mentioned, this word has several possible meanings) was the aim of theoretical cartography. Tissot discovered that in order for the map to minimize an appropriately defined distortion, a certain function $\lambda$, defined by setting $$d\sigma^2=(1+\lambda)^2ds^2,$$ must be minimized in some appropriate sense, where $ds$ and $d\sigma$ are the line elements at the source and the target surfaces respectively. The minimality of $\lambda$ may mean, for example, that the value of the gradient of its square must be the smallest possible.
In fact, Tissot studied mappings between surfaces that are more general than those between subsets of the sphere and of the Euclidean plane. He started by noting that for a given mapping between two surfaces, there is, at each point of the domain, a pair of orthogonal directions that are sent to a pair of orthogonal directions on the image surface. Unless the mapping is angle-preserving at the given point, these pairs of orthogonal directions are unique. The orthogonal directions at the various points on the two surfaces define a pair of orthogonal foliations preserved by the mapping. Tissot calls the tangents to these foliations *principal tangents* at the given point. They correspond to the directions where the ratio of lengths of the corresponding infinitesimal line elements attains its greatest and smallest values.
Using the foliations defined by the principal tangents, Tissot gave a method for finding the image of an infinitely small figure drawn in the tangent plane of the first surface. In particular, for a differentiable mapping, the images of infinitesimal circles are ellipses. In this case, he gave a practical way of finding the major and minor axes of these ellipses, and he provided formulae for them. This is the theory of the Tissot indicatrix.
From the differential geometric point of view, the Tissot indicatrix gives information on the metric tensor obtained by pushing forward the metric of the sphere (or the spheroid) by the projection mapping.
We recall that in modern quasiconformal theory, an important parameter of a map is the quasiconformal dilatation at a point, defined as the ratio of the major axis to the minor axis of the infinitesimal ellipse which is the image of an infinitesimal circle by the map (assumed to be differentiable at the give point, so that its derivative sends circles centered at the origin in the tangent plane to ellipses). The Tissot indicatrix gives much more information than this quasiconformal dilatation, since it keeps track of (1) the direction of the great and small axes of the infinitesimal ellipse, and (2) the size of this ellipse, compared to that of the infinitesimal circle of which it is the image.
Darboux got interested in the work of Tissot on geography, and in particular, in a projection described in Chapter 2 of his memoir [@Tissot1881]. He wrote a paper on Tissot’s work [@Darboux-Tissot] explaining more carefully some of his results. He writes: “\[Tissot’s\] exposition appeared to me a little bit confused, and it seems to me that while we can stay in the same vein, we can follow the following method \[…\]"[^8]
Tissot showed then how to construct mappings that have minimal distortion.
Tissot’s work was considered as very important by cartographers. The American cartographer, in his book *Flattening the earth: two thousand years of map projections* [@Snyder-F], published in 1997 and which is a reference in the subject, after presenting the existing books on cartography, writes: “Almost all of the detailed treatises presented one or two new projections, they basically discussed those existing previously, albeit with very thorough analysis. One scholar, however, proposed an analysis of distorsion that has had a major impact on the work of many twentieth-century writers on map projections. This was Tissot \[…\]."
Modern cartographers are still interested in the theoretical work of Tissot, see [@Laskowski].
We mentioned several preeminent mathematicians who before Tissot worked on the theory of geographical maps. From the more recent era, let me mention Milnor’s paper titled *A problem in cartography*[@Milnor], published in 1969. The reader interested in the theory of geographical maps developed by mathematicians is referred to the papers [@Papa-Chebyshev], [@2016-Tissot] and [@Papa-qc] which also contain more on the work of Tissot.
[00]{}
P.-A. d’Avezac, Coup d’œil historique sur la projection des cartes de géographie (suite et fin), notice lue á la Société de géographie de Paris dans sa séance publique du 19 décembre 1862. *Bulletin de la société de géographie* 5e série. t. V. (1983.) p. 437–485.
E. Beltrami, Risoluzione del problema: Riportare i punti di una superficie sopra un piano in modo che le linee geodetiche vengano rappresentate da linee rette. Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata, 7, (1865) 185-204; Œuvres complètes, tome 1, 262-280.
J. L. Berggren and A. Alexander Jones, Ptolemy’s Geography: An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters, Princeton University Press, 2000.
O. Bonnet, Thèse d’astronomie: Sur la théorie mathématique des cartes géographiques, Journal de mathématiques pures et appliquées (1) 17 (1852) 301–340.
P. L. Chebyshev, Sur la construction des cartes géographiques, 1856, *Bulletin de la classe physico-mathématique de l’Académie Impériale des sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg* Tome VIV. 1856, p. 257–261. Reprinted in P. L. Tchebycheff, Œuvres [@T-oeuvres] Vol. 1, p. 233–236, Reprint, Chelsea, NY.
P. L. Chebyshev, 1856b. Sur la construction des cartes géographiques. Discours prononcé le 8 février 1856 dans la séance solennelle de l’Université Impériale de Saint-Pétersbourg (traduit par A. Gravé), 1856, Reprinted in P. L. Tchebycheff, *Œuvres* Vol. 1, p. 239–247, Reprint, Chelsea, NY.
P. L. Chebyshev, *Œuvres*, edited by A. Markoff and N. Sonin. Imprimerie de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences, Saint Petersburg, 2 vols. 1899-1907.
G. Darboux, *Éloge historique de Henri Poincaré, membre de l’Académie*, lu dans la séance publique annuelle du 15 Décembre 1913. Institut de France, Paris, Gauthier-Villars, 1913.
G. Darboux, Sur la construction des cartes géographiques. *Bulletin des sciences mathématiques* 35 (1911), p. 23–28.
G. Darboux, Sur un problème posé par Lagrange. *Bulletin des sciences mathématiques* 35 (1911), p. 28–30.
G. Darboux, Sur une méthode de Tissot relative à la construction des cartes géographiques. *Bulletin des sciences mathématiques* 35 (1911), p. 55–64.
U. Dini, Sopra alcuni punti della teoria delle superfici. *Memorie della Società Italiana delle Scienze* (XL), s. 3, I, 2 (1868), p. 17–92.
L. Euler, De repraesentatione superficiei sphaericae super plano. *Acta Academiae Scientarum Imperialis Petropolitinae*, 1777, p. 107-132 Opera Omnia: Series 1, Volume 28, p. 248–275.
L. Euler, De proiectione geographica superficiei sphaericae. *Acta Academiae Scientarum Imperialis Petropolitinae*, 1777, p. 133–142 Opera Omnia: Series 1, Volume 28, p. 276–287.
L. Euler, De proiectione geographica Deslisliana in mappa generali imperii russici usitata, *Acta Academiae Scientarum Imperialis Petropolitinae*, 1777, p. 143-153 Opera Omnia: Series 1, Volume 28.
H. Faye, Hervé *Cours d’astronomie de l’École Polytechnique*, 2 vols., mimeographed notes, 18881, published as a book in 1881–1883. Paris, Gauthier-Villars.
Gauss, Carl Friedrich. 1825. Allgemeine Auflösung der Aufgabe: die Theile einer gegebnen Fläche auf einer andern gegebnen Fläche so abzubilden, daß die Abbildung dem Abgebildeten in den kleinsten Theilen ähnlich wird. *Astronomische Abhandlungen* (Schumacher ed.), 3,1–30. Also in Gauss’s *Werke*, vol. IV, p. 189–216.
Germain, Adrien Adolphe. 1866. Traité des projections des cartes géographiques : Représentation plane de la sphère et du sphéroiide. Paris, Arthus Betrand, Librairie de la Société de géographie.
H. Grötzsch, Über die Verzerrung bei nichtkonformen schlichten Abbildungen mehrfach zusammenhängender schlichter Bereiche, Ber. Verhandl. Sächs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig Math.-Phys. Kl. 82 (1930), 69–80. English translation by M. Karbe, On the distortion of non-conformal schlicht mappings of multiply-connected schlicht regions, Handbook of Teichmüller theory, Volume VII, EMS Publishing House, Zürich, 2019, p. ??? .
J.-L. de Lagrange, Sur la construction des cartes géographiques. Premier mémoire. *Nouveaux mémoires de l’Académie royale des sciences et belles-lettres de Berlin*, 1779, *Œuvres complètes*, tome 4, p. 637–664.
J.-L. de Lagrange, Sur la construction des cartes géographiques. Second mémoire *Nouveaux mémoires de l’Académie royale des sciences et belles-lettres de Berlin*, 1779, *Œuvres complètes*, tome 4, p. 664-692.
J. H. Lambert, Beiträge zum Gebrauche der Mathematik und deren Anwendung, 4 vol., im Verlage des Buchladens der Realschule, Berlin, 1765–1772.
J. H. Lambert, Anmerkungen und Zusätze zur Entwerfung der Land- und Himmelscharten, Hrsg. von A. Wangerin, 1772, ed. Engelmann, Leipzig, 1894. (This is part of [@Lambert-Bey].)
P. L. Laskowski, The Traditional and Modern Look at Tissot’s Indicatrix, The American Cartographer Volume 16 (1989), Issue 2, p. 123–133.
J. Milnor, A problem in cartography, American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 76 (1969), No. 10, p. 1101–1112.
G. Monge, Applications de l’analyse à la géométrie, 5e édition, revue, corrigée et annotée par M. J. Liouville, Paris, Bachelier, 1850.
A. Papadopoulos, Nicolas Auguste Tissot: A link between cartography and quasiconformal theory, Archive for History of exact Sciences, Volume 71, Issue 4, p. 319–336, 2017.
A. Papadopoulos, Quasiconformal mappings, from Ptolemy’s geography to the work of Teichmüller, In: *Uniformization, Riemann-Hilbert Correspondence, Calabi-Yau Manifolds, and Picard-Fuchs Equations* (ed. L. Ji and S.-T. Yau), International Press and Higher Education Press, ALM 42,. 2018, p. 237–315.
A. Papadopoulos, Euler and Chebyshev: From the sphere to the plane and backwards. *Proceedings of Cybernetics* a volume dedicate to the Jubilee of Academician Vladimir Betelin. 2, p. 55–69, 2016.
H. Poincaré, In: La correspondance de jeunesse d’Henri Poincaré: Les années de formation. De l’École Polytechnique à l’École des Mines (1873–1878). (Rollet, ed.), Birkhäuser, 2017.
C. Ptolémée (Ptolemy), Traité de géographie, translated from the Greek into French by l’Abbé de Halma, Paris, Eberhart, 1828.
N. Sidoli, J. L. Berggren, The arabic version of Ptolemy’s Planisphere or Flattening the surface of the sphere: text, translation, commentary. Dual English-Arabic text. Translated and with a commentary by the authors. SCIAMVS 8 (2007), 37?139.
J. P. Snyder and P. M. Voxland, *An album of map projections*. United States Government Printing Office, 1989.
J. P. Snyder, *Flattening the Earth: Two Thousand Years of Map Projections*. University of Chicago Press, 1997.
O. Teichmüller, Extremale quasikonforme Abbildungen und quadratische Differentiale. *Abh. Preuß. Akad. Wiss., math.-naturw. K1.* 22 (1939), 1–197. In *Gesammelte Abhandlungen* (L. V. Ahlfors and F. W. Gehring, eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin–Heidelberg–New York 1982, 337–531. English translation by G. Théret, Extremal quasiconformal mappings and quadratic differentials. In *Handbook of Teichmüller Theory* (A. Papadopoulos, ed.), Volume V, EMS Publishing House, Zürich 2016, 321–483.
N.-A. Tissot, *Mouvement d’un point matériel pesant sur une sphère. Suivi de Sur la détermination des orbites des planètes et des comètes*. Thèses présentées á la faculté des sciences de Paris, Paris, Bachelier, Imprimeur-libraire de l’École Polytechnique et du bureau des longitudes, 1852.
N.-A. Tissot, Sur les hélices. *Nouvelles annales de mathématiques, journal des candidats aux écoles polytechnique et normale* Sér. 1, 11 (1852), p. 454–457.
N.-A. Tissot, Sur la détermination des latitudes au moyen de la méthode de M. Babinet. *Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences* (Paris) 42 (1856), p. 287–288.
N.-A. Tissot, Sur les altérations d’angles et de distances dans le développement modifié de Flamsteed. *Journal de l’École Polytechnique*. Paris. 21 (1858), p. 217–225.
N.-A. Tissot, Sur le développement modifié de Flamsteed. *Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences* (Paris) 46 (1858), 646-648.
N.-A. Tissot, Sur les cartes géographiques. *Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences* (Paris) 49 (1859), p. 673–676.
N.-A. Tissot, Sur les cartes géographiques. *Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences* (Paris) 50 (1860), p. 474–476.
N.-A. Tissot, Sur les cartes géographiques*Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences* (Paris) 50 (1860), p. 964–968.
N.-A. Tissot, Démonstration nouvelle du théorème de Legendre sur les triangles sphériques dont les côtés sont très-petits relativement au rayon de la sphère. *Nouvelles annales de mathématiques, journal des candidats aux Écoles Polytechnique et Normale* Sér. 2, 1 (1862), p. 5–11.
N.-A. Tissot, Sur la construction des cartes géographiques. *Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences* (Paris) 60 (1865), p. 933–934.
N.-A. Tissot, Mémoire sur la représentation des surfaces et les projections des cartes géographiques. *Nouvelles annales de mathématiques, journal des candidats aux écoles polytechnique et normale* Sér. 2, 17 (1878), p. 49–55.
N.-A. Tissot, Mémoire sur la représentation des surfaces et les projections des cartes géographiques. *Nouvelles annales de mathématiques, journal des candidats aux écoles polytechnique et normale* Sér. 2, 17 (1878), p. 145–163.
N.-A. Tissot, Mémoire sur la représentation des surfaces et les projections des cartes géographiques. *Nouvelles annales de mathématiques, journal des candidats aux écoles polytechnique et normale* Sér. 2, 17 (1878), p. 351–366.
N.-A. Tissot, Mémoire sur la représentation des surfaces et les projections des cartes géographiques. *Nouvelles annales de mathématiques, journal des candidats aux écoles polytechnique et normale* Sér. 2, 18 (1879), p. 337–356.
N.-A. Tissot, Mémoire sur la représentation des surfaces et les projections des cartes géographiques. *Nouvelles annales de mathématiques, journal des candidats aux écoles polytechnique et normale* Sér. 2, 18, p. 385–397.
N.-A. Tissot, Mémoire sur la représentation des surfaces et les projections des cartes géographiques. *Nouvelles annales de mathématiques, journal des candidats aux écoles polytechnique et normale* Sér. 2, Supplément au tome 19 (1880), p. S3–S40.
N.-A. Tissot, *Mémoire sur la représentation des surfaces et les projections des cartes géographiques* Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1881.
N.-A. Tissot, Formules relatives aux foyers des coniques. *Nouvelles annales de mathématiques, journal des candidats aux écoles polytechnique et normale* Sér. 3, 13 (1894), p. 97–98
[^1]: The expression “infinitesimal circle" means here, as is usual in the theory of quasiconformal mappings, a circle on the tangent space at a point. In practice, it is a circle on the surface which has a “tiny radius." In the art of geographical map drawing, these circles, on the domain surfaces, are all supposed to have the same small size, so that the collection of relative sizes of the image ellipses becomes also a meaningful quantity.
[^2]: The reader should note that the École Polytechnique was, and is still, is a military school.
[^3]: Poincaré entered the École Polytechnique in 1873. In the French system of oral examinations, which is still in use, a student is given a question or a set of questions which he is asked to prepare while another student (who had already been given some time to prepare his questions) is explaining his solutions at the blackboard, in the same room. Thus, it is not unusual that at such an examination, some students listen to the examinations of others.
[^4]: Avant d’interroger Poincaré, M. Tissot suspendit l’examen pendant trois quarts d’heure : le temps de préparer une question raffinée, pensions-nous. M. Tissot revint avec une question du deuxième Livre de Géométrie. Poincaré dessina un cercle informe, il marqua les lignes et les points indiqués par l’examinateur; puis, après s’être promené devant le tableau les yeux fixés à terre pendant assez longtemps, conclut à haute voix: Tout revient à démontrer l’égalité $AB = CD$. Elle est la conséquence de la théorie des polaires réciproques, appliquée aux deux droites.\
“Fort bien, Monsieur, interrompit M. Tissot; mais je voudrais une solution plus élémentaire." Poincaré se mit à repasser, non plus devant le tableau, mais devant la table de l’examinateur, face à lui, presque inconscient de ses actes, puis tout à coup développa une solution trigonométrique.\
“Je désire que vous ne sortiez pas de la Géométrie élémentaire," objecta M. Tissot, et presque aussitôt satisfaction fut donnée à l’examinateur d’élémentaires, qui félicita chaleureusement l’examiné et lui annonça qu’il avait mérité la note maxima.
[^5]: [@Poincare-Corresp], letter No. 62.
[^6]: Quand je pense aux exams de Tissot et autres, \[…\] je ne puis m’empêcher de prendre en pitié ces petites colles de 10 minutes où on joue son avenir dans une expression plus ou moins exacte ou sur une phrase plus ou moins bien tournée et où on juge un individu sur des différences infinitésimales.
[^7]: Ptolemy, in his *Geography*, works with the strereographic projection, see [@BJ]. See also Ptolemy’s work on the *Planisphere* [@SB].
[^8]: Son exposition m’a paru quelque peu confuse, et il m’a semblé qu’en restant dans le même ordre d’idées on pourrait suivre avec avantage la méthode suivante.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The purpose of this survey is to present analytic versions of the injectivity theorem and their applications. The proof of our injectivity theorems is based on a combination of the $L^2$-method for the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation and the theory of harmonic integrals. As applications, we obtain Nadel type vanishing theorems and extension theorems for pluri-canonical sections of log pairs. Moreover, we give some results on semi-ampleness related to the abundance conjecture in birational geometry (the minimal model program).'
address: 'Mathematical Institute, Tohoku University, 6-3, Aramaki Aza-Aoba, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8578, Japan. '
author:
- 'SHIN-ICHI MATSUMURA'
title: |
Injectivity theorems with multiplier ideal sheaves\
and their applications
---
[^1]
Introduction {#Intro}
============
The Kodaira vanishing theorem is one of the most celebrated results in complex geometry, and such results play an important role when we consider certain fundamental problems in algebraic geometry and the theory of several complex variables, including asymptotics of linear systems, extension problems of holomorphic sections, the minimal model program, and so on. According to these objectives, the study of vanishing theorems has been a constant subject of attention in the last decades. This paper is a survey of recent results in [@Mat13b] and [@GM13], whose purpose is to present generalizations of the Kodaira vanishing to pseudo-effective line bundles equipped with singular metrics and their applications, from the viewpoint of the theory of several complex variables and differential geometry.
Analytic versions of the injectivity theorem
--------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we introduce analytic versions of the injectivity theorem. The injectivity theorem is a generalization of the vanishing theorem to semi-positive" line bundles, and it has been studied by several authors, for example, Tankeev ([@Tan71]), Kollár ([@Kol86]), Enoki ([@Eno90]), Esnault-Viehweg ([@EV92]), Ohsawa ([@Ohs04]), Fujino ([@Fuj12a], [@Fuj12b]), Ambro ([@Amb03], [@Amb12]), and so on. In his paper [@Kol86], Koll$\rm{\acute{a}}$r gave the following injectivity theorem for semi-ample line bundles, whose proof depends on the Hodge theory. In [@Eno90], Enoki relaxed his assumption by a different method depending on the theory of harmonic integrals, which enables us to approach the injectivity theorem from the viewpoint of complex differential geometry.
\[[[@Kol86] (resp. [@Eno90])]{}\] \[Kol\] Let $F$ be a semi-ample $($resp. semi-positive$)$ line bundle on a smooth projective variety $($resp. a compact Kähler manifold$)$ $X$. Then for a $($non-zero$)$ section $s$ of a positive multiple $F^{m}$ of the line bundle $F$, the multiplication map induced by the tensor product with $s$ $$\Phi_{s}: H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F)
\xrightarrow{\otimes s}
H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F^{m+1} )$$ is injective for any $q$. Here $K_{X}$ denotes the canonical bundle of $X$.
The above theorem can be regarded as a generalization of the Kodaira vanishing theorem to semi-ample (semi-positive) line bundles. On the other hand, the Kodaira vanishing theorem has been generalized by Nadel ([@Nad89], [@Nad90]). This generalization uses singular metrics with positive curvature and corresponds to the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem in algebraic geometry ([@Kaw82], [@Vie82]). Therefore, in the same direction as this generalization, it is natural and of interest to study injectivity theorems for line bundles equipped with singular metrics".
$$\hspace{-1.0cm}
\footnotesize{
\begin{CD}
\begin{array}{cl}
\text{The Kodaira vanishing} \\
\left \{\hspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{array}{cl}
&\text{cpx. geom: smooth positive metrics}\\
&\text{alg. geom: ample line bundles}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}
@>\text{semi-positivity}>>
\begin{array}{cl}
\text{Koll\'ar's injectivity theorem.}\\
\left \{\hspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{array}{cl}
&\text{cpx. : smooth semi-positive metrics} \\
&\text{alg. : semi-ample line bundles}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}
\\
@VV\text{singular metrics}V @VV\text{singular metrics}V \\
\begin{array}{cl}
\text{The Nadel, Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing}\\
\left \{\hspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{array}{cl}
&\text{cpx. : singular positive metrics}\\
&\text{alg. : big line bundles}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}
@>\text{semi-positivity}>>
\begin{array}{cl}
\text{{\bf{Theorem \ref{main-inj}}}}\\
\left \{\hspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{array}{cl}
&\text{cpx. : singular semi-positive metrics}\\
&\text{alg. : pseudo-effective line bundles}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array} \\
\end{CD}
}$$\
The following theorem is one of the main results, which can be seen as a generalization of the injectivity theorem and the Nadel vanishing theorem.
\[main-inj\] Let $F$ be a line bundle on a compact Kähler manifold $X$ and $h$ be a singular metric with semi-positive curvature on $F$. Then for a $($non-zero$)$ section $s$ of a positive multiple $F^{m}$ satisfying $\sup_{X} |s|_{h^{m}} < \infty$, the multiplication map $$\Phi_{s}: H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h)})
\xrightarrow{\otimes s}
H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F^{m+1} \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h^{m+1})})$$ is $($well-defined and$)$ injective for any $q$. Here ${\mathcal{I}(h)}$ denotes the multiplier ideal sheaf associated to the singular metric $h$.
The multiplication map is well-defined thanks to the assumption of $\sup_{X} |s|_{h^{m}} < \infty $. When $h$ is a metric with minimal singularities on $F$, this assumption is automatically satisfied for any section $s$ of $F^{m}$ (see [@Dem] for the concept of metrics with minimal singularities).
When we consider the problem of extending (holomorphic) sections from subvarieties to the ambient space, we need to refine the above formulation (see Theorem \[main-inj2\]). Our injectivity theorem can be seen as an improvement of [@Eno90], [@Fuj12a], [@Kol86], [@Mat14]. For the proof, we take an analytic approach for the cohomology groups with coefficients in $K_{X} \otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h)}$, which includes techniques of [@Eno90], [@Fuj12a], [@Mat13a], [@Mat14], [@Ohs04], [@Tak97]. The proof is based on a technical combination of the $L^{2}$-method for the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation and the theory of harmonic integrals. To handle transcendental (non-algebraic) singularities, after regularizing a given singular metric, we investigate the asymptotic behavior of the harmonic forms with respect to a family of the regularized metrics. Moreover we establish a method to obtain $L^{2}$-estimates of solutions of the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation by using the $\rm{\check{C}}$ech complex. See subsection \[S-Inj\] for more details.
Applications to the vanishing theorem
-------------------------------------
Theorem \[main-inj\] is formulated for singular metrics with transcendental (non-algebraic) singularities, which is one of the advantages of our injectivity theorem. For example, metrics with minimal singularities are important objects, but they do not always have algebraic singularities. By applying Theorem \[main-inj\] to them, we can obtain an injectivity theorem for nef and abundant line bundles (Corollary \[good\]) and Nadel type vanishing theorems (Theorem \[gen\] and Corollary \[main-co\]).
It is natural to expect the same conclusion as in Theorem \[Kol\] under the weaker assumption that $F$ is nef. However there is a counterexample to the injectivity theorem for nef line bundles (see for example [@Fuj12b Example 5.1]). If $F$ is nef and abundant (that is, the numerical dimension agrees with the Kodaira dimension), the line bundle $F$ admits a metric $h_{\min}$ with minimal singularities satisfying ${\mathcal{I}(h_{\min}^{m})}= \mathcal{O}_{X}$ for any $m>0$. This follows from [@Kaw85 Proposition 2.1]. Hence Theorem \[main-inj\] leads to the following corollary.
\[good\] Let $F$ be a nef and abundant line bundle on a compact Kähler manifold $X$. Then for a $($non-zero$)$ section $s$ of a positive multiple $F^{m}$ of the line bundle $F$, the multiplication map induced by the tensor product with $s$ $$\Phi_{s}: H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F)
\xrightarrow{\otimes s}
H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F^{m+1} )$$ is injective for any $q$.
The same statement was proved in [@Fuj12a], and a similar conclusion was proved in [@EP08], [@EV92] by different methods when $X$ is a projective variety. It is worth pointing out that Theorem \[Kol\] is not sufficient to obtain Corollary \[good\]. This is because the above metric $h_{\min}$ may not be smooth and not have algebraic singularities even if $F$ is nef and abundant (see for example [@Fuj12b Example 5.2]).
As another application of Theorem \[main-inj\], we obtain a Nadel type vanishing theorem (Theorem \[gen\]) and its corollary (Corollary \[main-co\]).
\[gen\] Let $F$ be a line bundle on a smooth projective variety $X$ and $h$ be a singular metric with semi-positive curvature on $F$. Then $$H^{q}(X, K_{X}\otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h)}) = 0
\hspace{0.4cm} {\text{for}}\ {\text{any}}\
q > \dim X-\kappa_{\rm{bdd}}(F, h).$$ See subsection \[proofgen\] or [@Mat14 Definition 5.1] for the definition of the bounded Kodaira dimension $\kappa_{\rm{bdd}}(F, h)$.
\[main-co\] Let $F$ be a line bundle on a smooth projective variety $X$ and $h_{\min}$ be a singular metric with minimal singularities on $F$. Then $$H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h_{\min})}) = 0
\hspace{0.4cm} {\text{for}}\ {\text{any}}\
q > \dim X-\kappa(F).$$ Here $\kappa(F)$ denotes the Kodaira dimension of $F$.
Since multiplier ideal sheaves are coherent ideal sheaves, the family of multiplier ideal sheaves $\{ \mathcal{I}(h^{1+\delta})\}_{\delta>0}$ has the maximal element, which we denote by $\mathcal{I}_{+}(h)$ (see [@DEL00] for more details). In [@Cao12], Cao gave striking results on the Nadel vanishing theorem for the cohomology groups with coefficients in $K_{X}\otimes F \otimes \mathcal{I}_{+}(h)$. However, the Nadel vanishing theorem for $K_{X}\otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h_{\min})}$ is non-trivial even if $F$ is big. In fact, it was first proved in [@Mat13a] when $F$ is big.
It is of interest to ask whether or not $\mathcal{I}_{+}(\varphi)$ agrees with $\mathcal{I}(\varphi)$ for a plurisubharmonic (psh for short) function $\varphi$, which was first posed in [@DEL00]. We can easily see that $\mathcal{I}_{+}(\varphi) = {\mathcal{I}(\varphi)}$ holds if $\varphi$ has algebraic singularities, but $h_{\min}$ unfortunately does not always have algebraic singularities. It is a natural problem related to the (strong) openness conjecture of Demailly-Kollár (see [@DK01]), but it had been an open problem. Recently, Guan-Zhou affirmatively solved the openness conjecture in [@GZ13]. Although their celebrated results imply Theorem \[gen\], we believe that our techniques are still of interest, since they bring a quite different viewpoint and have further applications.
Applications to the extension theorem
-------------------------------------
In this subsection, we give an extension theorem for pluri-canonical sections of log pairs. Our motivation is the abundance conjecture, which is one of the most important conjectures in the classification theory of algebraic varieties. From now on, we freely use the standard notation in [@BCHM10], [@kamama], [@KM] and further we interchangeably use the words Cartier divisors“, line bundles”, invertible sheaves".
\[abun conj\]Let $X$ be a normal projective variety and $\Delta$ be an effective $\mathbb{Q}$-divisor such that $(X,\Delta)$ is a klt pair. Then $\kappa(K_X+\Delta)=\kappa_{\sigma}(K_X+\Delta)$. In particular, if $K_X+\Delta$ is nef, then it is semi-ample. See [@Nak] for the definition of $\kappa(\cdot)$ and $\kappa_{\sigma}(\cdot)$.
Toward the abundance conjecture, we need to study the non-vanishing conjecture and the extension conjecture (see [@DHP13], [@Fuj00 Introduction], [@FG14 Section 5]). We study the following extension conjecture for dlt pairs formulated in [@DHP13 Conjecture 1.3]:
\[c-dlt\] Let $X$ be a normal projective variety and $S + B$ be an effective $\mathbb Q$-divisor satisfying the following assumptions$:$
- $(X, S+B)$ is a dlt pair.
- $\lfloor S+B \rfloor =S$.
- $K_X+S+B$ is nef.
- $K_X+S+B$ is $\mathbb Q$-linearly equivalent to an effective divisor $D$ with $S \subseteq {{\operatorname{Supp}}}D \subseteq {{\operatorname{Supp}}}\,(S+B)$.
Then the restriction map $$H^0(X,\mathcal O _X(m(K_X+S+B)))\to H^0(S, \mathcal O _S(m(K_X+S+B)))$$ is surjective for sufficiently divisible integers $m\geq 2$.
When $S$ is a normal irreducible variety (that is, $(X, S+B)$ is a plt pair), Demailly-Hacon-Păun proved the above conjecture in [@DHP13] by using technical methods based on a version of the Ohsawa-Takegoshi $L^{2}$-extension theorem. This result can be seen as an extension theorem for plt pairs.
By applying Theorem \[main-inj2\] instead of the Ohsawa-Takegoshi theorem to the extension problem, we prove the following extension theorem for [*dlt pairs*]{}. Thanks to the injectivity theorem, we can obtain some extension theorems for not only plt paris but also dlt pairs. This is an advantage of our approach. Even if $K_{X}+\Delta$ is semi-positive (that is, it admits a smooth metric with semi-positive curvature), it seems to be very impossible to prove the extension theorem for dlt pairs by the Ohsawa-Takegoshi theorem at least in the current situation, and thus we need our injectivity theorem (Theorem \[main-inj2\]).
\[intro-ext\] Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold and $S+B$ be an effective $\mathbb Q$-divisor with the following assumptions$:$
- $S+B$ is a simple normal crossing divisor with $0 \leq S+B \leq 1$ and $\lfloor S+B \rfloor =S$.
- $K_{X}+S+B$ is ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linearly equivalent to an effective divisor $D$ with $S \subseteq\mathrm{Supp}\, D$.
- $K_{X}+S+B$ admits a singular metric $h$ with semi-positive curvature.
- The Lelong number $\nu(h,x)$ is equal to $0$ at every point $x \in S$.
Then, for an integer $m \geq 2$ with Cartier divisor $m(K_{X}+S+B)$, every section $u \in H^{0}(S, \mathcal{O}_{S}(m(K_{X}+S+B)))$ can be extended to a section in $H^{0}(X, \mathcal{O}_{X}(m(K_{X}+S+B)) )$.
In particular, Conjecture \[c-dlt\] is affirmatively solved under the assumption that $K_{X}+ \Delta$ admits a singular metric whose curvature is semi-positive and Lelong number is identically zero. This assumption is stronger than the assumption that $K_{X}+\Delta$ is nef, but weaker than the assumption that $K_{X}+\Delta$ is semi-positive. Let us observe that Verbitsky proved the non-vanishing conjecture on hyperKähler manifolds (holomorphic symplectic manifolds) under the same assumption (see [@Ver10]).
As compared to Conjecture \[c-dlt\], one of our advances has been to remove the condition ${{\operatorname{Supp}}}\,D\subseteq {{\operatorname{Supp}}}(S+B) $. As a benefit of removing the condition ${{\operatorname{Supp}}}\,D\subseteq {{\operatorname{Supp}}}(S+B) $ in Conjecture \[c-dlt\], we can run the minimal model program while preserving a good condition for metrics (cf. [@DHP13 Section 8], [@FG14 Theorem 5.9]). By applying the above theorem and techniques of the minimal model program, we obtain results related to the abundance conjecture (see [@GM13] for more details).
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
---------------
The author obtained an opportunity of discussion on the injectivity theorem and extension problem when he attended the conference The 10th Korean Conference in Several Complex Variables". He is grateful to the organizers. He would also like to thank the referee for carefully reading the paper and for suggestions. He is partially supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) $\sharp$25800051 from JSPS.
Proof of the Main Results {#S-Proof}
=========================
Proof of Theorem \[main-inj2\] {#S-Inj}
------------------------------
In this subsection, we give a proof of the following theorem, which is an improvement of Theorem \[main-inj\] to obtain Theorem \[intro-ext\].
\[main-inj2\] Let $(F, h_{F})$ and $(L, h_{L})$ be $($singular$)$ hermitian line bundles with semi-positive curvature on a compact Kähler manifold $X$. Assume that there exists an effective $\mathbb{R}$-divisor $\Delta$ with $$\begin{aligned}
h_{F}=h_{L}^{a}\cdot h_{\Delta}, \end{aligned}$$ where $a$ is a positive real number and $h_{\Delta}$ is the singular metric defined by $\Delta$.
Then for a $($non-zero$)$ section $s$ of $L$ satisfying $\sup_{X} |s|_{h_{L}} < \infty$, the multiplication map $$\Phi_{s}: H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h_{F})})
\xrightarrow{\otimes s}
H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F\otimes L \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h_{F} h_{L})})$$ is $($well-defined and$)$ injective for any $q$.
\[rem-inj\]
\(1) The case of $\Delta=0$ corresponds to Theorem \[main-inj\].\
$(2)$ If $h_{L}$ and $h_{F}$ are smooth on a Zariski open set, the same conclusion holds under the weaker assumption of $\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_{F}}(F) \geq a \sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_{L}}(L)$ $($see [@Mat14 Theorem 1.5]$)$.
We give here only the strategy of the proof. See [@Mat13b], [@GM13] for the precise proof. First of all, we recall Enoki’s method to generalize Kollár’s injectivity theorem, which gives a proof of the special case where $h_{L}$ is smooth and $\Delta=0$. In this case, the cohomology group $H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F)$ is isomorphic to the space of the harmonic forms with respect to $h_{F}$ $$\mathcal{H}^{n, q}(F)_{h_{F}}:= \{u \mid u
\text{ is a smooth $F$-valued $(n,q)$-form on } X
\text{ such that } {\overline{\partial}}u = D^{''*}_{h_{F}} u =0. \},$$ where $D^{''*}_{h_{F}}$ is the adjoint operator of the ${\overline{\partial}}$-operator. For an arbitrary harmonic form $u \in \mathcal{H}^{n, q}(F)_{h_{F}}$, we can conclude that $D^{''*}_{h_{F}h_{L}} su =0$ from the semi-positivity of the curvature and $h_{F}=h^{a}_{L}$. This step heavily depends on the semi-positivity of the curvature. This implies that the multiplication map $\Phi_{s}$ induces the map from $\mathcal{H}^{n, q}(F)_{h_{F}}$ to $\mathcal{H}^{n, q}(F\otimes L)_{h_{F}h_{L}}$, and thus the injectivity is obvious.
When $h_{L}$ is smooth on a Zariski open set, the cohomology group $H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h)})$ is isomorphic to the space of harmonic forms on the Zariski open set. Therefore we can give a proof similar to Enoki’s proof thanks to the semi-positivity of the curvature (see [@Mat14 Theorem 1.5]).
In our situation, we must consider singular metrics with transcendental (non-algebraic) singularities. It is quite difficult to directly handle transcendental singularities, and thus, in Step 1, we approximate a given singular metric $h_{F}$ by metrics $\{h_{{\varepsilon}} \}_{{\varepsilon}>0}$ that are smooth on a Zariski open set. Then we represent a given cohomology class in $H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h_{F})})$ by the associated harmonic form $u_{{\varepsilon}}$ with respect to $h_{{\varepsilon}}$ on the Zariski open set. We want to show that $s u_{{\varepsilon}}$ is also harmonic by using the same method as Enoki. However, the same argument as in [@Eno90] fails since the curvature of $h_{{\varepsilon}}$ is not semi-positive. For this reason, in Step2, we investigate the asymptotic behavior of the harmonic forms $u_{{\varepsilon}}$ with respect to a family of the regularized metrics $\{ h_{{\varepsilon}} \}_{{\varepsilon}>0}$. Then we show that the $L^{2}$-norm $\| D^{''*}_{ h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}} }su_{{\varepsilon}}\|$ converges to zero as ${\varepsilon}$ tends to zero, where $h_{L, {\varepsilon}}$ is a suitable approximation of $h_{L}$. Further, in Step 3, we construct solutions $\gamma_{{\varepsilon}}$ of the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation ${\overline{\partial}}\gamma_{{\varepsilon}} = su_{{\varepsilon}}$ such that the $L^{2}$-norm $\| \gamma_{{\varepsilon}} \|$ is uniformly bounded, by applying the $\rm{\check{C}}$ech complex with the topology induced by the local $L^{2}$-norms. In Step 4, we see that $$\| su_{{\varepsilon}} \| ^{2} =
{{\langle\!\langle}}su_{{\varepsilon}}, {\overline{\partial}}\gamma_{{\varepsilon}} {{\rangle\!\rangle}}\leq \| D^{''*}_{h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}} su_{{\varepsilon}}\|
\| \gamma_{{\varepsilon}} \| \to 0 \quad {\text{as }} {\varepsilon}\to 0.$$ From these observations, we conclude that $u_{{\varepsilon}}$ converges to zero in a suitable sense. This completes the proof.\
[**[Step 1 (The equisingular approximation of $h_{F}$)]{}**]{}\
Throughout the proof, we fix a Kähler form $\omega$ on $X$. For the proof, we want to apply the theory of harmonic integrals, but the metric $h_{F}$ may not be smooth. For this reason, we approximate $h_{F}$ by metrics $\{ h_{{\varepsilon}} \}_{{\varepsilon}>0}$ that are smooth on a Zariski open set. By [@DPS01 Theorem 2.3], we can obtain metrics $\{ h_{{\varepsilon}} \}_{{\varepsilon}>0}$ on $F$ satisfying the following properties:
- $h_{{\varepsilon}}$ is smooth on $Y:=X \setminus Z$, where $Z$ is a subvariety independent of ${\varepsilon}$.
- $h_{{\varepsilon}_{2}} \leq h_{{\varepsilon}_{1}} \leq h_{F}$ holds for any $0< {\varepsilon}_{1} < {\varepsilon}_{2} $.
- ${\mathcal{I}(h_{F})}= {\mathcal{I}(h_{{\varepsilon}})}$.
- $\sqrt{-1} \Theta_{h_{{\varepsilon}}}(F) \geq -{\varepsilon}\omega$.
See [@Mat13b Theorem 2.3] for property (a). By [@Fuj12a Lemma 3.1], we obtain a Kähler form ${\widetilde{\omega}}$ on $Y$ satisfying the following properties:
- ${\widetilde{\omega}}$ is a complete Kähler form on $Y$.
- There exists a bounded function $\Psi$ such that ${\widetilde{\omega}}= {dd^c}\Psi$ on a neighborhood of $z\in Z$.
- ${\widetilde{\omega}}\geq \omega $.
In the proof, we mainly consider harmonic forms on $Y$ with respect to $h_{{\varepsilon}}$ and ${\widetilde{\omega}}$. Let $L_{(2)}^{n, q}(Y, F)_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}$ be the space of $L^{2}$-integrable $F$-valued $(n,q)$-forms $\alpha$ with respect to the inner product $\|\cdot \|_{h_{\varepsilon}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}$ defined by $$\|\alpha \|^{2}_{h_{\varepsilon}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}:= \int_{Y}
|\alpha |^{2}_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}\ {\widetilde{\omega}}^{n}.$$ Then we have the following orthogonal decomposition: $$L_{(2)}^{n, q}(Y, F)_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}
=
{\rm{Im}}\,{\overline{\partial}}\oplus
\mathcal{H}^{n, q}(F)_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}
\oplus {\rm{Im}}\,D^{''*}_{h_{{\varepsilon}}}.$$ Here the operator $D^{'*}_{h_{{\varepsilon}}}$ (resp. $D^{''*}_{h_{{\varepsilon}}}$) denotes the closed extension of the formal adjoint of the $(1,0)$-part $D^{'}_{h_{{\varepsilon}}}$ (resp. $(0,1)$-part $D^{''}_{h_{{\varepsilon}}}={\overline{\partial}}$) of the Chern connection $D_{h_{{\varepsilon}}}=D^{'}_{h_{{\varepsilon}}}+ D^{''}_{h_{{\varepsilon}}}$. Further $\mathcal{H}^{n, q}(F)_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}$ denotes the space of harmonic forms with respect to $h_{{\varepsilon}}$ and ${\widetilde{\omega}}$, namely $$\mathcal{H}^{n, q}(F)_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}:=
\{\alpha \mid \alpha
\text{ is an } F\text{-valued } (n,q)\text{-form with }
{\overline{\partial}}\alpha= D^{''*}_{h_{{\varepsilon}}}\alpha=0. \}.$$ A harmonic form in $ \mathcal{H}^{n, q}(F)_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}$ is smooth by the regularity theorem for elliptic operators. These results are known to specialists. The precise proof of them can be found in [@Fuj12a Claim 1].
Take an arbitrary cohomology class $\{u \} \in H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h_{F})})$ represented by an $F$-valued $(n, q)$-form $u$ with $\|u \|_{h_{F}, \omega} < \infty$. In order to prove that the multiplication map $\Phi_{s}$ is injective, we assume that the cohomology class of $su$ is zero in $H^{q}(X, K_{X}\otimes F\otimes L \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h_{F}h_{L})})$. Our goal is to show that the cohomology class of $u$ is actually zero under this assumption.
By the inequality $\|u\|_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}} \leq
\|u \|_{h_{F}, \omega}< \infty$, we can obtain $u_{{\varepsilon}} \in \mathcal{H}^{n, q}(F)_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}$ and $v_{{\varepsilon}} \in L_{(2)}^{n,q-1}(Y, F)_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}$ such that $$u=u_{{\varepsilon}}+{\overline{\partial}}v_{{\varepsilon}}.$$ Note that the component of ${\rm{Im}} D^{''*}_{h_{{\varepsilon}}}$ is zero since $u$ is ${\overline{\partial}}$-closed.
At the end of this step, we explain the strategy of the proof. In Step 2, we show that $\|D^{''*}_{h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}}
s u_{{\varepsilon}} \|_{ h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}$ converges to zero as ${\varepsilon}$ tends to zero. Here $h_{L, {\varepsilon}}$ is the singular metric on $L$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
h_{L, {\varepsilon}}:= h_{{\varepsilon}}^{1/a}\, h_{\Delta}^{-1/a}. \end{aligned}$$ Since the cohomology class of $su$ is zero, there are solutions $\gamma_{{\varepsilon}}$ of the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation ${\overline{\partial}}\gamma_{{\varepsilon}} = s u_{{\varepsilon}}$. For the proof, we need to obtain $L^{2}$-estimates of them. In Step 3, we construct solutions $\gamma_{{\varepsilon}}$ of the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation ${\overline{\partial}}\gamma_{{\varepsilon}} = s u_{{\varepsilon}}$ such that the norm $\| \gamma_{{\varepsilon}} \|_{h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}$ is uniformly bounded. Then we have $$\|su_{{\varepsilon}} \|^{2}_{h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}} \leq
\|D^{''*}_{h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}} s u_{{\varepsilon}} \|_{h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}
\| \gamma_{{\varepsilon}} \|_{h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}.$$ By Step 2 and Step 3, we can conclude that the right hand side goes to zero as ${\varepsilon}$ tends to zero. In Step 4, from this convergence, we prove that $u_{{\varepsilon}}$ converges to zero in a suitable sense, which implies that the cohomology class of $u$ is zero.\
\
[**[Step 2 (A generalization of Enoki’s proof)]{}**]{}\
By generalizing Enoki’s method, in Step 2, we prove the following proposition:
\[D”\] As ${\varepsilon}$ tends to zero, the norm $\|D^{''*}_{h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}} s u_{{\varepsilon}} \|_{h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}$ converges to zero.
The same argument as in [@Eno90] fails since the curvature of $h_{{\varepsilon}}$ is not semi-positive, and further property (d) is not sufficient for the proof of the proposition since there is counterexample to the injectivity theorem for nef line bundles. To overcome these difficulties, we first see the following inequality: $$\label{ine2}
\|u_{{\varepsilon}} \|_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}
\leq \|u \|_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}
\leq \|u \|_{h, \omega}.$$ This inequality and properties (b), (c) imply the proposition. This step can be considered as a generalization of Enoki’s method.\
[**[Step 3 (A construction of solutions of the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation via the $\bf\rm{\check{C}}$ech complex)]{}**]{}\
In Step 3, we construct solutions of the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation with suitable $L^{2}$-norm by using the $\bf\rm{\check{C}}$ech complex.
\[sol-1\] There exist $F$-valued $(n, q-1)$-forms $\alpha_{{\varepsilon}}$ on $Y$ satisfying the following properties$:$ $${\rm{(1)}}\hspace{0.2cm} {\overline{\partial}}\alpha_{{\varepsilon}}=u-u_{{\varepsilon}}.
\quad
{\rm{(2)}}\hspace{0.2cm} \text{The norm }
\|\alpha_{{\varepsilon}} \|_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}
\text{ is uniformly bounded}.$$
We have already known that there exist solutions $\alpha_{{\varepsilon}}$ of the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation ${\overline{\partial}}\alpha_{{\varepsilon}}=u-u_{{\varepsilon}} $ since $u-u_{{\varepsilon}} \in {\rm{Im}} {\overline{\partial}}$. However, for the proof of the main theorem, we need to construct solutions with uniformly bounded $L^{2}$-norm.
The strategy of the proof is as follows: The main idea of the proof is to convert the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation ${\overline{\partial}}\alpha_{{\varepsilon}}=u-u_{{\varepsilon}}$ to the equation $\delta V_{{\varepsilon}} = S_{{\varepsilon}}$ of the coboundary operator $\delta$ in the space of cochains $C^{\bullet}(K_{X}\otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h_{{\varepsilon}})})$, by using the $\rm{\check{C}}$ech complex and pursuing the De Rham-Weil isomorphism. Here the $q$-cochain $S_{{\varepsilon}}$ is constructed from $u-u_{{\varepsilon}}$. In this construction, we locally solve the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation. The important point is that the space $C^{\bullet}(K_{X}\otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h_{{\varepsilon}})})$ is independent of ${\varepsilon}$ thanks to property (c) of $h_{{\varepsilon}}$ although the $L^{2}$-space $L^{n,q}_{(2)}(Y, F)_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}$ depends on ${\varepsilon}$. Since $\|u-u_{{\varepsilon}}\|_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}$ is uniformly bounded, we can observe that $S_{{\varepsilon}}$ converges to some $q$-coboundary in $C^{q}(K_{X}\otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h)})$ with the topology induced by the local $L^{2}$-norms with respect to $h$. Further we can observe that the coboundary operator $\delta$ is an open map. Then by these observations we construct solutions $V_{{\varepsilon}}$ of the equation $\delta V_{{\varepsilon}} = S_{{\varepsilon}}$ with uniformly bounded norm. Finally, by using a partition of unity, we conversely construct $\alpha_{{\varepsilon}} \in L^{n,q-1}_{(2)}(Y, F)_{h_{{\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}$ from $S_{{\varepsilon}}$ satisfying the properties in Proposition \[sol-1\]. This proof gives a new method to obtain $L^{2}$-estimates of solutions of the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation.
\
[**[Step 4 (The limit of the harmonic forms)]{}**]{}\
In Step 4, we investigate the limit of $u_{{\varepsilon}}$ and complete the proof. By Step 2 and Step 3, we have $$\|su_{{\varepsilon}} \|^{2}_{h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}} \leq
\|D^{''*}_{h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}} s u_{{\varepsilon}} \|_{h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}}
\| \gamma_{{\varepsilon}} \|_{h_{{\varepsilon}} h_{L, {\varepsilon}}, {\widetilde{\omega}}} \to 0
\quad \text{as} \quad {\varepsilon}\to 0.$$ From this convergence, we can show that $u_{{\varepsilon}}$ converges to zero in a suitable sense, which implies that the cohomology class $\{u \}$ of $u$ is zero in $H^{q}(X, K_{X} \otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h_{{\varepsilon}})})$. By property (c), we obtain the conclusion of Theorem \[main-inj2\].
Proof of Theorem \[gen\] {#proofgen}
------------------------
In this subsection, we give a proof of Theorem \[gen\] by using Theorem \[main-inj\] and [@Mat14 Theorem 4.1].
*Proof of Theorem \[gen\].$)$* We consider the space of sections with bounded norm defined by $$H_{{\rm{bdd}}, h^m}^{0}(X, F^m): =
\{ s \in H(X, F^m)\ \big| \ \sup_{X} |s|_{h^m} < \infty \}.$$ The [*generalized Kodaira dimension*]{} $\kappa_{\rm{bdd}}(F, h)$ of $(F,h)$ is defined to be $-\infty$ if $H_{{\rm{bdd}}, h^{m}}^{0}(X,F^{m})=0$ for any $m>0$. Otherwise, $\kappa_{\rm{bdd}}(F, h)$ is defined by $$\kappa_{\rm{bdd}}(F, h): =
\sup \{ k \in \mathbb{Z}\mid \limsup_{m \to \infty}
\dim H_{{\rm{bdd}}, h^{m}}^{0}(X, F^{m})\big/ m^{k} > 0 \}.$$ For a contradiction, we assume that there exists a non-zero cohomology class $\alpha \in H^{q}(X, K_{X}\otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h)})$. If sections $\{s_{i}\}_{i=1}^{N}$ in $H_{{\rm{bdd}}, h^{m}}^{0}(X, F^{m})$ are linearly independent, then $\{s_{i} \alpha \}_{i=1}^{N}$ are also linearly independent in $ H^{q}(X, K_{X}\otimes F^{m+1} \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h^{m+1})})$. Indeed, if $\sum_{i=1}^{N} c_{i} s_{i} \alpha =0$ for some $c_{i} \in \mathbb{C}$, then we know $\sum_{i=1}^{N} c_{i} s_{i}=0$ by Theorem \[main-inj\]. Since $\{s_{i}\}_{i=1}^{N}$ are linearly independent, we have $c_{i}=0$ for any $i=1,2,\dots N$. This yields $$\dim H_{{\rm{bdd}}, h^{m}}^{0}(X, F^{m}) \leq
\dim H^{q}(X, K_{X}\otimes F^{m+1} \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h^{m+1})}).$$ On the other hand, by [@Mat14 Theorem 4.1], we have $$\dim H^{q}(X, K_{X}\otimes F^{m} \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h^{m})})= O(m^{\dim X-q})
\quad \text{as} \quad m \to \infty$$ for any $q\geq 0$ (cf. [@Dem (6.18) Lemma]). If $q > \dim X-\kappa_{\rm{bdd}}(F, h)$, this is a contradiction.
Proof of Theorem \[intro-ext\]
------------------------------
In this subsection, we give a proof of Theorem \[intro-ext\].
*Proof of Theorem \[intro-ext\].$)$* For simplicity, we put $\Delta:= S+B$ and $G:=m(K_{X}+ \Delta)$. We may assume the additional assumption of $h \leq h_{D}$, where $h_{D}$ is the singular metric on $\mathcal{O}_{X}(K_{X}+\Delta)$ defined by the effective divisor $D$. Indeed, for a smooth metric $g$ on $\mathcal{O}_{X}(K_{X}+\Delta)$ and an $L^{1}$-function $\varphi$ (resp. $\varphi_{D}$) with $h= g\, e^{-\varphi} $ (resp. $h_{D}= g\, e^{-\varphi_{D}} $), the metric defined by $g\, e^{-\max( \varphi, \varphi_{D})}$ satisfies the assumptions again.
Consider the following exact sequence: $$0 \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X}(G - S) \otimes I (h^{m-1}h_{B})
\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X}(G ) \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h^{m-1}h_{B})}
\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{S}(G ) \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h^{m-1}h_{B})}
\rightarrow0.$$ We first prove the induced homomorphism $$H^{q}(X, \mathcal{O}_{X}(G - S) \otimes I (h^{m-1}h_{B}))
\to
H^{q}(X, \mathcal{O}_{X}(G) \otimes I (h^{m-1}h_{B}))$$ is injective by our injectivity theorem. By the assumption on the support of $D$, we can take an integer $a>0$ such that $aD$ is a Cartier divisor and $S \leq a D$. Then we have the following commutative diagram:
$$\xymatrix{
& \hspace{-3.5cm} H^{q}(X, \mathcal{O}_{X}(G) \otimes I (h^{m-1}h_{B})) \supseteq \mathrm{Im}\,(+S)
\ar[d]^{+ (aD -S)}
& \\
H^{q}(X, \mathcal{O}_{X}(G - S) \otimes I (h^{m-1}h_{B}))
\ar[ru]^{+ S}
\ar[r]_{\hspace{-1.0cm}+ aD} &
H^{q}(X, \mathcal{O}_{X}(G - S + aD) \otimes I (h^{a+m-1}h_{B})), &
}$$ with a map $+S:H^{q}(X, \mathcal{O}_{X}(G - S) \otimes I (h^{m-1}h_{B})) \to H^{q}(X, \mathcal{O}_{X}(G ) \otimes I (h^{m-1}h_{B})).$ In order to show that the upper map on right is injective, we prove that the horizontal map is injective as an application of Theorem \[main-inj2\].
By the definition of $G$, we have $$G -S =m(K_{X}+\Delta)-S=K_{X} + (m-1)(K_{X}+ \Delta) + B.$$ Then the line bundle $F:= \mathcal{O}_{X}((m-1)(K_{X}+ \Delta) + B)$ equipped with the metric $h_{F}:= h^{m-1} h_{B}$ and the line bundle $L:=\mathcal{O}_{X}(aD)$ equipped with the metric $h_{L}:= h^{{a}}$ satisfy the assumptions in Theorem \[main-inj2\]. Indeed, we have $h_{F}=h_{L}^{(m-1)/a} h_{B}$ by the construction, and further the point-wise norm $|s_{aD}|_{h_{L}}$ is bounded on $X$ by the inequality $h \leq h_{D}$, where $s_{aD}$ is the natural section of $aD$. Therefore the horizontal map is injective by Theorem \[main-inj2\]. By the assumption on the Lelong number of $h$, we can conclude that $\mathcal{O}_{S}\otimes {\mathcal{I}(h^{m-1}h_{B})}=\mathcal{O}_{S}$. This follows from Skoda’s lemma and Hölder’s inequality. This completes the proof.
Open Problems {#S-App}
=============
In this section, we summarize and give open problems related to the topics mentioned in this survey.
It is of interest to consider the injectivity theorem in the relative situation. The following problem is a relative version of Theorem \[main-inj\]. For relative versions of the injectivity theorem and their applications, we refer the reader to [@Fuj12b]. In his paper [@Fuj12b], Fujino affirmatively solved this problem under the assumption on the regularity of singular metrics, whose proof is based on the Ohsawa-Takegoshi twisted version of Nakano’s identity. To remove this assumption, it seems to be needed to use a combination of his method and the techniques of Theorem \[main-inj\].
\[prob-rel\] Let $\pi:X \to Y$ be a surjective holomorphic map from Kähler manifold $X$ to a complex manifold $Y$, and $F$ be a line bundle on $X$ with a singular metric $h$ whose curvature is semi-positive. Then for a $($non-zero$)$ section $s$ of a positive multiple $F^{m}$ satisfying $\sup_{X}|s|_{h^{m}}< \infty$, the multiplication map $$\Phi_{s}: R^{q}\pi_{*}(K_{X} \otimes F \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h)})
\xrightarrow{\otimes s}
R^{q}\pi_{*}(K_{X} \otimes F^{m+1} \otimes {\mathcal{I}(h^{m+1})})$$ is injective for any $q$. Here $R^{q}\pi_{*}(\mathcal{F})$ denotes the higher direct image of a sheaf $\mathcal{F}$.
Theorem \[main-inj2\] can be expected to hold under the weaker assumption made in the following problem. Indeed, this problem was affirmatively solved in [@Mat14] under s regularity assumption on singular metrics. It is also an interesting problem to consider the relative version of this problem in the same direction as Problem \[prob-rel\].
\[prob-dif\] Let $(F, h_{F})$ and $(L, h_{L})$ be $($singular$)$ hermitian line bundles with semi-positive curvature on a compact Kähler manifold $X$. Assume there exists a positive real number $a$ such that $\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_{F}}(F) \geq a \sqrt{-1}\Theta_{h_{L}}(L)$. Then the same conclusion as in Theorem \[main-inj2\] holds.
Fujino proposed the following problem, which asks whether one can generalize the injectivity theorem for lc pairs proved by him. The main difficulty in studying this problem is that one must handle lc singularities by analytic methods.
Let $D$ be a simple normal crossing divisor and $F$ be a semi-positive line bundle on a compact Kähler manifold $X$. Then, for a $($non-zero$)$ section $s$ of a positive multiple $F^{m}$ whose zero locus $s^{-1}(0)$ contains no lc centers of $(X,D)$, the multiplication map $$\Phi_{s}: H^{q}(X, K_{X}\otimes F\otimes \mathcal{O}_{X}(D))
\xrightarrow{\otimes s}
H^{q}(X, K_{X}\otimes F^{m+1}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{X}(D) )$$ is injective for any $q$.
For a nef line bundle $F$ on a smooth projective variety $X$, it can be proven that $$\dim H^{q}(X, F^{m})= O(m^{\dim X -q})
\quad \text{as} \quad m \to \infty.$$ When $X$ is merely supposed to be a compact Kähler manifold, the same conclusion can be expected. This was first posed by Demailly, and proved by Berndtsson under the stronger assumption that $F $ is semi-positive in [@Ber12]. The following problem was also proved in [@Mat14] when $X$ is a smooth projective variety.
Let $F$ be a line bundle on a compact Kähler manifold $X$ and $h$ be a singular metric with semi-positive curvature on $F$. Then, for any vector bundle $($or line bundle$)$ $M$, we have $$\dim H^{q}(X, M\otimes F^{m}\otimes {\mathcal{I}(h^{m})})= O(m^{\dim X -q})
\quad \text{as} \quad m \to \infty.$$
[n]{}
F. Ambro. [*Quasi-log varieties.*]{} Tr. Mat. Inst. Steklova [**[240]{}**]{} (2003), Biratsion. Geom. Linein. Sist. Konechno Porozhdennye Algebry, 220–239; translation in Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. (2003), no. 1 (240), 214–233.
F. Ambro. *An Injectivity Theorem.* Compos. Math. [**[150]{}**]{} (2014), no. 6, 999–1023.
C. Birkar, P. Cascini, C. D. Hacon, J. $\mathrm{M^{c}}$Kernan. [*Existence of minimal models for varieties of log general type.*]{} J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**[23]{}**]{} (2010), 405–468.
B. Berndtsson. *An eigenvalue estimate for the ${\overline{\partial}}$-Laplacian.* J. Differential Geom. [**[60]{}**]{} (2002), no. 2, 295–313.
B. Berndtsson. *The openness conjecture for plurisubharmonic functions.* Preprint, arXiv:1305.5781v1.
J. Cao. *Numerical dimension and a Kawamata-Viehweg-Nadel type vanishing theorem on compact Kähler manifolds.* Preprint, arXiv:1210.5692v1, to appear in Composio. Math.
J.-P. Demailly, L. Ein, R. Lazarsfeld. *A subadditivity property of multiplier ideals.* Michigan Math. J. [**48**]{} (2000), 137–156.
J.-P. Demailly. *Analytic methods in algebraic geometry.* Surveys of Modern Mathematics [**[1]{}**]{}, International Press, Somerville, MA; Higher Education Press, Beijing, (2012).
J.-P. Demailly. *Complex analytic and differential geometry.* Lecture Notes on the web page of the author.
J.-P. Demailly. *Estimations $L^{2}$ pour l’opérateur $\overline{\partial}$ d’un fibré vectoriel holomorphe semi-positif au-dessus d’une variété kählérienne complète.* Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup(4). [**[15]{}**]{} (1982), 457–511.
J.-P. Demailly, C. D. Hacon, M. Păun. [*Extension theorems, non-vanishing and the existence of good minimal models.*]{} Acta Math. [**210**]{} (2013), 203–259.
J.-P. Demailly, J. Kollár. *Semicontinuity of complex singularity exponents and Kähler-Einstein metrics on Fano orbifolds.* Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup(4) [**[34]{}**]{} (2001), 525–556.
J.-P. Demailly, T. Peternell, M. Schneider. *Pseudo-effective line bundles on compact Kähler manifolds.* International Journal of Math. [**[6]{}**]{} (2001), 689–741.
I. Enoki. *Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem for compact Kähler manifolds.* Einstein metrics and Yang-Mills connections (Sanda, 1990), 59–68.
L. Ein, M. Popa. *Global division of cohomology classes via injectivity.* Special volume in honor of Melvin Hochster. Michigan Math. J. [**[57]{}**]{} (2008), 249–259.
H. Esnault, E. Viehweg. *Lectures on vanishing theorems.* DMV Seminar, [**[20]{}**]{}. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, (1992).
O. Fujino. [*Abundance theorem for semi log canonical threefolds.*]{} Duke Math. J. [**102**]{} (2000), no. 3, 513–532.
O. Fujino. [*Fundamental theorems for the log minimal model program.*]{} Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. [**47**]{} (2011), no. 3, 727–789.
O. Fujino. *A transcendental approach to Kollár’s injectivity theorem.* Osaka J. Math. [**[49]{}**]{} (2012), no. 3, 833–852.
O. Fujino. *A transcendental approach to Kollár’s injectivity theorem II.* J. Reine Angew. Math. [**[681]{}**]{} (2013), 149–174.
O. Fujino. *Injectivity theorems.* Preprint, arXiv:1303.2404v1.
O. Fujino, Y. Gongyo. [*Log pluricanonical representations and the abundance conjecture.*]{} Compositio Math. [**[150]{}**]{} (2014), 593–620.
Y. Gongyo, S. Matsumura. *Versions of injectivity and extension theorems.* Preprint, arXiv:1406.6132v2.
Q. Guan, X. Zhou. *Strong openness conjecture for plurisubharmonic functions.* Preprint, arXiv:1311.3781v1.
Y. Kawamata. *A generalization of Kodaira-Ramanujam’s vanishing theorem.* Math. Ann. [**[261]{}**]{} (1982), no. 1, 43–46.
Y. Kawamata. *Pluricanonical systems on minimal algebraic varieties.* Invent. Math. [**[79]{}**]{} (1985), no. 3, 567–588.
Y. Kawamata. [*Abundance theorem for minimal threefolds*]{}, Invent. Math. [**108**]{} (1992), no. 2, 229–246.
Y. Kawamata, K. Matsuda, K. Matsuki. *Introduction to the minimal model problem.* Algebraic geometry, Sendai, (1985), 283–360, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., [**[10]{}**]{}, North-Holland, Amsterdam, (1987).
S. Keel, K. Matsuki, J. $\mathrm{M^{c}}$Kernan. [*Log abundance theorem for threefolds.*]{} Duke Math. J. [**75**]{} (1994), no. 1, 99–119, Corrections to: " Duke Math. J. [**122**]{} (2004), no. 3, 625–630.
J. Kollár, S. Mori. [*Birational geometry of algebraic varieties.*]{} Cambridge Tracts in Math.,[**[134]{}**]{} (1998).
J. Kollár. *Higher direct images of dualizing sheaves. I.* Ann. of Math. (2) [**[123]{}**]{} (1986), no. 1, 11–42.
R. Lazarsfeld. *Positivity in Algebraic Geometry I-II.* A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics, [**[48, 49]{}**]{} Springer Verlag, Berlin, (2004).
S. Matsumura. *A Nadel vanishing theorem for metrics with minimal singularities on big line bundles.* Preprint, arXiv:1306.2497v2.
S. Matsumura. *An injectivity theorem with multiplier ideal sheaves of singular metrics with transcendental singularities.* Preprint, arXiv:1308.2033v2.
S. Matsumura. *A Nadel vanishing theorem via injectivity theorems.* Math. Ann. [**[359]{}**]{} (2014) no.4, pp. 785-802.
A. M. Nadel. *Multiplier ideal sheaves and existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics of positive scalar curvature.* Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. [**[86]{}**]{} (1989), no. 19, 7299–7300.
A. M. Nadel. *Multiplier ideal sheaves and Kähler-Einstein metrics of positive scalar curvature.* Ann. of Math. (2) [**[132]{}**]{} (1990), no. 3, 549–596.
N. Nakayama. *Zariski decomposition and abundance.* MSJ Memoirs, [**[14]{}**]{}. Mathematical Society of Japan, Tokyo, 2004.
T. Ohsawa. *Vanishing theorems on complete Kähler manifolds.* Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. [**[20]{}**]{} (1984), no. 1, 21–38.
T. Ohsawa. *On a curvature condition that implies a cohomology injectivity theorem of Kollár-Skoda type.* Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. [**[41]{}**]{} (2005), no. 3, 565–577.
K. Takegoshi. *On cohomology groups of nef line bundles tensorized with multiplier ideal sheaves on compact Kähler manifolds.* Osaka J. Math. [**34**]{} (1997), no. 4, 783–802.
S. G. Tankeev. [*On $n$-dimensional canonically polarized varieties and varieties of fundamental type.*]{} Math. USSR-Izv. [**5**]{} (1971), no. 1, 29–43.
M. Verbitsky. [*HyperK$\mathrm{\ddot{a}}$hler SYZ conjecture and semipositive line bundles.*]{} Geom. Funct. Anal. [**[19]{}**]{} (2010), no. 5, 1481–1493.
E. Viehweg. *Vanishing theorems.* J. Reine Angew. Math. [**[335]{}**]{} (1982), 1–8.
[^1]: Classification AMS 2010: 14F18, 32L10, 32L20.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Daniel Ramos
- Juan Maroñas
- 'Alicia Lozano-Diez'
date: 'September, 2017[^1]'
title: '**Bayesian Strategies for Likelihood Ratio Computation in Forensic Voice Comparison with Automatic Systems**'
---
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">**Abstract:**</span>
This paper explores several strategies for Forensic Voice Comparison (FVC), aimed at improving the performance of the LRs when using generative Gaussian score-to-LR models. First, different anchoring strategies are proposed, with the objective of adapting the LR computation process to the case at hand, always respecting the propositions defined for the particular case. Second, a fully-Bayesian Gaussian model is used to tackle the sparsity in the training scores that is often present when the proposed anchoring strategies are used. Experiments are performed using the 2014 i-Vector challenge set-up, which presents high variability in a telephone speech context. The results show that the proposed fully-Bayesian model clearly outperforms a more common Maximum-Likelihood approach, leading to high robustness when the scores to train the model become sparse.
**Keywords:** likelihood ratio, forensic voice comparison, automatic speaker recognition, anchoring, Gaussian, fully-Bayesian.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Introduction</span>
==========================================================
In forensic voice comparison (FVC) using automatic systems, a score is typically transformed into a likelihood ratio (LR) by using some probabilistic model [@gonzalez07IEEETrans; @drygajlo16forensicSpeakerRecognition]. Recently, this methodology has been proposed as the recommended way of reporting in court using automatic speaker recognition systems, in the context of the speech and audio laboratories belonging to the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) [@drygajlo16methodologicalGuidelinesENFSI]. Also, this is the typical strategy for LR computation in other biometric systems, where a score is the usual output when comparing two biometric specimens [@ramos16forensicBiometrics]. This approach can be also used in general when a model or method previously computes a score among two evidential materials, such as two handwritten documents or two chemical profiles [@hepler11handwritingAnchoring; @bolck15scoreFeatureLRMDMA].
Many techniques have been proposed in the past to do this score-to-LR transformation. Perhaps the most straightforward way is to assign a probability distribution [^2] to the score from the automatic system, given each one of the propositions in the forensic case. As score normalization techniques with Gaussianization properties are frequently an intrinsic stage of automatic speaker recognition systems[@navratil03awetnorm], the use of Gaussian distributions appears as a sensible choice[@brummer14BayesianForensicReporting]. Anyway, probabilistic distributions are typically assigned to scores using training strategies like Maximum Likelihood (ML) or Maximum a Posteriori (MAP) [@alberink14fingermarkConditioning; @ramos06oddyseyMAP]. Another popular approach is logistic regression, also trained with ML or MAP [@brummer07fusion], because of its good robustness properties over the whole score range, and the possibility of regularization, the latter affecting the calibration of the final LRs negatively. Recently, fully-Bayesian strategies have been proposed, in order to cope with the sparsity in the amount of scores available for training, while showing good calibration performance [@brummer14BayesianForensicReporting].
Another main problem in FVC is the use of the specimens and databases to compute a better LR in a given case. It is well known that speech is extremely variable according to many conditions (such as phonetic content, acoustic environment, emotional state, transmission channel and so on), and it has been also observed that this variability affects the score range quite seriously [@perez10Interspeech; @mandasari13qualityBasedCalibration]. Therefore, in order to compute a LR that presents good performance for a given case, two actions may be considered. First, the automatic speaker recognition system must implement powerful session variability compensation techniques in order to reduce the variability of the scores to be transformed into LRs. Second, the LR model itself must take into account the conditions of the speech in each case, while respecting the propositions and conditioning information of the case itself, because the distribution of the training scores have to fit the distribution of the score in the case. The LR model can address the latter by the selection of the data to compute the scores used to train the LR model. This data selection process and the subsequent strategy to compute the scores has been dubbed *anchoring* [@hepler11handwritingAnchoring; @alberink14fingermarkConditioning]. In this paper, we will propose some anchoring strategies, showing experiments that support their use in challenging FVC scenarios.
An additional problem with some *anchoring* strategies is that they typically results in a very small amount of scores to train the LR model. Unfortunately, these schemes are the most typically proposed ones in FVC [@drygajlo16forensicSpeakerRecognition]. The sparsity in the amount of scores typically affects the likelihood of the prosecution proposition, in the numerator of the LR, because the available data from a given suspect is often very limited in a case. In order to overcome this problem, we will test the use of a Gaussian fully-Bayesian model to cope with the uncertainty due to data sparsity.
Thus, the contribution of this work is two-fold: first, different anchoring schemes are tested, to show the adequacy of taking into account the conditions of the case in the anchoring process. Second, fully-Bayesian Gaussian models are proposed as an efficient way of reducing the problem of data sparsity in the training scores. Both experimental contributions are set-up in a highly challenging scenario of speech variability under telephone conditions: the NIST 2014 i-Vector Challenge.
The paper is organized as follows: Section \[sec\_\_SpeechHandling\] describes the anchoring schemes used in this paper, and their motivation. Section \[sec\_\_models\] will introduce the models to be compared in this article, namely Gaussian ML and Gaussian Fully-Bayesian. Finally, Section \[sec\_\_experiments\] describes the database and experimental protocol in the highly variable context of the 2014 NIST i-Vector Challenge competition; and shows the results supporting the research hypothesis. Conclusions are finally drawn in Section \[sec\_\_conclusions\].
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Handling Speech Data in FVC using Automatic Systems</span> {#sec__SpeechHandling}
=================================================================================================
Propositions in FVC
-------------------
A FVC case has the following typical elements. On the one hand, there are some questioned speech materials (namely, one or more questioned recordings) of disputed origin, also known as *trace*, and in general of an incriminatory nature. On the other hand, a suspect identified on the basis of other information, and from whom some control materials are recorded, namely one or more *reference* or *control* recordings. The problem consists in expressing the value of such evidence with respect to two propositions defined in the case. In this context, the identity of the suspect is typically known, as well as some other features that can be extracted from contextual information in the case, or from the speech materials themselves. This motivates the following typical definition of the propositions in FVC:
- $H_p$: the questioned materials come from the suspect the suspect.
- $H_d$: the questioned materials do not come from the suspect, but another individual from a given population of potential sources.
Note that $H_p$ and $H_d$ differ in the assumption of the origin of the trace $q$, which is unknown in the case. Therefore, conditioning in the propositions will imply a change of the source of the trace in the generation of training scores. Also, it is assumed that the suspect, and no other possible individual, has originated the reference materials in both cases, because the suspect is referred to in both propositions themselves. Such propositions have been dubbed *source-specific* or, if the potential source is a person, respectively *person-specific* [@ramos16forensicBiometrics]. They are the most common in FVC, where a suspect of known identity has been usually accused by a court of law.
We define $H$ as the random variable representing the proposition, with alphabet $\left\{ H_p, H_d \right\}$. Since the score generated by the comparison between the questioned and control materials must be evaluated in the context of those competing propositions, the likelihood ratio (LR) formula naturally arises [@gonzalez07IEEETrans; @drygajlo16methodologicalGuidelinesENFSI; @drygajlo16forensicSpeakerRecognition]:
$$LR = \frac{p\left( \left. s_c \right| H_p\right)} {p\left( \left. s_c \right| H_d\right)}
\label{eq__LR}$$
where $s_c$ is the score, *observed* from the comparison of the questioned and control materials, as given by the automatic system; and $p\left( \left. . \right| . \right)$ denotes a conditional probability density. In this way, the value of the evidence is given by the LR, and can be reported according to common procedures [@drygajlo16methodologicalGuidelinesENFSI].
Generating scores: *anchoring*
------------------------------
In order to assign the densities in \[eq\_\_LR\], two sets of training scores must be generated. Each training score will be accompanied by a *class label*, where classes are the $H_p$ and $H_d$ values from variable $H$ in this forensic scenario. A training score $s_i$ and its corresponding class label $H_i$ are represented as $(s_i,H_i)$. The total set of training scores will be $S=\left\{ S_p,S_d\right\}$, where $S_p = \left\{ (s_p^{(1)},H_p)),...,(s_p^{(N_p)},H_p)\right\}$ for the density in the numerator (conditioned to $H_p$) and $S_d = \left\{ (s_d^{(1)},H_d),...,(s_d^{(N_d)},H_d)\right\}$ for the density in the denominator (conditioned to $H_d$). The process for speech data selection and score generation of training scores is known as *anchoring* [@hepler11handwritingAnchoring; @alberink14fingermarkConditioning], and must consider the following facts:
1. The definition of the propositions will define how the scores $S_p$ and $S_d$ must be generated.
2. The high variability of the speech signal previously mentioned seriously compromise the distribution of the scores used to train LR models [@perez10Interspeech; @mandasari13qualityBasedCalibration]. Therefore, the generation of the scores must be done in the most similar speech conditions as those in the case, otherwise the densities will not represent the observed score $s_c$ in the case at hand [@drygajlo16forensicSpeakerRecognition].
Let $s_c$ be generated from the comparison of the questioned speech $q$ and the reference speech $r$. Thus, $s_c = \Delta\left(q,r\right)$, where $\Delta\left(.,.\right)$ represents the score computation algorithm of the automatic speaker recognition system[^3]. Also, it is assumed that $\Delta\left(q,r\right) = \Delta\left(r,q\right)$, as it happens with many speaker recognition systems[@matejka11PLDA] based on i-Vectors. Then, from both facts described above, some conclusions can be extracted for a FVC case using automatic systems:
- In order to satisfy $H_p$, for the density in the numerator of the LR, the training scores must be generated using traces from the suspect, known as *speech controls* of *pseudo-traces*; to be compared with reference speech also from the suspect. Moreover, in FVC a *person-specific* proposition implies that using same-person scores coming from other individuals different from the suspect will not be adequate, since the distribution of scores of different individuals is known to be highly variable [@doddington98zoo]. Therefore, comparing speech controls $\left\{q_p^{(i)}\right\}$ to other reference speech materials from the suspect, namely $\left\{r_p^{(j)}\right\}$, $S_p = \left\{ \Delta \left( q_p^{(i)},r_p^{(j)}\right) \right\}$ is obtained, with $\left|S_p\right| = N_p$.
- In order to fit the conditions of the case, both the trace and the reference speech used to generate training scores should be selected according to the following criteria:
- Reference speech: As the identity of the suspect is known to be the one in $r$, $\left\{r_p^{(j)}\right\}$ should consist of speech data from the suspect in conditions as close as possible to the conditions of $r$. In the limit, the best possible fitting is $r_p^{(j)}=r$, and to use a number $N_p$ of speech controls $q_p^{(i)}$.
- Trace: The speech controls $q_p^{(i)}$ must have conditions as close as possible to $q$. Otherwise, the model obtained using $S_p$ will not represent the model that could generate $s_c=\Delta(q,r)$ if $r$ and $q$ come from the same source, because a change in the conditions of the trace $q$ will most probably affect the score distribution.
- In order to satisfy $H_d$, for the density in the denominator of the LR, the training scores must be generated using traces coming from individuals being potential origins of the trace. In forensic practice, these potential origins are assumed to be drawn from a so-called *population* of individuals. Also, since the definition of the proposition is *person-specific*, it is assumed that the suspect, and no other individual, has generated the reference speech recordings in the case. Therefore, the scores $S_d$ must be generated by traces $q_d^{(i)}$ generated by individuals from the population of potential origins, compared to reference speech segments $r_d^{(j)}$ from the suspect. Thus, $S_d = \left\{ \Delta \left( q_d^{(i)},r_d^{(j)}\right) \right\}$, with $\left|S_d\right| = N_d$.
- In order to fit the conditions of the case, the same rationale as for $S_p$ applies. Thus:
- Reference speech: As the identity of the suspect is known to be the one in $r$, the best fitting in the conditions of $\left\{r_d^{(j)}\right\}$ is to use speech data from the suspect in conditions as close as possible to the conditions of $r$. In the limit, the best possible fitting is to always use $r_d^{(j)}=r$, and a number $N_d$ of traces $q_d^{(i)}$.
- Trace: The $q_d^{(i)}$ traces must have conditions as close as possible as in $q$. Otherwise, the model obtained using $S_d$ will not represent the model that could generate $s_c=\Delta(q,r)$ if $q$ comes from other individual than the suspect.
According to the aforementioned conclusions, in this work we propose two anchoring schemes:
1. *Suspect-anchored* (SA):
- Scores in $S_p = \left\{ \Delta \left( q_p^{(i)},r_p^{(j)}\right) \right\}$ are anchored to the speaker, and therefore $\left\{q_p^{(i)}\right\}$ are speech controls from the suspect in conditions as close as possible to the ones in $q$, and $\left\{r_p^{(j)}\right\}$ are speech segments from the suspect in conditions as close as possible to the ones in $r$.
- Scores in $S_d = \left\{\Delta\left( q_d^{(i)},r_d^{(j)}\right) \right\}$ are also anchored to the speaker, and therefore $\left\{q_d^{(j)}\right\}$ will be speech segments from other speakers from the population of potential origins, in conditions as close as possible to the ones in $q$; and $\left\{r_d^{(j)}\right\}$ will be speech segments from the suspect in conditions as close as possible to the ones in $r$. In fact, $\left\{r_p^{(j)}\right\}$ = $\left\{r_d^{(j)}\right\}$.
2. *Reference-anchored* (RA):
- Scores in $S_p = \left\{ \Delta \left( q_p^{(i)},r\right) \right\}$ are anchored to the reference speech $r$, and therefore $\left\{q_p^{(i)}\right\}$ are speech controls from the suspect in conditions as close as possible to the ones in $q$, and $r_p^{(j)}=r$.
- Scores in $S_d = \left\{\Delta\left( q_d^{(i)},r\right) \right\}$ are also anchored to the reference speech $r$, and therefore $\left\{q_d^{(j)}\right\}$ will be speech segments from other speakers from the population of potential origins, in conditions as close as possible to the ones in $q$; and $r_d^{(j)}=r$[^4].
One of our research hypotheses is that RA will offer better performance than SA, since the fitting to the conditions in $r$ is the most perfect one for RA. Also, as it can be seen, the use of these anchoring schemes may lead to a substantially high number of scores $N_d$ for assigning the denominator of the LR, because $\left\{q_d^{(i)}\right\}$ can be found to be large. However, $N_p$ can be very low, because in FVC the amount of data from the suspect is usually very limited. Therefore, data sparsity must be addressed mainly for $S_p$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Generative Models for LR computation from scores</span> {#sec__models}
==============================================================================================
Computing the LR can be done following discriminative and generative approaches. An example of discriminative approach is logistic regression [@brummer07fusion; @morrison13TutorialLogisticRegression], widely used in automatic speaker recognition. However, generative approaches have been recently proposed as a robust alternative to other methods [@brummer14BayesianForensicReporting]. Reasons are given below.
In this work we follow two generative approaches, where the $\log{LR}$ is computed from the ratio between the likelihood distributions, following equation \[eq\_\_LR\].
These likelihood distributions are computed from the joint probability density $p(s,H)$ or more exactly from the model representing the joint probability density $\widehat{p}(s,H|\theta)$ where for convenience we will replace $\widehat{p}$ by $p$ and $\theta$ represents the parameters of the model as a vector. In this work we implement these models using Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Bayesian Inference (BI).
Maximum Likelihood
------------------
Let $S=\{(s^{(i)},H_i)\}^N_{i=1}$ be a dataset drawn i.i.d. from the model distribution, that is, each sample is independent from the samples in the same class and from the samples in the other class (does not provide information about the other class). Thus, the likelihood function is defined as:\
$$p(S|\theta)=\prod^N_{i=1} p(s_i|H_i,\theta)\cdot p(H_i)$$
One can show that under this condition we can optimize each term of the likelihood function: $p(x|H_p)$,$p(x|H_d)$,$p(H_p)$ and $p(H_d)$; independently. For an example see [@Bishop:2006:PRM:1162264] section 4.2.2. For the task we address we are only interested in estimating the parameters of the likelihood function, because the prior probabilities are not the responsibility of the forensic evaluation process, and we can express our model thus:
$$p(S=\{s^{(1)},s^{(2)},..s^{(N)}\}|\theta)=\prod^N_{i=1} p(s_i|\theta)
\label{equ:fact}$$
Setting the derivative to zero and finding the maximum value we end up with a choice of the parameters. For a univariate Gaussian model, $\theta=(\mu_j,\sigma_j^2)$ with $j \in \{p,d\}$, as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mu_j &= \frac{1}{N_j}\underset{i \in N_j}{\sum}s_j^{(i)}\\
\sigma_j^2 &= \frac{1}{N_j-1}\underset{i \in N_j}{\sum}(s_j^{(i)}-\mu_j)^2\end{aligned}$$
Bayesian Parameter Inference
----------------------------
The approach of Bayesian inference starts by assuming we want to assign the predictive distribution $p(s|S)$, that is a distribution over the random variable $s$ whose form depends directly on the data set and not on a set of parameters. The key idea is marginalization over all the possible parameters of the underlying model. Hence:
$$p(s|S)=\int_{\forall \theta}p(s|\theta)\cdot p(\theta|S)d\theta
\label{equ:integral}$$
The latter is no more than an expectation of a given parametric function, in this case Gaussian, with a parameter distribution, $p(\theta|S)$ that depends on our data set $S$. For this point we should focus all our attention on the second factor of the product, that is, obtaining a parameter distribution from $S$. We can do this by applying Bayes’ theorem and defining a prior knowledge over the parameters. Thus:
$$p(\theta|S)=\frac{p(S|\theta)\cdot p(\theta)}{p(S)}$$
Where $p(S)$ is the area under the numerator function in the RHS of the equation. From this point we shall make some assumptions for having an analytic closed form for $p(s|S)$. First is that our model $p(s|\theta)$ is Gaussian. This means, taking in account that data from class $H$ only give information about that class and that samples are drawn iid, that we can factorize $p(S|\theta)$ as we have already done in Eq. \[equ:fact\]. Our last assumption is that the prior over the parameters $p(\theta)$ is a Gaussian-gamma function and thus we can rewrite the expression as the conjugate prior $p(\theta|\phi)$ where hyperparameters $\phi$ govern the form of the prior knowledge about this function. The Gaussian-gamma function is a conjugate prior of the Gaussian function and therefore the posterior of the parameter is also Gaussian-gamma. The integral from Eq. \[equ:integral\] has an analytic form which is a Student’s t. We can find the details about the inference process in [@Minka] and [@Brumer], where different approaches of the problem yield the same result. [@Minka] uses a non-informative parameter prior when the entropy of the parameter is maximum, and [@Brumer] uses a Gaussian gamma. By setting the parameters of the Gaussian-gamma to specific values we can have a Gaussian-gamma that tends to be non-informative. In our work we use the approach in [@Brumer], assuming maximum entropy for the parameters of the model.
When we have data sparsity, Bayesian inference (BI) (fully-Bayesian, as it is implemented here) is better than ML. When the number of data samples is big, the BI inference tends to the same result as ML. We see this effect reflected in the tails of the Student’s t distribution. We observe that in the data space where we have enough samples we have a good likelihood fit, but with sparse data the tails of the Student’s t are heavier. This is reflected in the likelihood ratio giving a preference for one class in the well represented data space and no preference in places without representation. Figures \[fig:1\] and \[fig:my\_label\] show BI vs ML inference of the parameters. First we show the likelihood distributions and then the function that transforms scores into log-likelihood-ratios (LLRs) for a given dataset. It can be seen that the LLRs obtained by the fully-Bayesian model (BI) are much more limited when the scores become extreme. This is a desired effect in forensic science, because very big LR values make little sense for automatic speaker recognition systems. However, due to data sparsity, extremely big values of the LR are allowed with ML, which is a quite undesirable effect.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Experiments</span> {#sec__experiments}
=========================================================
Database and automatic speaker recognition system {#ssec__databaseSystem}
-------------------------------------------------
For the experiments in this work, we used the data provided by NIST for the 2014 Speaker Recognition i-Vector challenge[^5]. For this challenge, 600-dimensional i-Vectors were provided from conversational telephone speech data available for previous NIST Speaker Recognition Evaluations (SRE’s), from 2004 to 2012. Different amounts of speech were used to compute the i-Vectors, following a log normal distribution with mean of 39.58 seconds. From these i-Vectors, scores were generated using PLDA [@matejka11PLDA]. To develop the PLDA system, we used i-Vectors from utterances with more than 30 seconds of speech in the development set, and the ground truth labels provided by NIST after the evaluation. This subset consists of 17424 i-Vectors, from 3769 different speaker identities. The evaluation data provided for this challenge comprises five i-Vectors for each target speaker model, and single i-Vectors representing test segments. The number of target speaker models was 1306, and the number of test i-Vectors, 9634, resulting in over 12 million trials.
Experimental Protocol
---------------------
For the experiments in this work, we have used the scores generated in the i-Vector challenge in different ways depending on the proposed anchoring scheme, as described below:
1. Suspect-Anchored (SA):
- $S_p$ is generated by drawing scores from a pool of scores including all possible combinations of two utterances from the suspect, without including the speech segment(s) of the suspect that might be present in the case. Different amounts of $N_p$ scores are drawn, in order to simulate data sparsity in $S_p$.
- $S_d$ is generated by comparing all utterances from the suspect with all utterances from other identities, excluding all utterances present in the case.
2. Reference-Anchored (RA):
- $S_p$ is generated by drawing scores from a pool of scores $\Delta \left( q_p^{(i)},r\right)$, where $r$ is the reference suspect speech in the case, and $\left\{q_p^{(i)}\right\}$ are the remaining utterances from the suspect, excluding $q$ when it comes from the suspect. Different amounts of $N_p$ scores are drawn, in order to simulate data sparsity in $S_p$.
- $S_d$ is generated by comparing $r$, *i.e.* the reference suspect speech in the case, with a number of speech segments from other identities, excluding all utterances present in the case.
Notice that, since score sparsity rarely affects $S_d$, $N_d$ is not constrained in order to focus on the sparsity effects in $S_p$. Finally, in order to use the same speech data for every value of $N_p$, only suspects with more than $10$ utterances have been selected. All in all, to measure performance, a number of $18192$ same-origin and $11560$ different-origin LR values have been computed as a minimum, with even more values depending on the value of $N_p$ and the anchoring scheme.
Results
-------
Figure \[fig\_\_results\_ML\_vs\_Bayes\_SuspectAnchoring\] shows the results in terms of $Cllr$ of the ML and fully-Bayesian schemes in the Suspect-Anchored (SA) scheme; and Figure \[fig\_\_results\_ML\_vs\_Bayes\_ReferenceAnchoring\] shows the corresponding results for the Reference-Anchoring (RA) scheme. Results show that the fully-Bayesian approach clearly outperforms ML for all sizes of the training score set $N_p$. Also, the value of $C_{llr}$ is much lower for this model, especially for lower values of $N_p$. This supports the hypothesis that the fully-Bayesian model allows the incorporation of uncertainty, due to score sparsity, to the LR in an effective way. This is especially relevant for the lowest values of $N_p$, because the ML approach yields much higher values of $C_{llr}$, which means much poorer performance. Moreover, $C_{llr}<1$ always obtains for the fully-Bayesian model, which means that the approach is always informative for evidence evaluation. This is not the case of ML, since $C_{llr}$ is much bigger than $1$ for many values of $N_p$.
Moreover, the comparison of both figures shows that the RA approach outperforms SA. This was expected, since RA allows the training scores to resemble the conditions of the score in each case in a much adequate way.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Conclusions</span> {#sec__conclusions}
=========================================================
In this work, the use of fully-Bayesian Gaussian models have proven to be adequate for forensic voice comparison using automatic systems. This is particularly true when compared to widely used ML models, that have shown to be very sensitive to sparsity in the training scores, a situation that often happens to training scores under $H_p$. On the other hand, fully-Bayesian methods effectively cope with the lack of data by incorporating the associated uncertainty, leading to much more moderate LR values, and drastically improving the value of $C_{llr}$. In fact, performance with fully-Bayesian models is always better than not reporting the $LR$ (meaning $C_{llr}<1$ always). Given the difficulty of the NIST i-Vector Challenge task, we can recommend fully-Bayesian methods to compute LRs in forensic practice, although more research is needed to compare the proposed approach with other models.
One interesting issue in this article is related to the anchoring schemes. We have reported experiments where a suspect-anchored and reference-anchored yields adequate (*i.e.*, informative) and robust performance, the latter outperforming the former. Although this result confirms the research hypotheses, recent discussion on this topic motivates further research [@hepler11handwritingAnchoring; @alberink14fingermarkConditioning].
[^1]: This work has been published in Subsidia: Tools and Resources for Speech Sciences in June 2017
[^2]: In a domain of continuous scores, it will be a probability density function; and a probability mass function if the scores are discrete
[^3]: Although the $\Delta$ notation might suggest similarity, scores in speaker recognition systems most often also include population models and typicality. In fact, i-Vector PLDA systems output log-likelihood-ratios, but presenting poor calibration [@matejka11PLDA]
[^4]: As described, the following proposed Suspect-Anchoring and Reference-Anchoring schemes make a distinction about how the scores are generated, not a distinction in the kind of statistical model that it used
[^5]: https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/itl/iad/mig/sre-ivectorchallenge\_2013-11-18\_r0.pdf
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The celebrated Erdős–Kac theorem says, roughly speaking, that the values of additive functions satisfying certain mild hypotheses are normally distributed. In the intervening years, similar normal distribution laws have been shown to hold for certain non-additive functions and for amenable arithmetic functions over certain subsets of the natural numbers. Continuing in this vein, we show that if $g_1(n), \ldots, g_k(n)$ is a collection of functions satisfying certain mild hypotheses for which an Erdős–Kac-type normal distribution law holds, and if $Q(x_1, \ldots, x_k)$ is a polynomial with nonnegative real coefficients, then $Q(g_1(n), \ldots, g_k(n))$ also obeys a normal distribution law. We also show that a similar result can be obtained if the set of inputs $n$ is restricted to certain subsets of the natural numbers, such as shifted primes. Our proof uses the method of moments. We conclude by providing examples of our theorem in action.'
author:
- Greg Martin and Lee Troupe
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: |
The distribution of sums and products of\
additive functions
---
Introduction
============
In 1939, Erd[ő]{}s and Kac [@ek40] used probabilistic methods to prove a striking fact concerning a class of strongly additive functions, establishing the following foundational result in the field of probabilistic number theory.
\[EK classical\] Let $g$ be a strongly additive function with $|g(p)|\le1$ for all primes $p$. Define $$\label{Ag and Bg def}
A_g(x) = \sum_{p\le x} \frac{g(p)}p \quad\text{and}\quad B_g(x) = \bigg( \sum_{p\le x} \frac{g^2(p)}p \bigg)^{1/2},$$ and assume that $B_g(x)$ is unbounded. Then for every real number $u$, $$\label{EK limit}
\lim_{x\to\infty} \frac1x \# \big\{ n\le x\colon g(n) < A_g(x) + u B_g(x) \big\} = \frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{-\infty}^u e^{-t^2/2}\,dt.$$
Here, as usual, a function $g\colon {{\mathbb N}}\to{{\mathbb R}}$ is [*additive*]{} if $g(mn)=g(m)+g(n)$ whenever $(m,n)=1$; an additive function $g$ is [*strongly additive*]{} if $g(p^\alpha)=g(p)$ for every prime $p$ and positive integer $\alpha$. In particular, a strongly additive function is completely determined by its values on prime inputs. For example, $\omega(n)$, the number of distinct prime factors of $n$, is a strongly additive function.
Theorem \[EK classical\] tells us that the values of the normalized version $\big( g(n)-A_g(n) \big) / B_g(n)$ of $g$ are distributed, in the limit, exactly like random real numbers chosen from the standard normal distribution of mean $0$ and variance $1$. We codify this type of distributional law with the following terminology:
\[ek law def\] Let $g\colon {{\mathbb N}}\to{{\mathbb R}}$ and $A_g,B_g\colon {{\mathbb R}}_{\ge0}\to{{\mathbb R}}$ be functions. We say that [*$g$ satisfies an Erdős–Kac law with mean $A_g$ and variance $B_g$*]{} if equation holds for every real number $u$.
Different proofs and generalizations of Erd[ő]{}s and Kac’s theorem abound. In a 1955 paper, Halberstam [@hal55] calculated the $m$th moments of the quantity $\big( g(n)-A_g(x) \big) / B_g(x)$ for $m \ge 1$, deducing the Erd[ő]{}s–Kac theorem from these calculations. In 2007, Granville and Soundararajan [@gs07] calculated these moments using a technique both simpler and more adaptable than Halberstam’s methods; as a result, one can prove Erd[ő]{}s–Kac laws for strongly additive functions $g$ restricted to certain subsets of the natural numbers. An example of a result in this direction (though predating the work of Granville and Soundararajan) is due to Alladi [@all87], who proved an analogue of the Erd[ő]{}s–Kac theorem for the usual prime-factor-counting functions $\omega$ and $\Omega$ over friable integers.
In this paper, we adapt the methods of [@gs07] to establish an Erd[ő]{}s–Kac law for arbitrary sums and products of strongly additive functions satisfying certain standard hypotheses:
\[main theorem intro version\] Let $Q(T_1,\dots,T_\ell)$ be a polynomial with nonnegative real coefficents. Let $g_1, g_2, \ldots, g_\ell$ be nonnegative strongly additive functions such that:
1. each $g_j(p)\ll_j1$ uniformly for all primes $p$;
2. for each $1\le j\le \ell$, the series $\sum_p {g_j^2(p)}/p$ diverges.
Define $$\label{main theorem mu kappa def}
\mu(g_j) = \sum_{p\le x} \frac{g_j(p)}p \quad\text{and}\quad \kappa(g_i,g_j) = \sum_{p\le x} \frac{g_i(p)g_j(p)}p\bigg( 1-\frac1p \bigg) \quad\text{and}\quad \sigma^2(g_i) = \kappa(g_i,g_i),$$ and suppose that $\sigma^2(g_i) \gg \mu(g_j)$ for sufficiently large $x$ for all $1 \leq i, j \leq \ell$.
Then $Q(g_1(n),\dots,g_\ell(n))$ satisfies an Erdős–Kac law with mean $$\label{AQx intro}
A_Q(x) = Q \big( \mu(g_1), \dots, \mu(g_\ell) \big)$$ and variance $$\label{BQx intro}
B_Q(x)^2 = \sum_{i=1}^\ell \sum_{j=1}^\ell \frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_i} \big( \mu(g_1),\dots,\mu(g_\ell) \big) \frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_j} \big( \mu(g_1),\dots,\mu(g_\ell) \big) \kappa(g_i,g_j) .$$
While all of the hypotheses of the theorem are necessary for our proof in its full generality, the assumptions on the relative sizes of the $\mu(g_j)$ and $\sigma^2(g_i)$ could usually be relaxed in specific situations; moreover, the assumption that the $g_j$ be pointwise nonnegative is hardly used, other than to ensure that the covariances $\kappa(g_i,g_j)$ are nonnegative so that the right-hand side of equation has a square root in general. In the same vein, we work with strongly additive functions for simplicity, but in principle the methods could establish Theorem \[main theorem intro version\] for additive functions whose values on prime powers can depend upon the power as well as the prime.
In the last section of this paper, we give examples of some special cases of this theorem, such as the Erdős–Kac law for a product of additive functions (including the integer powers of an additive function); these results, which are justified in Section \[examples sec\], continue to use the notation from equation .
\[cor1\] Let $g(n)$ be a strongly additive function satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\]. For any positive integer $\delta$, the function $g(n)^\delta$ satisfies an Erdős–Kac law with mean $\mu^\delta(g)$ and variance $\delta^2 \mu(g)^{2\delta-2} \sigma^2(g)$.
\[cor2\] Let $g_1, \ldots, g_\ell$ be strongly additive functions satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\]. Then for any $\ell \geq 1$, the function $g_1(n) \cdots g_\ell(n)$ satisfies an Erdős–Kac law with mean $\mu(g_1)\cdots \mu(g_\ell)$ and variance $$\big( \mu(g_1)\cdots \mu(g_\ell) \big)^2 \sum_{1\le i,j\le \ell} \frac{\kappa(g_i,g_j)}{\mu(g_i) \mu(g_j)}.$$
As it turns out, the proof of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\] is no harder if we replace $\{p\le x\}$ with any finite set ${{\mathcal P}}$ of primes. Similarly, we may replace the set of inputs $\{n\le x\}$ with a finite set ${{\mathcal A}}$, at the cost of introducing further multiplicative functions $h(n)$ that measure the local densities of ${{\mathcal A}}$ but with no other significant changes. As remarked in [@gs07], this added flexibility allows for the derivation of several variants of the Erd[ő]{}s–Kac theorem. As an example, we establish the following analogue of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\] for polynomials evaluated at additive functions on shifted primes:
\[shifted primes intro version\] Let $a$ be a fixed nonzero integer. Under the hypotheses of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\], the function $Q(g_1(p-a),\dots,g_\ell(p-a))$ satisfies an Erdős–Kac law with $A_Q(x)$ and $B_Q(x)$ as defined in equations and . In other words, for every real number $u$, $$\label{EK limit shifted primes}
\lim_{x\to\infty} \frac1{\pi(x)} \# \big\{ p\le x\colon Q(g_1(p-a),\dots,g_\ell(p-a)) < A_Q(x) + u B_Q(x) \big\} = \frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{-\infty}^u e^{-t^2/2}\,dt.$$
In the next section we describe the generalized setting, with arbitrary finite sets ${{\mathcal P}}$ and ${{\mathcal A}}$ as mentioned above and other notation used throughout the paper, and establish a general distributional limit law (Theorem \[main theorem sieve version\]) from the calculation of the appropriate $m$th moments (Theorem \[moment theorem\]). Further, in that section, we also derive Theorems \[main theorem intro version\] and \[shifted primes intro version\] from Theorem \[main theorem sieve version\]. The remainder of the paper will then be devoted to establishing Theorem \[moment theorem\], other than giving some examples in Section \[examples sec\] that in particular establish Corollaries \[cor1\] and \[cor2\].
Notation and restatement of main theorem {#notation section}
========================================
Following the methods established in [@gs07], we begin by setting up a sieve-theoretic framework within which we will recast Theorem \[main theorem intro version\].
\[A and E def\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ denote a finite set (or multiset) of positive integers. For every positive integer $d$, set ${{\mathcal A}}_d = \{ a\in{{\mathcal A}}\colon d\mid a \}$. As is usual in sieve theory, we suppose that there exists a positive real number $X$ that is a good approximation to the cardinality of ${{\mathcal A}}$, and a multiplicative function $h(d)$ (satisfying $0 \le h(d) \le d$) such that $\frac{h(d)}{d} X$ is a good approximation to $\#{{\mathcal A}}_d$. More explicitly, we define the remainder terms $E_d$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sieveequation}
\#{{\mathcal A}}_d = \frac{h(d)}{d} X + E_d,\end{aligned}$$ and we suppose that we have some suitable control over $E_d$, individually or on average. It would certainly suffice for our purposes to have $E_d \ll d^c$ for some fixed $c<1$.
In the setting of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\], for example, we will have $E_d \ll 1$. In general, one needs only to know the behavior of the terms $E_d$ on average; for example, in the proof of Theorem \[shifted primes intro version\] we will handle the terms $E_d$ via the Bombieri–Vinogradov theorem.
\[mu sigma def\] Let ${{\mathcal P}}$ denote a finite set of primes. For any nonnegative integer $m$, define $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal D}}_k({{\mathcal P}}) &= \bigcup_{\ell=0}^k \{ p_1\cdots p_\ell\colon p_1,\dots,p_\ell \text{ are distinct elements of } {{\mathcal P}}\} ;\end{aligned}$$ note that the elements of ${{\mathcal D}}_k({{\mathcal P}})$ are squarefree integers contained in the interval $[1,(\max {{\mathcal P}})^k]$. In particular, ${{\mathcal D}}_0({{\mathcal P}})=\{1\}$.
For any function $g\colon{{\mathbb N}}\to{{\mathbb R}}$ (but usually for strongly additive functions $g$), we write $$g^{{\mathcal P}}(a) = \sum_{\substack{p \in {{\mathcal P}}\\ p \mid a}} g(p).$$ (We remark that this notation would be sensible even if ${{\mathcal P}}$ were an infinite set of primes, since any given integer $a$ has only finitely many prime factors.) In keeping with the terminology and notation established in [@gs07], we define the [*mean*]{} of $g$ over ${{\mathcal P}}$ as $$\label{mean}
\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g) = \sum_{p\in{{\mathcal P}}} g(p) \frac{h(p)}p;$$ for example, $\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1) = \sum_{p\in{{\mathcal P}}} {h(p)}/p$. We continue to borrow from probabilistic terminology by defining the [*standard deviation*]{} of $g$ over ${{\mathcal P}}$ as $$\sigma^{{\mathcal P}}(g) = \bigg( \sum_{p \in {{\mathcal P}}} g(p)^2 \frac{h(p)}p \bigg(1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg) \bigg)^{1/2},$$ and we call the quantity $\sigma^{{\mathcal P}}(g)^2$ the [*variance*]{} of $g$ over ${{\mathcal P}}$. Furthermore, for two functions $g_1,g_2\colon{{\mathbb N}}\to{{\mathbb R}}$ we define the [*covariance*]{} of $g_1$ and $g_2$ over ${{\mathcal P}}$ by $$\kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_1,g_2) = \sum_{p \in {{\mathcal P}}} g_1(p)g_2(p) \frac{h(p)}p\bigg( 1-\frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg).$$ Note that $\sigma^{{\mathcal P}}(g)^2 = \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g, g)$.
It is perhaps worth emphasizing that here the set ${{\mathcal P}}$ represents the “good” primes whose contribution to the values of $g(n)$ we want to include, for all integers $n\in{{\mathcal A}}$; this is as opposed to sieve theory, where one usually names the set of “bad” primes to exclude, for the goal of seeking special elements of ${{\mathcal A}}$ free of such prime factors.
For example, consider the case where ${{\mathcal P}}$ is the set of all primes up to $x$, and $g(n)=\omega(n)$. A result of Mertens then says that the mean $\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(\omega) \sim \log\log x$ and the variance $\sigma^{{\mathcal P}}(\omega)^2 \sim \log\log x$, which are the quantities that we recognize from the classical Erd[ő]{}s–Kac theorem.
In the following few definitions, the objects being defined will depend upon $\ell$ functions $g_1,\dots,g_\ell\colon{{\mathbb N}}\to{{\mathbb R}}$; we suppress the dependence upon these functions from the notation.
\[mf def\] We let ${{\mathfrak K}}$ denote the maximum variance among the functions $g_j$: $${{\mathfrak K}}= \max_{1 \leq i,j \leq \ell} | \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i,g_j) | = \max_{1 \leq i \leq \ell} \sigma^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i)^2.$$ The latter equality is justified by the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, which implies that $$| \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i,g_j) | \leq \max\{\sigma^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i)^2, \sigma^{{\mathcal P}}(g_j)^2\}$$ Similarly, we let ${{\mathfrak M}}$ denote the maximum mean among the functions $g_j$: $${{\mathfrak M}}= \max_{1 \leq i \leq \ell} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i).$$ Note that if there exists a positive constant $G$ such that $0\le g_j(p) \le G$ for all $1\le j\le \ell$ and all $p\in{{\mathcal P}}$, then trivially ${{\mathfrak K}}\leq G {{\mathfrak M}}$.
Suppose that the functions $g_1,\dots,g_\ell$ take nonnegative values. Given any polynomial $Q(T_1,\dots,T_\ell)$ in $\ell$ variables with positive coefficients, we define $$\label{AQP def}
A_Q({{\mathcal P}}) = Q(\mu^{{{\mathcal P}}}(g_1), \ldots, \mu^{{{\mathcal P}}}(g_\ell))$$ and $$\label{BQP def}
B_Q({{\mathcal P}}) = \bigg( \sum_{i=1}^\ell \sum_{j=1}^\ell \frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_i} \big( \mu^{{{\mathcal P}}}(g_1),\dots,\mu^{{{\mathcal P}}}(g_\ell) \big) \frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_j} \big( \mu^{{{\mathcal P}}}(g_1),\dots,\mu^{{{\mathcal P}}}(g_\ell) \big) \kappa^{{{\mathcal P}}}(g_i,g_j) \bigg)^{1/2}.$$
\[Mh def\] For any polynomial $Q(t_1,\dots,t_\ell)$ in $\ell$ variables and any nonnegative integer $m$, define the $m$th moment $${M}_m = \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \big( Q(g_1^{{{{\mathcal P}}}}(a),\dots,g_\ell^{{{{\mathcal P}}}}(a)) - A_Q({{\mathcal P}}) \big)^m.$$
\[Cm def\] For an integer $m \geq 0$, let $$C_m = \begin{cases} \displaystyle \frac{m!}{2^{m/2}(m/2)!}, & \text{if } m \text{ is even}, \\ 0, & \text{if } m \text{ is odd} \end{cases}$$ denote the $m$th moment of the standard normal distribution.
These last two definitions foreshadow our strategy of deducing a normal limiting distribution from asypmtotic formulas for the $m$th moments of a centered version of our quantity of interest. Indeed, under all of the notation above, we establish the following formula for the ${M}_m$:
\[moment theorem\] Let $Q(T_1, \ldots,T_\ell)$ be a polynomial of degree $\delta$ with nonnegative real coefficients, let $m$ be a positive integer, and let ${{\mathcal P}}$ be a finite set of primes. Let $g_1, g_2, \ldots, g_\ell$ be nonnegative strongly additive functions such that, for some fixed $G > 0$, we have $g_j(p) \leq G$ for each $j$ and for all primes $p \in {{{\mathcal P}}}$. Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a finite multiset of positive integers such that, in the notation of Definition \[A and E def\], $$\label{stronger error bound}
\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^{\delta m} \sum_{d\in {{\mathcal D}}_{\delta m}({{\mathcal P}})} |E_d| \ll X {{\mathfrak K}}^{\delta m/2 - 1}$$ If $m$ is even, then $${M}_m = C_m X B_Q({{\mathcal P}})^m + O(X {{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta m - (m + 1)/2} ),$$ while if $m$ is odd, then $${M}_m \ll X B_Q({{\mathcal P}})^{m-1} + X {{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta m - (m + 1)/2}.$$ Here, the implied constants may depend on the polynomial $Q$, the moment index $m$, the constant $G$, and the finite set ${{\mathcal A}}$.
Proving this theorem is the primary goal of this paper, and we will begin the proof in the next section. For the remainder of this section, however, we expound upon the consequences of Theorem \[moment theorem\] to various Erd[ő]{}s–Kac laws.
Let $\tilde{{{\mathcal A}}}$ denote an infinite set of positive integers, and define $$\label{remainder assumption infinite}
{{\mathcal A}}(x) = \{a \in \tilde{A} \colon a \leq x \}$$ (indeed, $\tilde{{{\mathcal A}}}$ may even be a multiset, as long as ${{{\mathcal A}}}(x)$ is finite for every $x$). Furthermore, let $\tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}$ denote an infinite set of primes, and define ${{\mathcal P}}(z) = \{p \in \tilde{{{\mathcal P}}} \colon p \leq z\}$. Using Theorem \[moment theorem\], we can prove the following result, which (as we subsequently show) implies Theorems \[main theorem intro version\] and \[shifted primes intro version\].
\[main theorem sieve version\] Let $Q(T_1, \ldots, T_\ell)$ be a polynomial of degree $\delta$ with nonnegative real coefficients. Let $\tilde{{{\mathcal A}}}$ and $\tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}$ be infinite sets as described above, and assume that there exists a positive constant $\eta$ such that $$\mu^{{{\mathcal P}}(t)}(1) = \sum_{p\le t} \frac{h(p)}p \sim \eta\log\log t.$$ Let $x$ and $z=z(x)$ be parameters tending to infinity, with $z$ chosen so that for all integers $k\ge0$, $$\label{main theorem sieve version remainder}
\mu^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(1)^{k} \sum_{d\in {{\mathcal D}}_{k}({{\mathcal P}}(z))} |E_d| \ll_k X {{\mathfrak K}}^{k/2 - 1},$$ where ${{\mathfrak K}}$ is as in Definition \[mf def\] with ${{\mathcal P}}$ replaced by ${{\mathcal P}}(z)$. Let $g_1, g_2, \ldots, g_\ell$ be nonnegative strongly additive functions such that for each $1\le j\le\ell$:
1. $g_j(p)\ll1$ uniformly for all primes $p \in \tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}$;
2. the series $\sum_{p\in\tilde{{\mathcal P}}} {g_j^2(p)}/p$ diverges;
3. $\sigma^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(g_j)^2 \gg {{\mathfrak M}}$, with ${{\mathfrak M}}$ as in Definition \[mf def\] with ${{\mathcal P}}$ replaced by ${{\mathcal P}}(z)$.
Further, assume that $$\label{log x log z little o}
\frac{\log x}{\log z} = o( {{\mathfrak M}}^{1/2} ).$$
Then the values $Q(g_1(a), \ldots, g_\ell(a))$, as $a$ runs through the elements of ${{\mathcal A}}$, satisfy an Erd[ő]{}s–Kac law with mean $A_Q({{\mathcal P}}(x))$ from equation and variance $B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(x))^2$ from equation ; in other words, for every $u\in{{\mathbb R}}$, $$\label{main theorem sieve version conclusion}
\lim_{x\to\infty} \frac{\# \big\{a\in{{\mathcal A}}(x) \colon Q\big(g_1(a), \ldots, g_\ell(a)\big) < A_Q({{\mathcal P}}(x)) + u B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(x)) \big\}}{\#{{\mathcal A}}(x)} = \frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{-\infty}^u e^{-t^2/2}\,dt.$$
Before we show that Theorem \[main theorem sieve version\] is a consequence of Theorem \[moment theorem\], we make the following convention regarding constants implicit in $O$, $\ll$, and $\asymp$ notation: these constants may always depend upon the polynomial $Q$ and its number of arguments (usually $\ell$), the pointwise bound $G$ for the additive functions $g_j$, the integer $m$ dictating which moment we are looking at, and the finite sets ${{\mathcal A}}$ and ${{\mathcal P}}$ where appropriate. (We remind the reader that we write $f \asymp g$ if there exist absolute constants $C > c > 0$ such that $c f(x) \leq g(x) \leq C f(x)$ throughout the domain of $f$ and $g$.) On the other hand, these implicit constants will never depend upon the parameters $x$ and $z$, and therefore will be independent of all quantities that depend upon these parameters, such as $M_m$, $\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_j)$ and ${{\mathfrak M}}$, and $\kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i,g_j)$ and ${{\mathfrak K}}$.
For this proof, we will set ${{\mathcal A}}={{\mathcal A}}(x)$ and ${{\mathcal P}}= {{\mathcal P}}(z)$ (and will write out ${{\mathcal P}}(x)$ explicitly when necessary). We begin by noting some consequences of the assumptions of Theorem \[main theorem sieve version\]. First, thanks to assumption (a), there exists a constant $G>0$ such that $g_j(p) \leq G$ for each $j$ and for all primes $p\in\tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}$. In particular, all of the hypotheses of Theorem \[moment theorem\] are satisfied for any positive integer $m$.
Next, for each $1\le j\le\ell$ we have ${{\mathfrak M}}\ge \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_j) \ge \frac1G \sigma^{{\mathcal P}}(g_j)^2 \gg {{\mathfrak M}}$ by assumption (c), so that each $\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_j) \asymp {{\mathfrak M}}$ and hence ${{\mathfrak K}}\asymp {{\mathfrak M}}$; furthermore, ${{\mathfrak M}}\to \infty$ as $x \to \infty$ thanks to assumption (b). In summary, for every $1\le j\le\ell$, $$\label{all asymp}
\sigma^{{\mathcal P}}(g_j)^2 \asymp \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_j) \asymp {{\mathfrak K}}\asymp {{\mathfrak M}}\to \infty.$$ Furthermore, by Cauchy–Schwarz, we also have $0 \le \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i,g_j) \ll {{\mathfrak M}}$. Note also that when $m=0$, the assumption becomes simply $|E_1| \ll \frac X{{\mathfrak K}}$; this implies that $\#{{\mathcal A}}= \#{{\mathcal A}}_1 = \frac{h(1)}1X+E_1 = X (1+O(\frac1{{\mathfrak K}})) \sim X$ as $x\to\infty$.
Since $Q$ is of degree $\delta$, there exists $1\le j_0\le\ell$ such that $\frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_{j_0}} ( T_1,\dots,T_\ell )^2$ is of degree $2\delta - 2$. It follows from the nonnegativity of the covariances and of the coefficients of $Q$ that $$\begin{aligned}
B_Q({{\mathcal P}})^2 &= \sum_{i=1}^\ell \sum_{j=1}^\ell \frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_i} \big( \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_1),\dots,\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_\ell) \big) \frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_j} \big( \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_1),\dots,\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_\ell) \big) \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i, g_j) \notag \\
&\ge \frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_{j_0}} \big( \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_1),\dots,\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_\ell) \big)^2 \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{j_0},g_{j_0}) \gg {{\mathfrak M}}^{2\delta - 2} \sigma^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{j_0})^2 \gg {{\mathfrak M}}^{2\delta - 1} \label{B lower bound}\end{aligned}$$ by equation . If $m$ is even, then Theorem \[moment theorem\] (with ${{\mathcal A}}={{\mathcal A}}(x)$ and ${{\mathcal P}}= {{\mathcal P}}(z)$) implies $$\frac{{M}_m}{XB_Q({{\mathcal P}})^m} = C_m + O({{\mathfrak M}}^{-1/2}) = C_m + o(1);$$ on the other hand, if $m$ is odd, then Theorem \[moment theorem\] implies $$\frac{{M}_m}{XB_Q({{\mathcal P}})^m} \ll B_Q({{\mathcal P}})^{-1} + {{\mathfrak M}}^{-1/2} \ll {{\mathfrak M}}^{-2\delta+1} + {{\mathfrak M}}^{-1/2} = o(1).$$ These estimates establish the limits $$\label{limits needed}
\lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{{M}_m}{\#{{\mathcal A}}\cdot B_Q({{\mathcal P}})^m} = \lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{{M}_m}{XB_Q({{\mathcal P}})^m} = \begin{cases}
C_m, &\text{if $m$ is even}, \\
0, &\text{if $m$ is odd}, \end{cases}$$ where $M_m$ is as in Definition \[Mh def\]; the first equality is due to the fact that $\#{{\mathcal A}}\sim X$ as $x\to\infty$. Note that $M_0 = \#{{\mathcal A}}$, and so the limit is trivially true when $m=0$ as well.
It follows from the limits , by the method of moments (in a way that is standard in these applications to Erdős–Kac theorems; see [@mt18 Section 7] for more details on this type of deduction), that $$\label{not quite right conclusion}
\lim_{x\to\infty} \frac{\# \big\{a\in{{\mathcal A}}(x) \colon Q\big(g_1^{{\mathcal P}}(a), \ldots, g_\ell^{{\mathcal P}}(a)\big) < A_Q({{\mathcal P}}) + u B_Q({{\mathcal P}}) \big\}}{\#{{\mathcal A}}(x)} = \frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{-\infty}^u e^{-t^2/2}\,dt,$$
Note that this deduction is not exactly the same as the conclusion of the theorem we are proving: we would rather that the polynomial $Q$ were being evaluated at the original additive functions $g_j(a)$ rather than their truncations $g_j^{{\mathcal P}}(a)$, and that both occurrences of ${{\mathcal P}}={{\mathcal P}}(z)$ on the right-hand side of the inequality were instead ${{\mathcal P}}(x)$. However, it is easy to see (essentially by the continuity of the integral as a function of $u$) that we can make these adjustments provided that:
1. $A_Q({{\mathcal P}}(x)) - A_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z)) = o\big( B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z)) \big)$;
2. $B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(x)) - B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z)) = o\big( B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z)) \big)$;
3. $Q\big(g_1(a), \ldots, g_\ell(a)\big) - Q\big(g_1^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(a), \ldots, g_\ell^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(a)\big) = o\big( B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z)) \big)$ for every $a\in{{\mathcal A}}(x)$.
First, note that $A_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z)) \asymp {{\mathfrak M}}^\delta$ by equations and . Furthermore, equation gives the lower bound $B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z)) \gg {{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta-1/2}$, and the corresponding upper bound follows from equation and the estimate $\kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i,g_j) \ll {{\mathfrak M}}$. Also note that for each $1\le j\le\ell$, $$\begin{aligned}
0 \le \mu^{{{\mathcal P}}(x)}(g_j) - \mu^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(g_j) = \sum_{z<p\le x} g_j(p) \frac{h(p)}p \le G \sum_{z<p\le x} \frac{h(p)}p = G\eta \log \frac{\log x}{\log z} + O(1) \ll \log {{\mathfrak M}}\end{aligned}$$ by the assumption ; by a similar calculation, $\kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i,g_j) \ll \log {{\mathfrak M}}$ for all $1\le i,j\le \ell$. The difference $$A_Q({{\mathcal P}}(x)) - A_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z)) = Q\big( \mu^{{{\mathcal P}}(x)}(g_1), \dots, \mu^{{{\mathcal P}}(x)}(g_\ell) \big) - Q\big( \mu^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(g_1), \dots, \mu^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(g_\ell) \big)$$ can therefore be bounded, using the multivariable mean value theorem, by ${{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta-1} \log {{\mathfrak M}}= o({{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta-1/2}) = o\big( B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z)) \big)$, establishing (i).
An analogous argument shows that the difference $B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(x))^2 - B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z))^2$ can be bounded by ${{\mathfrak M}}^{2\delta-2} \log {{\mathfrak M}}$; since $$B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(x)) - B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z)) = \frac{B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(x))^2 - B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z))^2}{B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(x)) + B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z))} \asymp \frac{B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(x))^2 - B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z))^2}{{{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta-1/2}},$$ we see that $B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(x)) - B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z)) \ll {{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta-3/2} \log {{\mathfrak M}}= o\big( B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z)) \big)$, establishing (ii).
Finally, for any $a\in{{\mathcal A}}(x)$ and any $1\le j\le\ell$, $$g(a) - g^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(a) = \sum_{\substack{z<p\le x \\ p\mid a}} g(p)$$ since $a\le x$; the number of summands in this sum is at most $\frac{\log x}{\log z}$, whence $g^{{{\mathcal P}}(x)}(a) - g^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(a) \le G \frac{\log x}{\log z} = o({{\mathfrak M}}^{1/2})$ by the assumption . Again the multivariable mean value theorem gives the estimate $Q\big(g_1(a), \ldots, g_\ell(a)\big) - Q\big(g_1^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(a), \ldots, g_\ell^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(a)\big) \ll {{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta-1} \cdot o({{\mathfrak M}}^{1/2}) = o\big( B_Q({{\mathcal P}}(z)) \big)$, establishing (iii).
These estimates confirm that we can deduce equation from equation , which concludes the proof of Theorem \[main theorem sieve version\].
Theorem \[main theorem intro version\] follows quickly from Theorem \[main theorem sieve version\].
Let $\tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}$ be the set of all primes and $\tilde{{{\mathcal A}}}$ the set of all positive integers; then $\#{{\mathcal A}}_d = \frac{x}{d} + O(1)$, and so setting $X=x$ and $h(d)=1$ for all $d\ge1$ yields $|E_d| \ll 1$, as well as $\mu^{{{\mathcal P}}(t)}(1) = \sum_{p\le t} \frac1p \sim \log\log t$. Let the polynomial $Q(T_1, \ldots, T_\ell)$ and the additive functions $g_1, \ldots, g_\ell$ satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\]; note that one of those hypotheses, namely $\kappa(g_i,g_i) \gg \mu(g_j)$ (with the implicit parameter $x$ replaced by $z$), implies that $\sigma^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(g_j)^2 \gg {{\mathfrak M}}$.
Let $z=z(x)$ be the smallest positive real number satisfying $z^{\max\{1,{{\mathfrak M}}^{1/3}\}} \ge x$, with ${{\mathfrak M}}$ as in Definition \[mf def\] with ${{\mathcal P}}$ replaced by ${{\mathcal P}}(z)$. Since ${{\mathfrak M}}^{1/3}$ is an increasing, right-continuous function of $z$, this minimum is well-defined and tends to infinity with $x$. Also, $z \ll_{\varepsilon}x^{\varepsilon}$ for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ since ${{\mathfrak M}}$ tends to infinity as well (again because $\sum_{p\le z} \frac{g_j(p)}p \ge \frac1G\sum_{p\le z} \frac{g_j(p)^2}p$, with the latter series diverging by assumption as $z\to\infty$). We verify quickly that the hypothesis is satisfied for all $k \ge 0$ via the calculation $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(1)^{k} \sum_{d \in {{\mathcal D}}_{k}({{\mathcal P}}(z))} |E_d| &\ll (\log\log x)^{k} \# {{\mathcal D}}_{k}({{\mathcal P}}(z)) \\ &\le (\log\log x)^{k} z^{k} \ll_{{\varepsilon}} x^{\varepsilon}\ll_{\varepsilon}\frac X{\log\log x} \ll X{{\mathfrak K}}^{k/2-1},\end{aligned}$$ since each $\kappa^{{{\mathcal P}}(z)}(g_i,g_j) \le \kappa^{{{\mathcal P}}(x)}(g_i,g_j) \le \sum_{p\le x} \frac{G^2}p(1-\frac1p) \ll \log\log x$. We also confirm that $\frac{\log x}{\log z} = \max\{1,{{\mathfrak M}}^{1/3}\} = o({{\mathfrak M}}^{1/2})$, which completes the verification of the hypotheses of Theorem \[main theorem sieve version\].
Therefore the conclusion of Theorem \[main theorem sieve version\] holds, and it is easy to see that this is identical to the conclusion of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\] since $\mu^{{{\mathcal P}}(x)}(g_j) = \mu(g_j)$ and $\kappa^{{{\mathcal P}}(x)}(g_i,g_j) = \kappa(g_i,g_j)$.
Theorem \[shifted primes intro version\] follows in almost exactly the same way, other than requiring a more powerful tool in the Bombieri–Vinogradov theorem to control the accumulation of the sieve error terms. See for example [@ik04 Theorem 17.1] for the statement of the Bombieri–Vinogradov theorem for the function $\psi(x;q,a)$, from which it is simple to derive the analogous version for $\pi(x;q,a)$ (an example of such a derivation is the proof of [@AH Corollary 1.4]):
\[bombvino\] For any positive real number $A$, there exists a positive real number $B=B(A)$ such that for all $x\ge2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{2\le q \le x^{1/2}(\log x)^{-B}} \max_{(a, q) = 1} \left| \pi(x; q, a) - \frac{{\operatorname{li}}(x)}{\varphi(q)} \right| &\ll_A \frac{x}{(\log x)^A}, \label{pi BV}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\operatorname{li}}(x) = \int_2^x \frac{dt}{\log t}$ is the usual logarithmic integral.
Let $\tilde{{{\mathcal P}}}$ be the set of all prime numbers, and set $\tilde{{{\mathcal A}}} = \{p - a \colon p \text{ prime},\, p>a\}$. Define a (strongly) multiplicative function $h(d)$ by setting $h(p) = \frac p{p-1}$ if $p \nmid a$ and $h(p) = 0$ if $p \mid a$. Then, with $X={\operatorname{li}}(x)\sim\pi(x)$, we have $$\#{{\mathcal A}}_d = \pi(x; d, a) = \frac{h(d)}{d}{\operatorname{li}}(x) + E_d(x)$$ where, if $(a, d) = 1$, then $E_d(x) = \pi(x; d, a) - \frac{{\operatorname{li}}(x)}{\varphi(d)}$ is the error term in the prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions, while if $(a, d) > 1$, then $|E_d(x)| \le 1$. Therefore, for any parameter $z=x^{o(1)}$, $$\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^{k} \sum_{d \in {{\mathcal D}}_{k}({{\mathcal P}})} |E_d(x)| \le \bigg( \sum_{p\le z} \frac1{p-1} \bigg)^{k} \sum_{d \le z^{k}} |E_d(x)|
\ll (\log\log x)^{k} \frac{x}{(\log x)^2} \ll X {{\mathfrak K}}^{k/2 - 1}$$ by the Bombieri–Vinogradov bound . The rest of the proof is the same as the deduction of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\] from Theorem \[main theorem sieve version\] above.
From now on, we concern ourselves entirely with the proof of Theorem \[moment theorem\]; in particular, we assume for the rest of this paper that the finite sets ${{\mathcal A}}$ and ${{\mathcal P}}$ and the additive functions $g_1, \ldots, g_\ell$ satisfy all the hypotheses of Theorem \[moment theorem\].
Polynomial accounting
=====================
We attack the $m$th moment $M_m$ by expanding the $m$th power in each summand. In this section we present the system we use for writing down this expansion, starting by defining a few helpful objects and pieces of notation. For any given $a\in{{\mathcal A}}$, define $f_r(a)$ to be the completely multiplicative function of $r$ (not of $a$) that satisfies $$\label{f def}
f_p(a) = \begin{cases} 1-h(p)/p, &\text{if } p\mid a, \\ -h(p)/p, &\text{if } p \nmid a.\end{cases}$$ (We note that this function was first introduced by Granville and Soundararajan in [@gs07], where it served largely the same role as it will for us.) For any strongly additive function $g$, define the notation $$\label{F_g def}
F_g^{{\mathcal P}}(a) = \sum_{p\in{{\mathcal P}}} g(p) f_p(a),$$ and note that equation implies that $g^{{\mathcal P}}(a) = \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g) + F^{{\mathcal P}}_g(a)$. Therefore, from Definition \[Mh def\] and equation , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Mm with mus and Fs}
M_m &= \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \big( Q(g_1^{{{{\mathcal P}}}}(a),\dots,g_\ell^{{{{\mathcal P}}}}(a)) - A_Q({{\mathcal P}}) \big)^m \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \big( Q(F_{g_1}^{{\mathcal P}}(a)+\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_1),\dots,F_{g_\ell}^{{\mathcal P}}(a)+\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_\ell)) - Q(\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_1),\dots,\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_\ell)) \big)^m.\end{aligned}$$
We are now ready to expand the $m$th power. In addition to setting out the necessary notation for writing down this expansion, this section establishes a key result, Proposition \[Rh magic Phi lemma\], which allows us to simplify the main term of the moments $M_m$ into the form of Theorem \[moment theorem\]. We note that this part of our proof is extremely similar to [@mt18 Section 4]; indeed, we need only quote two relevant definitions and two relevant results from that section, beginning with [@mt18 Definition 4.1]:
\[Tk def\] For any positive even integer $k$, define $T_k$ to be the set of all 2-to-1 functions from $\{1,\dots,k\}$ to $\{1,\dots,k/2\}$. A typical element of $T_k$ will be denoted by $\tau$. For $\tau\in T_k$ and $j\in\{1,\dots,k/2\}$, define $\Upsilon_1(j)$ and $\Upsilon_2(j)$ to be the two preimages in $\{1,\dots,k\}$; we will never be in a situation where we need to distinguish them from each other.
We also quote [@mt18 Definition 4.5]:
\[Rh def\] Given a polynomial $Q(y_1,\dots,y_\ell) \in {{\mathbb R}}[y_1,\dots,y_\ell]$ of degree $\delta$, and a positive integer $m$, define a polynomial in the $2\ell$ variables $x_1,\dots,x_\ell,y_1,\dots,y_\ell$ by $$R_m(x_1,\dots,x_\ell,y_1,\dots,y_\ell) = \big( Q(x_1+y_1,\dots,x_\ell+y_\ell) - Q(y_1,\dots,y_\ell) \big)^m.$$ To expand this out in gruesome detail, $R_m$ can be written as the sum of $B_m$ monomials, the $\beta$th of which will have total $x$-degree equal to $k_{m\beta}$ and total $y$-degree equal to $\tilde k_{m\beta}$: $$\label{Rh expanded}
R_m(x_1,\dots,x_\ell,y_1,\dots,y_\ell) = \sum_{\beta=1}^{B_m} r_{m\beta} \prod_{i=1}^{k_{m\beta}} x_{v(m,\beta, i)} \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} y_{w(m,\beta, j)}.$$ Here each $v(m,\beta, i)$ and $w(m,\beta, j)$ is an integer in $\{1,\dots,\ell\}$. Note that the total $x$-degree of the $\beta$th monomial in the sum is $k_{m\beta}$, while its total $y$-degree is $\tilde k_{m\beta}$. We note that, in particular, each $k_{m\beta}$ is at least $m$. Note also that each $k_{m\beta}+\tilde k_{m\beta}$ is at most $\delta m$, and that there exists at least one $\beta$ for which $k_{m\beta}=\tilde k_{m\beta}=m$.
Comparing Definition \[Rh def\] with the expression (\[Mm with mus and Fs\]), in our calculation we will take $x_i = F^{{\mathcal P}}_{g_i}(a)$ and $y_i = \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i)$, for each $1 \leq i \leq \ell$. Thus the right-hand side of equation (\[Rh expanded\]) becomes a sum of products of $\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i)$ and $F^{{\mathcal P}}_{g_j}(a)$ for various choices of $1 \leq i, j \leq \ell$.
Note that the monomial in $R_m$ of smallest $x$-degree has $x$-degree equal to $m$. It turns out that these terms contribute to the main term of the moments $M_m$. The following proposition will allows us to prove this fact; it appears as [@mt18 Proposition 4.7], and its proof can be found there. We use $Q_j(y_1, \ldots, y_\ell)$ to denote the partial derivative of $Q(y_1,\dots,y_\ell)$ with respect to the $j$th variable.
\[Rh magic Phi lemma\] Let $m$ be a positive even integer, and let $z_{ij}$ ($1\le i,j\le\ell$) be real numbers. In the notation of Definitions \[Tk def\] and \[Rh def\], $$\begin{gathered}
\label{after applying Phi forms}
\frac1{(m/2)!} \sum_{\substack{\beta\le B_m \\ k_{m\beta}=m}} r_{m\beta} \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} y_{w(m,\beta, j)} \sum_{\tau\in T_m} \prod_{i=1}^{m/2} z_{v(m,\beta,\Upsilon_1(i))v(m,\beta,\Upsilon_2(i))} \\
= C_m \bigg( \sum_{i=1}^\ell \sum_{j=1}^\ell Q_i(y_1,\dots,y_\ell) Q_j(y_1,\dots,y_\ell) z_{ij} \bigg)^{m/2},\end{gathered}$$ where $C_m$ is as in Definition \[Cm def\].
Preliminary calculations
========================
As we have seen, expanding the $m$th power in $M_m$ will result in a sum of terms, each of which takes the shape of a product of means $\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i)$ and functions $F^{{\mathcal P}}_{g_j}(a)$ for various choices $1 \leq i, j \leq \ell$. In this section, we obtain formulas for these products. When $m$ is even, those terms which contribute to the main term of the $m$th moment will involve a product of $m/2$ of the functions $F^{{{\mathcal P}}}_{g_i}(a)$. Proposition \[summing products of k Fs\] allows us to write such products in terms of covariances $\kappa(g_i, g_j)$, thereby (after some rearranging) recovering, via Proposition \[Rh magic Phi lemma\], the main term stated in Theorem \[moment theorem\]. We also obtain upper bounds for those terms not contributing to this main term. Our method here is deeply inspired by the work of Granville and Soundararajan in [@gs07].
We begin by defining two new functions which serve important technical roles (these functions were called $G(n)$ and $E(r,s)$ in [@gs07], but we have renamed them to avoid a clash of notation herein).
\[H and E definition\] Let $H(n)$ be the multiplicative function defined by $$H(n) = \prod_{p^\alpha \| n} \bigg( \frac{h(p)}p \bigg( 1-\frac{h(p)}p \bigg)^\alpha + \bigg( {-}\frac{h(p)}p \bigg)^\alpha \bigg( 1-\frac{h(p)}p \bigg) \bigg).$$ For a given natural number $s$, let $J(r,s)$ be the multiplicative function of $r$ defined by $$J(r,s) = \prod_{\substack{p^\alpha\| r \\ p\mid s}} \bigg( \bigg( 1-\frac{h(p)}p \bigg)^\alpha - \bigg( {-}\frac{h(p)}p \bigg)^\alpha \bigg) \prod_{\substack{p^\alpha\| r \\ p\nmid s}} \bigg( {-}\frac{h(p)}p \bigg)^\alpha.$$
The following two lemmas list some properties of these two functions that will be useful in later proofs.
\[simple H lemma\] For all primes $p$ and all positive integers $m$, $s$, and $\alpha$:
1. $H(p)=0$, and $H(n)=0$ unless $n$ is squarefull.
2. $|H(p^\alpha)| \le H(p^2)$.
3. $|J(p^\alpha,s)|\le1$; furthermore, if $p\nmid s$ then $|J(p^\alpha,s)|\le h(p)/p$.
Part (a) is obvious. As for part (b), the triangle inequality yields $$|H(p^\alpha)| \le \frac{h(p)}p \bigg( 1-\frac{h(p)}p \bigg)^\alpha + \bigg( \frac{h(p)}p \bigg)^\alpha \bigg( 1-\frac{h(p)}p \bigg).$$ Since $0 \le h(p)/p \le 1$, both terms on the right-hand side are decreasing functions of $\alpha$, and so $$\label{Hp^2}
|H(p^\alpha)| \le \frac{h(p)}p \bigg( 1-\frac{h(p)}p \bigg)^2 + \bigg( \frac{h(p)}p \bigg)^2 \bigg( 1-\frac{h(p)}p \bigg) = \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg( 1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg) = H(p^2).$$ Finally, we consider $$J(p^\alpha, s) = \begin{cases} \left( 1-{h(p)}/p \right)^\alpha - \left( {-}{h(p)}/p \right)^\alpha, &\mbox{if } p \mid s, \\
\left( -{h(p)}/{p} \right)^\alpha, & \mbox{if } p \nmid s. \end{cases}$$ As $h(p) \leq p$, the second assertion of part (c) is immediate; and, by the triangle inequality, if $p \mid s$ then $$|J(p^\alpha, s)| \leq \left| 1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \right|^\alpha + \left|\frac{h(p)}{p}\right|^\alpha.$$ The right-hand side is a decreasing function of $\alpha \geq 1$ which takes the value 1 if $\alpha = 1$, which establishes the last remaining assertion.
\[bonus lemma\] Let $r$ be a positive integer and let $R$ be the largest squarefree divisor of $r$. Then for any divisor $s$ of $R$, $$\sum_{d \mid R} f_r(d) \frac{h(d)}{d} \prod_{p \mid R/d} \bigg( 1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg) = H(r)
\quad\text{and}\quad
\sum_{de=s} f_r(d)\mu(e) = J(r, s).$$
For each prime factor $p$ of $r$, let $\alpha_p$ denote the exponent of $p$ in the factorization of $r$, so that $p^{\alpha_p} \| r$. We start with the first claimed equation. By Definition \[H and E definition\], $$H(r) = \prod_{p \mid R} \bigg( \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg( 1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg)^{\alpha_p} + \bigg( {-} \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg)^{\alpha_p} \bigg( 1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg) \bigg).$$ Expanding this product results in a sum where each summand is a product over all the prime divisors of $R$. To each summand we assign a squarefree divisor $d \mid R$ by setting $d$ equal to the product of those primes contributing a factor of the form $(h(p)/p)(1 - h(p)/p)^{\alpha_p}$ to the summand; this accounts for all such divisors $d$ of $R$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
H(r) &= \sum_{d \mid R} \bigg( \prod_{p \mid d} \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg( 1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg)^{\alpha_p} \bigg) \bigg( \prod_{p \mid R/d} \bigg( {-} \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg)^{\alpha_p} \bigg( 1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg) \bigg) \\
&= \sum_{d \mid R} \frac{h(d)}{d} \bigg( \prod_{p \mid d} \bigg( 1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg)^{\alpha_p} \prod_{p \mid R/d} \bigg( {-} \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg)^{\alpha_p} \bigg) \prod_{p \mid R/d}\bigg( 1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg)\\
&= \sum_{d \mid R} \frac{h(d)}{d} f_r(d) \prod_{p \mid R/d} \bigg( 1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg)\end{aligned}$$ as claimed, where the last equality uses the definition of $f_r(d)$.
Now, suppose that $s$ is a divisor of $R$ (hence itself squarefree). From Definition \[H and E definition\], $$J(r,s) = \prod_{p \mid R/s} \bigg( {-}\frac{h(p)}p \bigg)^{\alpha_p} \prod_{p \mid s} \bigg( \bigg( 1-\frac{h(p)}p \bigg)^{\alpha_p} - \bigg( {-}\frac{h(p)}p \bigg)^{\alpha_p} \bigg).$$ Expanding the second product using the same method as above, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
J(r,s) &= \prod_{p \mid R/s} \bigg( {-} \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg)^{\alpha_p} \sum_{d \mid s} \bigg( \prod_{p \mid d} \bigg( 1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg)^{\alpha_p} \bigg) \bigg( \prod_{p \mid s/d} - \bigg( {-} \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg)^{\alpha_p} \bigg) \\
&= \sum_{d \mid s} \bigg( \prod_{p \mid d} \bigg( 1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg)^{\alpha_p} \bigg) \bigg( \prod_{p \mid R/d} \bigg( {-} \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg)^{\alpha_p} \bigg) \bigg( \prod_{p \mid s/d} -1 \bigg) \\
&= \sum_{d \mid s} f_r(d) \mu(s/d)\end{aligned}$$ (using equation again), which is equivalent to the second assertion of the lemma.
We now present several lemmas which will aid in the proof of Proposition \[summing products of k Fs\], which is the main result of this section. Proposition \[summing products of k Fs\] handles expressions of the form $$\sum_{a \in {{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{j = 1}^k F^{{\mathcal P}}_{g_j}(a),$$ providing an asymptotic formula when $k$ is even and an upper bound when $k$ is odd. Lemmas \[paired off lemma\] through \[fra calculation lemma\] serve to streamline the proof of Proposition \[summing products of k Fs\].
In the following formulas and proofs, all implied constants may depend on the positive integer $k$, which in practice will satisfy $k \leq \delta m$ (recall that $\delta$ is the degree of the polynomial $Q$), in addition to the finite sets ${{\mathcal A}}$ and ${{\mathcal P}}$ and the constant $G$.
We note that the lemmas below are nearly identical to those in [@mt18 Section 5], with slightly different notation; for example, the expression $\operatorname{cov}(g_1, g_2)$ in [@mt18] is replaced by the slightly more general $\kappa(g_1, g_2)$ here, which is defined in nearly the same way, save for the multiplicative factor $h(p)$ measuring the local densities in our sieve setup. Similarly, the function $H(n)$ in this manuscript is nearly the same as $H(n)$ in [@mt18], save for the presence of this same $h(p)$. However, we give the proofs of these formulas here, as the situation in [@mt18] (involving one additive function with much larger mean than the others) required somewhat more complicated handling.
\[paired off lemma\] Let $k$ be a positive even integer and let $g_1, \ldots, g_k$ be any strongly additive functions. Then $$\begin{gathered}
\label{paired off formula}
\sum_{\substack{p_1,\dots,p_k\in{{\mathcal P}}\\ p_1\cdots p_k \text{ squarefull} \\ \#\{p_1,\dots,p_k\} = k/2}} H(p_1\cdots p_k) g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \\
= \frac 1{(k/2)!} \sum_{\tau\in T_k} \prod_{j=1}^{k/2} \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{\Upsilon_1(j)},g_{\Upsilon_2(j)}) + O\big({{\mathfrak K}}^{k/2-1} \big),\end{gathered}$$ where $T_k$, $\Upsilon_1$, and $\Upsilon_2$ are as in Definition \[Tk def\] and $\kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i, g_j)$ is the covariance of $g_i$ and $g_j$ as defined in Section \[notation section\].
To each $k$-tuple $(p_1,\dots,p_k)$ counted by the sum on the left-hand side, we can uniquely associate a $(k/2)$-tuple $(q_1,\dots,q_{k/2})$ of primes satisfying $q_1 < \cdots < q_{k/2}$ and each $q_j$ equals exactly two $p_i$ (at least two because $p_1\cdots p_k$ is squarefull, and then exactly two because $\#\{p_1,\dots,p_k\} = k/2$). This defines a unique $\tau\in T_k$, namely $\tau(i)$ equals the integer $j$ such that $p_i=q_j$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{p_1,\dots,p_k\in{{\mathcal P}}\\ p_1\cdots p_k \text{ squarefull} \\ \#\{p_1,\dots,p_k\} = k/2}} H(p_1\cdots p_k) & g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \notag \\
&= \sum_{\tau\in T_k} \sum_{\substack{q_1 < \cdots < q_{k/2} \\ q_j\in{{\mathcal P}}}} H(q_1^2 \cdots q_{k/2}^2) g_1(q_{\tau(1)}) \cdots g_k(q_{\tau(k)}) \label{!} \\
&= \frac1{(k/2)!} \sum_{\tau\in T_k} \sum_{\substack{q_1, \dots, q_{k/2} \in{{\mathcal P}}\\ q_1,\dots,q_{k/2} \text{ distinct}}} H(q_1^2 \cdots q_{k/2}^2) g_1(q_{\tau(1)}) \cdots g_k(q_{\tau(k)}). \notag\end{aligned}$$ By the multiplicativity of $H$ and its values on squares of primes, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{p_1,\dots,p_k\in{{\mathcal P}}\\ p_1\cdots p_k \text{ squarefull} \\ \#\{p_1,\dots,p_k\} = k/2}} & H(p_1\cdots p_k) g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \notag \\
&= \frac1{(k/2)!} \sum_{\tau\in T_k} \sum_{\substack{q_1, \dots, q_{k/2} \in{{\mathcal P}}\\ q_1,\dots,q_{k/2} \text{ distinct}}} \bigg( \prod_{j=1}^{k/2} \frac{h(q_j)}{q_j} \bigg( 1-\frac{h(q_j)}{q_j} \bigg) \bigg) g_1(q_{\tau(1)}) \cdots g_k(q_{\tau(k)}) \notag \\
&= \frac1{(k/2)!} \sum_{\tau\in T_k} \sum_{\substack{q_1, \dots, q_{k/2} \in{{\mathcal P}}\\ q_1,\dots,q_{k/2} \text{ distinct}}} \prod_{j=1}^{k/2} g_{\Upsilon_1(j)}(q_j) g_{\Upsilon_2(j)}(q_j) \frac{h(q_j)}{q_j} \bigg( 1-\frac{h(q_j)}{q_j} \bigg). \label{hi}\end{aligned}$$ If we fix $\tau$ and $q_1,\dots,q_{k/2-1}$, the innermost sum over $q_{k/2}$ is $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{\substack{q_{k/2}\in{{\mathcal P}}\\ q_{k/2} \notin \{q_1,\dots,q_{k/2-1}\}}} g_{\Upsilon_1(k/2)}(q_{k/2}) g_{\Upsilon_2(k/2)}(q_{k/2}) \frac{h(q_{k/2})}{q_{k/2}} \bigg( 1-\frac{h(q_{k/2})}{q_{k/2}} \bigg) \\
= \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{\Upsilon_1(k/2)},g_{\Upsilon_2(k/2)}) + O(1).\end{gathered}$$ Summing in turn over $q_{k/2-1},\dots,q_1$ in the same way, equation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{p_1,\dots,p_k\in{{\mathcal P}}\\ p_1\cdots p_k \text{ squarefull} \\ \#\{p_1,\dots,p_k\} = k/2}} H( & p_1\cdots p_k) g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \notag \\
&= \frac 1{(k/2)!} \sum_{\tau\in T_k} \prod_{j=1}^{k/2} \big( \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{\Upsilon_1(j)},g_{\Upsilon_2(j)}) + O(1) \big) \notag \\
&= \frac 1{(k/2)!} \sum_{\tau\in T_k} \bigg( \prod_{j=1}^{k/2} \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{\Upsilon_1(j)},g_{\Upsilon_2(j)}) + O( {{\mathfrak K}}^{k/2-1}) \bigg) \label{@}\end{aligned}$$ as desired, since each $\kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{\Upsilon_1(j)},g_{\Upsilon_2(j)}) \ll {{\mathfrak K}}$ by Definition \[mf def\].
\[unpaired off lemma\] Let $k$ be an integer, and let $g_1, \ldots, g_k$ be strongly additive functions satisfying $0\le g_j(p) \leq G$ for all primes $p$ and all $1 \leq j \leq k$. When $k$ is even, $$\sum_{\substack{p_1,\dots,p_k\in{{\mathcal P}}\\ p_1\cdots p_k \text{ squarefull} \\ \#\{p_1,\dots,p_k\} < k/2}} H(p_1\cdots p_k) g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \ll {{\mathfrak K}}^{k/2-1},$$ while when $k$ is odd, $$\sum_{\substack{p_1,\dots,p_k\in{{\mathcal P}}\\ p_1\cdots p_k \text{ squarefull} \\ \#\{p_1,\dots,p_k\} < k/2}} H(p_1\cdots p_k) g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \ll {{\mathfrak K}}^{(k-1)/2}.$$
To each $k$-tuple $(p_1,\dots,p_k)$ counted by the sum, we associate the positive integer $s = \#\{p_1,\dots,p_k\}$, the primes $q_1<\cdots<q_s$ in ${{\mathcal P}}$ such that $\{q_1,\dots,q_s\} = \{p_1,\dots,p_k\}$, and the integers $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_s\ge2$ such that $q_j$ equals exactly $\alpha_j$ of the $p_i$. Let $T_\alpha$ denote the set of functions from $\{1,\dots,k\}$ to $\{1,\dots,s\}$ such that for each $1\le j\le s$, exactly $\alpha_j$ elements of $\{1,\dots,k\}$ are mapped to $j$. Define $\Upsilon_1(j)$ and $\Upsilon_2(j)$ to be two of the preimages in $\{1,\dots,k\}$; we will never put ourselves in a situation where we need to know which two. We then have $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{\substack{p_1,\dots,p_k\in{{\mathcal P}}\\ p_1\cdots p_k \text{ squarefull} \\ \#\{p_1,\dots,p_k\} < k/2}} H(p_1\cdots p_k) g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \\
= \sum_{1\le s<k/2} \sum_{\substack{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_s\ge2 \\ \alpha_1+\cdots+\alpha_s=k}} \sum_{\tau\in T_\alpha} \sum_{\substack{q_1 < \cdots < q_{k/2} \\ q_j\in{{\mathcal P}}}} H(q_1^{\alpha_1}\cdots q_s^{\alpha_s}) g_1(q_{\tau(1)}) \cdots g_k(q_{\tau(k)}).\end{gathered}$$ By Lemma \[simple H lemma\](b), $|H(q_1^{\alpha_1} \cdots q_s^{\alpha_s})| \leq H(q_1^2 \cdots q_s^2)$; note also that $$\sum_{\tau \in T_\alpha} g_1(q_{\tau(1)}) \cdots g_k(q_{\tau(k)}) \leq G^{k - 2s} \prod_{j = 1}^s g_{\Upsilon_1(j)}(q_j) g_{\Upsilon_2(j)}(q_j).$$ Therefore $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{\substack{p_1,\dots,p_k\in{{\mathcal P}}\\ p_1\cdots p_k \text{ squarefull} \\ \#\{p_1,\dots,p_k\} < k/2}} H(p_1\cdots p_k) g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \\
\ll \sum_{1\le s<k/2} \sum_{\substack{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_s\ge2 \\ \alpha_1+\cdots+\alpha_s=k}} \sum_{\tau\in T_\alpha} \sum_{\substack{q_1 < \cdots < q_{k/2} \\ q_j\in{{\mathcal P}}}} H(q_1^2 \cdots q_s^2) g_{\Upsilon_1(j)}(q_j) g_{\Upsilon_2(j)}(q_j).\end{gathered}$$ The innermost double sum can be evaluated just as in equations and , yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{p_1,\dots,p_k\in{{\mathcal P}}\\ p_1\cdots p_k \text{ squarefull} \\ \#\{p_1,\dots,p_k\} < k/2}} H(p_1\cdots p_k) & g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \\
&\ll \sum_{1\le s<k/2} \sum_{\substack{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_s\ge2 \\ \alpha_1+\cdots+\alpha_s=k}} \frac 1{s!} \sum_{\tau\in T_\alpha} \prod_{j=1}^s \big( \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{\Upsilon_1(j)},g_{\Upsilon_2(j)}) + O(1) \big) \\
&\ll \sum_{1\le s<k/2} \sum_{\substack{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_s\ge2 \\ \alpha_1+\cdots+\alpha_s=k}} \frac 1{s!} \sum_{\tau\in T_\alpha} {{\mathfrak K}}^s \ll {{\mathfrak K}}^{\max\{s\in{{\mathbb N}}\colon s<k/2\}}\end{aligned}$$ as desired, since the implicit constant is allowed to depend upon $k$.
\[fra calculation lemma\] For any positive integer $r$, we have $$\sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} f_r(a) = H(r)X + \sum_{s\mid r} \mu^2(s) J(r,s) E_s,$$ where $E_s$ is defined by equation .
This is [@gs07 equation (13)]; for completeness, we give the full argument here. Let $R$ denote the largest squarefree divisor of $r$, and note from equation that $f_r(a) = f_r(d)$ whenever $(a,R)=d$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a \in {{\mathcal A}}} f_r(a) &= \sum_{d \mid R} f_r(d) \sum_{\substack{a \in {{\mathcal A}}\\ (a, R) = d}} 1 = \sum_{d \mid R} f_r(d) \sum_{\substack{a \in {{\mathcal A}}\\ d\mid a}} \sum_{e\mid(a/d,R/d)} \mu(e) \\
&= \sum_{d \mid R} f_r(d) \sum_{e\mid R/d} \mu(e) \sum_{\substack{a \in {{\mathcal A}}\\ de\mid a}} 1 \\
&= \sum_{d \mid R} f_r(d) \sum_{e\mid R/d} \mu(e) \bigg( \frac{h(de)}{de} X + E_{de} \bigg)\end{aligned}$$ by equation . Since $R$ is squarefree, we have $h(de)=h(d)h(e)$, and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a \in {{\mathcal A}}} f_r(a) &= X\sum_{d \mid R} f_r(d) \frac{h(d)}{d} \sum_{e\mid R/d} \frac{\mu(e)h(e)}e + \sum_{d \mid R} f_r(d) \sum_{e \mid R/d} \mu(e)E_{de} \\
&= X\sum_{d \mid R} f_r(d) \frac{h(d)}{d} \prod_{p \mid R/d} \bigg( 1 - \frac{h(p)}{p} \bigg) + \sum_{s\mid R} E_s \sum_{de=s} f_r(d)\mu(e) \\
&= H(r)X + \sum_{s \mid R} E_s J(r, s)\end{aligned}$$ by Lemma \[bonus lemma\], which is equivalent to the assertion of the lemma.
\[same as their error term lemma\] Let $k$ be a positive integer, and let $g_1, \ldots, g_k$ be strongly additive functions satisfying $0\le g_j(p) \leq G$ for all primes $p$ and all $1 \leq j \leq k$. Then $$\sum_{p_1,\dots,p_k \in{{\mathcal P}}} g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \sum_{s\mid p_1\cdots p_k} \mu^2(s) J(p_1\cdots p_k,s) E_s \ll \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^k \sum_{d\in {{\mathcal D}}_k({{\mathcal P}})} |E_d|,$$ where $E_s$ and $E_d$ are defined in equation .
By Lemma \[simple H lemma\](c), $$|J(p_1\cdots p_k,s)| \leq \prod_{\substack{1\le i\le k \\ p_i \nmid s}} \frac{h(p_i)}{p_i}.$$ Since $g_j(p_j) \ll_G 1$ for all $j$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{p_1,\dots,p_k \in{{\mathcal P}}} g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \sum_{s\mid p_1\cdots p_k} &J(p_1\cdots p_k,s) E_s \\ &\ll \sum_{\ell=0}^k \sum_{\substack{s = q_1 \cdots q_\ell \geq 1 \\ q_1 < \cdots < q_\ell \in {{\mathcal P}}}} |E_s| \sum_{\substack{p_1, \ldots, p_k \in {{\mathcal P}}\\ s \mid p_1 \cdots p_k}} \prod_{\substack{1\le i\le k \\ p_i \nmid s}} \frac{h(p_i)}{p_i}.\end{aligned}$$ At the cost of a constant depending only on $k$, we can arrange the primes $p_1, \ldots, p_k$ so that $p_1 = q_1$, …, $p_\ell = q_\ell$. Summing the factor $h(p_i)/p_i$ over the remaining primes $p_i$ for $\ell+1\le i\le k$ yields $\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^{k - \ell} \ll \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^k$. Each term $|E_s|$ is equal to $|E_d|$ for some integer $d \in {{\mathcal D}}_k({{\mathcal P}})$, and therefore the total error term is $\ll \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^k \sum_{d \in {{\mathcal D}}_k({{\mathcal P}})} |E_d|$, as desired.
WIth these preliminary calculations out of the way, we may now establish the main proposition of this section, which will feature prominently in the proof of Theorem \[moment theorem\] in the next section.
\[summing products of k Fs\] Let $g_1, \ldots, g_k$ be strongly additive functions satisfying $0 \leq g_j(p) \leq G$ for all primes $p$ and all $1 \leq j \leq k$. Let $F_g^{{\mathcal P}}$ be as in equation , and let $k$ be a positive integer. If $k$ is even, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{j=1}^k F_{g_j}^{{\mathcal P}}(a) = \frac X{(k/2)!} & \sum_{\tau\in T_k} \prod_{j=1}^{k/2} \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{\Upsilon_1(j)},g_{\Upsilon_2(j)}) \\
&+ O\bigg( X {{\mathfrak K}}^{k/2-1} + \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^k \sum_{d\in {{\mathcal D}}_k({{\mathcal P}})} |E_d| \bigg).\end{aligned}$$ If $k$ is odd, then $$\sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{j=1}^k F_{g_j}^{{\mathcal P}}(a) \ll X {{\mathfrak K}}^{(k-1)/2} + \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^k \sum_{d\in {{\mathcal D}}_k({{\mathcal P}})} |E_d|.$$
Expanding out the definition, $$\sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{j=1}^k F_{g_j}^{{\mathcal P}}(a) = \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{j=1}^k \sum_{p\in{{\mathcal P}}} g(p)f_p(a) = \sum_{p_1,\dots,p_k \in{{\mathcal P}}} g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} f_{p_1\cdots p_k}(a).$$ By Lemma \[fra calculation lemma\], $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{j=1}^k F_{g_j}^{{\mathcal P}}(a) &= \sum_{p_1,\dots,p_k \in{{\mathcal P}}} g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \bigg( H(p_1\cdots p_k)X + \sum_{s\mid p_1\cdots p_k} \mu^2(s) J(p_1\cdots p_k,s) E_s \bigg) \notag \\
&= X \sum_{p_1,\dots,p_k \in{{\mathcal P}}} H(p_1\cdots p_k) g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) + O\bigg( \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^k \sum_{d\in {{\mathcal D}}_k({{\mathcal P}})} |E_d| \bigg),
$$ using Lemma \[same as their error term lemma\] to obtain the error term. Since $H(p_1\cdots p_k)$ vanishes unless $p_1\cdots p_k$ is squarefull by Lemma \[simple H lemma\](a), there are at most $k/2$ distinct primes among $p_1,\dots,p_k$, and so we can write $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{p_1,\dots,p_k \in{{\mathcal P}}} H(p_1\cdots p_k) g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) = \sum_{\substack{p_1,\dots,p_k\in{{\mathcal P}}\\ p_1\cdots p_k \text{ squarefull} \\ \#\{p_1,\dots,p_k\} = k/2}} H(p_1\cdots p_k) g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k) \\
+ \sum_{\substack{p_1,\dots,p_k\in{{\mathcal P}}\\ p_1\cdots p_k \text{ squarefull} \\ \#\{p_1,\dots,p_k\} < k/2}} H(p_1\cdots p_k) g_1(p_1) \cdots g_k(p_k).\end{gathered}$$ The proposition now follows upon appeals to Lemmas \[paired off lemma\] and \[unpaired off lemma\] (and the observation that the first sum on the right-hand side is empty if $k$ is odd).
\[upper bound cor\] Under the hypotheses of Theorem \[moment theorem\], for any positive integer $k$, $$\sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{j=1}^k \big| F_{g_j}^{{\mathcal P}}(a) \big| \ll \begin{cases}
X {{\mathfrak K}}^{k/2}, &\text{if $k$ is even}, \\
X {{\mathfrak K}}^{(k-1)/2}, &\text{if $k$ is odd}.
\end{cases}$$
First, note that if the estimate holds, then it holds with $\delta m$ replaced throughout by any integer $k \leq \delta m$. Indeed, under the hypotheses of Theorem \[moment theorem\], we have $\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1) \geq \tfrac{1}{G} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_j) \asymp {{\mathfrak K}}$ for any $1 \leq j \leq k$ (as in the deduction of Theorem \[main theorem sieve version\]). Since ${{\mathcal D}}_k({{\mathcal P}}) \subseteq {{\mathcal D}}_{\delta m}({{\mathcal P}})$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^{k} \sum_{d \in {{\mathcal D}}_k({{\mathcal P}})} |E_d| &\leq \frac1{\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^{\delta m - k}} \cdot {\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^{\delta m}} \sum_{d \in {{\mathcal D}}_{\delta m}({{\mathcal P}})} |E_d| \\
&\ll \frac1{\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^{\delta m - k}} \cdot {X {{\mathfrak K}}^{\delta m/2 - 1}} \\
&\ll X {{\mathfrak K}}^{k - \delta m/2 - 1} \leq X {{\mathfrak K}}^{k/2 - 1}.\end{aligned}$$
If $k$ is even, then by Proposition \[summing products of k Fs\] and the triangle inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{j=1}^k \big| F_{g_j}^{{\mathcal P}}(a)\big| &\le \frac X{(k/2)!} \sum_{\tau\in T_k} \prod_{j=1}^{k/2} {{\mathfrak K}}+ O\bigg( X {{\mathfrak K}}^{k/2-1} + \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^k \sum_{d\in {{\mathcal D}}_k({{\mathcal P}})} |E_d| \bigg) \\
&\ll X{{\mathfrak K}}^{k/2} + O\bigg( X {{\mathfrak K}}^{k/2-1} + \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^k \sum_{d\in {{\mathcal D}}_k({{\mathcal P}})} |E_d| \bigg) \ll X {{\mathfrak K}}^{k/2}\end{aligned}$$ by equation . On the other hand, if $k$ is odd, then again by Proposition \[summing products of k Fs\] and equation , $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{j=1}^k \big| F_{g_j}^{{\mathcal P}}(a)\big| &\ll X{{\mathfrak K}}^{(k-1)/2} + \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^k \sum_{d\in {{\mathcal D}}_k({{\mathcal P}})} |E_d| \ll X{{\mathfrak K}}^{(k-1)/2},\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
Calculating the moments
=======================
We are finally ready to compute the moments, using the technology built up in prior sections. The reader will observe that the computation ends up being rather brief, thanks to this earlier work. By equation and Definition \[Rh def\], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Mh expanded}
M_m &= \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \big( Q(F_{g_1}^{{\mathcal P}}(a)+\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_1),\dots,F_{g_\ell}^{{\mathcal P}}(a)+\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_\ell)) - Q(\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_1),\dots,\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_\ell)) \big)^m \notag \\
&= \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} R_m \big( F_{g_1}^{{\mathcal P}}(a),\dots,F_{g_\ell}^{{\mathcal P}}(a),\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_1),\dots,\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_\ell) \big) \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \sum_{\beta=1}^{B_m} r_{m\beta} \prod_{i=1}^{k_{m\beta}} F_{g_{v(m,\beta, i)}}^{{\mathcal P}}(a) \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{w(m,\beta, j)}) \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{\beta=1}^{B_m} r_{m\beta} \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{w(m,\beta, j)}) \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{i=1}^{k_{m\beta}} F_{g_{v(m,\beta, i)}}^{{\mathcal P}}(a),\end{aligned}$$ where we used equation in the middle equality.
We analyze the expression to obtain Theorem \[moment theorem\], splitting our work into two cases depending on whether $m$ is even or odd. We remind the reader that all implied constants may depend on the polynomial $Q$, the constant $G$ from the hypotheses of Theorem \[moment theorem\], the positive integer $m$, and the finite set ${{\mathcal A}}$.
Our goal is to show that $$M_m = C_m X B_Q({{\mathcal P}})^m + O\big( X {{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta m-(m+1)/2} \big).$$ We first isolate the terms in the expression with $k_{h\beta}=m$, the minimum possible (see the discussion following Definition \[Rh def\]), with the goal of showing that these terms contribute the main term of $M_m$. By Proposition \[summing products of k Fs\], we have for these terms $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{i=1}^{k_{m\beta}} & F_{g_{v(m,\beta, i)}}^{{\mathcal P}}(a) \\
&= \frac X{(m/2)!} \sum_{\tau\in T_m} \prod_{i=1}^{m/2} \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{v(m,\beta,\Upsilon_1(i))},g_{v(m,\beta,\Upsilon_2(i))}) + O\bigg( X{{\mathfrak K}}^{m/2-1} + \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(1)^m \sum_{d\in {{\mathcal D}}_m({{\mathcal P}})} |E_d| \bigg) \\
&= \frac X{(m/2)!} \sum_{\tau\in T_m} \prod_{i=1}^{m/2} \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{v(m,\beta,\Upsilon_1(i))},g_{v(m,\beta,\Upsilon_2(i))}) + O\big( X{{\mathfrak K}}^{m/2-1} \big)\end{aligned}$$ since we assume the error bound (which, as discussed in the proof of Corollary \[upper bound cor\], holds for the smaller integer $m$ since it is assumed to hold for $\delta m$). Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{\beta\le B_m \\ k_{m\beta}=m}} r_{m\beta} & \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{w(m,\beta, j)}) \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{i=1}^{k_{m\beta}} F_{g_{v(m,\beta, i)}}^{{\mathcal P}}(a) \notag \\
&= \sum_{\substack{\beta\le B_m \\ k_{h\beta}=m}} r_{m\beta} \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{w(m,\beta, j)}) \notag \\
&\qquad{}\times \bigg( \frac X{(m/2)!} \sum_{\tau\in T_m} \prod_{i=1}^{m/2} \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{v(m,\beta,\Upsilon_1(i))},g_{v(m,\beta,\Upsilon_2(i))}) + O\big( X{{\mathfrak K}}^{m/2-1} \big) \bigg) \notag \\
&= \frac X{(m/2)!} \sum_{\substack{\beta\le B_m \\ k_{m\beta}=m}} r_{m\beta} \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{w(m,\beta, j)}) \sum_{\tau\in T_m} \prod_{i=1}^{m/2} \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{v(m,\beta,\Upsilon_1(i))},g_{v(m,\beta,\Upsilon_2(i))}) \notag \\
&\qquad{}+ O\big( X{{\mathfrak M}}^{(\delta-1)m} {{\mathfrak K}}^{m/2-1} \big), \label{m main error}\end{aligned}$$ since $\tilde k_{m\beta} \le \delta m-k_{m\beta} = (\delta-1)m$. By Proposition \[Rh magic Phi lemma\], where $y_j$ has been replaced by $\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_j)$ and $z_{ij}$ by $\kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i,g_j)$, this main term equals $$\begin{gathered}
\label{m main}
C_mX \bigg( \sum_{i=1}^\ell \sum_{j=1}^\ell Q_i \big( \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_1),\dots,\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_\ell) \big) Q_j\big( \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_1),\dots,\mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_\ell) \big) \kappa^{{\mathcal P}}(g_i,g_j) \bigg)^{m/2} \\
= C_mX \big( B_Q({{\mathcal P}})^2 \big)^{m/2}\end{gathered}$$ by equation . As for the error term, since we assume ${{\mathfrak K}}\leq G {{\mathfrak M}}$, $$\label{m error}
X{{\mathfrak M}}^{(\delta-1)m} {{\mathfrak K}}^{m/2-1} \ll X {{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta m - m/2 - 1}.$$
The remaining terms in the expression have $m < k_{m\beta} \leq \delta m$. For these terms, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{\beta\le B_m \\ k_{m\beta}>m}} r_{m\beta} \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{w(m,\beta, j)}) &\sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{i=1}^{k_{m\beta}} F_{g_{v(m,\beta, i)}}^{{\mathcal P}}(a) \\
&\ll \sum_{\substack{\beta\le B_m \\ k_{m\beta}>m}} |r_{m\beta}| \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{w(m,\beta, j)}) \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{i=1}^{k_{m\beta}} \big| F_{g_{v(m,\beta, i)}}^{{\mathcal P}}(a) \big| \\
&\ll \sum_{\substack{\beta\le B_m \\ k_{m\beta}>m}} |r_{m\beta}| \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{w(m,\beta, j)}) X {{\mathfrak K}}^{k_{m\beta}/2}\end{aligned}$$ by Corollary \[upper bound cor\] (recalling again that equation holds for the integers $k_{m\beta}$ under consideration), giving $$\sum_{\substack{\beta\le B_m \\ k_{h\beta}>m}} r_{m\beta} \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{w(m,\beta, j)}) \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{i=1}^{k_{m\beta}} F_{g_{v(m,\beta, i)}}^{{\mathcal P}}(a)
\ll X \sum_{\substack{\beta\le B_m \\ k_{m\beta}>m}} |r_{m\beta}| {{\mathfrak M}}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} {{\mathfrak K}}^{k_{m\beta}/2}.$$ Since we assume ${{\mathfrak K}}\leq G {{\mathfrak M}}$, this estimate becomes $$\label{> m}
\sum_{\substack{\beta\le B_m \\ k_{m\beta}>m}} r_{m\beta} \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{w(m,\beta, j)}) \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{i=1}^{k_{m\beta}} F_{g_{v(m,\beta, i)}}^{{\mathcal P}}(a)
\ll X {{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta m-(m+1)/2}$$ since $\tilde k_{m\beta}+\frac{k_{m\beta}}2 = \tilde k_{m\beta}+k_{m\beta}-\frac{k_{m\beta}}2 \le \tilde k_{m\beta}+k_{m\beta}-\frac{m+1}2 \le \delta m-\frac{m+1}2$ for all terms in the sum.
Gathering the results of the calculations – into the expression yields $$M_m = C_m X B_Q({{\mathcal P}})^m + O\big( X {{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta m-(m+1)/2} \big)$$ as desired.
A slight modification of the above proof suffices for odd integers $m$.
Now, our goal is to show that $M_m \ll X {{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta m - (m + 1)/2}$. The estimate still holds for those terms in expression with $k_{m\beta} > m$. For the remaining terms with $k_{m\beta} = m$, we use Corollary \[upper bound cor\] to write $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{\beta\le B_m \\ k_{m\beta}=m}} r_{m\beta} & \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{w(m,\beta, j)}) \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{i=1}^{k_{m\beta}} F_{g_{v(m,\beta, i)}}^{{\mathcal P}}(a) \\ &\ll X {{\mathfrak K}}^{(m-1)/2}\sum_{\substack{\beta\le B_m \\ k_{m\beta}=m}} |r_{m\beta}| \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{w(m,\beta, j)}) \\
&\ll X {{\mathfrak K}}^{(m-1)/2} {{\mathfrak M}}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \le X {{\mathfrak K}}^{(m-1)/2} {{\mathfrak M}}^{(\delta-1)m}\end{aligned}$$ as before. Since ${{\mathfrak K}}\leq G {{\mathfrak M}}$, we obtain $$\sum_{\substack{\beta\le B_m \\ k_{m\beta}=m}} r_{m\beta} \prod_{j=1}^{\tilde k_{m\beta}} \mu^{{\mathcal P}}(g_{w(m,\beta, j)}) \sum_{a\in{{\mathcal A}}} \prod_{i=1}^{k_{m\beta}} F_{g_{v(m,\beta, i)}}^{{\mathcal P}}(a) \ll X {{\mathfrak M}}^{\delta m - (m + 1)/2}$$ as desired.
Examples {#examples sec}
========
We conclude by providing examples of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\] applied to certain choices of the polynomial $Q$ which may be of independent interest. Example \[powers\] (which establishes Corollary \[cor1\]) pertains to powers of strongly additive functions; Example \[products\] (which establishes Corollary \[cor2\]) pertains to products of strongly additive functions; and Example \[linear combinations\] pertains to linear combinations of strongly additive functions.
\[powers\] Let $\delta$ be a positive integer and set $Q(T) = T^\delta$, so that $Q'(T) = \delta T ^{\delta - 1}$. Then, for any strongly additive function $g(n)$ satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\], the function $g(n)^\delta$ satisfies an Erdős–Kac law with mean $A_Q(x) = \mu(g)^\delta$ and variance $$\begin{aligned}
B_Q(x)^2 = \big( Q'(\mu(g)) \big)^2 \kappa(g, g) = \delta^2 \mu(g)^{2\delta - 2} \sigma^2(g).\end{aligned}$$
For a concrete example, if $g(n) = \omega(n)$, the number-of-distinct-prime-divisors function, then $\omega(n)^\delta$ satisfies an Erdős–Kac law with mean $(\log\log n)^\delta$ and variance $\delta^2 (\log\log n)^{2\delta - 2}$; and more generally, the same holds for $Q(g(n))$ for any polynomial $Q(T)$ with nonnegative coefficients and leading term $T^\delta$.
\[products\] Let $g_1(n)$ and $g_2(n)$ be strongly additive functions satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\], and set $Q(T) = T_1T_2$, so that $\frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_1} = T_2$ and $\frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_2} = T_1$. Then the product $g_1(n) g_2(n)$ satisfies an Erdős–Kac law with mean $A_Q(x) = \mu(g_1) \mu(g_2)$ and variance $$\begin{aligned}
B_Q(x)^2 &= \sum_{i = 1}^2 \sum_{j = 1}^2 \frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_i}\big(\mu(g_1), \mu(g_2)\big) \frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_j}\big(\mu(g_1), \mu(g_2)\big) \kappa(g_i, g_j) \\
&= \mu(g_1)^2\sigma^2(g_2) + 2\mu(g_1)\mu(g_2)\kappa(g_1,g_2) + \mu(g_2)^2\sigma^2(g_1).\end{aligned}$$
For example, suppose $P_1$ and $P_2$ are sets of primes of positive relative densities $\alpha$ and $\beta$, such that $P_1\cap P_2$ has relative density $\gamma$ in the primes; and set $\omega_j(n) = \# \{ p\mid n \colon p\in P_j \}$ for $j=1,2$. Using the definitions , it is easy to calculate that $$\mu(g_1) \sim \sigma^2(g_1) \sim \alpha\log\log x, \quad\mu(g_2) \sim \sigma^2(g_2) \sim \beta\log\log x, \quad \kappa(g_1,g_2) \sim \gamma\log\log x.$$ Therefore $\omega_1(n)\omega_2(n)$ satisfies an Erdős–Kac law with mean $\alpha\beta(\log\log x)^2$ and variance $\alpha\beta(\alpha+2\gamma+\beta)(\log \log x)^3$. In particular, note that the variance depends not just on the two additive functions $g_1$ and $g_2$ individually but also upon the correlations in their values.
More generally, let $g_1(n), \dots, g_\ell(n)$ be strongly additive functions satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\], and set $Q(T) = T_1\cdots T_\ell$, so that $\frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_j} = (T_1\cdots T_\ell)/T_j$ for all $1\le j\le\ell$. Then the function $g_1(n) \cdots g_\ell(n)$ satisfies an Erdős–Kac law with mean $A_Q(x) = \mu(g_1)\cdots \mu(g_\ell)$ and variance $$\begin{aligned}
B_Q(x)^2 &= \sum_{i = 1}^\ell \sum_{j = 1}^\ell \frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_i}\big(\mu(g_1), \dots, \mu(g_\ell)\big) \frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_j}\big(\mu(g_1), \dots, \mu(g_\ell)\big) \kappa(g_i, g_j) \\
&= \big( \mu(g_1)\cdots \mu(g_\ell) \big)^2 \sum_{1\le i,j\le \ell} \frac{\kappa(g_i,g_j)}{\mu(g_i) \mu(g_j)}.\end{aligned}$$
\[linear combinations\] Again let $g_1(n)$ and $g_2(n)$ be strongly additive functions satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem \[main theorem intro version\]; this time, set $Q(T_1, T_2) = vT_1^\delta + wT_2^\delta$ for a positive integer $\delta$ and nonnegative real numbers $v$ and $w$, so that $\frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_1} = \delta v T_1^{\delta - 1}$ and $\frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_2} = \delta w T_2^{\delta - 1}$. Then the function $vg_1(n)^\delta + wg_2(n)^\delta$ satisfies an Erdős–Kac law with mean $v\mu(g_1)^\delta + w\mu(g_2)^\delta$ and variance $$\begin{aligned}
B_Q(x)^2 &= \sum_{i = 1}^2 \sum_{j = 1}^2 \frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_i}\big(\mu(g_1), \mu(g_2)\big) \frac{\partial Q}{\partial T_j}\big(\mu(g_1), \mu(g_2)\big) \kappa(g_i, g_j) \\
&= v^2 \delta^2 \mu(g_1)^{2\delta - 2} \sigma^2(g_1) + 2vw \delta^2 \big( \mu(g_1) \mu(g_2) \big)^{\delta - 1} \kappa(g_1, g_2) + w^2 \delta^2 \mu(g_2)^{2 \delta - 2}\sigma^2(g_2).\end{aligned}$$
In particular, when $\delta=1$, the function $g(n) = vg_1(n)+wg_2(n)$ satisfies an Erdős–Kac law with mean $v\mu(g_1)+w\mu(g_2)$ and variance $v^2\sigma^2(g_1)+2vw\kappa(g_1,g_2)+w^2\sigma^2(g_2)$. But notice that $g$ itself is an additive function. Using the definitions , it is trivial to check that $\mu(g) = v\mu(g_1)+w\mu(g_2)$, and still easy to check that $\sigma^2(g) = v^2\sigma^2(g_1)+2vw\kappa(g_1,g_2)+w^2\sigma^2(g_2)$. Therefore our theorem is self-consistent in this case.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the quantum dynamics of two bosons, trapped in a two-dimensional harmonic trap, upon quenching arbitrarily their interaction strength thereby covering the entire energy spectrum. Utilizing the exact analytical solution of the stationary system we derive a closed analytical form of the expansion coefficients of the time-evolved two-body wavefunction, whose dynamics is determined by an expansion over the postquench eigenstates. The emergent dynamical response of the system is analyzed in detail by inspecting several observables such as the fidelity, the reduced one-body densities, the radial probability density of the relative wavefunction in both real and momentum space as well as the Tan contact unveiling the existence of short range two-body correlations. It is found that when the system is initialized in its bound state it is perturbed in the most efficient manner compared to any other initial configuration. Moreover, starting from an interacting ground state the two-boson response is enhanced for quenches towards the non-interacting limit.'
author:
- 'G. Bougas'
- 'S. I. Mistakidis'
- 'P. Schmelcher'
title: |
Analytical treatment of the interaction quench dynamics\
of two bosons in a two-dimensional harmonic trap
---
Introduction
============
Ultracold quantum gases provide an excellent and highly controllable testbed for realizing a multitude of systems without the inherent complexity of their condensed matter counterparts [@Lewe]. Key features of ultracold atoms include the ability to manipulate their interparticle interactions by employing Feshbach resonances [@Fesh1; @Fesh2], to tune the dimensionality of the system [@Petrov; @lower-D], as well as to trap few-body ensembles possessing unique properties [@Brouzos; @Greene; @Blume; @Sowinski; @Lompe]. Two-dimensional (2D) systems are of particular interest due to their peculiar scattering properties, the emergent phase transitions, such as the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition [@Dalibard; @Bloch; @Dalibard2; @Cirone; @Shlyapnikov; @Pricoup] and the existence of long-range thermal fluctuations in the homogeneous case. These thermal fluctuations in turn prohibit the development of a condensed phase, but can allow the occurence of a residual quasi-ordered state [@Thouless].
One among the few solvable quantum problems, is the system of two ultracold atoms confined in an isotropic harmonic oscillator. Here the two atoms interact via a contact pseudo-potential where only $s$-wave scattering is taken into account [@Huang], an approximation which is valid at ultralow temperatures where two-body interactions dominate [@Tannoudji]. The stationary properties of this system have been extensively studied for various dimensionalities and for arbitrary values of the coupling strength [@Busch; @Zyl; @Shea; @Richard]. Generalizations have also been reported including, for instance, the involvement of anisotropic traps [@Calarco], higher partial waves [@Stock; @Zinner] and very recently long-range interactions [@Koscik] and hard-core interaction potentials [@Diakonos]. Remarkably enough, exact solutions of few-body setups have also been obtained regarding the stationary properties of three harmonically trapped identical atoms in all dimensions [@Pethick; @Drummond; @Portegies; @Harshman; @Polls; @Deck].
A quench of one of the intrinsic system’s parameters is the most simple way to drive it out-of-equilibrium [@Langen]. Quenches of $^{87}$Rb condensates confined in a 2D pancake geometry have been employed, for instance, by changing abruptly the trapping frequency to excite collective breathing modes [@Chevy; @Perrin] in line with the theoretical predictions [@Pitaevskii; @Pitaevskii2]. On the contrary, the breathing frequency of two-dimensional Fermi gases has been recently measured experimentally [@Anomaly1; @Anomaly2] and found to deviate from theoretical predictions at strong interactions, a behavior called quantum anomaly. Also, oscillations of the density fluctuations being reminiscent of the Sakharov oscillations [@Sakharov] have been observed by quenching the interparticle repulsion. Furthermore, it has been shown that the dynamics of an expanding Bose gas when switching off the external trap leads to the fast and slow equilibration of the atomic sample in one- and two-spatial dimensions respectively [@Demler]. Moreover, the collisional dynamics of two $^6$Li atoms has been experimentally monitored after quenching the frequencies of a three-dimensional harmonic trap [@Jochim]. Turning to two harmonically trapped bosons, the existing analytical solutions have been employed in order to track the interaction quench dynamics mainly in one- [@Simos; @Bolsinger; @Garcia; @Corson2], but also in three-dimensional systems [@Sykes]. Focusing on a single dimension, an analytical expression regarding the eigenstate transition amplitudes after the quench has been derived [@Simos]. Moreover, by utilizing the Bose-Fermi mapping theorem [@Tonks; @Girardeau] a closed form of the time-evolved two-body wavefunction for quenches towards the infinite interaction strength has been obtained [@Bolsinger], observing also a dynamical crossover from bosonic to fermionic properties.
Besides these investigations the interaction quench dynamics of the two-boson system in two spatial dimensions employing an analytical treatment has not been addressed. Here, the existence of a bound state for all interaction strengths might be crucial giving rise to a very different dynamics compared to its one-dimensional analogue. Also, regarding the strongly interacting regime the Bose-Fermi theorem does not hold. Therefore it is not clear whether signatures of fermionic properties can be unveiled although there are some suggestions for their existence [@Mujal; @Yannouleas; @Mujal2]. Another interesting feature is the inherent analogy between three bosons interacting via a three-body force in one-dimension and two bosons interacting via a two-body force in two spatial dimensions [@Valiente2; @Trimers; @Guijarro; @Nishida; @Sekino]. Therefore, our work can provide additional hints on the largely unexplored three-body dynamics of three bosons in one spatial dimension [@Pastukhov]. The present investigation will enable us to unravel the role of the different eigenstates for the dynamical response of the system and might inspire future studies examining state transfer processes [@Fogarty; @Reshodko] which are currently mainly restricted to one-dimensional setups.
In this work we study the interaction quench dynamics of two harmonically confined bosons in two spatial dimensions for arbitrary interaction strengths. To set the stage, we briefly review the analytical solution of the system for an arbitrary stationary eigenstate and discuss the corresponding two-body energy eigenspectrum [@Busch]. Subsequently, the time-evolving two-body wavefunction is derived as an expansion over the postquench eigenstates of the system with the expansion coefficients acquiring a closed form. The quench-induced dynamical response of the system is showcased via inspecting the fidelity evolution. The underlying eigenstate transitions that predominantly participate in the dynamics are identified in the fidelity spectrum [@Mistakidis1; @Mistakidis2; @Thies]. It is found that initializing the system in its ground state, characterized by finite interactions of either sign, it is driven more efficiently out-of-equilibrium when employing an interaction quench in the vicinity of the non-interacting limit. Due to the interaction quench the two bosons perform a breathing motion, visualized in the temporal evolution of the single-particle density and the radial probability density in both real and momentum space. These observables develop characteristic structures which signal the participation of the bound and energetically higher-lying excited states of the postquench system. The dynamics of the short-range correlations is captured by the two-body contact, which is found to perform an oscillatory motion possessing a multitude of frequencies. In all cases the predominantly involved frequency corresponds to the energy difference between the bound and the ground state. Additionally, the amplitude of these oscillations is enhanced when quenching the system from weak to infinite interactions. Moreover, it is shown that the system’s dynamical response crucially depends on the initial state and in particular starting from an energetically higher excited state, the system is perturbed to a lesser extent, and a fewer amount of postquench eigenstates contribute in the dynamics [@Sowinski_ent; @Katsimiga_diss_flow; @Pia; @Katsimiga_quantum_DBs; @Katsimiga_bent]. However, if the quench is performed from the bound state the system is perturbed in the most efficient manner compared to any other initial state configuration. Finally, we observe that quenching the system from its ground state at zero interactions towards the infinitely strong ones the time-evolved wavefunction becomes almost orthogonal to the initial one at certain time intervals.
This work is structured as follows. In Sec. \[theory\] we introduce our setup, provide a brief summary of its energy spectrum and most importantly derive a closed form of the time-evolved wavefunction discussing also basic observables. Subsequently, we investigate the interaction quench dynamics from attractive to repulsive interactions in Sec. \[quench\_att\] and vice versa in Sec. \[quench\_rep\] as well as from zero to infinitely large coupling strengths in Sec. \[inf\_quench\]. We summarize our results and provide an outlook in Sec. \[conclusions\].
Theoretical framework {#theory}
=====================
Setup and its stationary solutions {#stationary_sol}
----------------------------------
We consider two ultracold bosons trapped in a 2D isotropic harmonic trap. The interparticle interaction is modeled by a contact $s$-wave pseudo-potential, which is an adequate approximation within the ultracold regime. The Hamiltonian of the system, employing harmonic oscillator units ($\hbar=m=\omega=1$), reads $$\label{hamilt}
\mathcal{H}= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{2} \left[-\nabla_i^2 +\boldsymbol{r}_i ^{2} \right] + 2V_{\textrm{pp}}(\boldsymbol{r}_1-\boldsymbol{r}_2),$$ where $\boldsymbol{r}_1$ and $\boldsymbol{r}_2$ denote the spatial coordinates of each boson. Note that the prefactor 2 is used for later convenience in the calculations. The contact regularized pseudo-potential can be expressed as [@Olshanii] $$V_{\textrm{pp}}(\boldsymbol{r})= -\frac{\pi \delta(\boldsymbol{r})}{\ln(Aa\Lambda)}\left(1-\ln(A\Lambda r)r\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \right),$$ with $\Lambda$ being an arbitrary dimensionful parameter possessing the dimension of a wavevector and $A= e^{\gamma}/2$ where $ \gamma= 0.577\ldots $ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. We remark that the parameter $\Lambda$ does not affect the value of any observable or the energies and eigenstates of the system as it has been shown in [@Pricoup; @Olshanii]. Furthermore, the 2D $s$-wave scattering length is given by $a$.
To proceed, we perform a separation of variables in terms of the center-of-mass, $\boldsymbol{R}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\boldsymbol{r}_1+\boldsymbol{r}_2)$, and the relative coordinates $ \boldsymbol{\rho}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\boldsymbol{r}_1-\boldsymbol{r}_2)$. Employing this separation, the Hamiltonian acquires the form $\mathcal{H}= \mathcal{H}_{\textrm{CM}}+\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{rel}}$ with $$\label{separation_hamilt}
\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{CM}}= -\frac{1}{2} \nabla_{\boldsymbol{R}}^2+\frac{1}{2}R^2,$$ being the Hamiltonian of the center-of-mass and $$\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{rel}} = -\frac{1}{2}
\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\rho}}^2 +\frac{1}{2}\rho^2 +V_{\textrm{pp}}(\boldsymbol{\rho}),$$ is the Hamiltonian corresponding to the motion in the relative coordinate frame.
As a result, the Schrödinger equation can be casted into the form $\mathcal{H}\Psi(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\boldsymbol{r}_2)=E\Psi(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\boldsymbol{r}_2)$. Here the total energy of the system has two contributions, namely $E=E_{\textrm{CM}}+E_{\textrm{rel}}$, and the system’s wavefunction is a product of a center-of-mass and a relative coordinate part i.e. $\Psi(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\boldsymbol{r}_2)=\Psi_{\textrm{CM}}(\boldsymbol{R})\Psi_{\textrm{rel}}(\boldsymbol{\rho})$. Since the center-of-mass hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{CM}}$ is interaction independent \[see Eq. \] its eigenstates correspond to the well-known non-interacting 2D harmonic oscillator states [@Sakurai]. We assume that the center-of-mass wavefunction takes the form $\Psi_{\textrm{CM}}(\boldsymbol{R})=\frac{e^{-\boldsymbol{R}^2/2}}{\sqrt{\pi}}$, namely the non-interacting ground state of the 2D harmonic oscillator. Since we are interested in the interaction quench dynamics of the two interacting bosons we omit the center-of-mass wavefunction in what follows for simplicity. Following the above-mentioned separation of coordinates, the problem boils down to solving the relative part of the Hamiltonian, $\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{rel}}$, which is interaction dependent. For this purpose, we assume an ansatz for the relative wavefunction, which involves an expansion over the non-interacting energy eigenstates of the 2D harmonic oscillator $$\label{states}
\begin{split}
\varphi_{n,m}(\rho,\theta&)=\\&\sqrt{\frac{n!}{\pi\Gamma(n+|m|+1)}}e^{-\rho^2/2}\rho^{|m|}L_n^{(m)}(\rho^2)e^{{{i\mkern1mu}}m\theta}.
\end{split}$$ In this expression, $\Gamma(n)$ is the gamma function while $L_n^{(m)}$ refer to the generalized Laguerre polynomials of degree $n$ and value of angular momentum $m$. Also, $\boldsymbol{\rho}=(\rho,\theta)$ where $\rho$ is the relative polar coordinate and $\theta$ is the relative angle. The energy of the non-interacting 2D harmonic oscillator eigenstates in harmonic oscillator units is $E_{\textrm{rel},n,m}=2n+|m|+1$ [@Sakurai]. Within our relative coordinate wavefunction ansatz \[see Eq. below\] we will employ, however, only those states that are affected by the pseudo-potential and thus have a non-vanishing value at $\rho=0$. These are the states with bosonic symmetry $m=0$, i.e. zero angular momentum. The states with odd m are fermionic, since under the exchange $\theta \rightarrow \theta -\pi$, they acquire an extra minus sign due to the term $e^{{{i\mkern1mu}}m\theta}$. Therefore, the ansatz for the relative wavefunction reads $$\label{ansatz}
\Psi_{\textrm{rel}}(\rho)= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} c_n \varphi_n(\rho),$$ where the summation is performed over the principal quantum number $n$ and we omit the angle $\theta$ since only the states with $m=0$ are taken into account. Note that this ansatz has already been reported previously e.g. in Refs. [@Busch; @Simos]. In order to determine the expansion coefficients $c_n$, we plug Eq. into the Schrödinger equation that $\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{rel}}$ satisfies and project the resulting equation onto the state $\varphi_{n'}^*(\rho)$. Following this procedure we arrive at $$\label{exp_coeff}
\begin{split}
c_{n'}&(E_{\textrm{rel},n'}-E_{\textrm{rel}})=\frac{\pi\varphi_{n'}^*(0) }{\ln(Aa\Lambda)}\\& \times\left[ \left(1-\ln(\sqrt{2}A\Lambda\rho)\rho\frac{\partial}{\partial \rho}
\right)\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} c_n \varphi_n(\rho) \right]_{\rho\rightarrow 0}.
\end{split}$$ The right hand side of Eq. is related to a normalization factor of the relative wavefunction $\ket{\Psi_{\textrm{rel}}}$. Indeed it has been shown [@Busch; @Simos] that the coefficients take the form $$c_n=A_1\frac{\varphi_n^*(0)}{E_{\textrm{rel},n}-E_{\textrm{rel}}},$$ with $A_1=\frac{2\sqrt{\pi}}{\sqrt{\psi^{(1)}\left(\frac{1-E_{\textrm{rel}}}{2}\right)}}$ being a normalization constant and $\psi^{(1)}(z)$ the trigamma function.
By inserting this expression of $c_n$ into Eq. , we can determine the relative wavefunction. This can be achieved by making use of the generating function of the Laguerre polynomials i.e. $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} t^n L_n(x)=\frac{1}{1-t}e^{-\frac{tx}{1-t}}$. Thus, the relative wavefunction takes the form [@Drummond] $$\label{station}
\begin{split}
\Psi_{\textrm{rel},\nu_i}(\rho)=\frac{\Gamma(-\nu_i)}{\sqrt{\pi\psi^{(1)}(-\nu_i)}} e^{-\rho^2/2}U(-\nu_i,1,\rho^2),
\end{split}$$ where $U(a,b,z)$ refers to the confluent hypergeometric function of the second type (also known as Tricomi’s function) and $2\nu_i+1$ is the energy of the $i=0,1,\dots$ interacting eigenstate [@Stegun]. In what follows we will drop the subscript rel and denote these relative coordinate states by $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_i}}$. It is important to note at this point that this relative wavefunction ansatz solves also the problem of three one-dimensional harmonically trapped bosons interacting via three-body forces, see e.g. Ref. [@Pastukhov] for more details.
To find the energy spectrum of $\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{rel}}$, we employ Eq. along with the form of $c_{n,i}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\varphi_n^*(0)}{(n-\nu_i)\sqrt{\psi^{(1)}(-\nu_i)}}$. Note that in order to determine the right hand side of Eq. , we make use of the behavior of the relative wavefunction close to $\rho=0$. In this way, we obtain the following algebraic equation regarding the energy of the relative coordinates [@Busch; @Zyl], $2\nu_i+1$, $$\label{spectrum}
\psi(-\nu_i)= \ln\left( \frac{1}{2a^2}\right) +2\ln2 -2\gamma,$$ where $\psi(x)$ is the digamma function. Note here that a different form of the algebraic Eq. can be found in [@Busch] and stems from a different definition of the scattering length $a$ [@Zyl]. It is also important to emphasize that the energy spectrum given by Eq. is independent of the form of the pseudo-potential, $V_{\textrm{pp}}(\boldsymbol{r})$, i.e. independent of $\Lambda$, A, or any short range potential, as long as its range is much smaller than the harmonic oscillator length [@Zyl]. Denoting $a_0\equiv \frac{a}{2}e^{\gamma}$, the algebraic Eq. can be casted into the simpler form $\psi(-\nu_i)= \ln\left( \frac{1}{2a_0^2}\right)$. Also, we define the interparticle interaction strength [@Doganov; @Busch; @Zyl; @Petrov; @Shlyapnikov; @comment] to be $$g=\frac{1}{\ln \left( \frac{1}{2a_0^2}\right)}.$$
{width="\textwidth" height="8cm"}
The energy $E_{\textrm{rel}}$ of the two bosons as a function of the interparticle interaction strength is presented in Fig. \[fig:en\_spectrum\]. As it can be seen, for $g=0$ $E_{\textrm{rel}}$ has the simple form $E_{\textrm{rel},n}=2n+1$, and thus we recover the non-interacting energy spectrum of a 2D harmonic oscillator with zero angular momentum [@Sakurai; @Tannoudji]. In this case the energy spacing between two consecutive eigenenergies is independent of n, i.e. $\Delta E=E_{\textrm{rel},n+1}-E_{\textrm{rel},n}=2$. For repulsive (attractive) interactions, the energy is increased (lowered) with respect to its value at $g=0$. Also and in contrast to the one-dimensional case, there are bound states $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}}$, namely eigenstates characterized by negative energy, in both interaction regimes. Note that herein we shall refer to these eigenstates with negative energy as bound states ($\nu_0$) whilst the corresponding eigenstates with positive energy in increasing energetic order will be denoted e.g. as the first ($\nu_1$), second ($\nu_2$) etc eigenstates and called ground, first excited state etc. The presence of these bound states can be attributed to the existence of the centripetal term $-\frac{1}{4r^2}$, in the 2D radial Schrödinger equation [@Sakurai], which supports a bound state even for weakly attractive potentials, in contrast to the 3D case [@Cirone; @Gezerlis]. These energy states, $\nu_0$, correspond to the molecular branch of two cold atoms in two dimensions. This is clearly captured by the lowest energy branch of Fig. \[fig:en\_spectrum\], as has been demonstrated in Ref. [@Drummond]. Note that due to a different definition of the coupling constant compared to Ref. [@Drummond], which possesses a bijective mapping to our definition of the coupling strength [@comment], the molecular branch maps to the bound states ($\nu_0$) herein in both the repulsive and the attractive interaction regime. To further appreciate the influence of these bound states we also provide in the insets of Fig. 1 their radial probability densities $2\pi\rho|\Psi|^2$ [@Cirone] for various interaction strengths as well as the radial probability density of the ground state $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}}$ at $g=0.3$. In the repulsive regime of interactions (right panel) the full-width-at-half-maximum of $2\pi\rho|\Psi|^2$ is smaller than the one of the attractive regime (left panel). This behavior is caused by the much stronger energy of the bound state at $g>0$ compared to the $g<0$ case. For large interaction strengths, $|g|>8$, the widths of $2\pi\rho|\Psi|^2$ tend to be the same. Another interesting feature of the 2D energy spectrum is the occurrence of a boundary signifying a crossover from the bound to the ground state ($\nu_0\rightarrow\nu_1$) at $g=-0.51$, see the corresponding vertical line in Fig. \[fig:en\_spectrum\]. This means that the negative eigenenergy of $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}}$ crosses the zero energy axis and becomes the positive eigenenergy of $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}}$ at $g=-0.51$. This crossover is captured, for instance, by $2\pi\rho|\Psi|^2$ which changes from a delocalized \[e.g. at $g=0.3$\] to a localized \[e.g. at $g=-1$\] distribution. The existence of this boundary affects the labeling of all the states and therefore $\nu_i$ becomes $\nu_{i+1}$ as it is crossed from the repulsive side of interactions. We note here that with $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}}$ \[$\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}}$\] we label the ground \[bound\] state and with $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_i}}, \, i>1$, the corresponding excited states. For repulsive interactions the energy of the bound state diverges at $g=0$ as $-1/a_0^2$ [@Gezerlis; @Zinner] or as $-2e^{1/g}$ in terms of the interparticle strength, while it approaches its asymptotic value for very strong interactions \[see Fig. \[fig:en\_spectrum\]\]. The two bound states share the same asymptotic value $E_{\textrm{rel}}=-1.923264$ at $g\to \pm \infty$. We remark that this behavior of the bound state in the vicinity of $g=0$ is the same as the one of the so-called universal bound state of two cold atoms in two dimensions in the absence of a trap [@Zinner]. We also note that the states $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_i}}$ with $i \neq 0$, approach their asymptotic values faster (being close to their asymptotic value already for $g=2$) than the bound states. The asymptotic values are determined via the algebraic equation $\psi(-\nu_i)=0$. Moreover, it can be shown that approximately the positive energy in the infinite interaction limit is given by the formula $E_{\textrm{rel}} \approx2n+1-\frac{2}{\ln (n) }+\mathcal{O}\left((\ln n)^{-2}\right)$ when $n \gg 1$ [@Stegun].
Time-evolution of basic observables
-----------------------------------
To study the dynamics of the two harmonically trapped bosons, we perform an interaction quench starting from a stationary state of the system, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_i}^{\textrm{in}}(0)}$, at $g^{\textrm{in}}$ to the value $g^f$. Let us also remark in passing that the dynamics of two bosons in a 2D harmonic trap employing an analytical treatment has not yet been reported. The time-evolution of the system’s initial wavefunction reads $$\label{quench_wave}
\begin{split}
\ket{\Psi_{\nu_i}(t)}&= e^{-{{i\mkern1mu}}\hat{H}t}\ket{\Psi_{\nu_i}^{\textrm{in}}(0)}\\&= \sum_{j} e^{-{{i\mkern1mu}}(2\nu_j^f+1) t}\ket{\Psi_{\nu_j}^f}\braket{\Psi_{\nu_j}^f|\Psi_{\nu_i}^{\textrm{in}}(0)},
\end{split}$$ where $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_j}^f}$ denotes the $j$-th eigenstate of the postquench Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ with energy $(2\nu_j^f+1)$. Note that the indices in and $f$ indicate that the corresponding quantities of interest refer to the initial (prequench) and final (postquench) state of the system respectively. Moreover, the overlap coefficients, $\braket{\Psi_{\nu_j}^f|\Psi_{\nu_i}^{\textrm{in}}(0)}$, between the initial wavefunction and a final eigenstate $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_j}^f}$ determine the degree of participation of this postquench eigenstate in the dynamics. Recall also here that the center-of-mass wavefunction, $\Psi_{\textrm{CM}}(\boldsymbol{R})$, is not included in Eq. since the latter is not affected by the quench \[see also Sec. \[stationary\_sol\]\] and therefore does not play any role in the description of the dynamics.
It can be shown that initializing the system in the eigenstate $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_i}^{\textrm{in}}}$ at $g^{\textrm{in}}$, the probability to occupy the eigenstate $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_j}^f}$ after the quench is given by $$\begin{aligned}
d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_i^{\textrm{in}}}&\equiv& \braket{\Psi_{\nu_j}^f|\Psi_{\nu_i}^{\textrm{in}}}= \frac{\Gamma(-\nu_i^{\textrm{in}})\Gamma(-\nu_j^f)}{\sqrt{\psi^{(1)}(-\nu_i^{\textrm{in}})\psi^{(1)}(-\nu_j^f)}} \nonumber \times \\
& & \times \int_0^{\infty}dr e^{-r}U(-\nu_i^{\textrm{in}},1,r)U(-\nu_j^f,1,r) \nonumber \\ & =& \frac{\Gamma(-\nu_j^f)G^{32}_{33}\left( \begin{array}{l|lll}
1& 0&0 &-\nu_j^f \\ & 0& 0 & -1-\nu_i^{\textrm{in}}
\end{array}\right)} {\Gamma(-\nu_i^{\textrm{in}})\sqrt{\psi^{(1)}(-\nu_i^{\textrm{in}})\psi^{(1)}(-\nu_j^f)}},\end{aligned}$$ with $G^{p,q}_{m,n}\left( \begin{array}{l|l}
z& a_1, \ldots a_p \\ & b_1, \ldots b_q
\end{array}\right)$ being the Meijer G-function [@Gradshteyn]. Remarkably enough, the coefficients $d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_i^{\textrm{in}}}$ can also be expressed in a much simpler form if we make use of the ansatz of Eq. . Indeed, by employing the orthonormality properties of the non-interacting eigenstates $\varphi_n(\rho)$ and the explicit expression of the expansion coefficients appearing in the ansatz , the overlap coefficients between a final and the initial eigenstate reads $$\label{overlap}
\begin{split}
d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_i^{\textrm{in}}} = \frac{\left[\frac{1}{g^f}-\frac{1}{g^{\textrm{in}}} \right]}{(\nu_i^{\textrm{in}}-\nu_j^f)\sqrt{\psi^{(1)}(-\nu_i^{\textrm{in}})\psi^{(1)}(-\nu_j^f)}}.
\end{split}$$ It should be emphasized here that this is a closed form of the overlap coefficients and the only parameters that need to be determined are the energies, which are determined from the algebraic equation . As a result in order to obtain the time-evolution of $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_i}^{\textrm{in}}(0)}$ we need to numerically evaluate Eq. (\[quench\_wave\]) which is an infinite summation over the postquench eigenstates denoted by $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_j}^f}$. In practice this infinite summation is truncated to a finite one with an upper limit which ensures that the values of all observables have been converged with respect to a further adding of eigenstates.
Having determined the time-evolution of the system’s wavefunction \[Eq. (\[quench\_wave\])\] enables to determine any observable of interest in the course of the dynamics. To inspect the dynamics of the system from a single-particle perspective we monitor its one-body density
$$\begin{gathered}
\rho^{(1)}(\boldsymbol{r}_1,t)=\int d\boldsymbol{r}_2 \tilde{\Psi}(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\boldsymbol{r}_2;t)\tilde{\Psi}^*(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\boldsymbol{r_2};t) \nonumber \\
= \frac{e^{-(x^2+y^2)}}{\pi^2} \sum_{j,k} \frac{e^{2{{i\mkern1mu}}(\nu_j^f-\nu_k^f)t}\Gamma(-\nu_k^f)\Gamma^*(-\nu_j^f)d_{\nu_k^f,\nu_i^{\textrm{in}}}d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_i^{\textrm{in}}}^*}{\sqrt{\psi^{(1)}(-\nu_k^f)\psi^{(1)*}(-\nu_j^f)}} \times \nonumber \\
\times\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz dw e^{-z^2-w^2}U^*\left(-\nu_j^f,1,(x-z)^2/2+(y-w)^2/2 \right)
U\left(-\nu_k^f,1,(x-z)^2/2+(y-w)^2/2 \right).
\label{density_matrix} \end{gathered}$$
In this expression, the total wavefunction of the system is denoted by $\tilde{\Psi}(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\boldsymbol{r}_2)=\Psi_{\textrm{CM}}(R(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\boldsymbol{r}_2),t)\Psi_{\textrm{rel},\nu_i}(\rho(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\boldsymbol{r}_2),t)$ [@Sakmann]. To arrive at the second line of Eq. we have expressed the relative, $\rho^2= \frac{1}{2} (r_1^2+r_2^2-2\boldsymbol{r}_1\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_2)$, and the center-of-mass coordinates, $R^2= \frac{1}{2} (r_1^2+r_2^2+2\boldsymbol{r}_1\cdot\boldsymbol{r}_2)$, in terms of the Cartesian coordinates ($\boldsymbol{r_1}$, $\boldsymbol{r_2}$) and integrated out the ones pertaining to the other particle. In particular, we adopted the notation $\boldsymbol{r}_1=(x,y)$ and $\boldsymbol{r}_2=(z,w)$ for the coordinates that are being integrated out. Moreover, the integral $I_{\nu_j^f,\nu_k^f}$ appearing in the last line of Eq. can be further simplified by employing the replacements $z'=x-z$ ,$w'=y-w$ and then express the new variables in terms of polar coordinates. The emergent angle integration can be readily performed and the integral with respect to the radial coordinate becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&I_{\nu_j^f,\nu_k^f}= 2\pi e^{-(x^2+y^2)} \int_0^{\infty} dr\,re^{-r^2} I_0\left(2r\sqrt{x^2+y^2} \right)\times \nonumber \\& \times
U^*\left(-\nu_j^f,1,\frac{r^2}{2}\right) U\left(-\nu_k^f,1,\frac{r^2}{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $I_0(x)$ is the zeroth order modified Bessel function of the first kind [@Stegun; @Gradshteyn].
Another interesting quantity which provides information about the state of the system on the two-body level is the radial probability density of the relative wavefunction $$\label{prob_dens}
\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)=2\pi\rho|\Psi(\rho,t)|^2.$$ It provides the probability density to detect two bosons for a fixed time instant $t$ at a relative distance $\rho$. It can be directly determined by employing the overlap coefficients of Eq. . Moreover, the corresponding radial probability density in momentum space reads $$\mathcal{C}(k,t)=2\pi k |\tilde{\Psi}(k,t)|^2.$$ Here, the relative wavefunction in momentum space is obtained from the two dimensional Fourier transform $$\tilde{\Psi}(k,t)= 2\pi \int_{0}^{\infty} d\rho\, \rho \Psi(\rho,t) J_0(2\pi\rho k) \quad,
\label{Fourier_wave}$$ where $J_0(x)$ is the zeroth order Bessel function.
To estimate the system’s dynamical response after the quench we resort to the fidelity evolution $F(t)$. It is defined as the overlap between the time-evolved wavefunction at time $t$ and the initial one [@Gorin], namely $$\label{f(t)}
\begin{split}
F(t)=&\bra{\Psi(0)}e^{-{{i\mkern1mu}}\hat{H}t}\ket{\Psi(0)} \\&= \sum_{j} e^{-{{i\mkern1mu}}(2 \nu_j^f+1 ) t}|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_i^{\textrm{in}}}|^2.
\end{split}$$ Evidently, $F(t)$ is a measure of the deviation of the system from its initial state [@Simos]. In what follows, we will make use of the modulus of the fidelity, ${\left| F(t) \right|}$. Most importantly, the frequency spectrum of the modulus of the fidelity $F(\omega)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt\, |F(t)|e^{{{i\mkern1mu}}\omega t}$ grants access to the quench-induced dynamical modes [@Mistakidis1; @Mistakidis2; @Mistakidis3; @Mistakidis4; @Jannis]. Indeed, the emergent frequencies appearing in the spectrum correspond to the energy differences of particular postquench eigenstates of the system and therefore enable us to identify the states that participate in the dynamics (see also the discussion below).
Another observable of interest is the two-body contact $\mathcal{D}$. The latter is defined from the momentum distribution in the limit of very large momenta i.e. $\mathcal{C}(k,t) \xrightarrow{k\rightarrow \infty} \frac{2\pi\mathcal{D}(t)}{k^3}$ and captures the ocurrence of short-range two-body correlations [@Bellotti; @Valiente; @momentum_2]. Moreover, this quantity can be experimentally monitored [@Contact_1; @Contact_2] and satisfies a variety of universal relations independently of the quantum statistics, the number of particles or the system’s dimensionality [@Tan1; @Tan2; @Tan3; @momentum_2]. Having at hand the eigenstates of the system, we can expand the time evolved contact after a quench from $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_i}^{\textrm{in}}}$ at $g^{\textrm{in}}$ to an arbitrary $g^f$ in terms of the contacts of the postquench eigenstates [@Colussi]. Namely $$\mathcal{D}(t)=\left| \sum_j e^{-{{i\mkern1mu}}(2\nu_j^f+1)t}d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_i^{\textrm{in}}}\sqrt{|\mathcal{D}_j|} \right|^2.$$ The contacts $\mathcal{D}_j$ of the postquench eigenstates $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_j}^f}$ can be inferred by employing the behavior of the eigenstates \[Eq. \] close to zero distance, $\rho \rightarrow 0$, between the atoms $$\Psi_{\nu_j}(\rho) \xrightarrow[\rho\rightarrow 0]{} -\frac{2 \ln \rho}{\sqrt{\pi \psi^{(1)}(-\nu_j)}}.
\label{waves_small}$$ By plugging Eq. into Eq. and restricting ourselves to small $\rho$ values we obtain the contact from the leading order term ($\sim 1/k^2$) of the resulting expression. The contact for the postquench eigenstates $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_j}^f}$ reads $$\mathcal{D}_j=\frac{1}{\pi^3\psi^{(1)}(-\nu_j)}.$$ Note that in order to capture the quench-induced dynamical modes that participate in the dynamics of the contact, we employ its corresponding frequency spectrum i.e. $\mathcal{D}(\omega)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mathcal{D}(t)e^{{{i\mkern1mu}}\omega t}$.
Having analyzed the exact solution of the two bosons trapped in a 2D harmonic trap both for the stationary and the time-dependent cases, we subsequently explore the corresponding interaction quench dynamics. In particular, we initialize the system into its ground state $ \ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$ for attractive interactions and perform interaction quenches towards the repulsive regime (Sec. \[quench\_att\]) and vice versa (Sec. \[quench\_rep\]).
Quench dynamics of two attractive bosons to repulsive interactions {#quench_att}
==================================================================
We first study the interaction quench dynamics of two attractively interacting bosons confined in a 2D isotropic harmonic trap. More specifically, the system is initially prepared in its corresponding ground state $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$ at $g^{\textrm{\textrm{in}}}=-1$. At $t=0$ we perform an interaction quench towards the repulsive interactions letting the system evolve. Our main objective is to analyze the dynamical response of the system and identify the underlying dominant microscopic mechanisms.
Dynamical response {#response_attract_repul}
------------------
To examine the dynamical response of the system after the quench we employ the corresponding fidelity evolution ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ \[see Eq. \] [@Fogarty2]. Figure \[fig:attractive\_ground\] (a) shows ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ for various postquench interaction strengths $g^f$. We observe the emergence of four distinct dynamical regions where the fidelity exhibits a different behavior. In region I, $-1<g^f<-0.27$, ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ performs small amplitude oscillations in time \[see also ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ for $g^f=-0.5$ in Fig. \[fig:attractive\_ground\] (b)\] and therefore the system remains essentially unperturbed. Note that the oscillation period is slightly smaller than $\pi$ \[see also the discussion below\], e.g. see Fig. \[fig:attractive\_ground\] (b) for $g^f=-0.5$. Entering region II, $-0.27<g^f<0.8$, the system departs significantly from its initial state since ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ exhibits large amplitude oscillations in time (see the blue lobes in Fig. \[fig:attractive\_ground\] (a) within region II) deviating appreciably from unity \[see also Fig. \[fig:attractive\_ground\] (b) at $g^f=0.5$\]. A more careful inspection of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ reveals that it oscillates with at least two frequencies, namely a faster and a slower one. Indeed, ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ oscillates rapidly (fast frequency) within a large amplitude envelope of period $\simeq \pi$ (slow frequency). Within region III, $0.8<g^f<2.7$, the oscillation amplitude of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ becomes smaller when compared to region II. Most importantly, we observe the appearance of irregular minima and maxima in ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ being shifted with time \[Fig. \[fig:attractive\_ground\] (b) at $g^f=1$\]. For strong interactions, $2.7<g^f<10$, we encounter region IV in which $|F(t)|>0.9$ performs small amplitude oscillations that resemble the ones already observed within region I \[Fig. \[fig:attractive\_ground\] (b) at $g^f=7$\]. An important difference with respect to region I is that the oscillations of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ are faster and there is more than one frequency involved, compare ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ at $g^f=-0.5$ and $g^f=7$ in Fig. \[fig:attractive\_ground\] (b).
To gain more insights onto the dynamics, we next resort to the frequency spectrum of the fidelity $F(\omega)$, shown in Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (a) for a varying postquench interaction strength. This spectrum provides information about the contribution of the different postquench states that participate in the dynamics. Indeed, the square of the fidelity \[see Eq. \] can be expressed as $$\label{fidelity}
\begin{split}
|F(t)|^2=& \sum_{j} |d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^4\\&+2\sum_{j \neq k}|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2|d_{\nu_k^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2\cos(\omega_{\nu_j^f,\nu_k^f}t),
\end{split}$$ where $d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}$ are the overlap coefficients between the initial (prequench) $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$ and the final (postquench) $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_j}^f}$ eigenstates. The corresponding overlap coefficients $|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$ for an increasing postquench interaction strength are presented in Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (b). Moreover, the frequencies $\omega_{\nu_j^f,\nu_k^f}$ are determined by the energy differences between two distinct eigenstates of the postquench Hamiltonian, namely $\omega_{\nu_j^f,\nu_k^f}=2( \nu_j^f- \nu_k^f)\equiv \omega_{\nu_j,\nu_k}$ with $\quad j\neq k$. Note also that the amplitudes of the frequencies \[encoded in the colorbar of Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (a)\] mainly depend on the product of their respective overlap coefficients, i.e. $|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2|d_{\nu_k^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$. Finally, the values of the frequencies $\omega_{\nu_j,\nu_k}$ along with the coefficients $|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$ \[Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (b)\] determine the dominantly participating postquench eigenstates [@Simos; @Mistakidis1; @Mistakidis2; @Mistakidis3].
Focusing on region I we observe that in $F(\omega)$ there are two frequencies, hardly visible in Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (a). The most dominant one corresponds to $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}$ for $-1<g^f<-0.51$ and to $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_1}$ for $-0.51<g^f<-0.27$. It is larger than 2 giving thus rise to a period of $|F(t)|$ smaller than $\pi$. The fainter one corresponds to $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_1}$ for $-1<g^f<-0.51$ and to $\omega_{\nu_3,\nu_2}$ for $-0.51<g^f<-0.27$. For reasons of clarity let us mention that each of these frequencies, of course, coincide with the corresponding energy difference between the respective eigenstates of the system’s eigenspectrum \[Fig. \[fig:en\_spectrum\]\]. Recall that at $g^f=-0.51$ indicated by the vertical line in Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] \[see also Fig. \[fig:en\_spectrum\]\], the labeling of the eigenstates changes and e.g. the frequency $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}$ becomes $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_1}$. As it can be seen from Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (a) $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}$ decreases for increasing $g^f$ which is in accordance with the behavior of the energy gap $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}=2( \nu_1^f- \nu_0^f)$ in the system’s eigenspectrum \[Fig. \[fig:en\_spectrum\]\]. Turning to region II, a multitude of almost equidistant frequencies appears. This behavior is clearly captured in the vicinity of $g^f=0$, where the energy difference between consecutive eigenenergies exhibits an almost equal spacing of the order of $\Delta E\simeq2$ \[see also Fig. \[fig:en\_spectrum\]\]. To characterize the observed frequency branches in terms of transitions between the system’s eigenstates we determine the corresponding overlap coefficients $d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}$ shown in Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (b) and also the respective eigenstate energy differences known from the eigenspectrum of the system \[Fig. \[fig:en\_spectrum\]\]. In this way, we identify the most prominent frequency $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_1}$ appearing in $F(\omega)$ which is near $\omega \approx2$. Additionally, a careful inspection of Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (b) reveals that there is a significant decrease of $|d_{\nu_2^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$ for a larger $g^f$ and subsequently energetically higher excited states come into play, e.g. $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_3}^f}$. These latter contributions give rise to the appearance of energetically higher frequencies in $F(\omega)$. Indeed the bound state, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^f}$, possesses a non-negligible population already for $g^f>0.27$ \[Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (b)\] giving rise to the frequency branch $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}$ that at $g^f\approx 0.54$ has a quite large value of approximately 14.9 and decreases rapidly as $g^f$ increases. Of course, this behavior stems directly from the energy gap between the bound, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^f}$, and the ground, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$, states as it can be easily confirmed by inspecting the eigenspectrum \[Fig. \[fig:en\_spectrum\]\]. In the intersection between regions II and III, $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}$ becomes degenerate with the other frequency branches \[see the black circles in Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (a)\], e.g. $\omega_{\nu_4,\nu_1}$ in the vicinity of $g^f=1$ and $\omega_{\nu_3,\nu_1}$ close to $g^f=3$ \[Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (a)\]. The aforementioned frequency branches are much fainter when compared to $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}$, since the overlap coefficients between the relevant eigenstates are small, e.g. $|d_{\nu_3^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2<|d_{\nu_0^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$ \[Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (b)\]. Finally in region IV, there are mainly two dominant frequencies, namely $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}$ and $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_1}$, that acquire constant values as $g^f$ increases. Indeed, in this region $|d_{\nu_1^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$, $|d_{\nu_0^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$ and $|d_{\nu_2^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$ are the most significantly populated coefficients \[Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (b)\], which in turn yield these two frequencies.
Role of the initial state {#role_intial_state_attract_repul}
-------------------------
To investigate the role of the initial eigenstate in the dynamical response of the two bosons, we consider an interaction quench from $g^{\textrm{in}}=-1$ to $g^f=1$ but initializing the system at energetically different excited states i.e. $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_k}^{\textrm{in}}}$, $k>1$, and the bound state $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^{\textrm{in}}}$. In particular, Fig. \[excited\_att\] (a) illustrates ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ with a prequench eigenstate being the bound state, the first, the third, the fifth and the seventh excited state. In all cases, ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ exhibits an irregular oscillatory motion as in the case of $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$, see also Fig. \[fig:attractive\_ground\] (b). Evidently, for an energetically higher initial eigenstate (but not the bound state) ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ takes larger values and therefore the system is less perturbed. However, when the two bosons are prepared in the bound state, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^{\textrm{in}}}$, of the system then ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ drops to smaller values as compared to the case of energetically higher initial states and the system becomes more perturbed.
The impact of the initial state on the oscillation amplitude of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ is reflected on the values of the corresponding overlap coefficients that appear in the expansion of the fidelity in Eq. (\[fidelity\]). More precisely, when an overlap coefficient possesses a dominant population with respect to the others then ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ exhibits a smaller oscillation amplitude than in the case where at least two overlap coefficients possess a non negligible population. For convenience and in order to identify the states that take part in the dynamics, we provide the relevant overlap coefficients, $|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_k^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$, for the quench $g^{\textrm{in}}=-1\rightarrow g^f=1$ in Table \[table1\] for various initial eigenstates $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_k}^{\textrm{in}}}$. Indeed, an initial energetically higher-lying excited state results in the dominant population of one postquench state while the other states exhibit a very small contribution, e.g. see the last column of Table \[table1\]. For this reason an initially energetically higher excited state leads to a smaller oscillation amplitude of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$. Moreover, the large frequency oscillations appearing in ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ are caused by the presence of several higher than first order eigenstate transitions as e.g. $\omega_{\nu_6,\nu_4}$, $\omega_{\nu_7,\nu_4}$, $\omega_{\nu_4,\nu_0}$ in the case of starting from $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_4}^{\textrm{in}}}$ \[Fig. \[excited\_att\] (b)\]. The transition mainly responsible for these large frequency oscillations of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ involves the bound state $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^f}$. Indeed, by inspecting ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ of different initial configurations shown in Fig. \[excited\_att\] (a) we observe that starting from energetically higher excited states such that $\nu_j>\nu_4$ the respective contribution of $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^f}$ diminishes \[see also Table \[table1\]\] leading to a decay of the amplitude of these large frequency oscillations of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$. The aforementioned behavior becomes evident e.g. by comparing ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ for $\nu_2^{\textrm{in}}$ and $\nu_8^{\textrm{in}}$ in Fig \[excited\_att\] (a).
On the other hand, in order to unveil the participating frequencies in the dynamics of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ we calculate its spectrum $|F(\omega)|$, shown in Figs. \[excited\_att\](b), (c). We observe that starting from an energetically higher excited state several frequencies, referring to different eigenstate transitions, are triggered. Most of these frequencies which refer to different initial states almost coincide e.g. $\omega_{\nu_5,\nu_4}$ with $\omega_{\nu_9,\nu_8}$, since the energy gap of the underlying eigenstates is approximately the same \[see also Fig. \[fig:en\_spectrum\]\]. They possess however a distinct amplitude. Additionally, there are also distinct contributing frequencies e.g. compare $\omega_{\nu_4,\nu_0}$ with $\omega_{\nu_8,\nu_0}$. The latter are in turn responsible for the dependence of the oscillation period of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ on the initial eigenstate of the system. Finally, let us note that if the system is quenched to other final interaction strengths (not shown here for brevity reasons), across the four dynamical regions identified in Fig. \[fig:attractive\_ground\](a), then ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ follows a similar pattern as discussed in Fig. \[excited\_att\] (a).
[$|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_0^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$]{} [$|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_2^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$]{} [$|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_4^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$]{} [$|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_6^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$]{} [$|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_8^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$]{}
--------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_0$]{} 0.7896 0.0367 0.0147 - -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_1$]{} 0.1214 0.0198 - - -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_2$]{} 0.0351 0.8765 - - -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_3$]{} 0.0163 0.0464 0.0187 - -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_4$]{} 0.0092 0.0092 0.9078 - -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_5$]{} - - 0.0351 0.0164 -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_6$]{} - - - 0.9249 -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_7$]{} - - - 0.0286 0.0145
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_8$]{} - - - - 0.9358
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_9$]{} - - - - 0.0243
: Overlap coefficients $|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_i^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$ for the quench from $g^{\textrm{in}}=-1$ to $g^f=1$ starting from various excited states, namely $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^{\textrm{in}}}$, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^{\textrm{in}}}$, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_4}^{\textrm{in}}}$, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_6}^{\textrm{in}}}$, and $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_8}^{\textrm{in}}}$. Only the coefficients with a value larger than 0.9% are presented. []{data-label="table1"}
One-body density evolution
--------------------------
To monitor the dynamical spatial redistribution of the two atoms after the quench at the single-particle level, we next examine the evolution of the one-body density $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t)$ \[Eq. \]. Figures \[fig:1RD\_-1\_1\] (a)-(f) depict $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t)$ following an interaction quench from $g^{\textrm{in}}=-1$ to $g^f=1$ when the system is initialized in its ground state configuration $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$. Note that the shown time-instants of the evolution lie in the vicinity of the local minima and maxima of the fidelity \[see also Fig. \[fig:attractive\_ground\] (b)\], where the system deviates strongly and weakly from its initial state respectively. Overall, we observe that the atoms undergo a breathing motion manifested as a contraction and expansion dynamics of $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t)$, see for instance the increase of the density close to $x=y=0$ \[Figs. \[fig:1RD\_-1\_1\] (b), (c)\] and its subsequent spread \[Figs. \[fig:1RD\_-1\_1\] (d), (e)\]. To provide further hints on the dynamical superposition [@Sowinski_ent; @Katsimiga_diss_flow; @Katsimiga_bent] of states we show in Figs. \[fig:1RD\_-1\_1\] (g)-(j) the corresponding $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t=0)$ of the initial state, i.e. $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$, and the densities of the three most significant, in terms of the overlap coefficients, final states namely $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f},\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^f}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$. Comparing these $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t=0)$ with the $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t)$ we can deduce that during evolution the one-body density of the system is mainly in a superposition of the $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$ and the $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^f}$. The excited state $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$ has a smaller contribution to the dynamics of $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t)$ \[e.g. see Fig. \[fig:1RD\_-1\_1\] (e)\] compared to the other states.
Evolution of the radial probability density
-------------------------------------------
In order to gain a better understanding of the nonequilibrium dynamics of the two bosons, we also employ the time-evolution of the radial probability density of the relative wavefunction $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ \[Eq. \]. Recall that this quantity provides the probability density of finding the two bosons at a distance $\rho$ apart for a fixed time-instant. The dynamics of $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ after a quench from $g^{\textrm{in}}=-1$ to $g^f=1$, starting from $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$, is illustrated at selected time-instants in Fig. \[fig:2RD\_attractive\] (a). We can infer that the emergent breathing motion of the two bosons is identified via the succession in time of a single \[e.g. at $t=0.46 ,1.31$\] and a double peak \[e.g. at $t=0.84,2.63$\] structure in the dynamics of $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$. Here, the one peak is located close to $\rho=0$ and the other close to the harmonic oscillator length (unity in our choice of units). Moreover, by comparing $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ \[Fig. \[fig:2RD\_attractive\] (a)\] with $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t)$ \[Fig. \[fig:1RD\_-1\_1\]\] suggests that a double peak structure in $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ refers to an expansion of $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t)$ \[e.g. at $t=6.09$\], while a single peaked $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ corresponds to a contraction of $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t)$ \[e.g. at $t=1.31$\]. Indeed, for a double peak structure of $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$, its secondary maximum always occurs at slightly larger radii than the maximum of a single peak distribution of $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$, possessing also a more extended tail. This further testifies the expanding (contracting) tendency of the cloud in the former (latter) case. To reveal the microscopic origin of the structures building upon $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ we also calculate this quantity \[see the inset of Fig. \[fig:2RD\_attractive\] (a)\] for the states $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^f}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$ that primarily contribute to the dynamics in terms of the overlap coefficients \[see also Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (b)\]. Indeed, comparing $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ \[Fig. \[fig:2RD\_attractive\] (a)\] with $\mathcal{B}(\rho)$ of the stationary eigenstates \[inset of Fig. \[fig:2RD\_attractive\] (a)\], enables us to deduce that $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ resides mainly in a superposition of the ground ($\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$), the bound ($\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^f}$) and the first excited ($\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$) eigenstates. Also, it can be clearly seen that the main contribution stems from the ground state, while the other two states possess a smaller contribution. In particular, the participation of the bound state can be inferred due to the existence of the peak close to $\rho=0$, which e.g. for $t=0.84$ becomes prominent, whereas the presence of the excited state $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$ is discernible from the spatial extent of the $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ e.g. at $t=2.63$ \[Fig. \[fig:2RD\_attractive\] (a)\].
To showcase the motion of the two atoms in momentum space we invoke the evolution of the radial probability density in momentum space $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$ [@Selim_momentum] illustrated in Fig. \[fig:2RD\_attractive\] (b) for the quench $g^{\textrm{in}}=-1\rightarrow g^f=1$ starting from $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$. We observe that in the course of the dynamics a pronounced peak close to $k=0$ and a secondary one located at values of larger $k$ appear in $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$. Moreover, the breathing motion in momentum space is manifested by the lowering and raising of the zero momentum peak accompanied by a subsequent enhancement or reduction of the tail of $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$, as shown e.g. at $t=0.84, 6.09$. Note also that the tail of $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$ decays in a much slower manner compared to the tail of $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$. Indeed, the latter decays asymptotically as $\sim e^{-\rho^2}$ \[see also Eq. (\[station\])\] while by fitting the tail of $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$ we observe a decay law $\sim 1/k^3$ (not shown here for brevity reasons) [@Bellotti; @Valiente; @momentum_1; @momentum_2]. Additionally, in order to unveil the corresponding superposition of states that contribute to the momentum distribution, the inset of Fig. \[fig:2RD\_attractive\] (b) presents $\mathcal{C}(k)$ of the postquench eigenstates that possess the most significantly populated overlap coefficients \[see also Fig. \[fig:attractive\_spec\] (b)\]. As it can be seen, the bound state ($\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^f}$) exhibits a broad momentum distribution with a tail that extends to large values of $k$, while $\mathcal{C}(k)$ of the ground state ($\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$) contributes the most and has a main peak around $k=0$. On the other hand, the excited state ($\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$) contributes to a lesser extent, and its presence is mainly identified when the momentum distribution exhibits two nodes, e.g. at $t=2.63$.
Evolution of the contact
------------------------
Subsequently we examine the contact $\mathcal{D}(t)/\mathcal{D}(0)$ in the course of the evolution after a quench from $g^{\textrm{in}}=-1$ to $g^f=1$, see Fig. \[fig:Contact\_attractive\] (a). Recall that the contact reveals the existence of short-range two-body correlations. Evidently $\mathcal{D}(t)/\mathcal{D}(0)$ exhibits an irrregular oscillatory behavior containing a variety of different frequencies. Indeed, by inspecting the corresponding frequency spectrum depicted in Fig. \[fig:Contact\_attractive\] (b), a multitude of frequencies appear. The most predominant frequencies possessing the largest amplitude originate from the energy difference between the bound state, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}}$ and energetically higher-lying states, such as $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}, \omega_{\nu_2,\nu_0}$ and $\omega_{\nu_3,\nu_0}$. Also here $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_1}$ has a comparable value to $\omega_{\nu_3,\nu_0}$ and thus contributes non-negligibly to the dynamics of $\mathcal{D}(t)/\mathcal{D}(0)$. Moreover, there is a multitude of other contributing frequencies e.g. $\omega_{\nu_8,\nu_0}$ having an amplitude smaller than $\omega_{\nu_3,\nu_0}$. These frequencies indicate the presence of higher-lying states in the dynamics of the contact. The above-described behavior of $\mathcal{D}(t)/\mathcal{D}(0)$ is expected to occur since the contact is related to short-range two-body correlations, and as such its dynamics involves a large number of postquench eigenstates, giving rise to the frequencies observed in Fig. \[fig:Contact\_attractive\] (b).
Quench dynamics of two repulsive bosons to attractive interactions {#quench_rep}
==================================================================
As a next step, we shall investigate the interaction quench dynamics of two initially repulsive bosons towards the attractive side of interactions. In particular, throughout this section we initialize the system in its ground state configuration $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$ at $g^{\textrm{in}}=1$ (unless it is stated otherwise) and perform an interaction quench to the attractive side of the spectrum.
Dynamical response {#dynamical-response}
------------------
In order to study the dynamical response of the system, we invoke the fidelity evolution \[Eq. \] [@Fogarty2] shown in Fig. \[fig:repulsive\_ground\] (a) with respect to $g^f$. We observe the appearance of three different dynamical regions, in a similar fashion with the response of the reverse quench scenario discussed in Section \[response\_attract\_repul\]. Within region I, $0.35<g^f<1$, ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ undergoes small amplitude oscillations \[see also Fig. \[fig:repulsive\_ground\] (b)\] and the system remains close to its initial state. However, in region II characterized by $-2.36<g^f<0.35$ the system becomes significantly perturbed since overall ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ oscillates between unity and zero. For instance, see ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ in Fig. \[fig:repulsive\_ground\] (b) at $g^f=-0.2$ where e.g. at $t\simeq\pi/2,3\pi/2$ $|F(t)|\simeq 0.07$. Region III where $-10<g^f<-2.36$ incorporates the intermediate and strongly attractive regime of interactions. Here, ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ oscillates with a small amplitude, while its main difference compared to region I is that the oscillation period is larger. Another interesting feature of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ is that as we enter deeper into region III the oscillation amplitude decreases and the corresponding period becomes smaller (see also the discussion below).
To identify the postquench eigenstates that participate in the nonequilibrium dynamics of the two bosons, we next calculate the fidelity spectrum $F(\omega)$ \[Fig. \[fig:repulsive\_spec\] (a)\] as well as the most notably populated overlap coefficients $|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$ \[Fig. \[fig:repulsive\_spec\] (b)\] for a varying postquench interaction strength. In region I we observe the occurrence of a predominant frequency, namely $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_1}$, in $F(\omega)$. This frequency is associated with the notable population of the coefficients $|d_{\nu_1^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$ and $|d_{\nu_2^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$ \[Fig. \[fig:repulsive\_spec\] (b)\]. Recall that the amplitude of the frequency peaks appearing in $F(\omega)$ depends on the participating overlap coefficients, as it is explicitly displayed in Eq. . Entering region II there is a multitude of contributing frequencies, the most prominent of them being $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_1}$. The appearance of the different frequencies is related to the fact that in this regime $|d_{\nu_1^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$ drops significantly for more attractive interactions accompanied by the population of other states such as $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_3}^f}$ \[see Fig. \[fig:repulsive\_spec\] (b)\]. It is important to remember here that at the vertical line $g^f=-0.51$ \[see also Fig. \[fig:en\_spectrum\]\] there is a change in the labeling of the eigenstates, resulting in the alteration of the frequencies from $\omega_{\nu_j,\nu_k}$ to $\omega_{\nu_{j-1},\nu_{k-1}}$ when crossing this line towards the attractive regime. In region III there are essentially two excited frequencies, namely $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}$ and $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_1}$. The former is the most dominant since here the mainly contributing states are $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^f}$ as it can be seen from Fig. \[fig:repulsive\_spec\] (b). Note also that $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}$ increases for decreasing $g^f$, a behavior that reflects the increasing energy gap in the system’s energy spectrum \[Fig. \[fig:en\_spectrum\]\]. On the other hand, the amplitude of $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_1}$ is weaker and essentially fades away for strong attractive interactions. This latter behavior can be attributed to the fact that the contribution of the $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$ state in this region decreases substantially.
Role of the initial state {#role_intial_state_repul_attract}
-------------------------
In order to expose the role of the initial state for the two-boson dynamics, we explore interaction quenches from $g^{\textrm{in}}=1$ towards $g^f=-1$ but initializing the system in various excited states $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_k}^{\textrm{in}}}$, $k>1$, or the bound state $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^{\textrm{in}}}$. The emergent dynamical response of the system as captured via ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ is depicted in Fig. \[excited\_rep\] (a) starting from the bound, the first, the third, the fifth and the seventh excited state. Inspecting the behavior of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ we can infer that the system becomes more perturbed when it is prepared in an energetically lower excited state since the oscillation amplitude of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ increases accordingly, compare for instance ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ for $\nu_2^{\textrm{in}}$ and $\nu_6^{\textrm{in}}$. Moreover, starting from the bound state the system is significantly perturbed compared to the previous cases and ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ showcases an irregular oscillatory behavior. This pattern is maintained if the quench is performed to other values of $g^f$ which belong to the attractive regime (not shown here for brevity reasons). Recall that a similar behavior of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ occurs for the reverse quench process, see Sec. \[role\_intial\_state\_attract\_repul\] and also Fig. \[excited\_att\] (a).
The above-mentioned behavior of the fidelity evolution can be understood via employing the corresponding overlap coefficients $|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_k^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$, see also Eq. (\[fidelity\]). As already discussed in Sec. \[role\_intial\_state\_attract\_repul\], the fidelity remains close to its initial value in the case that one overlap coefficient dominates with respect to the others and deviates significantly from unity when at least two overlap coefficients possess a notable population. The predominantly populated overlap coefficients, $|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_k^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$, are listed in Table \[Table2\] when starting from different initial eigenstates $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_k}^{\textrm{in}}}$. A close inspection of this Table reveals that starting from an energetically higher excited state leads to a lesser amount of contributing overlap coefficients with one among them becoming the dominant one. This behavior explains the decreasing tendency of the oscillation amplitude of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ for an initially energetically higher excited state, e.g. compare ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ of $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^{\textrm{in}}}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_6}^{\textrm{in}}}$ in Fig. \[excited\_rep\] (a). Accordingly, an initially lower (higher) lying excited state results in a larger (smaller) amount of excitations and thus to more (less) contributing frequencies. The latter can be readily seen by resorting to the fidelity spectrum $|F(\omega)|$ show in Figs. \[excited\_rep\] (b) and (c) when starting from $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_4}^{\textrm{in}}}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_8}^{\textrm{in}}}$ respectively.
[$|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_0^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$]{} [$|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_2^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$]{} [$|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_4^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$]{} [$|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_6^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$]{} [$|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_8^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$]{}
--------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_0$]{} 0.7896 0.0351 0.0092 - -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_1$]{} 0.0729 0.0556 - - -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_2$]{} 0.0367 0.8765 0.0092 - -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_3$]{} 0.0221 0.0198 0.0399 - -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_4$]{} 0.0147 - 0.9078 - -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_5$]{} - - 0.0175 0.0315 -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_6$]{} - - - 0.9248 -
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_7$]{} - - - 0.0154 0.0262
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_8$]{} - - - - 0.9357
[$\nu_j^f=\nu_9$]{} - - - - 0.0138
: The most significantly populated overlap coefficients, $|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_k^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$, for the quench from $g^{\textrm{in}}=1$ to $g^f=-1$ initializing the system at various initial states. Only the coefficients with a value larger than 0.9% are shown.[]{data-label="Table2"}
One-body density evolution
--------------------------
To visualize the nonequilibrium dynamics of the two-bosons, we next monitor the time-evolution of the one-body density \[Eq. \] depicted in Figs. \[fig:1RD\_1\_-0.2\] (a)-(f) for a quench from $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$ at $g^{\textrm{in}}=1$ to $g^f=-0.2$. Note that the time-instants portrayed in Fig. \[fig:1RD\_1\_-0.2\] refer to roughly the minima and maxima of the respective fidelity evolution \[see Fig. \[fig:repulsive\_ground\] (b)\]. Overall, the atomic cloud performs a breathing motion during evolution, namely it expands and contracts in a periodic manner. Moreover, we deduce that when the fidelity is minimized \[e.g. at $t=1.5,4.53,7.54$\], the one-body density expands \[Figs. \[fig:1RD\_1\_-0.2\] (a), (c) and (e)\], while for the case of a maximum fidelity $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t)$ contracts \[Figs. \[fig:1RD\_1\_-0.2\] (b), (f)\]. To understand which states are imprinted in $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t)$ we further show in Figs. \[fig:1RD\_1\_-0.2\] (g)-(j) $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t=0)$ of the initial state $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$ and the three most significantly populated, according to the overlap coefficients $|d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2$, final states i.e. $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_3}^f}$ [@Katsimiga_bent; @Katsimiga_quantum_DBs]. Comparing the $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t=0)$ of these stationary states with $\rho^{(1)}(x,y,t)$ it becomes evident that during evolution $\rho^{(1)}(x,y;t)$ is mainly in a superposition of the ground state \[Fig. \[fig:1RD\_1\_-0.2\] (i)\] and the first excited state \[Fig. \[fig:1RD\_1\_-0.2\] (h)\].
Evolution of the radial probability density
-------------------------------------------
As a next step, we examine the evolution of the radial probability density $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ \[Eq. \] presented in Fig. \[fig:2RD\_repulsive\] (a) for a quench from $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$ and $g^{\textrm{in}}=1$ to $g^f=-0.2$. Note that the snapshots of $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ depicted in Fig. \[fig:2RD\_repulsive\] (a) correspond again to time-instants at which the fidelity evolution exhibits local minima and maxima \[see also Fig. \[fig:repulsive\_ground\] (b)\]. We observe that when ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ is minimized, e.g. at $t=1.50,4.00,7.74$, $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ shows a double peak structure around $\rho \approx0.5$ and $\rho \approx 2$ respectively. However, for times that correspond to a maximum of the fidelity, e.g. at $t=3.1,6.17$, $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ deforms to a single peak distribution around $\rho \approx1.2$. To relate this alternating behavior of $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ with the breathing motion of the two bosons we can infer that when $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ possesses a double peak distribution the cloud expands while in the case of a single peak structure it contracts, see also Fig. \[fig:1RD\_1\_-0.2\]. It is also worth mentioning here that for the times at which $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ exhibits a double peak structure there is a quite significant probability density tail for $\rho>1.5$. This latter behavior is a signature of the participation of energetically higher-lying excited states as we shall discuss below.
Indeed, the inset of Fig. \[fig:2RD\_repulsive\] (a) depicts $\mathcal{B}(\rho)$ of the initial ($\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$) and the postquench ($\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$) states that have the major contribution for this specific quench in terms of the overlap coefficients \[see also Fig. \[fig:repulsive\_spec\] (b)\]. Comparing $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ with $\mathcal{B}(\rho)$ we can deduce that mainly the ground, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$, and the first excited, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$, states of the postquench system are imprinted in the dynamics of the relative density. More specifically, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$ gives rise to the enhanced tail of $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ \[Fig. \[fig:2RD\_repulsive\] (a)\], while the participation of $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$ (possessing also the major contribution) leads to the central peak of $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ close to $\rho=0$.
The radial probability density in momentum space [@Selim_momentum], $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$, is shown in Fig. \[fig:2RD\_repulsive\] (b) for selected time instants of the evolution following the quench $g^{\textrm{in}}=1\rightarrow g^f=-0.2$. We observe that $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$ exhibits always a two peak structure with the location and amplitude of the emergent peaks being changed in the course of the evolution. In particular, when the atomic cloud contracts e.g. at $t=3.10,9.19$, see also Figs. \[fig:1RD\_1\_-0.2\] (b), (f), $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$ has a large amplitude peak around $k\approx0.1$ and a secondary one of small amplitude close to $k\approx0.4$. However, for an expansion of the two bosons e.g. at $t=1.50$ \[Figs. \[fig:1RD\_1\_-0.2\] (a)\] the radial probability density in momentum space shows a small and a large amplitude peak around $k\approx0.05$ and $k\approx0.3$ respectively. Moreover, the momentum distribution during evolution is mainly in a superposition of the ground $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$ and the first excited state $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$, see in particular the inset of Fig. \[fig:2RD\_repulsive\] (b) which illustrates $\mathcal{C}(k)$ of these stationary states. As it can be readily seen, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$ is responsible for the secondary peak of $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$ at higher momenta, while the ground state contributes mainly to the peak close to $k=0$.
Dynamics of the contact
-----------------------
To unravel the emergence of short-range two-body correlations we next track the time-evolution of the rescaled contact $\mathcal{D}(t)/\mathcal{D}(0)$ after an interaction quench from $g^{\textrm{in}}=1$ to $g^f=-1$, see Fig. \[fig:Contact\_repulsive\] (a). As it can be seen, the rescaled contact exhibits an irregular multifrequency oscillatory pattern in time. It is also worth mentioning that here the involved frequencies in the dynamics of $\mathcal{D}(t)/\mathcal{D}(0)$ are smaller when compared to the ones excited in the reverse quench scenario, see in particular Fig. \[fig:Contact\_repulsive\] (b) and Fig. \[fig:Contact\_attractive\] (b). By inspecting the corresponding frequency spectrum presented in Fig. \[fig:Contact\_repulsive\] (b), we can deduce that the most prominent frequency $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}\approx2.5$ corresponds to the energy difference between the bound and the ground state. Moreover this predominant frequency is smaller than the corresponding dominant frequency $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}\approx7.5$ occuring at the reverse quench process \[Fig. \[fig:Contact\_attractive\] (b)\]. There is also a variety of other contributing frequencies which signal the participation of higher-lying states in the evolution of the contact, such as $\omega_{\nu_7,\nu_0}$, $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_1}$, $\omega_{\nu_3,\nu_1}$ and $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_0}$, exhibiting however a much smaller amplitude as compared to $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}$. These frequencies are essentially responsible for the observed irregular motion of $\mathcal{D}(t)/\mathcal{D}(0)$.
Quench from zero to Infinite interactions {#inf_quench}
=========================================
Up to now we have discussed in detail the interaction quench dynamics of two bosons trapped in a 2D harmonic trap for weak, intermediate and strong coupling in both the attractive and the repulsive regime. Next, we aim at briefly analyzing the corresponding interaction quench dynamics from $g^{\textrm{in}}=0$ to $g^f=\infty$. We remark here that when the system is initialized at $g^{\textrm{in}}=0$ the formula of Eq. (\[overlap\]) is no longer valid and the overlap coefficients between the eigenstates $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_i}^{\textrm{in}}}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_j}^{f}}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
d_{\nu_j^f,\nu_i^{\textrm{in}}}&=&\frac{2\Gamma(-\nu_j^f)}{\sqrt{\psi^{(1)}(-\nu_j^f)}} \int_0^{\infty} dr \,r e^{-r^2} U(-\nu_j^f,1,r^2) L_{\nu_i^{\textrm{in}}} (r^2) \nonumber \\ &= &\frac{1}{(\nu_i^{\textrm{in}}-\nu_j^f)\sqrt{\psi^{(1)}(-\nu_j^f)}}.\end{aligned}$$
The dynamical response of the system after such a quench \[$g^{\textrm{in}}=0\rightarrow g^f=\infty$\] as captured by the fidelity evolution \[Eq. \] is illustrated in Fig. \[inf\_fid\] when considering different initial states $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_k}^{\textrm{in}}}$. Evidently, when the system is initialized in its ground state $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$, ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ performs large amplitude oscillations. The latter implies that the time-evolved wavefunction becomes almost orthogonal to the initial one at certain time intervals and as a consequence the system is significantly perturbed. Also, it can directly be deduced by the fidelity evolution that when the system is prepared in an energetically higher excited state it is less perturbed since the oscillation amplitude of ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ is smaller, e.g. compare ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ for $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_5}^{\textrm{in}}}$. This tendency which has already been discussed in Secs. \[role\_intial\_state\_attract\_repul\] and \[role\_intial\_state\_repul\_attract\] can be explained in terms of the distribution of the amplitude of the overlap coefficients, see also Eq. (\[fidelity\]). Indeed, if there is a single dominant overlap coefficient then $|F(t)|\approx1$, while if more than one overlap coefficients possess large values ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ deviates appreciably from unity. Here, for instance, the first two most dominant overlap coefficients when starting from $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_5}^{\textrm{in}}}$ are $|d_{\nu_0^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2=0.4837$, $|d_{\nu_1^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2=0.4402$ and $|d_{\nu_4^f,\nu_5^{\textrm{in}}}|^2=0.6453$, $|d_{\nu_5^f,\nu_5^{\textrm{in}}}|^2=0.1894$ respectively.
To further unravel the motion of the two bosons we next employ the time-evolution of their radial probability density, $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$, in real space \[see also Eq. \]. Figure \[inf\_relwave\] (a) shows snapshots of $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ after an interaction quench from $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$ at $g^{\textrm{in}}=0$ to $g^f=\infty$. As it can be seen for the time intervals that ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ is minimized \[Fig. \[inf\_fid\]\], e.g. at $t=0.78,2.42,5.61$, $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ exhibits a pronounced peak close to $\rho=0$ and a secondary one at a larger radii $\rho\approx 1.5$. However, when $|F(t)|\approx1$ ($t=1.62, 3.13, 8.04$) $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ shows a more delocalized distribution. To explain this behavior of $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ we next calculate $\mathcal{B}(\rho)$ of the initial state (i.e. $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$) and of the postquench eigenstates that possess the most dominant overlap coefficients, namely $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^f}$, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$, following the above-described quench scenario \[see the inset of Fig. \[inf\_relwave\] (a)\]. Comparing $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ with $\mathcal{B}(\rho)$ we observe that the bound state, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^f}$, gives rise to the prominent peak close to $\rho=0$ \[see Fig. \[inf\_relwave\] (a)\]. Moreover, the states $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$ are responsible for the emergent spatial delocalization of $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$. Of course, the ground state ($\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$) plays a more important role here than the first excited state ($\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$), since $|d_{\nu_1^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2=0.4402$ and $|d_{\nu_2^f,\nu_1^{\textrm{in}}}|^2=0.0406$ respectively \[see the inset of Fig. \[inf\_relwave\] (a)\].
Turning to the dynamics in momentum space, Fig. \[inf\_relwave\] (b) presents $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$ at specific time-instants for the quench $g^{\textrm{in}}=0\rightarrow g^f=\infty$ starting from the ground state $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^{\textrm{in}}}$. We observe that when the system deviates notably from its initial state (i.e. $t=0.78,2.42,5.61$) meaning also that $|F(t)|\ll1$, then $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$ shows a two peak structure with the first peak located close to $k=0$ and the second one at $k\approx0.4$. Notice also here that the tail of $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$ has an oscillatory behavior. On the other hand, if ${\left| F(t) \right|}$ is close to unity (e.g. at $t=1.62, 3.13, 8.04$) where also $\mathcal{B}(\rho,t)$ is spread out \[Fig. \[inf\_relwave\] (a)\], the corresponding $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$ has a narrow momentum peak close to zero and a fastly decaying tail at large $k$.
The inset of Fig. \[inf\_relwave\] (b) illustrates $\mathcal{C}(k)$ of the initial eigenstate and some specific postquench ones which possess the largest contributions for the considered quench according to the overlap coefficients. It becomes evident that both the bound state, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}^f}$, and the ground state, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_1}^f}$, of the postquench system are mainly imprinted in $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$. Indeed, the bound state has a broad momentum distribution whereas the ground state possesses a main peak close to $k=0$. On the other hand, the first excited state ($\ket{\Psi_{\nu_2}^f}$) has a smaller contribution compared to the previous ones and its presence can be discerned in Fig. \[inf\_relwave\] (b) from the oscillatory tails of $\mathcal{C}(k,t)$ at large momenta.
Finally, we examine the dynamics of the rescaled contact $\mathcal{D}(t)/\mathcal{D}(0)$ illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Contact\_inf\] (a) following a quench from $g^{\textrm{in}}=0.2$ to $g^f=\infty$. Note here that we choose $g^{\textrm{in}}=0.2$, and not exactly $g^{\textrm{in}}=0$, since the contact is well-defined only for interacting eigenstates [@Tan1]. Evidently $\mathcal{D}(t)/\mathcal{D}(0)$ undergoes a large amplitude multifrequency oscillatory motion. The large amplitude of these oscillations stems from the fact that the system is quenched to unitarity and therefore the built up of short-range two-body correlations is substantial especially when compared to the correlations occuring for finite interactions as e.g. the ones displayed in Fig. \[fig:Contact\_attractive\] (a) and Fig. \[fig:Contact\_repulsive\] (a). We remark that similar large amplitude oscillations of the contact, at the frequency of the two-body bound state, have already been observed in Ref. [@Corson] during the interaction quench dynamics of a three dimensional homogeneous BEC from zero to very large interactions. Regarding the participating frequencies identified in the spectrum of the contact shown in Fig. \[fig:Contact\_inf\] (b), we can clearly infer that the dominant frequencies refer to the energy differences between the bound state, $\ket{\Psi_{\nu_0}}$ and higher-lying states e.g. $\omega_{\nu_1,\nu_0}$, $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_0}$. The existence of other contributing frequencies in the spectrum, such as $\omega_{\nu_2,\nu_1}$ and $\omega_{\nu_3,\nu_0}$, has also an impact on the dynamics of the contact and signal the involvement of higher-lying states.
Conclusions
===========
We have explored the quantum dynamics of two bosons trapped in an isotropic two-dimensional harmonic trap, and interacting via a contact $s$-wave pseudo-potential. As a first step, we have presented the analytical solution of the interacting two-body wavefunction for an arbitrary stationary eigenstate. We also briefly discuss the corresponding two-body energy eigenspectrum covering both the attractive and repulsive interaction regimes, showcasing the importance of the existing bound state.
To trigger the dynamics we consider an interaction quench from repulsive to attractive interactions and vice versa as well as a quench from zero to infinite interactions. Having the knowledge of the stationary properties of the system the form of the time-evolving two-body wavefunction is provided. Most importantly, we showcase that the expansion coefficients can be derived in a closed form and therefore the dynamics of the two-body wavefunction can be obtained by numerically determining its expansion with respect to the eigenstates of the postquench system. In all cases, the dynamical response of the system has been analyzed in detail and the underlying eigenstate transitions that mainly contribute to the dynamics have been identified in the fidelity spectrum together with the system’s eigenspectrum.
We have shown that initializing the system in its ground state, characterized by either repulsive or attractive interactions, it is driven more efficiently out-of-equilibrium, as captured by the fidelity evolution, when performing an interaction quench towards the vicinity of zero interactions. However, if we follow a quench towards the intermediate or strong coupling regimes of either sign, then the system remains close to its initial state. As a consequence of the interaction quench the two bosons undergo a breathing motion which has been visualized by monitoring the temporal evolution of the single-particle density and the radial probability density, in both real and momentum space. The characteristic structures building upon the above-mentioned quantities enable us also to infer about the participation of energetically higher-lying excited states of the postquench system.
To inspect the dependence of the system’s dynamical response we have examined also quenches for a variety of different initial states such as the bound state or an energetically higher excited state in both the repulsive and attractive interaction regimes. It has been found that starting from energetically higher excited states, the system is perturbed to a lesser extent, and a fewer amount of postquench eigenstates contribute in the emergent dynamics. A crucial role here is played by the bound state of the postquench system, both in the attractive and the repulsive regime, whose contribution is essentially diminished as we initialize the two bosons at higher excited states. On the other hand, when the quench is performed from the bound state, independently of the interaction strength, the system is driven out-of-equilibrium in the most efficient manner than any other initial state configuration.
Additionally, upon quenching the system from zero to infinite interactions starting from its ground state the time-evolved wavefunction becomes even orthogonal to the initial one at certain time intervals. Again here, if the two bosons are prepared in an energetically higher excited state then the system becomes more unperturbed. Inspecting the evolution of the radial probability density we have identified that it mainly resides in a superposition of the bound and the ground state alternating from a two peaked structure to a more spread distribution.
To unveil the emergence of short-range two-body correlations we have examined the dynamics of the Tan’s contact in all of the above-mentioned quench scenaria. In particular, we have found that the contact performs a multifrequency oscillatory motion in time. The predominant frequency of these oscillations refers to the energy difference between the bound and the ground states. The participation of other frequencies possessing a comparable smaller amplitude signals the contribution of higher-lying states in the dynamics of the contact. Moreover, upon quenching the system from weak to infinite interactions, the oscillation amplitude of the contact is substantially enhanced indicating the significant development of short-range two-body correlations as compared to the correlations occuring at finite postquench interactions.
There is a variety of fruitful directions to follow in future works. An interesting one would be to consider two bosons confined in an anisotropic two-dimensional harmonic trap and examine the stationary properties of this system in the dimensional crossover from two- to one-dimensions. Having at hand such an analytical solution would allow us to study the corresponding dynamics of the system upon changing its dimensionality e.g. by considering a quench of the trap frequency in one of the spatial directions which enable us to excite higher than the monopole mode. Also one could utilize the spectra with respect to the different anisotropy in order to achieve controllable state transfer processes [@Fogarty; @Reshodko]. Besides the dimensionality crossover, it would be interesting to study the effect of the presence of the temperature in the interaction quench dynamics examined herein. Finally, the dynamics of three two-dimensional trapped bosons requires further investigation. Even though the Efimov effect is absent in that case [@Nielsen], the energy spectrum is rich possessing dimer and trimer states [@Drummond] and the corresponding dynamics might reveal intriguing dynamical features when quenching from one to another configuration.
G. B. kindly acknowledges financial support by the State Graduate Funding Program Scholarships (HmbNFG). S. I. M and P. S gratefully acknowledge financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) in the framework of the SFB 925 “Light induced dynamics and control of correlated quantum systems". The authors thank G.M. Koutentakis for fruitful discussions.
[96]{}
M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, V. Ahunfiger, B. Damski, A. Sen, and U. Sen, Adv. Phys. [**56**]{}, 243 (2007).
S. Inouye, M.R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H. J. Miesner, D.M. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Nature [**392**]{}, 151 (1998).
C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**82**]{}, 1225 (2010).
A. Görlitz, J.M. Vogels, A. E. Leanhardt, C. Raman, T. L. Gustavson, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Gupta, S. Inouye, T. Rosenband, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 130402 (2001).
D. S. Petrov, D. M. Gangardt, and G.V. Shlyapnikov, J Phys. IV France [**116**]{}, 5 (2004).
A. N. Wenz, G. Zürn, S. Murmann, I. Brouzos, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, Science [**342**]{}, 457 (2013).
F. Serwane, G. Zürn, T. Lompe, T. B. Ottenstein, A. N. Wenz, S. Jochim, Science **332**, 6027 (2011).
D. Blume, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**75**]{}, 046401 (2012).
T. Sowiński, M. Á. García-March, Rep. Prog. Phys. **82**, 104401 (2019).
C. H. Greene, P. Giannakeas, and J. Pérez-Ríos, Rev. Mod. Phys [**89**]{}, 035006 (2017).
Z. Hadzibabic, J. Dalibard, la Rivista del Nuovo Cimento [**6**]{}, 389 (2011).
I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**80**]{}, 885 (2008).
Z. Hadzibabic, P. Krüger, M. Cheneau, B. Battelier, and J. Dalibard, Nature [**441**]{}, 1118 (2006).
M. A. Cirone, K. Rzażewski, W. P. Schleich, F. Straub, and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 022101 (2001).
D. S. Petrov and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{}, 012706 (2001).
L. Pricoupenko, M. Olshanii, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. and Opt. Phys. [**40**]{}, 2065 (2007).
J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. [**6**]{}, 1181 (1973).
K. Huang and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. [**105**]{}, 767 (1957).
C. Cohen–Tannoudji *Advances in Atomic Physics*, World Scientific 351 (2011).
Th. Busch, B.G. Englert, K. Rzażewski, and M. Wilkens, Found. Phys [**28**]{}, 549 (1997).
A. Farrell and B. Zyl, J.Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**43**]{}, 015302 (2009).
P. Shea, B. Zyl, R. Bhaduri, Am. J. Phys. [**77**]{}, 511 (2009).
M. Combescure, C. Fayard, A. Khare, and J-M. Richard, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**44**]{}, 275302 (2011).
Z. Idziaszek and T. Calarco, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 022712 (2006).
R. Stock, A. Silberfarb, E. L. Bolda, and I. H. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 023202 (2005).
N. T. Zinner, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**45**]{}, 205302 (2012).
P. Kościk, and T. Sowiński, Sci. Rep. **9**, 12018 (2019).
D. Saraidaris, I. Mitrakos, I. Brouzos, F. Diakonos, arXiv:**1903.08499** (2019).
N. L. Harshman, Phys. Rev. A [**86**]{}, 052122 (2012).
M. A. García-March, B. Juliá-Díaz, G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 063605 (2014)
A. S. Dehkharghani, arXiv:[**1801.04993**]{} (2019).
S. Jonsell, H. Heiselberg, and C. J. Pethick, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 250401 (2002).
Xia-Ji Liu, Hui Hu, and Peter D. Drummond, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 054524 (2010).
J. Portegies, S. Kokkelmans, Few-Body Systems [**51**]{}, 219 (2011).
T. Langen, R. Geiger, and J. Schmiedmayer, Annu. Rev. Cond. Mat. Phys. [**6**]{}, 201 (2015).
F. Chevy, V. Bretin, P. Rosenbusch, K. W. Madison, and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 250402 (2002).
K. Merloti, R. Dubessy, L. Longchambon, A. Perrin, P-E Pottie, V. Lorent and H. Perrin, New. J. Phys. [**15**]{}, 033007 (2013).
L. P. Pitaevskii, Phys. Lett. A [**221**]{}, 14 (1996).
L. P. Pitaevskii and A. Rosch, Phys. Rev. A [**55**]{}, R853(R) (1997).
M. Holten, L. Bayha, A. C. Klein, P. A. Murthy, P. M. Preiss, and S. Jochim, Phys. Rev. Lett. **121**, 120401 (2018).
T. Peppler, P. Dyke, M. Zamorano, I. Herrera, S. Hoinka, and C. J. Vale, Phys. Rev. Lett. **121**, 120402 (2018).
C. Hung, V. Gurarie and C. Chin, Science [**341**]{}, 6151 (2013).
V. Gritsev, P. Barmettler, and E. Demler, New J. Phys. [**12**]{}, 113005 (2010).
Q. Guan, V. Klinkhamer, R. Klemt, J. H. Becher, A. Bergschneider, P. M. Preiss, S. Jochim, and D. Blume, Phys. Rev. Lett. **122**, 083401 (2019).
L. Budewig, S.I. Mistakidis, and P. Schmelcher, Mol. Phys. **117**, 2043 (2019).
M. Á. García March, T. Fogarty, S. Campbell, T. Busch, and M. Paternostro, New. J. Phys. [**18**]{}, 103035 (2016).
L. M. A. Kehrberger, V. J. Bolsinger, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A [**97**]{}, 013606 (2018).
J. P. Corson and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A **94**, 023604 (2016).
A. G. Sykes, J. P. Corson, J. P. D’Incao, A. P. Koller, C. H. Greene, A. M. Rey, K. R. A. Hazzard, and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A [**89**]{}, 021601(R) (2014).
L. Tonks, Phys. Rev. **50**, 955 (1936).
M. Girardeau, J. Math. Phys. **1**, 516 (1960).
I. Romanovsky, C. Yannouleas, and U. Landman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 230405 (2004).
P. Mujal, A. Polls, and B. Juliá-Díaz, Condens. Matter [**3**]{}, 9 (2018).
P. Mujal, E. Sarlé, A. Polls, and B. Juliá-Díaz, Phys. Rev. A **96**, 043614 (2017).
M. Valiente, Phys. Rev. A **100**, 013614 (2019).
Y. Nishida, Phys. Rev. A **97**, 061603(R) (2018).
L. Pricoupenko, Phys. Rev. A **97**, 061604(R) (2018).
G. Guijarro, A. Pricoupenko, G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, and D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. A **97**, 061605(R) (2018).
Y. Sekino and Y. Nishida, Phys. Rev. A **97**, 011602(R) (2018).
M. Valiente and V. Pastukhov, Phys. Rev. A **99**, 053607 (2019).
T. Fogarty, L. Ruks, J. Li, and T. Busch, SciPost Phys. **6**, 021 (2019).
I. Reshodko, A. Benseny, and T. Busch, Phys. Rev. A **96**, 023606 (2017).
S. I. Mistakidis, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A **95**, 013625 (2017).
S. I. Mistakidis, L. Cao, and P. Schmelcher, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. and Opt. Phys. **47**, 225303 (2014).
T. Plaßmann, S. I. Mistakidis, and P. Schmelcher, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. and Opt. Phys. **51**, 225001 (2018).
T. Sowiński, M. Brewczyk, M. Gajda, and K. Rzażewski, Phys. Rev. A **82**, 053631 (2010).
G. C. Katsimiga, S. I. Mistakidis, G. M. Koutentakis, P. G. Kevrekidis, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A **98**, 013632 (2018).
P. Siegl, S. I. Mistakidis, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A **97**, 053626 (2018).
G. C. Katsimiga, G. M. Koutentakis, S. I. Mistakidis, P. G. Kevrekidis, and P. Schmelcher, New J. Phys. **19**, 073004 (2017).
G. C. Katsimiga, S. I. Mistakidis, G. M. Koutentakis, P. G. Kevrekidis, and P. Schmelcher, New J. Phys. **19**, 123012 (2017).
M. Olshanii and L. Pricoupenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 010402 (2001).
J. J. Sakurai, *Advanced quantum mechanics. Pearson Education India.* (1967).
M. Abramowitz, and I.A. Stegun *Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical tables (Applied Mathematics Series 55). National Bureau of Standards, Washington D.C.* (1964).
R. A. Doganov, S. Klaiman, O. E. Alon, A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, Phys. Rev. A [**87**]{}, 033631 (2013).
We remark that a different definition of the 2D interparticle interaction strength has been used e.g. in Ref. [@Drummond] having the form $g\sim 1/a$. The latter possesses a bijective mapping to our choice of $g$.
A. Galea, T. Zielinski, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**189**]{}, 451 (2017).
I. S. Gradshteyn, and I. M. Ryzhik, *Table of integrals, series, and products*. Academic press, (2014).
K. Sakmann, A.I. Streltsov, O.E. Alon, and L.S. Cederbaum, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 023615 (2008).
T. Gorin, T. Prosen, T.H. Seligman, and M. Žnidarič, Phys. Rep. [**435**]{}, 33 (2006).
S. I. Mistakidis, L. Cao, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A **91**, 033611 (2015).
J. Neuhaus-Steinmetz, S. I. Mistakidis, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A **95**, 053610 (2017).
S. I. Mistakidis, G. M. Koutentakis, and P. Schmelcher, Chem. Phys. **509**, 106 (2018).
F. F. Bellotti, T. Frederico, M. T. Yamashita, D. V. Fedorov, A. S. Jensen, and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rev. A **87**, 013610 (2013).
M. Valiente, N. T. Zinner, and K. M[ø]{}lmer, Phys. Rev. A **84**, 063626 (2011).
F. Werner and Y. Castin, Phys. Rev. A **86**, 053633 (2012).
J. T. Stewart, J. P. Gaebler, T. E. Drake, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 235301 (2010).
R. J. Wild, P. Makotyn, J. M. Pino, E. A. Cornell, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 145305 (2012).
S. Tan, Ann. Phys. **323**, 2952 (2008).
S. Tan, Ann. Phys. **323**, 2971 (2008).
S. Tan, Ann. Phys. **323**, 2987 (2008).
V. E. Colussi, J. P. Corson, and J. P. D’Incao, Phys. Rev. Lett. **120**, 100401 (2018).
T. Keller, T. Fogarty, Phys. Rev. A [**94**]{}, 063620 (2016).
P. A. Murthy, N. Defenu, L. Bayha, M. Holten, P. M. Preiss, T. Enss, and S. Jochim, Science [**365**]{}, 6450 (2019).
F. Werner and Y. Castin, Phys. Rev. A **86**, 013626 (2012).
John P. Corson and John L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A **91**, 013616 (2015).
E. Nielsen, D.V. Fedorov, A.S. Jensen, E. Garrido, Phys. Rep. [**5**]{}, 347 (2001).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Blanco Cosmology Survey (BCS) is a 60 night imaging survey of $\sim$80 deg$^2$ of the southern sky located in two fields: ($\alpha$,$\delta$)= (5 hr, $-55^{\circ}$) and (23 hr, $-55^{\circ}$). The survey was carried out between 2005 and 2008 in $griz$ bands with the Mosaic2 imager on the Blanco 4m telescope. The primary aim of the BCS survey is to provide the data required to optically confirm and measure photometric redshifts for Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect selected galaxy clusters from the South Pole Telescope and the Atacama Cosmology Telescope. We process and calibrate the BCS data, carrying out PSF corrected model fitting photometry for all detected objects. The median 10$\sigma$ galaxy (point source) depths over the survey in $griz$ are approximately 23.3 (23.9), 23.4 (24.0), 23.0 (23.6) and 21.3 (22.1), respectively. The astrometric accuracy relative to the USNO-B survey is $\sim45$ milli-arcsec. We calibrate our absolute photometry using the stellar locus in $grizJ$ bands, and thus our absolute photometric scale derives from 2MASS which has $\sim2$% accuracy. The scatter of stars about the stellar locus indicates a systematics floor in the relative stellar photometric scatter in $griz$ that is $\sim$1.9%, $\sim$2.2%, $\sim$2.7% and$\sim$2.7%, respectively. A simple cut in the [*AstrOmatic*]{} star-galaxy classifier [spread\_model]{} produces a star sample with good spatial uniformity. We use the resulting photometric catalogs to calibrate photometric redshifts for the survey and demonstrate scatter $\delta z/(1+z)=0.054$ with an outlier fraction $\eta<5$% to $z\sim1$. We highlight some selected science results to date and provide a full description of the released data products.'
author:
- 'S. Desai, R. Armstrong, J.J. Mohr, D.R. Semler, J. Liu, E. Bertin, S.S. Allam, W.A. Barkhouse, G. Bazin, E. J. Buckley-Geer, M.C. Cooper, S.M. Hansen, F.W. High, H. Lin,, Y.-T. Lin, C.-C. Ngeow, A. Rest, J. Song, D. Tucker, A. Zenteno'
bibliography:
- 'spt.bib'
- 'paper.bib'
title: |
The Blanco Cosmology Survey: Data Acquisition, Processing, Calibration,\
Quality Diagnostics and Data Release
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Since the discovery of cosmic acceleration at the end of the last millenium [@schmidt98; @perlmutter99a], understanding the underlying causes has remained as one of the key mysteries in modern astrophysics. As the most massive collapsed structures in the universe, galaxy cluster populations and their evolution with redshift provide a powerful probe of, for example, the dark energy equation of state parameter as well as alternate gravity theories which mimic cosmic acceleration [@wang98; @haiman01; @holder01b]. Evolution of the cluster abundance depends on a combination of the angular-diameter distance vs. redshift relation and the growth rate of density perturbations. This sensitivity enables one to constrain a range of cosmological parameters, including the matter density, the sum of the neutrino masses [@numass], the present day amplitude of density fluctuations, and the presence of primordial non-Gaussianity in the initial density fluctuations [@dalal08; @cunha10]. In addition, galaxy clusters provide an ideal laboratory to study galaxy evolution [e.g. @dressler80]. Interesting studies of the galaxy properties and their evolution within clusters include studies of the blue fraction and the halo occupation distribution [e.g. @butcher84; @lin03b; @lin04b; @lin06; @hansen09; @zenteno11].
The first large scale attempt to identify and catalog galaxy clusters was by Abell in 1958. He discovered galaxy clusters by looking for over-densities of galaxies in Palomar Observatory photographic plates within a radius of about 2.1 Mpc around a given cluster position [@abell58]. Abell’s catalogs contained about 4700 clusters [@abell89]. However Abell’s catalog suffered from incompleteness and contamination from projection effects as well as human bias [@Biviano2008]. With the advent of CCD cameras one could apply objective automated algorithms to look for galaxy clusters, and this has led to significant progress in cosmological as well astrophysical studies using galaxy clusters.
In the last decade, many optical photometric surveys such as SDSS, CFHTLS, RCS covering contiguous regions of the sky have discovered several new galaxy clusters spanning a broad range of masses and redshifts. The CFHTLS-W [@Adami2009] has observed about 171 deg$^2$ in $griz$ bands with 80 % completeness up to $i$ band magnitude of 23. The RCS-2 [@gilbank11] survey has covered approximately 1000 deg$^2$ in $grz$ bands with 10$\sigma$ magnitude depths of around 23.55 in $r$-band. The SDSS MaxBCG catalog [@Koester2007] has covered about 7,500 deg$^2$ in $ugriz$ bands and with 10 $\sigma$ $r$ band magnitude limits of about 22.35. The largest optical galaxy cluster survey in terms of area is the Northern Sky Optical Cluster Survey III which has imaged about 11,400 deg$^2$ up to a redshift of about 0.25 [@Gal09]. The deepest optical cluster survey to date is the CFHTLS-D survey [@Adami2009], which reaches 80 % completeness for $i$ band magnitudes of 26 and has detected clusters up to redshift of 1.5. Two upcoming photometric galaxy cluster surveys which will start around October 2012 include DES which will cover about 5,000 deg$^2$ in $grizY$ bands with 10 $\sigma$ $r$-band limiting magnitudes of 24.8, and KIDS [@dejong12] which will cover 1,500 deg$^2$ in $ugri$ bands with 10$\sigma$ $r$-band limiting magnitude of 24.45.
One can use such surveys for cosmological studies using galaxy clusters. For example, @gladders07 showed that a large optical galaxy cluster survey could constrain cosmological parameters using the self-calibration method [@majumdar03; @majumdar04]. First cosmological constraints using SDSS optical catalogs are described in @rozo10.
Over the last decade there have been several mm-wave cluster studies in the Southern Hemisphere, including ACBAR [@acbar], ACT [@act2004], APEX [@apex2010] and SPT [@ruhl04]. All these projects have attempted to carry out galaxy cluster surveys using the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect (SZE). The SZE is the distortion of cosmic microwave background spectrum due to inverse Compton scattering of CMB photons by hot electrons in galaxy clusters [@sunyaev72], and it provides a promising way to discover galaxy clusters. Because the surface brightness of the SZE signature of a particular cluster is independent of redshift, SZE survey cluster samples can in principle have sensitivity over a broad range of redshifts [@birkinshaw99; @carlstrom02]. However, to make use of SZE selected galaxy cluster samples, one needs a well-understood selection of galaxy clusters (sample contamination and completeness), cluster redshift estimates and a link between SZE signature and the cluster halo masses. It is important to note that redshift estimates cannot be obtained using SZ experiments alone, and so one needs dedicated optical surveys to follow up these galaxy clusters detected by SZ surveys.
The Blanco Cosmology Survey (BCS) is an optical photometric survey which was designed for this purpose and positioned to overlap the ACBAR, ACT, APEX and SPT surveys in the southern hemisphere. The goal of BCS is to enable cluster cosmology by providing the data to confirm galaxy clusters from the above surveys and to measure their photometric redshifts. This was done by surveying two patches totalling $\sim$80 deg$^2$ positioned so that they could be observed with good efficiency over the full night during the period October – December from Chile. The BCS observing strategy was chosen to obtain depths roughly two magnitudes deeper than SDSS, so that one could estimate photometric redshifts for $L \geq L_{*}$ galaxies out to a redshift $z=1$.
The outline of this paper is as follows: Sect. \[sec:bcssurvey\] describes the Blanco Cosmology Survey, including the camera, observing strategy and site characteristics. In Sect. \[sec:processing\] we describe in detail the processing and calibration of the dataset using the Dark Energy Survey Data Management System. In Sect. \[sec:bcsdata\], we describe the photometric characteristics of the BCS dataset and present single galaxy photometric redshifts that are tuned using fields containing large numbers of spectroscopic redshifts. In this paper all magnitudes refer to AB magnitudes.
![BCS survey footprint of coadded tiles in the 5 hr and 23 hr fields. There are 104 tiles covering $\sim$35 deg$^2$ in the 23 hr field and 138 tiles covering $\sim$45 deg$^2$ in the 5 hr field for a total coverage of $\sim$80 deg$^2$. The black vertically hatched boxes represent tiles which have passed our quality checks. The red horizontally hatched boxes represent tiles with some data quality problems that we have not corrected.[]{data-label="fig:bcscoverage"}](5hr.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} -0.10in ![BCS survey footprint of coadded tiles in the 5 hr and 23 hr fields. There are 104 tiles covering $\sim$35 deg$^2$ in the 23 hr field and 138 tiles covering $\sim$45 deg$^2$ in the 5 hr field for a total coverage of $\sim$80 deg$^2$. The black vertically hatched boxes represent tiles which have passed our quality checks. The red horizontally hatched boxes represent tiles with some data quality problems that we have not corrected.[]{data-label="fig:bcscoverage"}](23hr.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
BCS survey {#sec:bcssurvey}
==========
Blanco Cosmology Survey was a NOAO Large Survey project (2005B-0043, PI: Joseph Mohr) which was awarded 60 nights between 2005 (starting from semester 2005B) and 2008 on the Cerro Tololo Inter American Observatory (CTIO) Blanco 4 m telescope using the Mosaic2 imager with $griz$ bands. Because of shared nights with other programs, the data acquisition included 69 nights, and the final processed dataset only consists of 66 nights, because two nights were entirely clouded out and the pointing solution for one night (20071105) was wrong due to observer error. We now describe the Mosaic2 imager on the Blanco telescope and then discuss the BCS observing strategy.
Mosaic2 Imager
--------------
The Mosaic2 imager is a prime focus camera on the Blanco 4m telescope that contains eight $2048\times4096$ CCD detectors. The 8 SITe $2\mathrm{K}\times4\mathrm{K}$ CCDs are read out in dual-amplifier mode, where different halves of each CCD are read out in parallel through separate amplifiers. The CCDs are read out through a single amplifier per chip simultaneously to 8 controller inputs. Read noise is about $6-8$ electrons and readout time is about 110 seconds. The dark current rate is less than 1 electron/pixel/hour at $90$ K. The resulting mosaic array is a square of about 5 inches on an edge. The gaps between CCDs are kept to about 0.7 mm in the row direction and 0.5 mm in the column direction. Given the fast optics at the prime focus on the Blanco, the pixels subtend $0.27''$ on the sky. Total field of view is 36.8 arc-minute on a side for a total solid angle per exposure of $\sim$0.4 deg$^2$. More details on the Mosaic2 imager can be found in the online CTIO documentation[^1].
Field selection and multi-wavelength coverage
---------------------------------------------
The survey was divided into two fields to allow efficient use of the allocated nights between October and December. Both fields lie near $\delta = -55^{\circ}$ which allows for overlap with the SPT and other mm-wave surveys. One field is centered near $\alpha = 23.5$ hr and the other is at $\alpha$ = 5.5 hr. The 5 hr 30 min $-52^{\circ}$ patch consists of a $12\times11$ array of Blanco pointings and the 23 hr $-55^{\circ}$ patch is a $10\times10$ array of pointings. The 5 hr field lies within the Boomerang field where the ACBAR experiment took data. The 23 hr field has been observed by the APEX, ACT and SPT experiments. In addition to the large science fields, BCS also covers nine small fields that overlap large spectroscopic surveys so that photometric redshifts using BCS data can be trained and tested using a sample of over 5,000 galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts. BCS also surveyed standard star fields for photometric calibration. The coverage of BCS in 5 hr and 23 hr fields is shown in Figs \[fig:bcscoverage\]. For convenience of data processing and building catalogs, we divide the survey region into $36' \times 36'$ square regions called tiles. Each tile is a $8192\times8192$ pixel portion of a tangent plane projection. These tiles are set on a grid of point separated by $34'$, allowing for approximately $1'$ overlaps of sky between neighboring tiles. The black vertical hatches in Fig. \[fig:bcscoverage\] indicate locations of tiles which passed various quality checks. The red horizontal hatches indicate locations of tiles which were observed and processed, but failed data quality checks.
We also secured other multi-wavelength observations overlapping parts of the BCS fields. About 14 deg$^2$ of the 23 hr BCS field was surveyed using [*XMM-Newton*]{} (known as XMM-BCS survey) and results from those observations are reported elsewhere [@suhada12]. An $\sim$12 deg$^2$ region of the same field was also targeted in a [*Spitzer*]{} survey (S-BCS). More recently, the [*XMM-Newton*]{} survey has been expanded to 25 deg$^2$, and the [*Spitzer*]{} survey has been expanded to 100 deg$^2$. Most of the BCS region has been observed in the near-infrared as part of the the ESO VISTA survey program [@VISTA2011].
![Redshift evolution of a passively evolving $L_{*}$ galaxy along with target 10$\sigma$ photometric BCS depths in each band. The exposure times in each band were tuned so that photometric depth meets or exceeds $L_{*}$ out to the redshift where the 4000Åbreak shifts out of that band, but also limited to $z=1$ due to the low sensitivity of the Mosaic2 camera in the $z$-band.[]{data-label="bcsdepth"}](limitingmag.png){width="49.00000%"}
Observing Strategy
------------------
The BCS observing strategy was designed to allow us to accurately measure cluster photometric redshifts out to redshift $z=1$. Because the 4000Å break is redshifting out to 8000Å by $z=1$, obtaining reliable photo-z’s for $0< z<1$ requires all four photometric bands $g$, $r$, $i$, $z$ (i.e. one loses all clusters at $z<0.4$ if you drop $g$-band and with $z$-band we can actually push beyond $z=1$). The redshift at which the 4000Å break redshifts beyond a particular band sets, crudely speaking, the maximum redshift for which that band is useful for cluster photo-z’s; for $griz$ this is $z=0.35$, 0.7, 1.0 and 1.4, respectively. Because the central wavelength of the g-band is about 4800Å with a FWHM of 1537Å we start losing sensitivity to very low redshift clusters, because it is not possible to straddle the 4000Å break. Although detailed studies of the sensitivity of optical cluster detection at low redshifts have not been done, our ability to estimate unbiased red sequence redshifts for clusters is reduced below redshifts $z\sim0.1$ .
We calculate our photometric limits in each band by requiring that the depth allows us to probe at least to $L_*$ at that maximum redshift with 10$\sigma$ photometry. We use a Bruzual and Charlot $z=3$ single burst model with passive evolution [@bruzual03] to calculate the evolution of $L_*$ in the four bands (see Fig. \[bcsdepth\]). We select our $z$ depth to probe to $L_*$ at $z=1$ rather than at $z=1.4$, because of the low sensitivity of the Mosaic2 detectors in the $z$-band. The survey was designed to reach 10$\sigma$ photometric limits within a 2.2 arcsec aperture of $g=24.0$, $r=23.9$, $i=23.6$ and $z=22.3$. These limits assume an airmass of 1.3 and $0.9''$ median seeing for all bands. Assuming bright time for $z$ and $i$ and dark time for $g$ and $r$ these limits require exposures of 250 s, 600 s, 1400 s and 700 s in $griz$, respectively.
In all, we observed about 288 tiles spanning our survey fields. For each field we typically took 2 exposures in $g$ of 125 secs each, 2 exposures in $r$ of 300s each, 3 exposures in $i$ of 450s each and three exposures in $z$ of 235 seconds each. A limitation of the Mosaic2 detector is a very low saturation of around 25,000 ADU for most of the detectors, and this forced us to take short exposures even through the readout time for each was quite high. Neighboring pointings have small overlaps, but multiple exposures were offset by approximately half the width of an amplifier to help us tie the survey together photometrically. Having two shifted exposures allows us to largely overcome the gaps in our survey left by spaces between neighboring chips. In addition to this primary survey tiling, we also constructed another layer of tilings which was designed to sit at the vertices of unique groups of four adjacent primary pointings. These tiles were observed using shorter exposures during poor seeing conditions on photometric nights. The 110 s readout of the Mosaic2 camera makes the efficiency of short exposures low, and so in each band we have chosen the minimum number of exposures allowable given the sky brightness. The total exposure per tile is 3000 s and after including the readout time, the total observation time per science field is about 4200 s, giving us an overall efficiency of about 70%. The dome flats and bias frames were taken in the afternoon, and we did not take any twilight flats. Over the course of the survey we acquired just over 3000 science exposures and an additional 455 photometric overlap exposures.
In addition to science exposures, on photometric nights we also observed photometric calibration fields as well as fields for calibrating our photo-z algorithms. These fields were CNOC2, DEEP, CFRS, CDFS, SSA22 and VVDS fields. For the photometric calibration fields we typically observed two or three fields during evening and morning twilight and a single field during the transition from the 23 hr field to the 5 hr 30 min field. We observed in all four bands during these calibration exposures. The spectroscopic standard fields were observed to full science depth using the same strategy as for the full survey.
![Sky brightness distributions for all four bands averaged on a per exposure basis during the BCS survey. Typically we observed in $g$ and $r$ during dark time and $i$ and $z$ during bright time. The brightness valuesare peaked at around 22.5, 21.5, 20.5, and 18.75 mag/arcsec$^2$ in $griz$ bands, respectively.[]{data-label="skybrightness"}](skybriteness.png){width="49.00000%"}
Site Characteristics
--------------------
The BCS survey provides a sampling of the CTIO site characteristics over a 69 night period in the October to December timeframe over four observing seasons. Because this is the same timeframe planned for DES observations this provides an interesting glimpse into the expected site characteristics for DES. Given that the entire Mosaic2 camera and wide field corrector are being replaced by DECam and the new DECam wide field corrector [@decam], the seeing distribution for the DES data could be significantly improved relative to the BCS seeing distribution.
The seeing distribution is shown in top panel of Fig. \[targetpsf\]. The seeing was obtained by running [PSFEX]{} software on all single-epoch images and using the [FWHM\_MEAN]{} parameter. The [FWHM\_MEAN]{} is derived from elliptical Moffat fits to the non-parametric PSF models. These FWHMs include the pixel footprint. The modal seeing values integrated over the survey are $\simeq 1'$, $0.95'$, $0.8'$, $0.95'$ for $griz$ bands, respectively. The median seeing values are 1.07, 0.99, 0.95, and 0.95 arcseconds, while the upper and lower quartile seeing values are \[0.96, 1.26\], \[0.89, 1.16\], \[0.84, 1.13\], \[0.83, 1.11\] arcseconds respectively.
The sky brightness is shown in Fig. \[skybrightness\]. The sky brightness is calculated using $ZP- 2.5\log{B}$, where $ZP$ is the calculated zeropoint for that image and B is the sky brightness in ADU/arcsec$^{2}$. The sky brightness distributions in the $griz$ bands have modal values of approximately 22.5, 21.5, 20.5 and 18.75 mag/arcsec$^2$, respectively. Moreover, almost all $i$ and $z$ band data were taken with the moon up, while almost all $g$ and $r$ band data were taken with the moon set. The median values are 22.3, 21.3, 20.3 and 18.7 mag/arcsec$^2$, respectively.
Given the division of the survey into a 23 hr and a 5 hr field, it was possible to obtain most of the data at relatively low airmass. Fig. \[airmassfig\] shows the airmass distributions for each band during primary survey observations. We often obtained photometric calibration field observations over a broader range of airmasses, but we tried to restrict our primary survey observations to air masses of $<$ 1.6. The median air mass in bands $griz$ are 1.144, 1.147, 1.138 and 1.141 respectively.
![The airmass distributions for BCS exposures, color coded by band and normalized by total number of exposures. The peak airmass values in $griz$ bands are 1.144, 1.147, 1.138 and 1.141 respectively.[]{data-label="airmassfig"}](bcsairmass.png){width="49.00000%"}
Data Processing and Calibration {#sec:processing}
===============================
The processing of BCS data is carried out using the automated Dark Energy Survey data management (DESDM) system which has been under development since Fall 2005 at University of Illinois [@ngeow06; @mohr08]. DESDM will be used to process, calibrate and store data from the Dark Energy Survey once it begins operations in October 2012. Since 2005, the DESDM system has been validated through a series of data challenges with simulated DECam data, which enabled us to improve various steps of the pipeline. The same automated pipeline was used to analyze BCS data. The only addition/change to the DESDM pipeline to analyze BCS data was in the crosstalk correction code, for which the routine had to be customized for the Mosaic2 camera. Processing of the BCS data presented here has been carried out on National Teragrid resources at NCSA and LONI supercomputers together with dedicated workstations needed for orchestrating the jobs and hosting the database. The middleware for the data reduction pipeline is designed using Condor batch processing system. Each night takes about 300 CPU hours for processing.
We have processed BCS data multiple times in a process of discovery where we found problems with the data that required changes to our system. Scientific results from earlier rounds of processing of BCS data have already appeared, including the optical confirmation of the first ever SZE selected galaxy clusters [@staniszewski09] and the discovery of strong gravitational lensing arc using data from the firstå round of processing in Spring 2008 [@buckleygeer11]. Additional galaxy cluster science arising from subsequent rounds of BCS processing have also been published [@high10; @zenteno11; @suhada12]. Currently our latest processing is being used for additional SZE cluster science within SPT, continued studies of the X-BCS region, and for the followup of the broader XMM-XXL survey over the 23 hr field.
The BCS data were made public one year after their acquisition, as is standard policy at NOAO. This has enabled multiple independent teams to access the data and use it for their own scientific aims. The first three seasons of BCS data were processed using an independent pipeline developed at Rutgers University [@menanteau10; @menanteau09a]. All four seasons of BCS data have also been processed independently using NOAO pipeline as part of the current automated processing program, and with the [PHOTPIPE]{} analysis pipeline [@rest05a].
Detrending {#sec:detrending}
----------
In this section we describe in detail the key steps involved in the DESDM pipeline used for reduction of Mosaic2 data to convert raw data products to science ready catalogs and images. Data from every night are processed through a nightly processing or detrending pipeline. Then data from different nights in the same part of the sky are combined using the co-addition pipeline. The detrending pipeline briefly consists of crosstalk corrections, overscan, flatfield, bias and illumination correction, astrometric calibration and cataloging. We now describe in detail each step of the detrending pipeline.
### Crosstalk Corrections
A common feature of multi-CCD cameras, such as Mosaic2 imager, is crosstalk among the signals from otherwise independent amplifiers or CCDs. This leads to a CCD image containing not only the flux distribution that it collected from the sky, but also a low amplitude version of the sky flux distributions that appear in other CCDs. The crosstalk correction equation is described by: $$I_{i} = \sum_{j=1}^N \alpha_{ij} I_\mathrm{raw}^{j} ;$$ where $I_i$ denotes the crosstalk corrected image pixel value in $i^\mathrm{th}$ CCD, $\alpha_{ij}$ denote the cross-talk coefficients and $I_\mathrm{raw}^{j}$ is the raw image pixel value. We used cross-talk coefficients provided by NOAO through the survey. As part of the crosstalk-correction stage, the raw image (which contains 16 extensions) is split into one single-extension file per CCD. The processing and calibration of CCD mosaics can proceed independently for each CCD after the crosstalk correction, and therefore we split the images to enable efficient staging of the data to the compute resources.
### Image Detrending
Detrending is the process that removes the instrumental signatures from the images. Detrending, in this context, includes overscan correction, bias subtraction, flat fielding, pixel-scale correction, fringe and illumination correction. Both the overscan correction and bias correction are required to remove the bias level present in the CCD and any residual, recurrent structure in the DC bias. Overscan correction is done for all raw science and calibration images. We subtract the median pixel value in the overscan region in each row for both the amplifiers in each CCD from the raw image pixel values after the crosstalk correction stage.
The median bias frame is created using nightly bias frames taken during the late afternoon, and subtracted from the nightly data. The flat field correction is typically derived from dome flats taken for each observing band. The input dome flat images are overscan corrected, bias corrected, and then scaled to a common mode and then median combined. The resulting flat field correction is scaled by the inverse of the image mode, creating a correction with mean value of about unity. For the bias correction and the flat correction the variation among the input images is used to create an inverse variance weight map that is stored as a second extension in the correction images. The creation of correction images also requires a bad pixel map, which is an image where pixels with poor response or with high dark current are masked and excluded from the images. These bad pixel maps are created initially using bias correction and flat field correction images to identify the troublesome pixels.
The bias and flat field corrections are then applied to the science images to remove pixel to pixel sensitivity variations. These corrections are only applied to those science pixels that are not masked. In this process, each science image receives an associated inverse variance weight map that encodes the Poisson noise levels and Gaussian propagated noise from each correction step on a per pixel basis. In addition, each science image has an associated bad pixel map (short integer) where a bit is assigned to each type of masking (i.e. pixels masked from the original bad pixel map, or masked due to saturation, cosmic ray, etc). In our data model the science image has three extensions: image, weight map, bad pixel map. Each measured flux at the pixel level comes along with its statistical weight and a history of any masking that has been done on that pixel.
For the Mosaic2 imager which has significant focal plane distortion, the pixel scale varies significantly over the field, leading to a significant trend in delivered pixel brightness as a function of position even with a flat input sky. For such detectors flattening the sky introduces a photometric non-flatness to the focal plane. Typically this pixel scale variation is corrected during the process of remapping to a portion of a tangent plane, but in our case we prefer to do the single epoch cataloging on images that do not suffer from correlated noise. Therefore, we apply a pixel scale correction to account for variation of pixel response as a function of $x$ and $y$ position for each CCD. We first created master template images to determine photometric flatness corrections using astrometrically refined images from the Mosaic2 camera that we use to calculate the solid angle of each pixel. The correction image is then normalized by the median value, providing a flat field like correction image that can be used to bring all pixels to a uniform flux sensitivity. To avoid reintroducing trends in the sky with this correction, we apply this correction only to the values of each pixel after subtraction of the modal sky value. Effectively, this correction scales only source flux while maintaining a flat sky.
Illumination and fringe corrections are derived from fully processed science observations in a particular band. These can be from a single night or shared across nights. Usually if there was only one exposure from a given band in a night we use science observations from neighbouring nights to create the illumination and fringe correction images. Illumination corrections are done for all images, but fringe corrections on the Mosaic2 camera are needed only for $i$ and $z$ bands. To create these correction images, we first create sky flat templates. This requires a process of stacking all the detrended images in a band-CCD combination after first flagging all pixels contaminated by source flux. Source contaminated pixels are determined by applying a simple threshold above background with a variable grow radius so that all neighboring pixels of a pixel determined to contain source flux are also masked. Modal sky values are then calculated for each image using pixels that are not flagged for any reason (object pixels, hot column, saturated, interpolated, etc). The reduced images are then scaled to a common modal sky value, median combined and then rescaled to a unit modal value.
This science sky image then contains a combination of any illumination and fringe signatures that are common to the input images. To create the illumination correction we adaptively smooth the science sky images with a kernel that is large in the center and grows smaller near the edges. This effectively averages out the effects of any fringing, leaving an illumination correction image behind. The fringe correction is then produced by first differencing the science sky image and the illumination correction image, leaving behind an image of the small scale structure (i.e. fringe signature) that is common to all the science images. This fringe correction image is then scaled by the model value of the science flat image to produce a fractional fringe correction image.
The illumination correction image is applied like a flat field correction to all previously corrected images, thereby removing any trends that are introduced by the differences in illumination of the dome flats and the flat sky. The fringe correction is applied by first scaling the correction image by the modal value of the sky in the science image and then subtracting it. The results of these two corrections are visually very impressive. The fringe effects in $i$ and $z$ band are nicely removed in almost all cases. We have found some problem images where the fringe correction leaves clearly visible fringe signatures, and these are cases where only a few frames in $i$ or $z$ were taken on a particular night, and the use of images from neighboring nights to create the corrections was not adequate.
We expect that the residual scatter we measure could be further reduced using a star flat technique to better characterize the non-uniformities in the pupil ghost. Nevertheless, the delivered data quality from our current flattening prescription produces data that meet our data quality requirements. We note that the same prescription has been used previously to meet the data quality requirements of the SuperMACHO experiment in the processing of Mosaic2 data.
At the end of this series of image detrending steps which includes overscan, bias, flat-field, pixel-scale, illumination and fringe corrections, the pipeline creates eight images (one for each CCD) for every science exposure. These single epoch image FITS files are called [*red*]{} images, and they contain 3 extensions: the main image, a bad pixel mask (BPM) and an inverse variance weight image. The BPM contains a short integer image where any unusable pixels have non-zero values (coded according to the source of the problem). The weight-map is an inverse variance image map that tracks the noise on the pixel scale and where the weight is set to zero for all masked pixels.
![Distortion map produced by [SCAMP]{} for one Mosaic2 exposure consisting of 8 images. TPV distortion model was used. The Mosaic2 distortions were modelled for each CCD by expressing distortions along the RA and DEC direction each with a third order polynomial in CCD $x$ and $y$.[]{data-label="scampdistortion"}](mosaicdistortion.png){width="49.00000%"}
### Astrometric Calibration
Besides pointing errors, wide-field imagers exhibit instrumental distortions that generally deviate significantly from those of a pure tangential projection. In addition, the vertical gradient of atmospheric refractivity creates a small image flattening of the order of a few hundredths of a percent (corresponding to a few pixels on a large mosaic), with direction and amplitude depending on the direction of the pointing. These three contributions are modeled in the [SCAMP]{} [@bertin06] package that we use for astrometric calibration. [SCAMP]{} uses the TPV distortion model[^2], which maps detector coordinates to true tangent plane coordinates using a polynomial expansion.
[SCAMP]{} is normally meant to be run on a large set of [SExtractor]{} catalogs extracted from overlapping exposures together with a reference catalog, in order to derive a global solution. However, since our pipeline operates on an image-by-image basis, we proceed in two steps: we first run [SCAMP]{} once on a small subset of catalogs extracted from BCS mosaic images to derive an accurate polynomial model of the distortions where the distortions in RA/DEC tangential plane are expressed as a third degree polynomial function of the CCD $x$/$y$ position. This Mosaic2 distortion map modeled using a third order polynomial per CCD for a BCS exposure is shown in Fig. \[scampdistortion\]. The astrometric solution computed in this first step of calibration is based on a set of overlapping catalogs from dithered exposures which provides tighter constraints on non-linear distortion terms (than catalogs taken individually). Using this model, we create a distortion catalog that encodes the fixed distortion pattern of the detector. We then run [SCAMP]{} on catalogs from each individual exposure (i.e. the union of the catalogs from each of the eight single epoch detrended images), allowing only linear terms (two for small position offsets and four for the linear distortion matrix) describing the whole focal plane to vary from exposure to exposure. The solutions for the World Coordinate System (WCS) including the TPV model parameters are then inserted back into image headers. This approach capitalizes on the expected constancy of the instrumental distortions over time.
![Median value of the difference in RA and DEC for objects in BCS coadd catalogs vs USNOB catalog for every tile in arcsecs. The matching is done in a $2''$ window. The histograms are peaked at $\sim0.0104''$ and $0.0084''$ in $\Delta$-RA and $\Delta$-DEC respectively. The rms of the histograms in RA and DEC is about 0.047 and 0.045 arcsecs. Note that the intrinsic accuracy of the USNOB catalog is about 0.2 arcsecs [@monet03].[]{data-label="scampqa"}](bcsastrometry.png){width="49.00000%"}
We use the USNO-B1 [@monet03] catalog as the astrometric reference. For astrometric refinement, the cataloging is done using [SExtractor]{}, and using WINdowed barycenters to estimate the positions of sources.
The astrometric accuracy is quite good, as can be demonstrated with the BCS coadds. First, the accuracy is at the level of a fraction of a PSF or else significant PSF distortions would appear in the coadds, and this is not the case. Second, we can measure the absolute accuracy relative to the calibrating catalog USNOB by probing for systematic offsets in RA or DEC between our object catalogs and those from the calibration source. Fig. \[scampqa\] shows the distribution of median offsets within all the coadd tiles for both RA and DEC. The mean of the histograms is $0.0104''$ in RA and $0.0084''$ in DEC, and the corresponding rms scatter is 47 milli-arcsec and 45 milli-arcsec, respectively. The USNOB catalog itself has an absolute accuracy with characteristic uncertainty of 200 milli-arcseconds [@monet03], which then clearly dominates the astrometric uncertainty of our final catalogs.
### Single-Epoch Cataloging
To catalog all objects from single-epoch images we run [SExtractor]{} using PSF modeling and model-fitting photometry. A PSF model is derived for each CCD image using the [PSFEx]{} package [@bertin11]. PSF variations within the each CCD are modeled as a $N^\mathrm{th}$ degree polynomial expansion in CCD coordinates. For our application we adopt a $26\times26$ pixel kernel and follow variations to 3$^\mathrm{rd}$ order. An example of variation of the Full-Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) of the PSF model across a single-epoch image is shown in Fig. \[fig:psfvariationsingle\]. The FWHM varies at the 10% level across this CCD due to both instrumental and integrated atmospheric effects.
A new version of [SExtractor]{} (version 2.14.2) uses this PSF model to carry out PSF corrected model fitting photometry over each image. The code proceeds by fitting a PSF model and a galaxy model to every source in the image. The two-dimensional modeling uses a weighted $\chi^2$ that captures the goodness of fit between the observed flux distribution and the model and iterates to a minimum. The resulting model parameters are stored and “asymptotic” magnitude estimates are extracted by integrating over these models. This code has been extensively tested within the DESDM program on simulated images, but the BCS data provide the first large scale real world test. For the BCS application we adopt a Sérsic profile galaxy model that has an ellipticity and orientation. This model fitting is computationally intensive and slows the “lightning-fast” [SExtractor]{} down to a rate on the order of 10 objects/s on a single core. The [SExtractor]{} config file detection parameters are shown in Table \[tab:sex\].
![Variation of the PSF model FWHM for $g$-band across a single-epoch image from the BCS night 20061030. Variations across the roughly $10'\times20'$ image are at the 10% level.[]{data-label="fig:psfvariationsingle"}](fwhm_BCS2326-5341Az_061031_0239_084_04_psfcat.png){width="49.00000%"}
The advantages of model fitting photometry on single epoch images that have not been remapped are manifold. First, pixel to pixel noise correlations are not present in the data and do not have to be corrected for in estimating measurement uncertainties. Second, unbiased PSF and galaxy model fitting photometry is available across the image, allowing one to go beyond an approximate aperture correction to aperture magnitudes often used to extract galaxy and stellar photometry. Third, there are morphological parameters that can be extracted after directly accounting for the local PSF, which allows for improvements in star-galaxy classification and the extraction of PSF corrected galaxy shear. A more detailed description of these new [SExtractor]{} capabilities along with the results from an extensive testing program within DESDM will appear elsewhere (Bertin et al, in preparation).
### Remapping
From the WCS parameters which are computed for every reduced image, one can approximate the footprint of the CCD on the sky using frame boundaries in Right Ascension and Declination. For the BCS survey we have a predefined grid of $36'\times36'$ tangent plane tiles covering the observed fields. Based on this, for every [*red* ]{} image which is astrometrically calibrated, we determine which tiles it overlaps. We then use [SWarp]{} [@bertin02] to produce background-subtracted remapped images that conform to sections of these tangent plane tiles. A particular [*red*]{} image can be remapped to up to four different [*remap*]{} images in this process. Pixels are resampled using Lanczós-3 interpolation.
Remapping also produces a pixel weightmap and we also remap the bad pixel map (using nearest neighbor remapping). In this process of remapping, zero weight pixels in the reduced images generically impact multiple pixels in the remap image given the size of the interpolation kernel. These remaps are then stored for later photometric calibration and coaddition. This on-the-fly remapping need not be done, because at a later stage of coaddition one could in principle return to the [*red*]{} images, but given the PSF homogenization we do prior to coaddition we have found it convenient to do the remapping as we are processing the nightly datasets.
### Nightly Photometric Calibration {#sec:nightlycalibration}
Our initial strategy for photometric calibration involved traditional photometric calibration using the standard fields observed on photometric nights along with the image overlaps to create a common zeropoint across all our tiles. In fact, within DESDM we have developed a so-called Photometric Standards Module [@Tucker2007] (PSM) that we use to fit for nightly photometric solutions, and then we apply those solutions to all science images and associated catalogs from that night. For BCS this involves determining the zeropoints of all images on photometric nights through calibration to identified non-variable Standard stars from SDSS Stripe 82 field [@Smith2002].
This procedure was used for processing and calibration of the BCS data processed in Spring 2008. But closer analysis of these data showed that we were not able to control photometric zeropoints to the required level to allow for cluster photometric redshifts over the full survey area. We therefore abandoned this method for BCS in favor of relative photometric calibration using common stars in overlapping [*red*]{} images followed by absolute calibration using the stellar locus (described in more detail in Sec. \[sec:absolutephotometry\]). One problem we faced is that so-called photometric nights exhibited non-photometric behavior in the standard field observations. There was no reliable photometric monitor camera at CTIO during our survey, and so observers simply used the time honored tradition of watching for clouds to make the call on a night being photometric. Because of our strategy for standard star observations (beginning, middle, end of night), even those nights that exhibit consistent photometric solutions need not have been photometric over the full nights. Therefore, we felt it safer to assume that no night was truly photometric and to calibrate the data using an entirely different approach.
The results from the PSM module for those nights exhibiting good photometric solutions are still useful. They have allowed us to monitor changes in the detectors and to measure the color terms in transforming our photometry onto the SDSS system. We provide a brief description of this procedure, although no science results in this paper are based on PSM related direct photometric calibration. We expect to apply this method for absolute photometric calibration of DES data where we will indeed have an IR photometric monitoring camera on the mountain. The PSM solves for the following equation : $$m_\mathrm{inst} - m_\mathrm{std} = a_n + b_n \times (stdColor - stdcolor_0) + kX$$ where $a_n$ is the photometric zeropoint for all 8 CCDs, $b_n$ is the color term, $stdColor$ is the fiducial color around which we define our standard solutions, which is $g-r$ for $g$ and $r$ bands, and $r-i$ for $i$ and $z$ bands, $stdcolor_0$ is a constant equal to $g-r=0.53$ for $g$ and $r$ bands and $r-i=0.09$ for $i$ and $z$ bands, $k$ is the first-order extinction coefficient and $X$ is the airmass. The PSM module solves for $a_n$, $b_n$ and $k$ for each photometric night. Using these values for the PSM $a$, $b$ and $k$, one can also estimate the expected zeropoint for every exposure. We calculate it as follows $$ZP = -a + 2.5 \log\mathrm{(exptime)} -kX$$ We applied the PSM on about 30 BCS nights which were classified as photometric. We also checked for trends in variation of color terms as a function of CCD number. Only the $i$-band color term shows some variation, and this approximate constancy of color terms greatly simplifies the coaddition of the data, because we don’t have to track which CCDs have contributed to each pixel on the sky. The color terms we have used for photometric calibration are -0.1221, -0.0123, -0.1907, and 0.0226 in $griz$ respectively. We also examine the band dependent extinction coefficient ($k$) calculated using data from the photometric nights. For the ensemble of about 30 photometric solutions in each band, we find the median $griz$ extinction coefficients at CTIO over the life of the survey to be 0.181, 0.104, 0.087 and 0.067 mag./airmass respectively.
This completes the description of all the steps of the nightly processing or single-epoch processing that we do for BCS.
Coaddition {#sec:coaddpipeline}
----------
Once we have data processed for all of the BCS nights, we then combine data within common locations on the sky to build deeper images that we call coadds. This process is called co-addition and is complicated because it involves combining data taken in widely separated times and under very different observing conditions. Co-addition processing is done on a tile by tile basis. We describe our approach below.
### Relative Photometric Calibration {#sec:relativecalibration}
During single-epoch processing we extract instrumental magnitudes. To produce science ready catalogs, we must calculate the zeropoint for every image and re-calibrate the magnitudes. The photometric calibration is done in two steps. The first step is a relative zeropoint calibration that uses the same object in overlapping exposures, and the second is an absolute calibration using the stellar locus.
The relative calibration is done tile by tile rather than simultaneously across the full survey. We use two different pieces of information to calculate the relative zeropoints. The primary constraint comes from the average magnitude differences from pairs of [*red*]{} images with overlapping stars. The stars are selected based on the [SExtractor]{} flags and [spread\_model]{} (discussed later in Sec. \[sec:cataloging\]) values. In cases where there aren’t enough overlapping stars, we use the average CCD to CCD zeropoint differences derived from photometric nights. In previous versions of the reduction we also used direct zeropoints derived from photometric nights (see Sec. \[sec:nightlycalibration\]) and relative sky brightnesses on pairs of CCDs. As previously mentioned, the direct photometric zeropoint information is contaminated at some level. The sky brightness constraints also seem to be problematic for BCS, because only $g$ and $r$ band data were taken on dark nights with no moon present which can introduce a gradient across the camera. To avoid a degradation of the calibration we used neither the sky brightness constraints nor the direct photometric zeropoints.
We determine the zeropoints for all images in a tile by doing a least squares solution using the inputs described above. For this least squares solution there are $N$ input images, each with an unknown zeropoint in the vector $z$. We arbitrarily fix the zeropoint for one image and calibrate the remaining images relative to it. We have $M$ different constraints in the constraint vector $c$. The matrix $A$ is $N \times M$ and denotes the images involved for each constraint. The resulting system of equations is described by $Az = c$ where we use singular value decomposition to solve for the vector $z$. This gives the relative zeropoints needed to coadd the data for a particular tile.
### PSF Homogenization
Combining images with variable seeing generically leads to a PSF that varies discontinuously over the coadded image. This affects star galaxy separation and contributes to variation across the image in the completeness at a given photometric depth. The PSF accuracy could be quite poor in regions where there are abrupt changes to the PSF which would translate into biases in the photometry that would be difficult to track. The main steps involved in the process of PSF homogenization include: (1) modeling the PSF using [PSFEx]{} for all [*remap*]{} images contributing to a coadd tile, (2) choosing the parameters of the target PSF, (3) using [PSFEx]{} to generate the homogenization kernel, and (4) carrying out the convolution to homogenize all the [*remap*]{} images to a common PSF.
To reduce PSF variation we processed our images to bring them to a common PSF within an image and from image to image within a coadd tile. To do this we apply position dependent convolution kernels that are determined using power spectrum weighting functions that adjust the relative contributions of large scale and small scale power within an image in such a way as to bring the PSFs within and among the image samples into agreement. The target PSF is defined to be a circular Moffat function with the FWHM set to be the same as the median value of all input PSFs.
$$\chi^2 = \lvert \Psi - \sum_{l}Y_l(x_i)\kappa_l\ast\Psi_\mathrm{median} \rvert^2$$
where $Y_l$ are the elements of a polynomial basis in $x-y$. The target PSF is defined to be a circular Moffat function with the FWHM set to be the median FWHM of the input images. We imposed a cut on input image PSF $\mathrm{FWHM}<1.6$ arcsec. This selects only images with relatively good seeing. Images from each band are homogenized separately. The FWHM of the target PSF for all BCS tiles is shown in bottom panel of Fig. \[targetpsf\].
![FWHM of single epoch images using [PSFex]{} (top panel) along with the target PSF FWHM used for homogenizing the coadd images for the full BCS survey (bottom panel). The peak values of target PSFs are about $1''$ for $g$ and $r$ bands, $0.9''$ for $i$-band and $0.8''$ for $z$-band respectively.[]{data-label="targetpsf"}](combinedseeing.png){width="49.00000%"}
Another price of homogenization is that noise is correlated on the scale of the PSF. While the noise is already correlated to some degree through the remapping interpolation kernel, PSF homogenization characteristically affects larger angular scales than does the remapping kernel. This leads to biases in photometric and morphological uncertainties, and can also affect initial object detection process in [SExtractor]{}. To address this within DES we account for the noise correlations on two critical scales by producing two different weight maps. The first weight map is used to track the pixel scale noise, and the second weight map is used to correct for the correlated noise on the scale of the PSF. The pixel scale weight map is used by [SExtractor]{} in determining photometric and morphological uncertainties. The PSF scale weight map is used by [SExtractor]{} in the detection process. Extensive tests within DESDM have shown this approach to be adequate to produce unbiased photometric and morphological uncertainties and to enable unbiased detection of objects within coadds built from homogenized images. These results will be presented in detail elsewhere. For the BCS processing we used only a single pixel-scale weight map, tuned to return the correct measurement uncertainties within [SExtractor]{}.
![Variation of the PSF model FWHM for a $g$-band coadd image for the coadd tile BCS0516-5441. Because of the homogenization process the variations are at the level of 1% across the $36'$ image.[]{data-label="fig:psfvariation"}](fwhm_BCS0516-5441_g_psfcat.png){width="49.00000%"}
### Stacking Single Epoch Images {#coadd}
We use [SWarp]{} to combine the PSF-homogenized images to build the coadd tile. Inputs include the relative flux scales derived from the calibration described in Sec. \[sec:relativecalibration\]). We combine the homogenized remap images using the associated weight maps and bpm for each image. The values of the flux-scaled, resampled pixels for each image are then median combined to create the output image. This allows us to be more robust to transient features such as cosmic rays in the $i$ and $z$ bands where there are three overlapping images. Also, objects with saturated pixels in all single epoch images will contain pixels that are marked as saturated in the coadd images as well. This ensures accurate flagging of objects with untrustworthy photometry during the coadd cataloging stage. The resulting output coadd image’s size is $8192\times 8192$ pixels or approximately $0.6 \times 0.6$ degrees.
Fig. \[fig:psfvariation\] shows a map of the FWHM as a function of position over one homogenized coadd image. Variations are at the level of $\sim$1% over the coadd, as compared to the $\sim$10% variations that are typical for Mosaic2 across a single CCD (see Fig. \[fig:psfvariationsingle\]). The constancy of PSF as a function of a position ensures that the PSF model can be modeled accurately and that the PSF corrected model fitting photometry is unbiased. The PSF homogenization process also circularizes the PSF. Fig \[fig:ellipticity\] shows the distribution of ellipticities for the Mosaic2 single epoch images and coadded images (color coded by band). The single epoch ellipticity varies up to 0.1 with a modal value around 0.02. By contrast, the ellipticity distribution of the BCS coadds is peaked at a fraction of a percent with a median value of 0.001.
![Mean Ellipticity calculated by [PSFEx]{} for single-epoch images (top panel) and for PSF homogenized coadds (bottom panel), color coded by band. Ellipticity is defined as ${(a-b)}/{(a+b)}$ where $a$ and $b$ refer to semi-major and semi-minor axis respectively. For single-epoch images the median ellipticty for $griz$ bands is 0.0342, 0.0326, 0.0374 and 0.04 respectively. For coadds, typical values are around 0.004, 0.0024, 0.0026, 0.0033.[]{data-label="fig:ellipticity"}](combinedellipticity.png){width="49.00000%"}
### Cataloging of Coadded images {#sec:cataloging}
To catalog the objects from coadded images, we run [SExtractor]{} in dual-image mode with a common detection image across all bands. For BCS we use the $i$-band image as the detection image, because it has three overlapping images so the cosmic ray removal is good, and it is by design the deepest of the bands. We then run [SExtractor]{} using model-fitting photometry using this detection image and coadded image in each band. This ensures that a common set of objects are cataloged across all bands. In both single epoch and coaddition cataloging, the detection criterion was that a minimum of 5 adjacent pixels had to have flux levels about 1.5$\sigma$ above background noise. The full [SExtractor]{} detection parameters used for both coadded and single-epoch images are shown in Tab. \[tab:sex\]. In all we catalog about 800 columns across four bands. However for the public data release, we have released 60 columns from [SExtractor]{} per object. This full list in can be found in Tab. \[tab:bcscatalog\]. Most of the parameters are described in the [SExtractor]{} manual online. There are a few additional parameters which are not yet released in the public version of [SExtractor]{}. These include model magnitudes and a new star-galaxy classifier called [spread\_model]{}, which is a normalized simplified linear discriminant between the best fitting local PSF model ($\phi$) and a slightly more extended model ($G$) made from the same PSF convolved with a circular exponential disk model with $\mathrm{scale-length} = \mathrm{FWHM}/16$ (where $FWHM$ is the full-width-half maximum of the PSF model). It can be defined by the following equation $${\tt spread\_model} = \frac{{\bf \phi^T x}}{{\bf \phi^T\phi}} - \frac{{\bf G^T x}}{{\bf G^T\phi}} ;$$ where $x$ is the image vector centered on the source. The distribution of [spread\_model]{} for BCS catalogs is discussed in \[subsec:sgseparation\]. More details of [spread\_model]{} will be described elsewhere (Bertin et al in preparation).
![The stellar locus in three different color-color spaces for the BCS tile BCS0510-5043. The blue line shows the expected distribution derived from studies of a large ensemble of stars within the SDSS and 2MASS surveys. Red points show model magnitudes of stars from the BCS catalogs of this tile. The stellar locus distributions allow us to calibrate the absolute photometry and to assess the quality of the photometry for each tile.[]{data-label="fig:slrplots-model"}](BCS0510-5043_riiz_model_scat.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} -0.0in ![The stellar locus in three different color-color spaces for the BCS tile BCS0510-5043. The blue line shows the expected distribution derived from studies of a large ensemble of stars within the SDSS and 2MASS surveys. Red points show model magnitudes of stars from the BCS catalogs of this tile. The stellar locus distributions allow us to calibrate the absolute photometry and to assess the quality of the photometry for each tile.[]{data-label="fig:slrplots-model"}](BCS0510-5043_grri_model_scat.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} -0.0in ![The stellar locus in three different color-color spaces for the BCS tile BCS0510-5043. The blue line shows the expected distribution derived from studies of a large ensemble of stars within the SDSS and 2MASS surveys. Red points show model magnitudes of stars from the BCS catalogs of this tile. The stellar locus distributions allow us to calibrate the absolute photometry and to assess the quality of the photometry for each tile.[]{data-label="fig:slrplots-model"}](BCS0510-5043_grrj_model_scat.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
### Absolute Photometric Calibration {#sec:absolutephotometry}
Once all objects from the coadd are cataloged (in instrumental magnitudes), we proceed to obtain the absolute photometric calibration using Stellar Locus Regression [@high09]. The principle behind this is that the regularity of the stellar main sequence leads to a pre-determined line in color-color space called the stellar locus. This stellar locus is observed to be invariant over the sky, at least for fields that lie outside the galactic plane. The constancy of the stellar locus has been used as a cross check of the photometric calibration within the SDSS survey [@ivezic07].
Absolute photometric calibration is done after the end of coaddition. We select star-like objects using a cut on the [SExtractor]{} [spread\_model]{} parameter and magnitude error. We then match the observed stars to 2MASS stars from the NOMAD catalog, which is a combination of USNOB and 2MASS datasets, and which have $JHK$ magnitudes [@skrutskie06]. Color offsets are varied until the observed locus matches the known locus. Because the 2MASS magnitudes are calibrated with a zeropoint accuracy at the $\sim$2% level, one can bootstrap the calibration to the other bands. The known locus is derived using the high quality “superclean” SDSS-2MASS matched catalog from @covey07. It consists of $\sim$300,000 high quality stars with data in $ugrizJHK$. A median locus is calculated for each possible color combination in bins of $g-i$.
The fit is done in two stages. First, a three paramater fit is done to the $g-r$, $r-i$, $i-z$ colors. Another fit is done using $g-r$ and $r-J$ where the shift in the $g-r$ color is fixed from the first fit. The first fit provides an accurate calibration of the colors and the second fit fixes the absolute scale. The fit is done this way because only a fraction of the stars that overlap with 2MASS are saturated in all bands. We perform the stellar locus calibration for model and 3 arcsec aperture magnitudes, separately. The model magnitude calibration is then used to calibrate the other magnitudes in the catalog (except for the 3 arcsec magnitudes). The calibration of the 3 arcsec aperture magnitudes determines a PSF dependent aperture correction for the mag\_aper\_3 magnitudes only. We have found these small aperture magnitudes to provide higher signal to noise colors for faint galaxies in comparison to mag\_model and mag\_auto.
An example of the stellar locus fits for one coadd tile is shown in Fig. \[fig:slrplots-model\]. Red points are the observed colors of the stars, and the blue line is the median SDSS-2MASS locus. The orthogonal scatter about the stellar locus for all 3 color combinations for BCS tiles is shown in Fig \[slrfits\]. The rms orthogonal scatter about the stellar locus in $(g-r, r-i)$, $(r-i, i-z)$ and $(g-r, r-j)$ is 0.059, 0.061 and 0.075 respectively. Given the scatter and the number of stars available for calibration we can determine the zeropoints in our bands with sub-percent accuracy.
![Stellar locus scatter (above) for three color combinations for all tiles in BCS survey (top panel) and the same for SDSS (bottom panel). Typical BCS scatter is in the 5% to 8% range, and offsets after calibration are characteristically 1% or less. Typical scatter and offsets in the SDSS dataset are smaller than in the BCS survey, reflecting the tighter requirements on photometric quality in SDSS.[]{data-label="slrfits"}](combinedslrscatter.png){width="49.00000%"}
### Testing Stellar Locus Calibration in SDSS
To validate our photometric calibration algorithms, we applied exactly the same procedure to the full SDSS-2MASS catalog in [@covey07]. This catalog includes noiser objects than the catalog we used to derive the median stellar locus. We selected 4 areas (between RA of $120^{\circ}$ and $350^{\circ}$) and divided each into $1^{\circ} \times 1^{\circ}$ patches. We match the objects to obtain 2MASS magnitudes and then apply the same calibration procedure as we did for the BCS catalogs. The rms scatter distributions for all the three color combinations can be found in Fig. \[slrfits\] (bottom panel). The corresponding scatter for SDSS in ($g-r,r-i$), ($r-i,i-z$), and ($g-r,r-j$) is about 0.041, 0.035 and 0.05 respectively and is about 1.5 times smaller than for the BCS catalogs. This is clear evidence for higher scatter in our stellar photometry as compared to the SDSS photometry. Assuming this additional source of scatter adds in quadrature with the SDSS observed scatter, we estimate the extra noise in BCS color combinations compared to SDSS is 0.039, 0.054 and 0.048 in ($g-r,r-i$), ($r-i,i-z$), and ($g-r,r-j$) respectively. Because these noise sources are getting contributions from each color, we can estimate that the noise floors are $\delta (g-r)\sim0.027$, $\delta (r-i)\sim0.038$, $\delta (i-z)\sim0.038$. These then imply noise floors in the stellar photometry within $griz$ bands of approximately 1.9%, 2.3%, 2.7% and 2.7%, respectively. This is then in good agreement with the typical repeatability scatter seen in these bands (see Fig. \[fig:repeatability\]) when one considers that $g$ and $r$ bands each have two overlapping exposures and $i$ and $z$ band each have three.
### Star-Galaxy Classification {#subsec:sgseparation}
Our current catalogs contain two star-galaxy classification parameters provided by [SExtractor]{} : [class\_star]{} which has been extensively studied and [spread\_model]{}, which has been newly developed as part of the DESDM development program. In order to test their performance and range of magnitudes up to which these measures can be reliably used, we plot the behavior of these two classifiers in $i$-band as a function of $mag\_model$ in Fig. \[sgplots\]. [class\_star]{} lies in the range from 0 to 1. At bright magnitudes one can see two sequences in [class\_star]{} for galaxies and stars near 0 and 1 respectively. The two sequences begin merging as bright as $i=20$ and are significantly merged beyond $i=22$. As described in Sec. \[sec:cataloging\] [spread\_model]{} uses the local PSF model to quantify the differences between PSF-like objects and resolved objects. In the [spread\_model]{} panel it’s clear that there is a strong stellar sequence around the value 0.0, and that galaxies exhibit more positive values. The narrow stellar sequence and the broad galaxy sequence begin merging at $i=22$ in the BCS, but there is significant separation in the two distributions of points down to $i=23$. Along with [spread\_model]{} comes a measurement uncertainty, and so it is, for example, possible to define a sample of objects that lie off the stellar sequence in a statically significant way. For the BCS data, a good cut to separate stars would be ${\tt spread\_model}<0.003$. Detailed studies of this new classification tool have been carried out within the DESDM project and will be carried out elsewhere.
![Plots of [spread\_model]{} (top panel) and [class\_star]{} (bottom panel) as a function of $i$-band magnitudes for the full BCS catalog. Note that both measurements exhibit separate sequences for stars and galaxies, and that as one moves to fainter magnitudes these sequences merge. This is simply due to low signal to noise objects not containing enough morphological information for a reliable classification. However, note also that the new [spread\_model]{} retains good capability of separating galaxies from stars to fainter magnitudes than [class\_star]{}.[]{data-label="sgplots"}](spreadclassvsmag.png){width="49.00000%"}
### Quality Control and Science Ready Catalogs
During the processing within the DESDM system a variety of quality checks are carried out. These include, for example, thresholding checks on the fraction of flagged pixels within an image and the $\chi^2$ and number of stars used in the astrometric fit of each exposure. In addition, the system is set up to report on the similarity between correction images (bias, flat, illum, and fringe) against stored templates that have been fully vetted. During the BCS processing this last facility was not used.
Our experience has been that problems at any level of processing are most likely to show up in the stages of relative and absolute photometric calibration. Therefore, for the BCS processing done here we capture a range of photometric quality tests including the number of stars used in the stellar locus calibration and the rms scatter about the true stellar locus of the calibrated data (see Fig. \[fig:slrplots-model\]). In addition, we examine the photometric repeatability for common objects within overlapping images contributing to each tile. In Fig. \[fig:repeatability\] we show an example for the $g$-band in tile BCS0549-5043. This shows the magnitude difference between pairs of overlapping objects versus the average magnitude. The scatter here includes both statistical and systematic contributions, and the envelope of scatter grows toward faint magnitudes, as expected. Outlier rejection is done on the point distribution, and all 3$\sigma$ outliers are filtered out and colored red. In the top panel we plot the mean and rms as well as the outlier fraction of these repeatability distributions as a function of magnitude. The mean and rms numbers are listed in milli-mags. Also, the statistical uncertainties of the model magnitudes are used to estimate the systematic magnitude error contribution to the rms. On the bright end where the statistical noise is very small, the systematic contribution to the rms is close to the total, which is 10 millimags in this case. As one moves toward the faint end the statistical contribution increases and the estimated systematic contribution plays only a small role in explaining the scatter. This is just how we expect the photometry to behave.
![Repeatability plots for single-epoch images for BCS tile BCS0549-5043 in $g$-band. The repeatability is used to test the quality of the photometry in each band and tile. The top panel shows the mean magnitude difference between different single-epoch images which cover same region of sky, binned as a function of magnitude along with statistical and systematic errors. The bottom panel shows an un-binned representation of the same. Characteristic scatter on the bright end (i.e. the systematic floor) is 2% to 3% for $g$ and $r$ and 3% to 4% for $i$ and $z$.[]{data-label="fig:repeatability"}](BCS0549-5043_rel_model_cal_g_phot.png){width="49.00000%"}
Repeatability plots indicate systematic contributions to the photometric errors at the 10 to 20 milli-mag levels for typical $g$ and $r$ band tiles. For $i$ and $z$ band tiles the systematic noise is closer to 30 to 40 milli-mags. For all the BCS tiles we have examined these repeatability and stellar locus plots to probe whether the scatter is in acceptable ranges. In cases where tiles didn’t meet these quality control tests we worked on the relative and absolute photometric calibration to improve the data. In addition to these photometry tests we examined the sky distribution of cataloged objects within each tile. In cases where large numbers of faint “junk” objects were found we attempted to remove them by adjusting the cataloging. At present all our tiles meet these quality tests except for a handful of tiles that are marked in red in Fig. \[fig:bcscoverage\]. This includes 4 tiles in the 5 hr field and 6 tiles in the 23 hr field, corresponding to $\sim$4% of the 80 deg$^2$ region. Ideally, we would reimage these regions to obtain better data.
For every BCS night, the detrending pipeline creates three main types of science image files which we denote as [*raw*]{}, [*red*]{} and [*remap*]{}. The coadd pipeline produces four coadd images per tile for each of the four bands. Once we have calibrated coadd catalogs for all the processed tiles we run a post-processing program to remove duplicate objects near edges of the tiles. This is necessary because there is a 2 arcmin overlap between neighboring tiles. The program selects sources that appear in neighboring tiles that lie within in $0.9$ arcsec radius and for each pair it keeps the object that lies farthest from the edge of its tile. In this way a single, science ready catalog is prepared for each field. The 23 hr field catalog contains 1,877,088 objects, and the 5 hr field contains 2,952,282 objects with $i$ model magnitude $< 23.5$. In the next section we review additional tests of the data quality.
![Histogram of 10$\sigma$ magnitude limits for all BCS tiles using $mag\_auto$ errors in all four bands. The median depth values for all BCS tiles are 23.3, 23.4, 23 and 21.3 in $griz$, respectively. The corresponding 10$\sigma$ point source depths are 23.9, 24.0, 23.6 and 22.1.[]{data-label="depthwitherrors"}](depthusingerrors.png){width="49.00000%"}
Survey Depth {#sec:bcsdata}
------------
We estimate the 10$\sigma$ photometric depths for galaxies using [SExtractor]{} $mag\_auto$ errors. This is obtained by doing a linear fit to the relationship between the magnitude and the log of the inverse magnitude error. As a cross-check we also estimated the depths using information in the weight maps, and the results were comparable.
The distributions of depth for each band over the full survey is shown in Fig. \[depthwitherrors\]. The median magnitude depths for $griz$ bands are 23.3, 23.4, 23.0 and 21.3 respectively. These numbers are shallower than the depths we estimated using the NOAO exposure time calculator during the survey planning; those depths were 24.0, 23.9, 23.6, and 22.3. Our originally proposed depths assume a 2.2 arcsec diameter aperture, whereas galaxies near the 10$\sigma$ detection threshold are typically larger in our images. We examine the depths of $2''$ aperture photometry and find that the median depths are 24.1, 24.1, 23.5 and 22.2 in $griz$, respectively. These are within 0.2 mag of our naive estimates, explaining the bulk of the difference. In addition, we know that during our survey often the conditions were not photometric, and this could introduce another 0.1 to 0.2 mag offset. Another reason for the difference is that the calibrated observed magnitudes also include a correction for galactic extinction and reddening, whereas the estimated depths did not have extinction corrections included.
Corresponding $10\sigma$ point source depths are extracted using model fitting $mag\_psf$ uncertainties. The results in bands $griz$ are 23.9, 24.0, 23.6 and 22.1, respectively. These are in better agreement with the small aperture photometry depths we used to estimate the exposure times for the survey.
Another way of probing the depth of the survey is to look at the number counts of sources as a function of magnitude. Fig. \[lognlogs-5hr\] contains the logN-logS from the combined 5 hr and 23 hr fields using $mag\_auto$. No star-galaxy separation is carried out, because near the detection limit there is not enough morphological information to reliably classify. The magnitudes of the turnover in the counts corresponds to 24.15, 23.55, 23.25 and 22.35. These turnover magnitudes mark the onset of significant incompleteness in the catalogs. Estimates of the depth of the 50% and 90% completenesss limit for a subset of the tiles appear in @zenteno11, but we do not apply that analysis to the whole survey.
![Number counts of BCS objects for all four bands in the BCS field using $mag\_auto$. The turnover magnitudes are 24.15, 23.55, 23.25 and 22.35 in $griz$, respectively. The corresponding median $mag\_auto$ 10$\sigma$ depths in $griz$ are 23.0, 23.4, 23.0 and 21.3 respectively.[]{data-label="lognlogs-5hr"}](logNlogs_allobjects.png){width="49.00000%"}
Finally, we probe for spatial variations in photometry by examining the distribution of sources above certain flux cuts over the two survey regions. The distributions of all sources at $i<22.5$ in both the 5 hr and the 23 hr fields are shown in Fig. \[sourcedistribution\]. Objects are excluded for tiles that did not pass our quality tests, and this produces 4 black squares in the 5 hr field, and 6 black squares in the 23 hr field. The general uniformity of this object density distribution is an indication that the absolute photometric calibration is reasonably consistent across the fields. In the 5 hr field it is clear that one tile in the lower left does not reach the depth $i=22.5$ reached by the other tiles. This defect disappears if we examine the density distribution roughly 1 magnitude brighter, indicating this is a depth issue and not a photometric calibration problem. For the 23 hr field there is a small black rectangular notch in the upper right of the field with an associated dark path. Within this tile we have verified that too few of our $i$-band exposures met the seeing requirements, and that has led to an uncovered region (the notch) as well as the shadow of lower object density to the right. Again, this is a depth issue rather than a photometric issue. There is another shadowed tile visible in the lower right part of the 23 hr field, and this is also a depth issue.
![Distribution of sources in 5 hr (top) and 23 hr fields (bottom) from the combined catalogs after a $mag\_auto$ magnitude cut ($i<22.5$). The gaps show tiles which were not included in the release due to data quality problems. Some other tiles have only partial coverage or do not push to the depth of the magnitude cut with good completeness. A logarithmic scale (zscale option in ds9) is used. The uniformity of the source distribution is a demonstration of the photometric uniformity across the survey.[]{data-label="sourcedistribution"}](5hr_sources.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} 0.1in ![Distribution of sources in 5 hr (top) and 23 hr fields (bottom) from the combined catalogs after a $mag\_auto$ magnitude cut ($i<22.5$). The gaps show tiles which were not included in the release due to data quality problems. Some other tiles have only partial coverage or do not push to the depth of the magnitude cut with good completeness. A logarithmic scale (zscale option in ds9) is used. The uniformity of the source distribution is a demonstration of the photometric uniformity across the survey.[]{data-label="sourcedistribution"}](23hr_sources.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
In Fig. \[sgsourcedistribution\] we show similar object density plots for stars and galaxies for the 5 hr field. The stars and galaxies are chosen based on [spread\_model]{} cut at 0.003, where all objects with values greater than this threshold were considered galaxies and the rest were considered stars. A catalog depth cut at $i<22.5$ was imposed. This is shown in Fig. \[sgsourcedistribution\]. The stellar distribution is quite uniform across this field, indicating that [spread\_model]{} performance is quite robust to variations of PSF across a survey. Note that the shallow tile in the lower left portion of the survey exhibits edge effects, which we believe are associated with the reduced depth of this tile relative to the others. In the lower panel is the galaxy distribution. The same shallow tile shows up in the lower left portion. In addition, it is clear that the galaxy density is varying as a function of position as expected for the large scale structure of the Universe. We are quite happy with this performance. We have explored the same plots in the 23 hr field, and the results are similar. Moreover, we have explored these plots created using [star\_class]{} as the classifier. The spatial distribution is highly inhomogeneous, indicating that [class\_star]{} cannot be used to reliably separate stars and galaxies in a uniform manner across a large survey.
![Distribution of stars (top) and galaxies (bottom) in BCS 5 hr field with $mag\_auto$ $i<22.5$ based on [spread\_model]{} cut of 0.003. The stars look uniformly distributed and you can see traces of large-scale structure in galaxy density plot. A logarithmic scale (zscale option in ds9) is used. We have explored similar plots with [class\_star]{}, and these contain very large inhomogeneities in the stellar and galaxy distribution, indicating that [spread\_model]{} offers significant advantages over [class\_star]{} in the classification of objects in large surveys.[]{data-label="sgsourcedistribution"}](BCS05hr-stars.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} 0.1in ![Distribution of stars (top) and galaxies (bottom) in BCS 5 hr field with $mag\_auto$ $i<22.5$ based on [spread\_model]{} cut of 0.003. The stars look uniformly distributed and you can see traces of large-scale structure in galaxy density plot. A logarithmic scale (zscale option in ds9) is used. We have explored similar plots with [class\_star]{}, and these contain very large inhomogeneities in the stellar and galaxy distribution, indicating that [spread\_model]{} offers significant advantages over [class\_star]{} in the classification of objects in large surveys.[]{data-label="sgsourcedistribution"}](BCS05hr-galaxies.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
BCS Data release
----------------
We are publicly releasing the BCS catalogs, images and the photo-z training fields to the astrophysical community. All public BCS data products can be downloaded from [http://www.usm.uni-muenchen.de/BCS]{}. The BCS catalogs are divided into ascii files for the 5 hour and 23 hour fields. Separate catalogs are available for the tiles that passed our quality analysis and for the tiles that did not. Each catalog contains 63 columns which are described in Table \[tab:bcscatalog\]. We are also making available the coadded images for the BCS survey at the same site. These images are available in a PSF homogenized form (used for the cataloging) and in the non-homogenized form. As in the case of the catalogs, we split the tar files by field and by whether the tiles passed our quality tests or did not. These tarballs contain FITS tile compressed images, which reduces the volume by a factor of $\sim$5 relative to the uncompressed coadds.
Photometric Redshifts
=====================
Initial tests of data quality are undertaken by obtaining photometric redshifts for BCS objects using an artificial neural network. Neural networks have been used to determine accurate photometric redshifts in past optical surveys [@Collister07; @Oyaizu08a]. We use [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{}, a feed-forward multi-layer perceptron network designed for finding photometric redshifts [@collister04]. The network is composed of a series of inputs, several layers of nodes, and one or more outputs. Each node is made of a function that takes its input as a weighted output of each of the previous layer’s nodes. The weights are tuned by training the network on a representative dataset with known outputs. The optimal set of weights are those that minimize a cost function, which reflects the difference between a known output value and the network’s predicted value.
The training process can result in a set of weights that are over-fit to a particular training set. Furthermore, a given training process can converge to a local minimum of the cost function instead of the true minimum. In [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{}, the first issue is overcome by finding the set of weights that minimizes the cost function on a separate validation set rather than on the training set itself. The second is avoided by training a committee of several networks with randomized initial weights. The mean weights from each committee are used in the final network.
We train our neural network on 5,820 objects with known redshifts. It is run with eight input parameters: four magnitudes $griz$; three colors $g - r$, $r -
i$, and $i - z$; and a concentration index. $Mag\_auto$ magnitudes are used for individual filters, $mag\_aper\_3$ magnitudes are used to determine colors, and the $i$-band [spread\_model]{} is used for the concentration index. Following the guidelines of @Firth03 and @collister04, we use a minimally sufficient network architecture and committee size in hopes of achieving the highest quality results. We find this to be a committee of 8 neural networks that each have an architecture of 8:16:16:1 (eight inputs, two hidden layers of 16 nodes each, and one output). We denote photometric and spectroscopic redshifts as [$z_{\mathrm{phot}}$]{} and [$z_{\mathrm{spec}}$]{}, respectively and have $\Delta z$ represent ${\ensuremath{z_{\mathrm{phot}}}}- {\ensuremath{z_{\mathrm{spec}}}}$.
![Comparison between calibrated model magnitudes for stars from four BCS standard tiles (after stacking them together) and SDSS magnitudes after color and extinction corrections for $g$-band. The stars are chosen by requiring that ${\tt class\_star} > 0.8$ in all four bands and also [SExtractor]{} flag $<$ 5. The histograms are normalized to unity. The peak offset between BCS model magnitudes and SDSS is $-0.06$ in $g$, $r$, $i$ and 0.02 in $z$ bands.[]{data-label="sdsscomp"}](sdss_model_mag.png){width="49.00000%"}
Photometry Crosschecks with SDSS
--------------------------------
We compare our photometry with SDSS data by looking at spectroscopic calibration tiles which overlap with SDSS data and which contain significant numbers of spectroscopic redshifts. As explained in Sec. \[sec:photoz\], these spectroscopic redshifts are then used for training our neural networks to obtained photometric redshifts. To do a comparison with SDSS catalogs, we applied color and extinction corrections to SDSS catalogs from these tiles. The fields which we consider for this purposes are from CNOC and DEEP fields centered at RA, DEC values of (02 hr 25 min, $7^{\circ}$), (02 hr 29 min, $35^{\circ}$), (23 hr 27 min, $8^{\circ}$), and (23 hr 29 min, $12^{\circ}$).
We then do an object by object comparison of colors and magnitudes of all stars from SDSS versus those from BCS catalogs in these tiles. The SDSS magnitudes for objects which overlap BCS tiles go up to 23.4 in $g$ and 21.6 in $r$, $i$, and $z$. We consider an object to be matched if it spatially overlaps to within $2''$. Since the number of objects in each tile which overlap with SDSS is small, we combine results from all tiles into one plot for each magnitude or color as necessary. The magnitude comparison for all four bands (using $mag\_model$) is shown in Fig. \[sdsscomp\]. The peak offset between BCS model magnitudes and SDSS magnitudes is approximately $-0.06$ in $g$,$r$ and $i$ bands and about 0.02 in $z$ bands, while the median offset is $-0.0562$ in $g$, $r$ and $i$ and 0.0087 in $z$.
We also do a color comparison using the same cuts for these tiles between BCS and SDSS colors using $mag\_aper3$ (magnitude within a 3 arcsec aperture), because colors are determined using this magnitude in photo-z estimation (Fig. \[sdsscolor\]). The peak offset in colors in $g-r$,$r-i$, and $i-z$ is about $-0.01$, $-0.03$, and $-0.02$ magnitudes respectively. The median offset is about $-0.01$ for $g-r$ and $i-z$ and about $-0.05$ for $r-i$. The rms scatter about the median is 0.052, 0.061 and 0.081 for $g-r$, $r-i$, and $i-z$, respectively.
![Difference in $(g-r)$, $(r-i)$, and $(i-z)$ colors between stars from BCS tiles and SDSS using $mag\_aper3$. All cuts are same as in Fig. \[sdsscomp\] and histograms are normalized to unity.[]{data-label="sdsscolor"}](sdss_aper3_color.png){width="49.00000%"}
Photometric Redshift Calibration {#sec:photoz}
--------------------------------
We obtain our training dataset by dedicating nine of the survey pointings to fields overlapping spectroscopic surveys: CDFS, CFRS, two CNOC2 fields, SSA 22, three DEEP2 fields, and VVDS. Objects from these fields share their photometric depth and reduction pipeline with the BCS data as well as have known spectroscopic redshifts. Although this training set is not representative of the survey in sky position, @Abdalla11 show that limiting a neural network training set to small patches of sky does not result in biased redshifts for large surveys. The key issue is having uniformity of photometry between the training and application fields.
Only objects that have reliable redshifts and photometric parameters are used to train the neural network. Objects with an $i$-band magnitude $>22.5$ or an $i$-band error $>0.1$ are removed from the training set. Objects that are unresolved in one or more bands or that have a [SExtractor]{} flag greater than 2 are removed as well. Similar cuts are made based on spectroscopic redshift errors, however the nature of the cut varies by catalog. The DEEP2, CNOC2, and CFRS catalogs provide redshift errors for each measurement. Objects from these fields are removed if their spectroscopic redshift errors are greater than 0.01. The ACES catalog (providing coverage of the CDFS field) and the VVDS catalog assign a confidence parameter for each object. In this case we only include objects with a confidence of 3 or 4 (see respective surveys for definitions). Both primary and secondary targets from the VVDS survey are included. Additional cuts were experimented with but found to produce more outliers, a larger sigma, or to reduce the size of the training set too much.
The final training set contains 5,820 objects. Table \[tab:training.fields\] breaks down the number of training objects that pass the filter criteria from each pointing. Figure \[training.hist\] further breaks down these objects by redshift bin. The pointings combine to provide a consistent distribution of redshifts from $0<z\le 1.1$.
We have released the matched catalogs of spectroscopic redshifts along with information from BCS catalogs for these fields. This would enable others to develop their own photometric redshift estimates using these data.
![Redshift distribution of 5,820 objects from the calibration fields used to train [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{}. The redshift distribution is color coded by source.[]{data-label="training.hist"}](group_specz_hist.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
We evaluate the performance of [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{} on our data by randomly selecting half of the objects from the training set to train [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{} while the other half remains for testing. One sixth of the objects from the training half are removed to form the validation set (see above). The result provides 2,910 objects with both photometric and spectroscopic redshifts.
![ [*Top panel*]{}: Two-dimensional histogram of [$z_{\mathrm{phot}}$]{} vs. [$z_{\mathrm{spec}}$]{} for training set objects that have [$z_{\mathrm{phot}}$]{} error $< 0.13$. Bin sizes are $0.015z
\times 0.015z$. Red bins count catastrophic outliers as defined by Equation \[catastrophic.outliers\]. Blue bins count all other objects. 5 objects with [$z_{\mathrm{spec}}$]{} or [$z_{\mathrm{phot}}$]{} $> 1.5$ are not displayed. [*Bottom panel*]{}: The same training set data are shown with each point representing a bin of 50 objects.[]{data-label="zspec"}](zphot_zspec.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ [*Top panel*]{}: Two-dimensional histogram of [$z_{\mathrm{phot}}$]{} vs. [$z_{\mathrm{spec}}$]{} for training set objects that have [$z_{\mathrm{phot}}$]{} error $< 0.13$. Bin sizes are $0.015z
\times 0.015z$. Red bins count catastrophic outliers as defined by Equation \[catastrophic.outliers\]. Blue bins count all other objects. 5 objects with [$z_{\mathrm{spec}}$]{} or [$z_{\mathrm{phot}}$]{} $> 1.5$ are not displayed. [*Bottom panel*]{}: The same training set data are shown with each point representing a bin of 50 objects.[]{data-label="zspec"}](zphot-rms-bins.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
We measure the photometric redshift performance using three metrics. The first, following @Ilbert06, is the normalized median absolute deviation $$\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z)} = 1.48 \times {\rm median}\left(\frac{|\Delta z|}{1+z_{\rm spec}}\right). \nonumber$$ This metric is better suited for our data than the standard deviation as it is less affected by catastrophic outliers. The second is the fraction of catastrophic outliers $\eta$ defined as the percentage of objects that satisfy $$\label{catastrophic.outliers}
\frac{|\Delta z|}{1+z_{\rm spec}} > 0.15.$$ The third metric is the net bias in redshift, averaged over all $N$ objects and defined as $$z_\mathrm{bias} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \Delta z_i. \nonumber$$ Our training set performs as $\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z)} = 0.061$ with $\eta =7.49\%$. Over the entire range of redshifts there is little net bias: $z_\mathrm{bias} = 0.0005$. These statistics, particularly the fraction of catastrophic outliers, can be improved by culling objects based on their photometric redshift error. [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{} provides redshift errors that are derived from the errors of the input parameters, however there are several other methods of determining photometric redshift errors. @Oyaizu08b evaluate how well various methods improve [$z_{\mathrm{phot}}$]{} statistics. They show that culling objects based on redshift errors derived from magnitude errors are competitive with other methods at reducing the redshift scatter and catastrophic outlier fraction.
We analyze our photometric performance after culling our data of objects with [$z_{\mathrm{phot}}$]{} error $\ge 0.13$ based on errors provided by [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{}. The performance of the culled data improves to $\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z)} = 0.054$ and $\eta =4.93\%$. However, the $z_\mathrm{bias}$ increases slightly to 0.0022. While the bias increases, it is still negligible. Figure \[zspec\] demonstrates the performance of [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{} in determining redshifts. For objects within the range $0.3 \lesssim {\ensuremath{z_{\mathrm{spec}}}}\lesssim0.9$, our photometric and spectroscopic redshifts match with little bias. For objects with redshifts below 0.3, there is a positive bias and for objects with redshifts beyond ${\ensuremath{z_{\mathrm{spec}}}}\sim 0.9$ there is a negative bias.
Application to the full BCS Catalog
-----------------------------------
The 5,820 objects from the training set are used to train a committee of 8 [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{} networks, each with an architecture 8:16:16:1. This committee is used to determine redshifts and errors for every object in the BCS catalog. These are included in columns 61 and 62 of the data release. Because we found a negligible net bias when testing our calibration set, we do not perform a bias correction to redshifts of the BCS catalog.
Many of the objects of the BCS catalog lie outside of the parameter space of data used to train [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{}. While @collister04 have demonstrated success using [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{} to determine redshifts of galaxies outside the parameter space used to train the network, this was done using a set of galaxies with a very uniform distribution of spectral types. For the generic distribution of galaxies provided in the BCS catalog, neural networks are unreliable in predicting redshifts outside the trained parameter space. Therefore we indicate whether an object lies inside or outside of the parameter space of the training set with a flag (column 63). A value of 1 means the object is within the parameter space of the training set and the redshift is reliable. A value of 0 means the object lays outside the parameter space and the redshift is unreliable. The flag is based only on the magnitude and magnitude error cuts that were made on the training set (i.e. $i < 22.5$, $i$-error $<0.1$, resolved in all bands). It is not based on the [SExtractor]{} flag, the star-galaxy separation criteria, or on photometric redshift errors.
We were able to obtain photo-z’s for about 1,955,400 objects from the BCS catalog with $i <22$. From these, there are $\sim$204,600 objects in the catalog that pass the star-galaxy separation criteria in all bands and lie within the training set parameter space. The redshift distribution of these BCS objects in different magnitude ranges is shown in Figure \[BCS.annz.hist\]. The peak redshift is around ${\ensuremath{z_{\mathrm{phot}}}}=0.4$ for $20<i<22$. Out of these, there are about 200 objects with ${\ensuremath{z_{\mathrm{phot}}}}>1.0$.
Many of the objects that do not pass star-galaxy separation are stars. Since [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{} was trained with only galaxies, stellar objects lie outside the parameter space and therefore do necessarily not get assigned a correct redshift of ${\ensuremath{z_{\mathrm{phot}}}}= 0$. In fact, only a handful of objects in the entire catalog are assigned a [$z_{\mathrm{phot}}$]{} close to zero. We investigate the performance of the photo-z’s when training a network with both stars and galaxies. Using the same inputs and network architecture as above but including $\sim$1,000 stars in the training set, [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{} was successful in assigning stars a redshift below 0.1 only 70% of the time. However, redshift assignment of galaxies was not adversely affected. Only 4 out of approximately 3,400 galaxies were assigned a redshift less than 0.015. The fraction of catastrophic outliers as well as $\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z)}$ were not significantly affected either, so long as stars are not included in the statistics. While the results of training [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{} with stars are not sufficient to use for the entire BCS catalog, these preliminary results show some promise. Furthermore, @Collister07 have shown better results when training an [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{} network specifically for star-galaxy separation.
![Distribution of photometric redshifts of the galaxies that lie within the [[ann]{}[*z*]{}]{} training set parameter space and have [$z_{\mathrm{phot}}$]{} error $< 0.05 (1+{\ensuremath{z_{\mathrm{phot}}}})$ and pass the star-galaxy separation test and in different $i$-band model magnitude ranges. []{data-label="BCS.annz.hist"}](BCS_annz_hist.png){width="49.00000%"}
Conclusions and Discussion {#sec:conclusion}
==========================
In this paper we present an overview of the Blanco Cosmology Survey (BCS), an $\sim$80 deg$^2$ optical photometric survey in $griz$ bands carried out with the Mosaic2 imager on Blanco 4m telescope between $2005-2008$. We discuss the observing strategy within the context of our scientific goals, and we present basic observing characteristics at CTIO such as the sky brightness and delivered image quality.
We provide a detailed description of the data processing, calibration and quality control, which we have carried out using a development version of the Dark Energy Survey Data Management System. The processing steps in going from raw exposures to science ready catalogs include image detrending and astrometric calibration; this processing is run independently on every night of observations. This is followed by image co-addition, which combines data from the same region of the sky into deeper coadd images.
The processing of real data from the Blanco telescope provides a real world stress test of the DESDM system. Many novel algorithmic features, which will be used to process upcoming DES data, were tested on BCS data. These include PSF homogenization, cataloging using PSF corrected, model-fitting photometry, object classification using the new [spread\_model]{}, absolute photometric calibration using the stellar locus and a variety of quality control tests.
We present the characteristics of the dataset, including the median estimated $10\sigma$ galaxy photometry depth in the coadds for bands $griz$, which are 23.3, 23.4, 23.0, and 21.3, respectively. The corresponding point source $10\sigma$ depths in $griz$ are 23.9, 24.0, 23.6, and 22.1, respectively. We measure the systematic noise floor in our photometry using photometric repeatability in single epoch images and comparisons of the stellar locus scatter from BCS and SDSS. Both results indicate a noise floor at the $\sim1.9$% level in $g$, $\sim2.2$% in $r$, and $\sim2.7$% in $i$ and $z$ bands. This noise floor does not impact the core galaxy cluster science for which the BCS was designed. We expect that with an improved characterization of the illumination correction using the star flat technique demonstrated in the CFHT Legacy Survey [@regnault09] it would be possible to reduce this noise floor further, but given that the current floor is adequate for our science needs we have not included these corrections in our BCS processing.
Our absolute photometric calibration is obtained using the stellar locus and including the 2MASS $J$ band photometry. We can calibrate our zeropoints at better than $\sim$1% (statistical) to the stellar locus, and so our overall photometric uniformity is driven by the $\sim$2% accuracy of the 2MASS survey [e,g, @skrutskie06]. We show that our photometric zeropoint calibration is quite uniform across the survey by showing star and galaxy counts across the survey. We also demonstrate that with [spread\_model]{} it is possible to carry out uniform star-galaxy separation even across a large extragalactic survey.
As an additional data quality test, we present photometric redshifts derived from a neural network trained on a sample of objects with spectroscopic redshifts that we targeted during the BCS survey. The performance of our four band $griz$ photometric redshifts are evaluated based on analysis of a calibration set of over 5,000 galaxies with measured spectroscopic redshifts. We find good performance with a characteristic scatter of $\sigma_{\Delta z/(1+z)}=0.054$ and an outlier fraction of $\eta=4.93$%. Finally, we provided a summary of the output data products from our co-added images and catalogs along with information on how to download them.
Finally, the BCS data have been used for a range of scientific pursuits, which we briefly summarize and reference here to allow the reader to seek additional information as needed. Within the SPT survey, the first four SZE selected clusters were optically confirmed with redshift estimates using BCS data [@staniszewski09] and detailed studies of galaxy populations using these clusters were reported in @zenteno11. The total number of SPT cluster candidates with signal-to-noise ratio $> 4.5$ in BCS footprint is 15 [@reichardt12] and among these 10 have been confirmed with the BCS data and the remaining 5 have redshift lower limits between 1 and 1.5 [@song12b]. These clusters and their BCS derived redshifts have figured prominently in SPT publications to date [@staniszewski09; @vanderlinde10; @high10; @andersson11; @williamson11; @reichardt12; @song12b]. The BCS data enabled the serendipitous discovery of a strong lensing arc of a galaxy at $z = 0.9057$ by a massive galaxy cluster at a redshift of $z=0.3838$ [@buckleygeer11]. Additional automated searches for strong lensing arcs have also been carried out, and further analysis of BCS data for weak lensing is in progress.
A sample of about 105 galaxy clusters was found using first three seasons of BCS data using an independent processing [@menanteau09; @menanteau10], and the BCS data were also used for optical confirmation of ACT clusters [@menanteau10b]. Other studies include estimates of weak lensing cluster masses [@mcinnes09] and a search for QSO candidates using $r$-band data [@Jimenez09].
We used the BCS data to measure photometric redshifts of about 46 X-ray selected clusters in the XMM-BCS survey [@suhada12]. This X-ray selected sample is currently being used in combination with SPT data to explore the low mass cluster population and its SZE properties (Liu et al., in prep). In addition, these BCS data are also being used in the analysis of the larger XMM-XXL survey in the 23 hr field (Pierre, private communication).
The BCS data continue to provide an important dataset for SPT. Recently, the data were used to trace the galaxy populations and were correlated against the SPT CMB-lensing maps [@vanengelen12], demonstrating correlations significant at the 4$\sigma$ to 5$\sigma$ level in both BCS fields [@bleem12]. The BCS data will provide a valuable optical dataset for combination with a 100 deg$^2$ Spitzer survey over the same region (Stanford, private communication), a 100 deg$^2$ Herschel survey (Carlstrom, private communication), and they will overlap one of the deep mm-wave fields being targeted by SPT-pol (Carlstrom, private communication) until the Dark Energy Survey data are available.
We would like to acknowledge Len Cowie for providing us spectroscopic redshifts for objects from the SSA 22 field. The Munich group acknowledges the support of the Excellence Cluster Universe and from the program TR33: The Dark Universe, both of which are funded by the Deutsche Forschungs Gemeinschaft. We acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) through grants NSF AST 05-07688, NSF AST 07-08539, NSF AST 07-15036, and NSF AST 08-13534. We acknowledge the support of the University of Illinois where this project was begun. This paper includes data gathered with the Blanco 4-meter telescope, located at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile, which is part of the U.S. National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), under contract with the NSF.
[*Facilities:*]{}
BCS Catalog Description
=======================
We created an ASCII catalog files which is obtained from the catalogs of each individual tile and after removing duplicates. The description of each column in the BCS catalog is provided in Tab. \[tab:bcscatalog\].
[^1]: [http://www.ctio.noao.edu/mosaic/manual/index.html]{}.
[^2]: currently under review for inclusion in the registry of FITS conventions; see [http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/registry/tpvwcs.html]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
$\,$
[**D-branes, obstructed curves, and minimal model superpotentials**]{}
Gueorgui Todorov\
Department of Mathematics\
University of Utah\
Salt Lake City, UT 84112\
[[email protected]]{}\
$\,$
In this short note we apply methods of Aspinwall-Katz to compute superpotentials of D-branes wrapped on more general obstructed rational curves in Calabi-Yau threefolds. We find an a priori unexpected match between superpotentials from certain such curves and the superpotentials of Landau-Ginzburg models corresponding to minimal models.
September 2007
Introduction
============
The application of derived categories to D-branes in physics, originally described in [@esdc] and later popularized in [@mikedc] (see [@eslec] for a review), has proven to be a very important techical tool in mathematical string theory. This program has yielded results ranging from new notions of stability [@bridgeland1; @bridgeland2] to, most recently, the construction of CFT’s for Kontsevich’s nc spaces [@cdhps], which are defined in terms of their sheaf theory.
Part of the reason that the derived categories program has been so useful is that in principle it gives a complete understanding of the off-shell states in the open string B model, meaning that in principle not only can one directly compute all massless spectra of open strings, but also all correlation functions between massless states.
The first direct computation of massless spectra of open strings between D-branes on subvarieties of the target space appeared in [@ks], where, after taking into account the Minasian-Moore-Freed-Witten anomaly [@rubengreg; @freeded] and the open string B model anomaly, it was shown, for example, that the worldsheet CFT computation realizes a spectral sequence.
Ideally, one would like to next directly compute couplings from those massless spectrum computations. In the case of the closed string B model, this is fairly trivial, but in the open string B model, this is rather more complicated. We shall outline a direct computation of massless spectra of open strings beginning and ending on a D-brane wrapped on an obstructed curve in section \[direct\], and as we shall see there, the computation implies a connection between curvatures of Riemannian metrics and obstructions in deformation theory which we have not yet been able to verify.
However, there are other approaches to such problems. The point of the derived-categories-in-physics program [@esdc; @mikedc; @eslec] is that derived categories classify universality classes of open string boundary states, so, computations that are difficult with some representatives may be replaced with other computations involving different representatives of the same universality class. By replacing D-branes wrapped on obstructed curves with brane/antibrane systems in the same universality class, with each brane and antibrane covering the entire space, one gets a much more nearly straightforward computation. This method was used in [@aspkatz] to describe how to compute all couplings between open string B model states, reproducing the full $A_{\infty}$ algebra structure of open string field theory [@zwiebach].
Of course, the drawback of this method is the same intrinsic to all work in the derived-categories-in-physics program: we do not know for certain that physical universality classes really do coincide with equivalence classes in the derived category. Numerous tests of this conjecture have been performed by various authors, so it is widely believed to be true, but as a matter of principle, there is a fundamental issue here. (There is an analogous issue that arises when discussing stacks in physics [@ps1; @ps2; @ps3; @ps4]. There, the issue is that a given stack has several different presentations which can be very different QFT’s; the relevant conjecture is that universality classes are classified by stacks. This, also, has now been checked in numerous different ways.) See [@ps5] for an overview of such connections between universality classes in physics and mathematical equivalences.
In section \[ak\] we shall use the methods of [@aspkatz] to compute couplings / superpotential terms from D-branes wrapped on obstructed curves appearing in small resolutions, the same issue which we attempted via a direct computation in section \[direct\]. Curiously, we will find that D-branes wrapped on obstructed curves in ADE-type three-folds possess the same superpotentials as ADE-type minimal models. To be precise, recall that minimal models in two-dimensional CFT’s have Landau-Ginzburg descriptions with an ADE classification, summarized in the table below [@vafawarner]:
Algebra Superpotential
----------------- -------------------
$A_n, n \geq 1$ $x^{n+1}$
$D_n, n \geq 1$ $x^{n-1} + x y^2$
$E_6$ $x^3 + y^4$
$E_7$ $x^3 + xy^3$
$E_8$ $x_3 + y^5$
These superpotentials will be reproduced by D-branes wrapped on obstructed ${\bf P}^1$’s in Calabi-Yau threefolds. In such cases, the normal bundle will have one of the following three forms:
- ${\cal O}(-1) \oplus {\cal O}(-1)$
- ${\cal O} \oplus {\cal O}(-2)$
- ${\cal O}(1) \oplus {\cal O}(-3)$
The first case has no infinitesimal deformations, and so is uninteresting for our purposes in this paper. The second case has a single (obstructed) infinitesimal deformation, and this case will give rise to superpotentials of the $A_n$ form, where the field $x$ corresponds to that one infinitesimal deformation. The third case has two (obstructed) infinitesimal deformations, and this case will give the $D_n$ and $E_n$ series, with the $x$ and $y$ fields corresponding to those two infinitesimal deformations. See for example [@laufer; @shel-dave] for more information on these geometries, which are small resolutions of singular Calabi-Yau threefolds.
Superpotentials for D-branes wrapped on obstructed curves have been of interest in many other places in the physics literature. For example, such wrapped D-branes made an appearance in [@dv], where they were used to motivate a gauge theory having an adjoint-valued field $\phi$ with a $\phi^n$-type superpotential[^1].
Related work has appeared in [@curto1; @curto2], where given superpotentials of the form we consider, corresponding singular Calabi-Yau threefolds were constructed. In essence, that work considered the problem inverse to that in this paper, by constructing geometry from superpotentials instead of superpotentials from geometry.
Outline of a direct computation {#direct}
===============================
So that the reader will better appreciate the computational efficiency of the derived categories program and the methods of [@aspkatz], in this section we will outline how one could attempt a direct physical computation of superpotentials from D-branes wrapped on obstructed curves. This section will closely[^2] follow [@eslec]\[section 11.1\].
We shall consider a single D-brane wrapped on an obstructed ${\bf P}^1$, which is to say, a ${\bf P}^1$ which admits an infinitesimal deformation, but whose deformation is obstructed at some order.
We shall assume that the gauge bundle on the D-brane is trivial, so the boundary conditions on worldsheet fields take a simple form. Furthermore, the restriction of the tangent bundle of the Calabi-Yau to the ${\bf P}^1$ does split holomorphically. Thus, neither of the usual subtleties associated with open string computations is relevant here.
The normal bundle to the ${\bf P}^1$ is ${\cal O} \oplus {\cal O}(-2)$. Since the normal bundle admits a holomorphic section, $\mbox{Ext}^1\left( {\cal O}_{ {\bf P}^1 }, {\cal O}_{ {\bf P}_1 } \right)$ is one-dimensional. For ‘generic’ obstructions ([*i.e.*]{} of order 3), the Yoneda pairing $$\mbox{Ext}^1\left( {\cal O}_{ {\bf P}^1 }, {\cal O}_{ {\bf P}_1 } \right)
\times
\mbox{Ext}^1\left( {\cal O}_{ {\bf P}^1 }, {\cal O}_{ {\bf P}_1 } \right)
\: \longrightarrow \:
\mbox{Ext}^2\left( {\cal O}_{ {\bf P}^1 }, {\cal O}_{ {\bf P}_1 } \right)$$ is nonzero, and the obstruction is characterized by the image in Ext$^2$. For (nongeneric) obstructions of higher order, the Yoneda pairing will vanish, but a higher-order computation will be nonvanishing.
Already at the level of vertex operators we can begin to see some of the complications involved in realizing the Yoneda pairing. In the present example, both Ext$^1$ and Ext$^2$ above are one-dimensional. In fact, $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Ext}^1\left( {\cal O}_{ {\bf P}^1 }, {\cal O}_{ {\bf P}_1 } \right)
& = & H^0\left( {\cal N}_{ {\bf P}^1/X } \right) \: = \: {\bf C} \\
\mbox{Ext}^2\left( {\cal O}_{ {\bf P}^1 }, {\cal O}_{ {\bf P}_1 } \right)
& = & H^1\left( {\cal N}_{ {\bf P}^1/X } \right) \: = \: {\bf C} \end{aligned}$$ From our earlier description of vertex operators, and the fact that the only holomorphic section of ${\cal O}$ is the constant section, we see that the elements of Ext$^1$ are described by the vertex operator $\theta$ (associated to the ${\cal O}$ factor in the normal bundle), and elements of Ext$^2$ are described by the vertex operator $\eta \theta$. If the Yoneda pairing in this case were as trivial as just a wedge product, then the image in Ext$^2$ would just be a product of $\theta$’s – but by the Grassman property, such a product vanishes. Instead, in a case in which the Yoneda pairing is nontrivial, the image in Ext$^2$ is $\eta \theta$ instead of $\theta \theta$ – so the operator product must necessarily involve some sort of interaction term that has the effect of changing a $\theta$ into an $\eta$.
The fact that the normal bundle has this form might confuse the reader – after all, the ${\bf P}^1$ is supposed to be obstructed, and yet there is a one-parameter-family of rational curves inside the normal bundle containing the ${\bf P}^1$. The solution to this puzzle gives another reason why the Yoneda pairing computation in this case is extremely difficult. Unlike differential geometry, where normal bundles capture local geometry, in algebraic geometry the normal bundle need [*not*]{} encode the local holomorphic structure, only the local smooth structure. In the present case, local coordinates in a neighborhood of the obstructed ${\bf P}^1$ can be described as follows. Let one coordinate patch on a holomorphic neighborhood have coordinates $(x, y_1, y_2)$, and the other coordinate patch on a holomorphic neighborhood have coordinates $(w, z_1, z_2)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
w & = & x^{-1} \\
z_1 & = & x^2 y_1 \: + \: x y_2^n \\
z_2 & = & y_2\end{aligned}$$ The integer $n$ is the degree of the obstruction, the coordinates $x$, $w$ are coordinates on the ${\bf P}^1$, $z_2 = y_2$ is a coordinate on the ${\cal O}$ factor on the normal bundle, and $z_1$, $y_1$ morally would be coordinates on the ${\cal O}(-2)$ factor, except that the coordinate transformation is [*not*]{} that of ${\cal O}(-2)$ – it’s complicated by the $x y_2^n$ term, which means that this local holomorphic neighborhood is not equivalent to the normal bundle. The normal bundle is only a linearized approximation to local holomorphic coordinates. Unfortunately, data concerning the degree of the obstruction ([*i.e.*]{} the ‘extra’ term in the expression for $z_1$) is omitted by the linearization that gives rise to the normal bundle.
Thus, in order to see the obstruction, we need more data than the normal bundle itself provides. In order to recover the obstruction, the BCFT calculation corresponding to the Yoneda pairing must have some nonlocal component.
So, already before trying to set up the physics calculation, we see two features that the result must have:
- The calculation must take advantage of some interaction term in the worldsheet action – the result is not just a wedge product, unlike the closed string B model bulk-bulk OPE’s.
- The calculation must give a result that is somehow nonlocal.
Next, let us perform the calculation. In principle, for a generic (order 3) obstruction, the following three-point correlation function should vanish: $$< \theta(\tau_1) \theta(\tau_2) \theta(\tau_3) >$$ involving vertex operators for three copies of the element of Ext$^1$ inserted at various places along the boundary. This correlation function should encode the Yoneda pairing, as outlined earlier.
Now, in topological field theories, correlation functions should reduce to zero modes. In the present case, there is one $\eta$ zero mode and two $\theta$ zero modes, yet here we have three $\theta$’s. The only way to get a nonzero result is to use some interaction terms.
Put another way, this correlation function should encode three copies of the Yoneda pairing – one for each pair of $\theta$’s. In principle, each boundary-boundary OPE should take two $\theta$’s and generate a $\eta \theta$ term, so that the result is a correlation function involving one $\eta$ and two $\theta$’s, perfect to match the available zero modes. However, in order for the OPE to operate in this fashion, we shall need some sort of interaction term.
Ordinarily one available interaction term would be the boundary interaction $$\int_{\partial \Sigma} F_{i \overline{\jmath}} \rho^i \eta^{\overline{\jmath}}$$ We could contract the $\rho$ on one of the $\theta$’s, leaving us with two $\theta$’s and one $\eta$, perfect to match the available zero modes. The $\rho-\theta$ contraction would generate a propagator factor proportional to $1/z$, and the boundary integral would give a scale-invariant result. The obvious log divergence can be handled by regularizing the propagator, as discussed in [@edcs], leaving a factor of an inverted laplacian.
In the present case, the curvature of the Chan-Paton factors can be assumed to be trivial, so there is no such available interaction term, but the general idea is on the right track.
The only available interaction term is the bulk four-fermi term: $$\int_{\Sigma} R_{i \overline{\imath} j \overline{\jmath}}
\rho^i \rho^j \eta^{ \overline{\imath} } g^{\overline{\jmath} k}
\theta_k$$ We could contract the two $\rho$’s on two of the three $\theta$’s, leaving us with a total of two $\theta$’s (one from the interaction term, plus one of the original correlators) and one $\eta$, exactly as needed to match the available zero modes. Each $\rho-\theta$ contraction would generate a propagator factor proportional to $1/z$, which would be cancelled by the integral over the bulk of the disk. Boundary divergences can be handled by regularizing the propagators, leaving us with factors of inverted laplacians.
Thus, we see the structure that we predicted earlier – the correlation function is nonvanishing thanks to an interaction term, and we have nonlocal effects due to the presence of inverted laplacians.
What remains is to check that the resulting expression really does correctly calculate the Yoneda pairing, which has not yet been completed.
Application of Aspinwall-Katz’s methods {#ak}
=======================================
In this section we will explicitly describe some examples of superpotentials from wrapped branes using the methods of Aspinwall-Katz [@aspkatz]. As anticipated elsewhere, the resulting superpotentials have the same form as in minimal models, yielding another connection between geometry and physics.
The wrapped D-brane superpotentials are determined by an $A_{\infty}$ structure. Following [@aspkatz], the basic idea is that we will compute the $A_{\infty}$ structure encoded in D-brane superpotentials by replacing the original sheaves modelling the wrapped D-branes with a different representative in the derived category, one for which $A_{\infty}$ computations are much easier, then compute the $A_{\infty}$ structures using those alternate representatives. In particular, this computation is much easier and far more general than the attempted computation in the previous section. This also shows how the application of derived categories to physics yields powerful technical tools.
In more detail, we are going to compute the $A_\infty$ structure as follows. First, replace each object in in the derived category with a quasi-isomorphic complex of injective sheaves. We may view this as an injective resolution of these objects. Suppose for simplicity that we have only one D-brane $\mathcal{E}^\bullet$. Then the complex of interest is with entries $ \oplus_p \textrm{Hom}(\mathcal{E}^p,\mathcal{E}^{p+n})$. If we denote an element of this group by $\sum_p f_{n,p}$, then the differential for this complex is given by $\partial_n f_{n,p} = \textrm{d}_{p+n}\circ f_{n,p} -
(-1)^n f_{p+1,n}\circ \textrm{d}_{p}$ (cf. [@aspkatz Equation (66)]). The composition gives this complex a dga structure. But now by a Theorem of Kadeishvili [@kad] there is an $A_\infty$ structure on the cohomology of this complex with differential zero (minimal) and an $A_\infty$-morphism such that the first level is a chosen embedding of the cohomology in the complex. In our case this embedding will be very natural. This $A_\infty$ structure is not unique but it is unique up to $A_\infty$-isomorphism[^3] so it will give us the same superpotential.
The $A_n$ case
--------------
The simplest case of an obstructed ${\bf P}^1$ is discussed in [@aspkatz]. In this example, the normal bundle to a ${\bf P}^1$ in a Calabi-Yau threefold is ${\cal O} \oplus {\cal O}(-2)$, but the complex structure is not the one inherited from the normal bundle, but rather is described by the transition functions $$\begin{aligned}
w & = & x^{-1} \\
z_1 & = & x^2 y_1 \: + \: x y_2^n \\
z_2 & = & y_2\end{aligned}$$ as discussed earlier.
We have already seen that a direct computation of the superpotential is very difficult, but [@aspkatz] quickly show that $W = x^{n+1}$, which nicely corresponds to a Landau-Ginzburg minimal model superpotential.
More general cases of obstructed curves were not worked out in [@aspkatz], though their methods certainly apply; we compute them below.
The $D_{n+2}$ case
------------------
Next, we will consider the total space $X$ of an obstructed bundle over a curve $C\cong\mathbb{P}^1$ with normal bundle ${\mathcal{O}}_{C}(-3)\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_{C}(1)$. In terms of transition function on two open affine charts with coordinates say $(x,y_1,y_2)$ and $(w,z_1,z_2)$ $X$ can be described by $$\begin{aligned}
z_1&=&x^3y_1+y_2^2+x^2y_2^k\\
z_2&=&x^{-1}y_2\\
w&=&x^{-1}\end{aligned}$$
Let $\pi:X {\longrightarrow}C$ be the bundle map and denote with ${\mathcal{O}}(1)=\pi^*{\mathcal{O}}_C(1)$. We will use the methods of [@aspkatz] to compute the resulting superpotential.
Thus we need a locally free resolution of the sheaf ${\mathcal{O}}_C$. One such resolution is given by the complex $$\xymatrix@1@C=20mm{
{\mathcal{O}}(-n-5) \ar[r]^{ \left(\begin{smallmatrix}y_2\\-x^3\\-1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}&
{\begin{matrix}{\mathcal{O}}(-n-2)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-n-2)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-1)\end{matrix} }\ar[r]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} x^3&y_2&0\\s'&-y_1&z_1\\-1&0&-y_2\end{smallmatrix}\right)}& {\begin{matrix}{\mathcal{O}}(-n+1)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-1)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}\end{matrix} }\ar[r]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}y_1&y_2&z_1\end{smallmatrix} \right)}& {\mathcal{O}},&
}$$ where $$s'=y_2+x^2y_2^{n-1}.$$
The maps are given in the first chart (the one given by $(x,y_1,y_2)$). By $z_1$ we mean the section of ${\mathcal{O}}$ which in the first chart is given by $x^3y_1+y_2^2+x^2y_2^n$. We are considering $y_1$ as a section of ${\mathcal{O}}(n-1)$ and this can be done since $$\begin{aligned}
x^{-n+1}y_1&=&x^{-n-2}z_1+x^{-n-2}y_2^2+x^{-n}y_2^{n}\\
&=& w^{n+2}z_1+w^{n+2}z_2^2+z_2^{n}.\end{aligned}$$ In a similar way $y_2$ as a section of ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$ over the first chart and $s'$ is a section of ${\mathcal{O}}(n+1)$. Let us also define $s= 1+ x^2y_2^{n-2}$.
To simplify notation we will name the sheaves of the above resolution ${\mathcal{F}}_i$, $i=0,1,2,3$ so that that the resolution now is given by $$\xymatrix@1@C=10mm{
0\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_3 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{O}}_C \ar[r]&0&
}$$
Corresponding to a class in $$C^0(U,Hom^1({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C))$$ let ${\mathsf{x}}$ be the following generator of $\mbox{Ext}^1({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$: $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&1&0\\-s&0&0\\0&0&-1\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&1&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$ and let ${\mathsf{y}}=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}x\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&x&0\\-xs&0&0\\0&0&-x\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&x&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
First of all let us compute ${\mathsf{x}}\star {\mathsf{x}}=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\-s\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -s&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
At this point we will simply define some auxiliary elements that will be useful in the derivation of the $A_{\infty}$-structure.
Let ${\mathsf{J}}=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&0&0\\0&0&1\\0&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
Note that $d{\mathsf{J}}=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\-1\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -1&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$ and we have the important commutation relation, namely $${\mathsf{J}}\star{\mathsf{x}}+{\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{J}}=0.$$
For $p=0,..n+1$ set ${\mathsf{K}}_p=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&0&0\\x^2y_2^{p}&0&0\\0&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$ and compute that for $p=1,..,n$ the differential $d{\mathsf{K}}_{p-1}=:{\mathsf{F}}_p$ is $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\-x^2y_2^p\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2
\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -x^2y_2^p&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
We have the folloing relations: $${\mathsf{K}}_p\star{\mathsf{x}}+{\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{K}}_p={\mathsf{F}}_p$$ $${\mathsf{K}}_j\star{\mathsf{K}}_i=0$$
Observe that $${\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{x}}=d({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_{n-3})$$
This is enough to compute $m_2$ by using $$im_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=i({\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{x}})+df_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})$$ and so using what we have computed for ${\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{x}}$ we have $$im_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=d({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_{n-3})+df_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})$$ So that $$m_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=0,\qquad f_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_{n-3}).$$ Using the next $A_{\infty}$-morphism relation we have $$im_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=f_2({\mathsf{x}}\otimes m_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}}))-f_2(m_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})\otimes {\mathsf{x}})+{\mathsf{x}}\star f_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})-f_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})\star{\mathsf{x}}+df_2.$$ But this is $$im_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-{\mathsf{x}}\star ({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_{n-3})-({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_{n-3})\star{\mathsf{x}}+df_3$$ or $$im_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-{\mathsf{F}}_{n-3}+df_3=-d{\mathsf{K}}_{n-4}+df_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}}).$$
So that $m_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=0$ and $f_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})={\mathsf{K}}_{n-4}$.
Proceeding like this we see that $m_{l}({\mathsf{x}},...,{\mathsf{x}})=0$ and $f_i=(-1)^{\frac{l(l-1)}{2}}{\mathsf{K}}_{n-l-1}$ for $2 \le l < n$. Also $$m_{n}({\mathsf{x}},...,{\mathsf{x}})=-(-1)^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}{\mathsf{F}}_0.$$ But ${\mathsf{x}}\star {\mathsf{F}}_0$ is a generator of $\mbox{Ext}^1({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$. So in the superpotential we have a term equal to $-(-1)^{\frac{l(l-1)}{2}}x^{n+1}$. Notice that ${\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{x}}$ is exact and ${\mathsf{y}}$ is closed so that ${\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{y}}$ is also exact. On the other hand ${\mathsf{y}}\star{\mathsf{y}}\star{\mathsf{y}}$ is given by
This implies that $m_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-F_0$ and $f_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=0$ since $F_0$ is not exact. Notice that ${\mathsf{x}}\star m_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})={\mathsf{x}}\star F_0={\mathsf{F}}_0\star {\mathsf{x}}$ is $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{x^3+x^5y_2^{n-2}} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0&
}$$ which is the differential of $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} x^5y_2^{n-3}&-1&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$ It is easy to check that ${\mathsf{y}}\star{\mathsf{y}}\star{\mathsf{x}}$ generates $\mbox{Ext}^3({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$ so that in the superpotential we have a term of the type $xy^2$. One can see immediately that all the higher products vanish so that the superpotential is $$W(x,y)=-(-1)^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}x^{n+1}+xy^2.$$
The $E_7$ case.
---------------
Let us examine the $E_7$ case before the $E_6$ and $E_8$ cases, as it is slightly more complicated, so once we understand $E_7$, the remaining two cases will be comparatively easy.
The transition functions for the two affine charts $(x,y_1,y_2)$ and $(w,z_1,z_2)$ are now $$\begin{aligned}
z_1&=&x^3y_1+x y_2^3+x^{-1}y_2^{2}\\
z_2&=&x^{-1}y_2\\
w&=&x^{-1}\end{aligned}$$
Proceeding as before we consider a resolution of ${\mathcal{O}}_C$, for example $$\xymatrix@1@C=20mm{
{\mathcal{O}}(-6) \ar[r]^{ \left(\begin{smallmatrix}y_2\\-x^4\\-1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}&
{\begin{matrix}{\mathcal{O}}(-5)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-2)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-2)\end{matrix} }\ar[r]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} x^4&y_2&0\\s'&-y_1&t\\-1&0&-y_2\end{smallmatrix}\right)}& {\begin{matrix}{\mathcal{O}}(-1)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-1)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-1)\end{matrix} }\ar[r]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}y_1&y_2&t\end{smallmatrix} \right)}& {\mathcal{O}}.&
}$$ where we have defined $$t=x^4y_1+x^2y_2^3+y_2^2,$$ considered as a section of ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$ and $$s'=y_2+x^2y_2^{2},$$ considered as a section of ${\mathcal{O}}(4)$. Also $y_1$ and $y_2$ here are considered sections of ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$. To simplify notations let as call the sheaves of the above resolution ${\mathcal{F}}_i$ so that we have
$$\xymatrix@1@C=10mm{
0\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_3 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{O}}_C \ar[r]&0&
}$$
Corresponding to a class in $$C^0(U,Hom^1({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C))$$ let ${\mathsf{x}}$ be the following generator of $\mbox{Ext}^1({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$: $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&1&0\\-s&0&0\\0&0&-1\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&1&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0,
}$$ where $s=1+x^2y_2$. Define another generator ${\mathsf{y}}$ of $\mbox{Ext}^1({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}x\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&x&0\\-xs&0&0\\0&0&-x\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&x&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
Let us compute ${\mathsf{x}}\star {\mathsf{x}}=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\-s\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -s&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
Let ${\mathsf{J}}=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&0&0\\0&0&1\\0&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
Note that $d{\mathsf{J}}=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\-1\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -1&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
and we have this important commutation relation, namely $${\mathsf{J}}\star{\mathsf{x}}+{\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{J}}=0.$$ For $p=0,1$ we set ${\mathsf{K}}_p=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&0&0\\x^2y_2^{p}&0&0\\0&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$ and compute $d{\mathsf{K}}_{p-1}=:{\mathsf{F}}_p$ to be $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\-x^2y_2^p\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2
\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -x^2y_2^p&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
Let us write down the last few relations that we need to compute the $A_{\infty}$-structure.
$${\mathsf{K}}_p\star{\mathsf{x}}+{\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{K}}_p={\mathsf{F}}_p$$ $${\mathsf{K}}_j\star{\mathsf{K}}_i=0$$
Now, first we have $${\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{x}}==d{\mathsf{J}}+F_1=d({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_0)$$ $$im_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=i({\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{x}})+df_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})$$ and using [@aspkatz] we have $$im_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=d({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_0)+df_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})$$ So that $$m_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=0,\qquad f_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_0).$$ Using the next $A_{\infty}$-morphism relation we have $$im_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=f_2({\mathsf{x}}\otimes m_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}}))-f_2(m_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})\otimes {\mathsf{x}})+{\mathsf{x}}\star f_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})-f_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})\star{\mathsf{x}}+df_2$$
But this is $$im_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-{\mathsf{x}}\star ({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_0)-({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_0)\star{\mathsf{x}}+df_3$$ or $$im_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-{\mathsf{F}}_0+df_3.$$
This implies that $m_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-F_0$ and $f_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=0$ since $F_0$ is not exact. Notice that ${\mathsf{x}}\star m_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})={\mathsf{x}}\star F_0={\mathsf{F}}_0\star {\mathsf{x}}$ is $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{x^2} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0&
}$$ which is the differential of $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&0&-x^2\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$ It is easy to check that ${\mathsf{y}}\star F_0$ generates $\mbox{Ext}^3({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$ so that in the superpotential we have a term of the type $yx^3$. Also if we compute ${\mathsf{y}}\star {\mathsf{y}}\star{\mathsf{y}}$ we obtain $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{x^3s} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0&
}$$ which also generates so we have a term of the type $y^3$. One can see immediately that all the higher products vanish.
The $E_6$ case.
---------------
We procced with the $E_6$ case. The change of coordinates is given by $$\begin{aligned}
z_1&=&x^3y_1+x^2 y_2^3+x^{-1}y_2^{2}\\
z_2&=&x^{-1}y_2\\
w&=&x^{-1}\end{aligned}$$
The resolution of ${\mathcal{O}}_C$ is: $$\xymatrix@1@C=32mm{
{\mathcal{O}}(-7) \ar[r]^{ \left(\begin{smallmatrix}y_2\\-x^4\\-1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}
&
{\begin{matrix}{\mathcal{O}}(-6)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-2)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-2)\end{matrix} }\ar[r]^{
\left(
\begin{smallmatrix} x^4&y_2&0\\s'&-y_1&t\\-1&0&-y_2\end{smallmatrix}\right)}& {
\begin{matrix}{\mathcal{O}}(-2)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-1)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-1)\end{matrix} }\ar[r]^{\left(
\begin{smallmatrix}y_1&y_2&t\end{smallmatrix} \right)}& {\mathcal{O}}.&
}$$ where we have $$t=x^4y_1+x^3y_2^3+y_2^2,$$ a section of ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$ and $$s'=y_2+x^3y_2^{2},$$ a section of ${\mathcal{O}}(4)$. Also, $y_1$ is a section of ${\mathcal{O}}(2)$ and $y_2$ is a section of ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$. To simplify notation let us call the sheaves of the above resolution ${\mathcal{F}}_i$ so that we have $$\xymatrix@1@C=10mm{
0\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_3 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{O}}_C \ar[r]&0&
}$$
Corresponding to a class in $$C^0(U,Hom^1({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C))$$ let ${\mathsf{x}}$ be the following generator of $\mbox{Ext}^1({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$: $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&1&0\\-s&0&0\\0&0&-1\end{smallmatrix}
\right)}
\ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&1&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0,
}$$ where $s=1+x^3y_2^2$. Define another generator ${\mathsf{y}}$ of $\mbox{Ext}^1({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}x\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&x&0\\-xs&0&0\\0&0&-x\end{smallmatrix}
\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&x&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
Let us compute ${\mathsf{x}}\star {\mathsf{x}}=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\-s\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]
&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -s&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
Let ${\mathsf{J}}=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&0&0\\0&0&1\\0&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right
)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
Note that $d{\mathsf{J}}=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\-1\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]
&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -1&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&\
{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
and we have this important commutation relation, namely $${\mathsf{J}}\star{\mathsf{x}}+{\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{J}}=0.$$ For $p=0,1$ we set ${\mathsf{K}}_p=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&0&0\\x^3y_2^{p}&0&0\\0&0&0
\end{smallmatrix}
\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$ and compute $d{\mathsf{K}}_{p-1}=:{\mathsf{F}}_p$ to be $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\-x^3y_2^p\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)}
\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2
\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -x^3y_2^p&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
Let us write down the last few relations that we need to compute the $A_{\infty}$-structure.
$${\mathsf{K}}_p\star{\mathsf{x}}+{\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{K}}_p={\mathsf{F}}_p$$ $${\mathsf{K}}_j\star{\mathsf{K}}_i=0$$
Now, first we have $${\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{x}}=d{\mathsf{J}}+F_1=d({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_0)$$ $$im_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=i({\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{x}})+df_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})$$ and thus $$im_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=d({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_0)+df_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})$$ So that $$m_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=0,\qquad f_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_0).$$ Using the next $A_{\infty}$-morphism relation we have $$im_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=f_2({\mathsf{x}}\otimes m_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}}))-f_2(m_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})\otimes {\mathsf{x}})+{\mathsf{x}}\star f_2(\
x,{\mathsf{x}})-f_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})\star{\mathsf{x}}+df_2$$
But this is $$im_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-{\mathsf{x}}\star ({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_0)-({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_0)\star{\mathsf{x}}+df_3$$ or $$im_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-{\mathsf{F}}_0+df_3.$$
This implies that $m_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-{\mathsf{F}}_0$ and $f_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=0$ since ${\mathsf{F}}_0$ is not exact. Notice that ${\mathsf{x}}\star m_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})={\mathsf{x}}\star {\mathsf{F}}_0={\mathsf{F}}_0\star {\mathsf{x}}$ is $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{x^3} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_ 1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0&
}$$ which generates $\mbox{Ext}^3({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$ so in the superpotential we have $x^4$. It is easy to check that ${\mathsf{y}}\star {\mathsf{y}}\star{\mathsf{y}}$ also generates $\mbox{Ext}^3({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$ so that in the superpotential we have a term of the type $y^3$. All the higher products vanish. So the superpotential is $$W=x^4+y^3$$
The $E_8$ case.
---------------
The transition functions for the two affine charts $(x,y_1,y_2)$ and $(w,z_1,z_2)$ are now $$\begin{aligned}
z_1&=&x^3y_1+x^2 y_2^4+x^{-1}y_2^{2}\\
z_2&=&x^{-1}y_2\\
w&=&x^{-1}\end{aligned}$$
Proceeding as before we consider a resolution of ${\mathcal{O}}_C$, for example $$\xymatrix@1@C=20mm{
{\mathcal{O}}(-8) \ar[r]^{ \left(\begin{smallmatrix}y_2\\-x^4\\-1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}
&
{\begin{matrix}{\mathcal{O}}(-7)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-2)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-2)\end{matrix} }\ar[r]^{\left
(\begin{smallmatrix} x^4&y_2&0\\s'&-y_1&t\\-1&0&-y_2\end{smallmatrix}\right)}& {
\begin{matrix}{\mathcal{O}}(-3)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-1)\\\oplus\\{\mathcal{O}}(-1)\end{matrix} }\ar[r]^{\left(
\begin{smallmatrix}y_1&y_2&t\end{smallmatrix} \right)}& {\mathcal{O}}.&
}$$ where we have defined $$t=x^4y_1+x^3y_2^4+y_2^2,$$ considered as a section of ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$ and $$s'=y_2+x^3y_2^{3},$$ considered as a section of ${\mathcal{O}}(4)$. Also $y_1$ is a section of ${\mathcal{O}}(2)$ and $y_2$ is a section of ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$. To simplify notation let us call the sheaves of the above resolution ${\mathcal{F}}_i$ so that we have $$\xymatrix@1@C=10mm{
0\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_3 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{O}}_C \ar[r]&0&
}$$
Corresponding to a class in $$C^0(U,Hom^1({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C))$$ let ${\mathsf{x}}$ be the following generator of $\mbox{Ext}^1({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$: $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&1&0\\-s&0&0\\0&0&-1\end{smallmatrix}
\right)}
\ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&1&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0,
}$$ where $s=1+x^3y_2^2$. Define another generator ${\mathsf{y}}$ of $\mbox{Ext}^1({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}x\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&x&0\\-xs&0&0\\0&0&-x\end{smallmatrix}
\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&x&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
Let us compute ${\mathsf{x}}\star {\mathsf{x}}=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\-s\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]
&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -s&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&\
{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
Let ${\mathsf{J}}=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&0&0\\0&0&1\\0&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right
)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
Note that $d{\mathsf{J}}=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\-1\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]
&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -1&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&\
{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$ and we have the important commutation relation, namely $${\mathsf{J}}\star{\mathsf{x}}+{\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{J}}=0.$$ For $p=0,1,2$ we set ${\mathsf{K}}_p=$ $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\0\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_2\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&0&0\\x^3y_2^{p}&0&0\\0&0&0
\end{smallmatrix}
\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$ and compute $d{\mathsf{K}}_{p-1}=:{\mathsf{F}}_p$ to be $$\xymatrix@1@C=15mm{
&&{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\-x^3y_2^p\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)}
\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2
\ar[d]^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -x^3y_2^p&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal{F}}_1\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0\\
{\mathcal{F}}_3\ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_2 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_1 \ar[r]&{\mathcal{F}}_0
}$$
Let us write down the last few relations that we need to compute the $A_{\infty}$ -structure. $${\mathsf{K}}_p\star{\mathsf{x}}+{\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{K}}_p={\mathsf{F}}_p$$ $${\mathsf{K}}_j\star{\mathsf{K}}_i=0$$
Now, first we have $${\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{x}}=d{\mathsf{J}}+F_2=d({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_1)$$ $$im_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=i({\mathsf{x}}\star{\mathsf{x}})+df_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})$$ and so $$im_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=d({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_1)+df_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})$$ So that $$m_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=0,\qquad f_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_1).$$ Using the next $A_{\infty}$-morphism relation we have $$im_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=f_2({\mathsf{x}}\otimes m_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}}))-f_2(m_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})\otimes {\mathsf{x}})+{\mathsf{x}}\star f_2(\
x,{\mathsf{x}})-f_2({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})\star{\mathsf{x}}+df_2$$
But this is $$im_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-{\mathsf{x}}\star ({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_1)-({\mathsf{J}}+{\mathsf{K}}_1)\star{\mathsf{x}}+df_3$$ or $$im_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=-{\mathsf{F}}_1+df_3=-d{\mathsf{K}}_0+df_3.$$
This implies that $m_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})=0$ and $f_3({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})={\mathsf{K}}_0$. Proceedaing like before we find that $m_4({\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}},{\mathsf{x}})={\mathsf{F}}_0$ and all the higher products in ${\mathsf{x}}$ vanish. Since ${\mathsf{x}}\star {\mathsf{F}}_0$ generates $\mbox{Ext}^3({\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$, in the superpotential we have a term $x^5$. In a similar way we find a term $y^3$ so that finaly the superpotential is $$W=x^5+y^3.$$
Conclusions
===========
In this short note we have derived superpotentials from D-branes wrapped on obstructed curves, finding a relationship to Landau-Ginzburg presentations of minimal models.
Acknowledgements
================
We would like to thank C. Curto and especially E. Sharpe for numerous conversations.
[199]{}
E. Sharpe, “D-branes, derived categories, and Grothendieck groups,” Nucl. Phys. [**B561**]{} (1999) 433-450, [hep-th/9902116]{}.
M. Douglas, “D-branes, categories, and N=1 supersymmetry,” J. Math. Phys. [**42**]{} (2001) 2818-2843, [hep-th/0011017]{}.
E. Sharpe, “Lectures on D-branes and sheaves,” [hep-th/0307245]{}.
T. Bridgeland, “Stability conditions on triangulated categories,” [math.AG/0212237]{}.
T. Bridgeland, “Stability conditions on K3 surfaces,” [math.AG/0307164]{}.
A. Caldararu, J. Distler, S. Hellerman, T. Pantev, E. Sharpe, “Non-birational twisted derived equivalences in abelian GLSMs,” [arXiv: 0709.3855]{}
S. Katz and E. Sharpe, “D-branes, open string vertex operators, and Ext groups,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**6**]{} (2003) 979-1030, [hep-th/0208104]{}.
R. Minasian, G. Moore, “K theory and Ramond-Ramond charge,” JHEP [**9711**]{} (1997) 002, [hep-th/9710230]{}.
D. Freed, E. Witten, “Anomalies in string theory with D-branes,” [hep-th/9907189]{}.
P. Aspinwall, S. Katz, “Computation of superpotentials for D-branes,” Comm. Math. Phys. [**264**]{} (2006) 227-253, [hep-th/0412209]{}.
M. Gaberdiel, B. Zwiebach, “Tensor constructions of open string theories, I: Foundations,” Nucl. Phys. [**B505**]{} (1997) 569-624, [hep-th/9705038]{}.
T. Pantev, E. Sharpe, “Notes on gauging noneffective group actions,” [hep-th/0502027]{}.
T. Pantev, E. Sharpe, “String compactifications on Calabi-Yau stacks,” Nucl. Phys. [**B733**]{} (2006) 233-296, [hep-th/0502044]{}.
T. Pantev, E. Sharpe, “GLSM’s for gerbes (and other toric stacks),” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**10**]{} (2006) 77-121, [hep-th/0502053]{}.
S. Hellerman, A. Henriques, T. Pantev, E. Sharpe, M. Ando, “Cluster decomposition, T-duality, and gerby CFT’s,” [hep-th/0606034]{}.
E. Sharpe, “Derived categories and stacks in physics,” contributed to the proceedings of the ESI research conference on homological mirror symmetry, Vienna, Austria, June 12-22, 2006, [hep-th/0608056]{}.
C. Vafa, N. Warner, “Catastrophes and the classification of conformal field theories,” Phys. Lett. [**B218**]{} (1989) 51-58.
H. Laufer, “On ${\bf C} {\bf P}^1$ as an exceptional set,” pp. 261-276 in [*Recent Developments in Several Complex Variables*]{} (J. Fornaess, ed.), Ann. of Math. Stud. [**100**]{}, Princeton University Press, 1981.
S. Katz, D. Morrison, “Gorenstein threefold singularities with small resolutions via invariant theory for Weyl groups,” J. Alg. Geom. [**1**]{} (1992) 449-530, [alg-geom/9202002]{}.
R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, “Matrix models, topological strings, and supersymmetric gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. [**B644**]{} (2002) 3-20, [hep-th/0206255]{}.
S. Kachru, S. Katz, A. Lawrence, and J. McGreevy, “Open string instantons and superpotentials,” Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{} (2000) 026001, [hep-th/9912151]{}.
C. Curto, “Matrix model superpotentials and Calabi-Yau spaces: an ADE classification,” [math.AG/0505111]{}.
C. Curto, “Matrix model superpotentials and ADE singularities,” [hep-th/0612172]{}.
E. Witten, “Chern-Simons gauge theory as a string theory,” Prog. Math. [**133**]{} (1995) 637-678, [hep-th/9207094]{}.
T.V. Kadeishvili, “ The Algebraic Structure in the Homology of an $A_\infty$-Algebra”, Soobshch. Akad. Nauk. Gruzin. SSR [**108**]{} (1982) 249-252.
[^1]: The superpotential was checked indirectly in [@shamitkatz section 2.2] using a dimensionally-reduced holomorphic Chern-Simons theory (implicitly assuming the dimensional reduction of the open string field theory on the total space coincides with open string field theory of D-branes on a submanifold). However, a direct derivation in open string CFT was not given in that paper.
[^2]: We would like to thank E. Sharpe for giving us permission to reproduce his argument here.
[^3]: In general, it does not seem that all $A_{\infty}$ isomorphisms preserve the kinetic terms of the field theory, so, strictly speaking, we are only interested in a subset of all $A_{\infty}$ isomorphisms. In addition, there is an issue that to describe a superpotential, the $A_{\infty}$ structure must have a cyclic structure, corresponding to rotations of open string disk diagrams. This was not explicitly addressed in [@aspkatz], and in any event will be irrelevant for us, as we naturally find $A_{\infty}$ structures of this form.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Some posets of binary leaf-labeled trees are shown to be supersolvable lattices and explicit EL-labelings are given. Their characteristic polynomials are computed, recovering their known factorization in a different way.'
author:
- Riccardo Biagioli and Frédéric Chapoton
bibliography:
- 'tree.bib'
title: 'Supersolvable LL-lattices of binary trees'
---
Introduction
============
The aim of this article is to continue the study of some posets on forests of binary leaf-labeled trees introduced by the second author in [@bessel]. These posets have already been shown in [@fred] to have nice properties. The main result there was the fact that the characteristic polynomials of all intervals in these posets factorize completely with positive integer roots. By a theorem of Stanley [@staSS], this property is true in general for the so-called semimodular supersolvable lattices. Since these intervals are not semimodular in general, one can not use this theorem to recover the result of [@fred]. For a class of lattices, called LL-lattices, containing the semimodular-supersolvable ones, a theorem due to Blass and Sagan [@blassagan] generalizes Stanley’s theorem.
The first main theorem of our article states that these intervals are indeed lattices, which was not known before. The proof uses a new description of the intervals using admissible partitions. Our second main result is the fact that these lattices are supersolvable. We prove it by giving explicit $S_n$ EL-labelings and using the recent criterion of McNamara [@macnamara]. As third result, we show that these intervals are LL-lattices and, using the theorem of Blass and Sagan mentioned above, we give a different proof of the factorization of characteristic polynomials and the explicit description of roots which were found in [@fred].
Notation, definitions and preliminaries
=======================================
In this section we give some definitions, notation and results that will be used in the rest of this work. Let ${\mathbb{N}}:= \{1,2,3, \ldots \}$ and ${\mathbb{Z}}$ the set of integers. For every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ let $[n]:=\{1,2,\ldots, n\}$. The cardinality of a finite set $A$ is denoted by $|A|$.
Posets
------
We follow Chapter 3 of [@staEC1] for any undefined notation and terminology concerning posets. Given a finite poset $(P,\leq)$ and $x,y \in P$ with $x\leq y$ we let $[x,y]:=\{z \in P \; : \; x\leq z
\leq y \}$ and call this an [*interval*]{} of $P$. We denote by ${\operatorname{Int}}(P)$ the set of all intervals of $P$. We say that $y$ [ *covers*]{} $x$, denoted $x \lhd y$, if $|[x,y]|=2$. A poset is said to be [*bounded*]{} if it has one minimal and one maximal element, denoted by ${\hat{0}}$ and $\hat{1}$ respectively. The [*Möbius function*]{} of $P$, $\mu: {\operatorname{Int}}(P) \rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}$, is defined recursively by
$$\mu(x,y) := \left \{\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{if $x=y$}, \\
- \sum_{x \leq z < y} \mu(x,z) & \mbox{if $x \neq y$}.
\end{array} \right.$$
If $x,y \in P$ are such that $\{ z \in P : \; z \geq x, z \geq y \}$ has a minimum element then we call it the [*join*]{} of $x$ and $y$, denoted by $x {\vee}y$. Similarly, we define the [*meet*]{} of $x$ and $y$ if $\{ z \in P: \; z \leq x , \; z \leq y\}$ has a maximum element, denoted by $x \wedge y$. A [*lattice*]{} is a poset $L$ for which every pair of elements has a meet and a join. A well-known criterion is the following (see e.g. [@staEC1 Proposition 3.3.1]).
\[lattice\] If $P$ is a finite poset with $\hat{1}$ such that every pair of elements has a meet then $P$ is a lattice.
A lattice $L$ that satisfies the following condition $$\label{semimodular}
{\rm if} \; x \; {\rm and} \; y \; {\rm both \; cover} \; x \wedge y,\;{\rm then} \; x {\vee}y\;{\rm covers \;both} \; x \; {\rm and} \; y,$$ is said to be [*semimodular*]{}. The set of [*atoms*]{} of a finite lattice $L$, *i.e.* the elements $a$ covering $\hat{0}$, is denoted by ${\textsf{A}}(L)$.
Edge-labelings
--------------
If $x,y \in P$, with $x \leq y$, a [*chain*]{} from $x$ to $y$ of [ *length*]{} $k$ is a $(k+1)$-tuple $(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ such that $x=x_0<x_1<\ldots<x_k=y$. A chain $x_0\lhd x_1 \lhd \ldots \lhd x_k$ is said to be [*saturated*]{}. A poset $P$ with a ${\hat{0}}$ is said to be *graded* if, for any $x \in P$, all saturated chains from ${\hat{0}}$ to $x$ have the same length, called the [*rank*]{} of $x$ and denoted by ${\operatorname{rk}}(x)$. We denote by ${\mathcal M}(P)$ the set of all maximal chains of $P$.
A function ${{\lambda}}:\{(x,y)\in P^2 : x \lhd y\} \rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}$ is an [*edge-labeling*]{} of $P$. For any saturated chain $m:x=x_0\lhd x_1
\lhd \ldots \lhd x_k=y$ of the interval $[x,y]$ we set $${{\lambda}}(m)=({{\lambda}}(x_0,x_1),{{\lambda}}(x_1,x_2),\ldots,{{\lambda}}(x_{k-1},x_k)).$$ The chain $m$ is said to be [*increasing*]{} if ${{\lambda}}(x_0,x_1)\leq
{{\lambda}}(x_1,x_2)\leq \cdots \leq {{\lambda}}(x_{k-1},x_k)$. Let $\leq_L$ be the lexicographic order on finite integer sequences, *i.e.* $(a_1,\ldots,a_k)<_L (b_1,\ldots, b_k)$ if and only if $a_i < b_i$ where $i=$ min$\{j \in [k]: a_j \neq b_j\}$.
An edge-labeling of $P$ is said to be an EL-$labeling$ if the following two conditions are satisfied:
- Every interval $[x,y]$ has exactly one increasing saturated chain $m$.
- Any other saturated chain $m^{\prime}$ from $x$ to $y$ satisfies ${{\lambda}}(m)<_L {{\lambda}}(m^{\prime})$.
A graded poset is said to be [*edge-wise lexicographically shellable*]{} or EL-$shellable$, if it has an EL-labeling. EL-shellable posets were first introduced by Björner [@bjorner]. Several connections with shellable, Cohen-Macaulay complexes and Cohen-Macaulay posets can be found in the survey paper [@bjgarsia]. In particular EL-shellable posets are Cohen-Macaulay [@bjorner].
A particular class of EL-labelings has an interesting property.
An EL-labeling ${{\lambda}}$ is said an $S_n$ EL-*labeling* if, for any maximal chain $m:{\hat{0}}=x_0\lhd x_1 \lhd \cdots \lhd x_n=\hat{1}$ of $P$, the label ${{\lambda}}(m)$ is a permutation of $[n]$. If a poset $P$ has an $S_n$ EL-labeling, then it is said to be $S_n$ EL-*shellable*.
Following [@staSS], we introduce the following definition. A finite lattice $L$ is said to be [*supersolvable*]{} if it contains a maximal chain, called an [*$M$-chain*]{} of $L$, which together with any other chain in $L$ generates a distributive sublattice. Examples of supersolvable lattices include modular lattices, the partition lattice $\Pi_n$ and the lattice of subgroups of a finite supersolvable group.
McNamara [@macnamara Theorem 1] has recently shown that supersolvable lattices are completely characterized by $S_n$ EL-shellability.
\[MN\] A finite graded lattice of rank $n$ is supersolvable if and only if it is $S_n$ -shellable.
Poset of forests {#forests}
----------------
A *tree* is a leaf-labeled rooted binary tree and a *forest* is a set of such trees. Vertices are either inner vertices (valence $3$) or leaves and roots (valence $1$). By convention, edges are oriented towards the root. Leaves are bijectively labeled by a finite set. Trees and forests are pictured with their roots down and their leaves up, but are not to be considered as planar. A leaf is an *ancestor* of a vertex if there is a path from the leaf to the root going through the vertex. If $F_1,F_2,\dots,F_k$ are forests on $I_1,I_2,\dots,I_k$, let $F_1
\sqcup F_2 \sqcup \dots \sqcup F_k$ be their disjoint union. For a forest $F$, we denote by ${{\mathcal V}}(F)$ the set of its [*inner vertices*]{} and by ${{\mathcal L}}(F)$ the set of [*leaves*]{}. The number of trees in a forest $F$ on $I$ is the difference between the cardinal of $I$ and the cardinal of ${{\mathcal V}}(F)$. By a [*subtree*]{} $T_v$ we mean the union of all paths starting from any vertex $v$ and going up to the leaves. Note that any subtree can be further divided in two parts denoted by $T^L$ and $T^R$ as shown in Figure \[subtree\].
Following [@fred], we introduce a partial order on the *set of forests on $I$* denoted by ${\operatorname{For}}(I)$.
[**Definition**]{} Let $F$ and $G$ be forests on the label set $I$. Then $F \leq G$ if there is a topological map from $F$ to $G$ with the following properties:
1. It is increasing with respect to orientation towards the root.
2. It maps inner vertices to inner vertices injectively.
3. It restricts to the identity of $I$ on leaves.
4. Its restriction to each tree of $F$ is injective.
In fact, such a topological map from $F$ to $G$ is determined up to isotopy by the images of the inner vertices of $F$. One can recover the map by joining the image of an inner vertex of $F$ in $G$ with the leaves of $G$ which were its ancestor leaves in $F$.
The following proposition can be found in [@fred Proposition 3.1].
\[graded\] The poset ${\operatorname{For}}(I)$ is graded by the number of inner vertices.
It was proved in [@fred] that the maximal elements of the poset ${\operatorname{For}}(I)$ are the trees. The forest without inner vertices is the unique minimal element and is denoted by ${\hat{0}}$. For any $J \subseteq I$, we denote by $|_J$ the tree such that ${{\mathcal V}}(|_J)=\emptyset$ and ${{\mathcal L}}(|_J)=J$. Note that ${\hat{0}}=|_I$.
Intervals are lattices {#latticity}
======================
In this section we fix a finite set of leaves $I$ of cardinality $n+1$ and consider a tree $T$ on $I$. We study the interval $[{\hat{0}},T]$ that is a graded bounded subposet of ${\operatorname{For}}(I)$. Our main goal is to show that $[{\hat{0}},T]$ is a lattice.
Any two distinct leaves $i,j \in I$ determine an inner vertex $v_{(i,j)} \in {{\mathcal V}}(T)$, as the intersection of the two paths starting from these leaves and going down to the root. Sometimes we will write $i \stackrel{v}{\longleftrightarrow} j$ instead of $v=v_{(i,j)}$. For any $J \subseteq I$, let $${{\mathcal S}}(J):=
\{v \in {{\mathcal V}}(T) \text{ : } v=v_{(i,j)} \text{ for some distinct } i,j \in J\}.$$
\[primo\] For any subset $J \subseteq I$, it is easy to see that $|{{\mathcal S}}(J)|=|J|-1$.
\[sub\] For any $J \subseteq I$, there exists a unique tree $T_J$ on $J$ such that $$T_J\sqcup |_{I \setminus J} \leq T.$$
We define $T_J$ to be the union of all the paths starting from the leaves in $J$ and going down to the root. It is easy to check that all conditions in the definition of the partial order of forests are satisfied.
\[arbre\] Let $J_1 \subseteq J_2$ be two subsets of $I$. Then $T_{J_1} \sqcup |_{I \setminus J_1} \leq T_{J_2} \sqcup |_{I \setminus J_2}$
The following definition is crucial in the rest of this paper.
Let $\pi=(\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_k)$ be a partition of $I$. We say that $\pi$ is [*$T$-admissible*]{} if and only if ${{\mathcal S}}(\pi_i)\cap{{\mathcal S}}(\pi_j)=\emptyset$ for all $i \neq j \in [k]$. We denote the set of all $T$-admissible partitions of $I$ by ${\operatorname{Ad}}(T)$.\
For example, let $T=F''$ be the tree in Figure \[contrex\] on the set $I=\{a,b,c,d\}$. Then $\{\{a,b\},\{c,d\}\}\in {\operatorname{Ad}}(T)$, but $\{\{a,c\},\{b,d\}\}$ is not a $T$-admissible partition of $I$, as in fact ${{\mathcal S}}(\{a,c\})={{\mathcal S}}(\{b,d\})=v_{(a,c)}$.
It is easy to see that ${\operatorname{Ad}}(T)$ is a poset by refinement order $\leq_r$, *i.e.* $(\pi_1, \ldots,\pi_n) \leq_r (\tau_1, \ldots,\tau_m)$ if and only if each block $\pi_i$ is contained in some block $\tau_j$.\
For example $\{\{a\},\{b,c\},\{d\}\} \leq_r \{\{a\},\{b,c,d\}\}$.
Let $F \in [{\hat{0}},T]$, $F=T_1\sqcup \ldots \sqcup T_k$, we define $$\Pi(F):=(\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_k),$$ where $\pi_i:={{\mathcal L}}(T_i)$ for all $i \in [k]$.\
Note that $\Pi(F)$ is a $T$-admissible partition by condition D2.
The map $\Pi:([{\hat{0}},T],\leq) \longrightarrow ({\operatorname{Ad}}(T),\leq_r)$ is an isomorphism of posets.
First we prove that $\Pi$ is a bijection. For every $\pi=(\pi_1,
\ldots,\pi_k)\in {\operatorname{Ad}}(T)$, let $$\label{gamma}
\Gamma(\pi):=T_{\pi_1}\sqcup\ldots\sqcup T_{\pi_k},$$ where each tree $T_{\pi_i}$ is defined by Lemma \[sub\].\
It is clear that $\Pi\circ \Gamma ={\operatorname{Id}}$. By the uniqueness in Lemma \[sub\], it follows that $\Gamma \circ \Pi = {\operatorname{Id}}$, and so $\Gamma$ is the inverse of $\Pi$.\
Now let $F,G \in [{\hat{0}},T]$ with $F \leq G$. Then, by condition D4, for all $T_F \in F$ there exists a $T_G
\in G$ such that ${{\mathcal L}}(T_F)\subseteq {{\mathcal L}}(T_G)$. It follows that $\Pi(F)\leq_r \Pi(G)$. Conversely, if $\pi \leq_r \pi^{\prime}$, then, by Remark \[arbre\], we have $\Gamma(\pi) \leq
\Gamma(\pi^{\prime})$. This concludes the proof.
From now on, forests in $[{\hat{0}},T]$ and $T$-admissible partitions are identified via the bijection $\Pi$.
We are ready to state and prove the main theorem of this section.
For each tree $T$ on the set $I$, the interval $[{\hat{0}},T]$ is a lattice.
As the interval has a ${\hat{1}}$, by Proposition \[lattice\] it suffices to prove that each $F,G \in [{\hat{0}},T]$ have a meet. Let $\Pi(F)=\pi=(\pi_1, \ldots,\pi_n)$ and $\Pi(G)=\tau=(\tau_1,
\ldots,\tau_m)$. We show that the meet of $\pi$ and $\tau$ as partitions, defined by $$\pi\wedge\tau:=(\pi_1\cap \tau_1)\cup(\pi_1\cap
\tau_2)\cup\ldots\cup (\pi_n\cap \tau_1)\cup\ldots \cup (\pi_n\cap
\tau_m),$$ is also in ${\operatorname{Ad}}(T)$. For every $(i,j) \neq
(i^{\prime},j^{\prime})\in [n]\times [m]$ we have that $${{\mathcal S}}(\pi_i
\cap \tau_j) \cap {{\mathcal S}}(\pi_{i^{\prime}}\cap \tau_{j^{\prime}})
\subseteq {{\mathcal S}}(\pi_i)\cap {{\mathcal S}}(\tau_j) \cap {{\mathcal S}}(\pi_{i^{\prime}}) \cap
{{\mathcal S}}(\tau_{j^{\prime}})=\emptyset,$$ because $\pi$ and $\tau$ are in ${\operatorname{Ad}}(T)$, hence either ${{\mathcal S}}(\pi_i)\cap{{\mathcal S}}(\pi_{i^{\prime}})$ or ${{\mathcal S}}(\tau_j)\cap{{\mathcal S}}(\tau_{j^{\prime}})$ is empty. It is immediate to see that $\pi \wedge \tau$ is the meet also in ${\operatorname{Ad}}(T)$, hence ${\operatorname{Ad}}(T)$ is a lattice and we are done.
$S_n$ EL-labelings on $[{\hat{0}},T]$ {#snelling}
=====================================
In this section we introduce an edge-labeling on the poset $[{\hat{0}},T]$ and prove that it is an $S_n$ EL-labeling. By Theorem \[MN\] it follows that the lattice $[{\hat{0}},T]$ is supersolvable.
A partial order $\preceq$ is defined on the set ${{\mathcal V}}(T)$ in the following way.
[**Definition**]{} A vertex $v$ is smaller than a vertex $v'$, denoted by $v \preceq v'$, if $v'$ is on the path between the root and $v$. Any total order extending this partial order on ${{\mathcal V}}(T)$ is called a *nice* total order, still denoted by $\preceq$.
Using a nice total order, one can label the inner vertices by integer numbers from $1$ to $n$. From now on, inner vertices and labels are identified in this way using a fixed nice total order. Note that the bottom vertex is the maximum element for the order $\preceq$. An example is drawn in Figure \[totalorder\].
Now we introduce an edge-labeling as follows. First remark that for all $F\leq G \in [{\hat{0}},T]$, one has ${{\mathcal V}}(F) \subseteq {{\mathcal V}}(G) \subseteq
{{\mathcal V}}(T)$. Moreover if $F \lhd G$, by Proposition \[graded\], there exists a unique $v \in {{\mathcal V}}(G)$ such that ${{\mathcal V}}(G)={{\mathcal V}}(F) \cup \{v\}$.
[**Definition**]{} Let $F \lhd G \in [{\hat{0}},T]$. Then we define ${{\lambda}}:\{(F,G)\; : \; F \lhd G\}
\rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}$ by $${{\mathcal V}}(G)={{\mathcal V}}(F) \cup \{{{\lambda}}(F,G)\},$$ where ${{\lambda}}(F,G)$ is the label of $v$.\
An example of this edge-labeling is shown in Figure \[shelling\]. The proof of the following lemma is immediate.
\[perm\] The label of a maximal chain of $[F,G]$ is a permutation of the set ${{\mathcal V}}(G) \setminus {{\mathcal V}}(F)$.
\[chain\] For each $F \in [{\hat{0}},T]\setminus \{T\}$, there exists a unique $G \in
[{\hat{0}},T]$ covering $F$ such that $${{\lambda}}(F,G)={\rm min}({{\mathcal V}}(T) \setminus {{\mathcal V}}(F)).$$
Let $\Pi(F)=\pi$ and let $v_0:={\rm min}({{\mathcal V}}(T) \setminus {{\mathcal V}}(F))$. Consider the two subtrees starting from $v_0$, as explained in § \[forests\], denoted $T_{v_0}^L$ and $T_{v_0}^R$. We show that ${{\mathcal L}}(T_{v_0}^R)$ is contained in one part of $\pi$.\
Each $w \in {{\mathcal V}}(T_{v_0}^R)$ is such that $w \prec v_0$. It follows that $w \in {{\mathcal V}}(F)$ by minimality of $v_0$. Let $i \neq j \in
{{\mathcal L}}(T_{v_0}^R)$, then there is $v \in {{\mathcal V}}(T_{v_0}^R) \subseteq {{\mathcal V}}(F)$ such that $i\stackrel{v}{\longleftrightarrow}j$. Hence $i,j$ are in the same part of $\pi$. Therefore ${{\mathcal L}}(T_{v_0}^R)$ is contained in only one part of $\pi$ denoted by $\pi_R$. The same result is true for $T_{v_0}^L$, and we denote the corresponding part by $\pi_L$. As $v_0\not\in {{\mathcal V}}(F)$, the parts $\pi_L$ and $ \pi_R$ are distinct. We define a new partition $$\pi^{\prime}:=(\pi_L \sqcup \pi_R,\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_{k}),$$ where $\pi_j$ are the remaining parts of $\pi$. From now on, we denote $\pi_L \sqcup \pi_R$ by $\pi_{LR}$.\
To show that $\pi^{\prime} \in {\operatorname{Ad}}(T)$, it suffices to prove that $$\label{eq}
{{\mathcal S}}(\pi_{LR}) \cap {{\mathcal S}}(\pi_j) = \emptyset, \;\;\; {\rm for \; all
\;} j \in [k].$$ We have that ${{\mathcal S}}(\pi_{LR}) \supseteq {{\mathcal S}}(\pi_L)\cup{{\mathcal S}}(\pi_R)\cup\{v_0\}$. On the other hand, by Remark \[primo\], we have that $|{{\mathcal S}}(\pi_L)|+|{{\mathcal S}}(\pi_R)|+1=|{{\mathcal S}}(\pi_{LR})|$, and so we have an equality.\
Now, for any $j \in [k]$, the vertex $v_0$ is not in ${{\mathcal S}}(\pi_j)$, because all the ancestors of $v_0$ are in $\pi_L$ or in $\pi_R$. Hence condition $(\ref{eq})$ is verified and the proof of theorem follows by defining $G:=\Gamma(\pi_{LR},\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_{k})$, where $\Gamma$ is defined in (\[gamma\]).
The preceding lemma can be extended as follows.
\[chain2\] For each $F, H \in [{\hat{0}},T]$, $F< H$ there exists a unique $G \in
[{\hat{0}},T]$ covering $F$ such that $${{\lambda}}(F,G)={\rm min}({{\mathcal V}}(H) \setminus {{\mathcal V}}(F)).$$
If $H=T$ then the result is given by Lemma \[chain\]. Otherwise let $H=H_1 \sqcup H_2\sqcup \ldots \sqcup H_k$, where $H_j$ is a tree for all $j\in [k]$. Since $F \leq H$, we have $F=F_1 \sqcup
F_2\sqcup \ldots \sqcup F_k$ where $F_j$ is a forest, for all $j\in
[k]$. It was observed in [@fred Proposition 2.1] that the interval $[F,H]$ is isomorphic to $\prod_{j=1}^k[F_j,H_j]$. Let $v_1:={\rm min}({{\mathcal V}}(H) \setminus {{\mathcal V}}(F))$. We have ${{\mathcal V}}(H)={{\mathcal V}}(H_1) \cup
{{\mathcal V}}(H_2)\cup \ldots \cup {{\mathcal V}}(H_k)$ and, after re-ordering, we can assume that $v_1 \in {{\mathcal V}}(H_1)$. Then, by Lemma \[chain\] applied to $[F_1,H_1]$, there exists a unique $G_1 \in [F_1,H_1]$ covering $F_1$ such that ${{\lambda}}(F_1,G_1)=v_1$. Define $G=G_1\sqcup F_2 \sqcup
\ldots \sqcup F_k$ in $[F,H]$. Then $G$ is the unique forest of $[F,H]$, covering $F$, such that ${{\lambda}}(F,G)=v_1$. This concludes the proof.
\[labeling\] The lattice $[{\hat{0}},T]$ is -shellable.
By Lemma \[perm\], for any interval $[F,G]$ of $[{\hat{0}},T]$, the unique possible increasing label for a saturated chain from $F$ to $G$ is given by the unique increasing permutation of the elements of ${{\mathcal V}}(G)\setminus {{\mathcal V}}(F)$.\
Then Proposition \[chain2\] implies that there exists an unique chain $m$ from $F$ to $G$ with this label. The other maximal chains of $[F,G]$ are labeled by different permutations, which are lexicographically greater than the increasing one.\
Hence the edge-labeling $\lambda$ is an EL-labeling.
The lattice $[{\hat{0}},T]$ is supersolvable.
By Theorem \[labeling\], ${{\lambda}}$ is an EL-labeling and by Lemma \[perm\], ${{\lambda}}(m)$ is a permutation of $[n]$ for each maximal chain $m$. Hence $\lambda$ is an $S_n$ EL-labeling and the result follows from Theorem \[MN\].
\[semi\] Note that $[{\hat{0}},T]$ is not semimodular in general. For example, the atoms $\{\{j,k\},\{i\},\{l\}\}$ and $\{\{i,l\},\{j\},\{k\}\}$ in Figure \[shelling\] do not satisfy the condition (\[semimodular\]).
Characteristic polynomials
==========================
In this section, we recover the results of [@fred] concerning the characteristic polynomials of the intervals $[{\hat{0}},T]$. Note that, by Remark \[semi\], the well-known theorem of Stanley [@staSS Theorem 4.1] (see also [@sagan99 Theorem 6.2]) on the factorization of the characteristic polynomials of semimodular supersolvable lattices, does not apply. We use instead a stronger theorem due to Blass and Sagan [@blassagan].
LL-lattices
-----------
Recall that the characteristic polynomial of a graded finite lattice $L$ of rank $n$ is $$\chi_L(t)=\sum_{y \in L}\mu({\hat{0}},y) t^{n-{\operatorname{rk}}(y)},$$ where $\mu$ is the Möbius function of $L$ and ${\operatorname{rk}}(y)$ is the rank of $y$.
Following [@blassagan], we define an element $x$ of a lattice $L$ to be [*left-modular*]{} if, for all $y \leq z$, $$y {\vee}(x \wedge z) = (y {\vee}x) \wedge z.$$ A maximal chain $m \in {\mathcal M(L)}$ is said to be [ *left-modular*]{} if all its elements are left-modular.
\[Mchain\] From [@staSS Proposition 2.2], it follows that if $L$ is a supersolvable lattice then its $M$-chain is left-modular.
Any maximal chain $m: {\hat{0}}=x_0 \lhd x_1 \lhd \cdots \lhd
x_n=\hat{1}$ defines a partition of the set of atoms ${\textsf{A}}$ into subsets called [*levels*]{} indexed by $i \in [n]$: $$\label{defia}
{\textsf{A}}_i=\{ a \in {\textsf{A}}\text{ : } a \leq x_i \text{ and }a\not\leq x_{i-1}\}.$$
The partial order $\lhd_m$ on ${\textsf{A}}$ [*induced*]{} by the maximal chain $m$ is defined by $$a \lhd_m b \; {\rm if \; and \; only \; if } \; a \in {\textsf{A}}_i \; {\rm and}
\; b \in {\textsf{A}}_j \; {\rm with} \; i <j.$$ This partial order should not be confused with the covering relation.
Then the following is called the [*level condition*]{} with respect to $m$: $${\rm if } \; a_0\lhd_m a_1 \lhd_m a_2 \lhd_m \cdots \lhd_m a_k, \; {\rm then} \; a_0 \not \leq \bigvee_{i=1}^{k} a_i.$$
A lattice $L$ having a maximal chain $m$ that is left-modular and satisfies the level condition is called an LL-*lattice*.
The following theorem is due to Blass and Sagan [@blassagan Theorem 6.5].
\[blass\] Let $P$ be an [LL]{}-lattice of rank $n$. Let ${\textsf{A}}_i$ be the levels with respect to the left-modular chain of $P$. Then $$\chi_P(t)=\prod_{i=1}^{n} (t-| {\textsf{A}}_i |).$$
Factorization of characteristic polynomials
-------------------------------------------
A tree $T$ with $n$ inner vertices and leaf set $I$ is fixed. A nice total order on ${{\mathcal V}}(T)$ is chosen, defining an edge-labeling as in §\[snelling\].
The set ${\textsf{A}}$ of atoms of $[{\hat{0}},T]$ is the set of pairs $(i,j)$ of distinct elements of $I$. To each atom $(i,j)$ is associated an inner vertex $v_{(i,j)}$ of $T$ as defined in §\[latticity\]. The covering edge ${\hat{0}}\lhd (i,j)$ is labeled by the integer in $[n]$ corresponding to $v_{(i,j)}$ in the chosen total order on ${{\mathcal V}}(T)$.
\[join\] Let $a_1,a_2,\dots,a_k \in {\textsf{A}}$ with pairwise distinct vertices $v_1,v_2,\dots,v_k$ in ${{\mathcal V}}(T)$. Then ${{\mathcal V}}(a_1 {\vee}a_2 {\vee}\dots {\vee}a_k)=\{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_k\}$.
Let $V=\{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_k\}$. Let $\pi^{(1)},\pi^{(2)},\dots,\pi ^{(k)}$ be the partitions of $I$ associated to $a_1,a_2,\dots,a_k$. Let $\pi$ be the join $\pi ^{(1)}
{\vee}\pi ^{(2)} {\vee}\dots {\vee}\pi ^{(k)}$ in the lattice of partitions. We want to show that $\pi \in {\operatorname{Ad}}(T)$ and that ${{\mathcal V}}(\pi)=V$.\
Let $p$ be a part of $\pi$. Let $V_p$ be the set of vertices in $V$ whose corresponding atoms in $\{a_1,\dots,a_k\}$ have their leaves in $p$. Observe that the sets $V_p$ form a partition of $V$ because atoms in $\{a_1,\dots,a_k\}$ have pairwise distinct vertices. Let $v$ be a vertex in ${{\mathcal S}}(p)$. This means that there exists $i,j$ in $p$ such that $i\stackrel{v}{\longleftrightarrow}j$. As $p$ is a part of a join, there exists a chain $$i=i_0\stackrel{t_0}{\longleftrightarrow}i_1
\stackrel{t_1}{\longleftrightarrow}i_2\dots
i_{\ell-1}\stackrel{t_{\ell-1}}{\longleftrightarrow}
i_\ell \stackrel{t_\ell}{\longleftrightarrow} i_{\ell+1}=j,$$ where each $i_r \stackrel{t_r}{\longleftrightarrow} i_{r+1}$ is an atom in $\{a_1,\dots,a_k\}$ with vertex in $V_p$.\
In the rest of the proof, the symbol $\preceq$ stands for the partial order introduced in §\[snelling\].\
Let us prove by induction on the length $\ell$ of the chain that there exists $\theta_\ell$ in $V_p$ such that $\theta_\ell \succeq
t_0$ and $\theta_\ell \succeq t_\ell$.\
If $\ell=0$, then one can take $\theta_0=t_0$. Assume that there exists $\theta_{\ell-1}$ in $V_p$ such that $\theta_{\ell-1} \succeq
t_0$ and $\theta_{\ell-1} \succeq t_{\ell-1}$. The path joining the leaf $i_\ell$ to the root contains the vertices $t_{\ell-1}$,$t_\ell$ and hence also by induction hypothesis the vertex $\theta_{\ell-1}$. Either $t_{\ell} \preceq \theta_{\ell-1}$, and one can take $\theta_{\ell}=\theta_{\ell-1}$ or $t_{\ell}
\succeq \theta_{\ell-1}$ and one can take $\theta_{\ell}=t_{\ell}$. This concludes the induction.\
Therefore $\theta_{\ell} \in V_p$ is such that $i\stackrel{\theta_\ell}{\longleftrightarrow}j$. Hence $\theta_\ell=v \in V_p$ and so ${{\mathcal S}}(p) \subseteq V_p$. The converse inclusion is clear.\
Now let $p$ and $p'$ be two different parts of $\pi$. Then ${{\mathcal S}}(p)\cap {{\mathcal S}}(p')=V_p \cap V_{p'}$ is empty. Hence $\pi$ is $T$-admissible.\
We have proved that $\pi$ is $T$-admissible and that the vertices of $\pi$ are exactly $V$. It follows that $\pi$ defines the join $a_1 {\vee}\dots {\vee}a_k$ in $[{\hat{0}},T]$ and the proposition is proved.
Define another partition of ${\textsf{A}}$ indexed by $i \in [n]$: $${\textsf{B}}_i=\{ a \in {\textsf{A}}\text{ : } \lambda({\hat{0}},a)=i \}.$$
Let $m:{\hat{0}}=x_0\lhd x_1 \lhd \dots \lhd x_n=T$ be the fixed modular chain of $[{\hat{0}},T]$, *i.e.* the unique increasing maximal chain for the fixed labeling.
\[atomic\] Let $i \in [n]$. For each $j \in [i]$, let $a_j$ be an atom in ${\textsf{B}}_j$. Then $$x_i=a_1 {\vee}a_2 {\vee}\dots {\vee}a_i.$$
The proof is by induction on $i$. By Proposition \[chain2\], $x_1=a_1$ is the unique atom in ${\textsf{B}}_1$. Assume that $x_{i-1}=a_1
{\vee}\dots {\vee}a_{i-1}$. Then $a_1 {\vee}\dots {\vee}a_{i-1}
{\vee}a_{i}$ is $x_{i-1} {\vee}a_{i}$ and has rank $i$ by Proposition \[join\]. Moreover we have that $\lambda(x_{i-1},x_{i-1} {\vee}a_{i})=i$. By uniqueness in Proposition \[chain2\], it follows that $x_{i}=x_{i-1} {\vee}a_{i}$.
\[aabb\] Let ${\textsf{A}}_i$ be the levels with respect to $m$. Then for each $i\in
[n]$, $${{\textsf{A}}}_i={{\textsf{B}}}_i.$$
It suffices to prove that $$\{ a \in {\textsf{A}}\text{ : } a \leq x_i \}=\{ a \in {\textsf{A}}\text{ : }
\lambda({\hat{0}},a)\in [i] \}.$$ If $a \leq x_i$, then $\lambda({\hat{0}},a)$ is one of the vertices of $x_i$, *i.e.* belongs to $[i]$. Conversely, take any atom $a$ with $\lambda({\hat{0}},a)$ in $[i]$. Choose other atoms to have one atom in each ${\textsf{B}}_j$ for $j \in [i]$. Then, by Lemma \[atomic\], $x_i$ is the join of $a$ and the other chosen atoms, so $a \leq x_i$.
\[lllattice\] The lattice $[{\hat{0}},T]$ is an -lattice.
This lattice is supersolvable, so by Remark \[Mchain\] the $M$-chain is a left-modular chain. It remains to check the level condition. Take atoms $a_0,a_1,\dots, a_k$ which belongs to pairwise different ${\textsf{A}}_i$. By Lemma \[aabb\], these atoms belong to pairwise different ${\textsf{B}}_i$. Then by Proposition \[join\] the set of vertices of the join $a_1 {\vee}\dots {\vee}a_k$ does not contain the vertex of the atom $a_0$. This ensures the level condition.
Now we are ready to state and prove the main result of this section, which was already proved in [@fred Theorem 4.6].
The characteristic polynomial of $[{\hat{0}},T]$ is $$\chi_{[{\hat{0}},T]}(t)=\prod_{v \in {{\mathcal V}}(T)} (t-e(v)),$$ where $e(v)$ is the product of the number of left ancestor leaves of $v$ by the number of right ancestor leaves of $v$.
By Proposition \[lllattice\], one can apply Theorem \[blass\] to $[{\hat{0}},T]$. Let us count the number of elements of ${\textsf{A}}_i$ for each $i$. By Lemma \[aabb\], this is equal to the cardinality of ${\textsf{B}}_i$. Let $v$ be the vertex of $T$ with index $i$. It is easy to see that the number of atoms in ${\textsf{B}}_i$ is the number of left ancestor leaves of $v$ times the number of right ancestor leaves of $v$.
For example, the characteristic polynomial of the interval $[{\hat{0}},
T]$ where $T$ is the tree in Figure \[arbrexpo\] is $\chi_{[{\hat{0}},T]}(t)=(t-1)^3(t-4)^2(t-10)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The Radio Environment Map (REM) provides an effective approach to Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA) in Cognitive Radio Networks (CRNs). Previous results on REM construction show that there exists a tradeoff between the number of measurements (sensors) and REM accuracy. In this paper, we analyze this tradeoff and determine that the REM error is a decreasing and convex function of the number of measurements (sensors). The concept of geographic entropy is introduced to quantify this relationship. And the influence of sensor deployment on REM accuracy is examined using information theory techniques. The results obtained in this paper are applicable not only for the REM, but also for wireless sensor network deployment.\
author:
-
- '[^1]'
title: On the Construction of Radio Environment Maps for Cognitive Radio Networks
---
Geographic Entropy, Spatial Radio Resource, Sensor Deployment, Radio Environment Map
Introduction
============
Increases in the number of wireless communication systems has created a heterogeneous radio environment where multiple Radio Access Technologies (RATs) coexist in the same time and space. As a result, User Equipment (UE) with cognitive capabilities is crucial for flexible radio resource usage. Mitola first proposed Cognitive Radio (CR) in 1998 as a context-aware radio technology that can be reconfigured to adapt to the environment [@CR_Mitola]. The Radio Environment Map (REM) has been proposed as a database for dynamic spectrum access based on UE location and spectrum usage. It contains multi-dimensional cognitive information such as geographic features, spectral regulations, equipment locations, radio activity logs, user policies, and service providers [@CR_Performance_Evaluation].
To build a REM, sensors (or UE) must be deployed to detect the radio environment. The measurement data from the sensors is reported to an REM manager. Several approaches have been employed for REM construction. In [@REM_Fast_Algorithm], Grimoud *et al.* used an iterative process to obtain the REM based on Kriging interpolation to reduce the measurement data required. Riihijärvi *et al.* [@REM_spatial_statistics] developed a probabilistic model for the REM which exploits the correlation in the measured data to reduce the complexity. And Atanasovski *et al.* [@REM_Heterogeneous_sensor] produced an REM prototype using heterogeneous spectrum sensors.
The goal of previous work on REM construction was to reduce the number of measurements required and improve REM accuracy. There is a tradeoff between the number of measurements (or number of sensors), and the accuracy. Faint *et al.* [@REM_number_sensor_and_REM] examined this relationship using computer simulation, and showed that increasing the sensor density can increase REM accuracy. However, when the sensors are sufficiently dense, the improvement is not significant. In this paper, we examine this tradeoff theoretically and determine that the relationship between the radio parameter error (REM accuracy), is ${p_e} = \Theta (\frac{1}{{\sqrt M }})$, where $M$ is the number of sensors. Besides, we obtain a closed form expression for $p_e$ as a function of $M$, which is a decreasing and convex function. This verifies the simulation results in [@REM_number_sensor_and_REM]. Converse to previous approaches, we build the REM by considering the coverage of all networks, which is inspired by the Cognitive Pilot Channel (CPC) technology in [@CPC_Ondemand]. Our results are not only applicable to REM construction, but also to deployment in wireless sensor networks (WSN).
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Sensor deployment and its relationship to REM construction is presented in Section II. The analysis of this relationship is provided in Section III. In Section IV, we examine the tradeoff between the number of sensors and REM accuracy. Section V presents some numerical results, and finally some concluding remarks are given in Section VI.
Sensor Deployment
=================
The region is divided into small meshes, which are shown as small squares in Fig. \[fig\_system\_model\]. Sensors are deployed over the entire region, and can be network detectors, spectrum sensing entities or just UE. Two sensor deployment schemes are considered, one-mesh-one-sensor and random sensor deployment. In the one-mesh-one-sensor scheme, a sensor is deployed in each mesh randomly. Thus the number of sensors is equal to the number of meshes. A sensor measurement is considered to be the radio environment for the entire mesh. Thus after gathering all sensor measurements, the REM can be constructed (an example is shown in Fig. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\]($\rm{a_1}$)). With random sensor deployment, the sensors are randomly deployed in the region without regard for mesh boundaries. In this case, the majority of the sensor measurements in a mesh determines the radio environment, and these values are used to construct the REM for the region (examples are given in Fig. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\]($\rm{b_1}$) and ($\rm{c_1}$)).
![The heterogeneous radio network distribution and sensor deployment for REM construction.[]{data-label="fig_system_model"}](system_model.eps){width="35.00000%"}
REM Construction
================
REM parameters
--------------
Define the binary representation of network $k$ at location $(x,y)$ as $$\label{eq_binary_representation}
R{\rm{(}}k,x,y{\rm{)}} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
1 \mbox{ if network } k \mbox{ is detected at }(x,y)\\
0 \mbox{ otherwise}\\
\end{array} \right.$$ Radio parameter at a location is characterized by the following sum of the binary representations for all networks [@CPC_Ondemand] $$\label{eq_radio_parameters}
I(x,y) = \sum \limits_{k = 1}^T {R(k,x,y) \times 2^{k - 1} }$$ where $T$ is the number of networks. The radio parameter of mesh $i$ is then $$\label{eq_radio_parameter_majority}
P = \mathop {\arg\max {p_{ij}}}\limits_j$$ where $p_{ij}$ is the fraction of the area in mesh $i$ with radio parameter $j$, and $\sum\nolimits_{j = 1}^N {{p_{ij}}} = 1$. $N=2^T$ is the number of radio parameters. In Fig. \[fig\_system\_model\], there are $8$ radio parameters and the radio parameter of mesh 2 is 0.
The radio parameter error (RPE) of mesh $i$ is defined as $$\label{eq_pe_definition}
{p_{e,i}} = 1 - \mathop {\max {p_{ij}}}\limits_j,$$ and the RPE of the entire region is defined as $${p_e} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {{\alpha _i}{p_{e,i}}}$$ where $M$ is the number of meshes. The RPE is not a continuous and smooth function of $p_{ij}$, thus we define the geographic entropy (GE) for convenience. The geographic entropy of a mesh is defined as the corresponding uncertainty of the radio environment in this mesh. In Fig. \[fig\_system\_model\], we are more certain about the radio environment in mesh \#1 than that in mesh \#2, since the radio environment in mesh \#2 is more composite. Similar to the Shannon entropy [@Cover], the geographic entropy of mesh $i$ is defined as $$\label{GEmesh}
{H_i} = - \sum\limits_{j = 1}^N {{p_{ij}}\log {p_{ij}}},$$ and the geographic entropy of the entire region is defined as $$H = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {{\alpha _i}{H_i}} = - \sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {{\alpha
_i}\sum\limits_{n = 1}^N {{p_{ij}}\log {p_{ij}}} }$$ where $\alpha _i$ is the area fraction of mesh $i$ compared to the area of the entire region. For a regular mesh division, such as Fig. \[fig\_system\_model\], ${\alpha _i} = \frac{1}{M}$ and $$\label{eq_entropy_rate}
H = \frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {{H_i}}.$$
RPE and GE properties
---------------------
In this section, we investigate the geographic entropy and radio parameter error, and the relationship between them.
\[th\_jiangshang\] The geographic entropy of the entire region is ${{\rm O}}({\frac{1}{{\sqrt M }}} ) \to 0$, where $M$ is the number of meshes.
The meshes with an impure radio environment are distributed along the network boundaries (shown as a solid curve in Fig. \[fig\_packing\]). Denote the length of all these boundaries as $\xi$, the length of a mesh edge as $\varepsilon$, and the length of the region edge as $L$. Then we have $M = {( {\frac{L}{\varepsilon }} )^2}$, and the number of meshes with impure radio environment is upper bounded by $$\label{eq_K_upper_bound}
K \le \frac{{2\xi \sqrt 2 \varepsilon }}{{{\varepsilon ^2}}} = \frac{{2\sqrt 2 \xi}}{\varepsilon }.$$ This result is obtained by considering the corresponding packing problem along the boundary, which is shown as a solid curve in Fig. \[fig\_packing\]. Moving each point on this line in the two normal directions a distance $\sqrt 2 \varepsilon$ gives the two dotted lines. The area between these lines is $2\xi \sqrt 2 \varepsilon$. All the meshes with an impure radio environment are located between these dotted lines, so an upper bound on $K$ is $2\xi \sqrt 2 \varepsilon$ divided by the area of a mesh. An upper bound on the geographic entropy is then $$H \le \frac{1}{M}K\log N \le \frac{1}{M}\frac{{2\sqrt 2 \xi }}{\varepsilon }\log N =
\frac{1}{{\sqrt M }}\frac{{2\sqrt 2 \xi \log N}}{{\sqrt S }},$$ so that ${\rm O} \left( {\frac{1}{{\sqrt M }}} \right) \to 0$ is an upper bound on $H$.
![The boundary used to determine an upper bound on $K$.[]{data-label="fig_packing"}](packing.eps){width="35.00000%"}
\[TH\_pe\_upper\] The RPE of the entire region is ${{\rm O}}\left( {\frac{1}{{\sqrt M }}} \right) \to 0$, where $M$ is the number of meshes.
From $1 - {p_{e,i}} = \mathop {\max {p_{ij}}}\limits_j \ge \frac{1}{N}$, we have that $$\label{eq_pei_upper_bound}
{p_{e,i}} \le 1 - \frac{1}{N}.$$ The RPE of the entire region is then upper bounded by $$\label{eq_RPE_upper_bound}
{p_e} \le \frac{1}{M}K\left( {1 - \frac{1}{N}} \right) \le \frac{1}{{\sqrt M }}\frac{{2\sqrt 2 \xi L}}{S}\left( {1 - \frac{1}{N}} \right)$$ which gives the required result.
Theorems \[th\_jiangshang\] and \[TH\_pe\_upper\] show the scaling of the GE and RPE as a function of $M$. The relationship between these parameters is given in the following theorem.
\[th\_relation\] The geographic entropy as a function of the radio parameter error is upper bounded by $$\label{origion}
H \le H(p_e) + {p_e}\log \left| {N - 1} \right| \buildrel \Delta \over = \psi ({p_e})$$
According to Fano’s inequality, we have $${H_i} \le H({p_{e,i}}) + {p_{e,i}}\log \left| {N - 1} \right| \buildrel \Delta \over = \psi ({p_{e,i}})$$ where $H_i$ is the entropy of mesh $i$. Taking the sum gives $$H = \frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {{H_i}} \le \frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {\psi ({p_{e,i}})} \mathop \le \limits^{(a)} \psi \left( {\frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {{p_{e,i}}} } \right),$$ where $(a)$ is due to Jensen’s inequality from the concavity of $\psi (x)$. Using ${p_e} = \frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {{p_{e,i}}}$, the proof is complete.
The following information theoretic lower bound on the entropy as a function of the error probability was given by Feder and Merhav [@Meir].
\[lemma\_meir\] A lower bound on the entropy $h$ as a function of the error probability $\pi$ is given by $h \ge {\phi}(\pi)$ where $$\begin{array}{l}
{\phi}(\pi ) \\
= \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{a_1}\pi + {b_1}} \hfill & {0 \le \pi \le \frac{1}{2}} \hfill \\
{{a_2}(\pi - \frac{1}{2}) + {b_2}} \hfill & {\frac{1}{2} \le \pi \le \frac{2}{3}} \hfill \\
\vdots \hfill & \vdots \hfill \\
{{a_i}(\pi - \frac{{i - 1}}{i}) + {b_i}} \hfill & {\frac{{i - 1}}{i} \le \pi \le \frac{i}{{i + 1}}} \hfill \\
\vdots \hfill & \vdots \hfill \\
{{a_{N - 1}}(\pi - \frac{{N - 2}}{{N - 1}}) + {b_{N - 1}}} \hfill & {\frac{{N - 2}}{{N - 1}} \le \pi \le \frac{{N - 1}}{N}} \hfill \\
\end{array}} \right. \\
\end{array}$$ with ${a_i} = i(i + 1)\log \left( {\frac{{i + 1}}{i}} \right)$ and ${b_i} = \log i$.
From [@Meir], ${\phi}(\pi )$ is an monotone increasing and convex function of $\pi$ (see Fig. 1 in [@Meir], where $\phi^*$ corresponds to $\phi$ in this paper). Based on Lemma \[lemma\_meir\], we have the following theorem.
\[th\_relation\_lowerbound\] A lower bound on the geographic entropy of the entire region as a function of the radio parameter error $p_e$ is given by $$\label{relation_lowerbound}
H \ge {\phi}({p_e}).$$
In Lemma \[lemma\_meir\], let $h = H_i$ and $\pi = p_{e,i}$ so that $${H_i} \ge \phi ({p_{e,i}}).$$ The geographic entropy is then $$H = \frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {{H_i}} \ge \frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {\phi ({p_{e,i}})}.$$ Since $\phi (p_{e,i} )$ is a convex function of $p_{e,i}$, a lower bound on $H$ is given by $$H \ge \frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {{\phi }({p_{e,i}})} \mathop \ge \limits^{(b)} {\phi }(\frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {{p_{e.i}}} ) = {\phi }({p_e})$$ where $(b)$ is due to Jensen’s inequality.
Combining Theorems \[th\_relation\] and \[th\_relation\_lowerbound\], we have $$\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\phi \left( {{p_e}} \right) \le H \le \psi \left( {{p_e}} \right)} \\
{{\psi ^{ - 1}}\left( {{H}} \right) \le {p_e} \le {\phi ^{ - 1}}\left( {{H}} \right)} \\
\end{array}$$ Thus the geographic entropy is related to the radio parameter error, and *an increase of (a reduction of) the geographic entropy may increase (reduce) the radio parameter error*.
The mesh configuration will also affect geographic entropy and the RPE, as shown in the following theorem.
If any two meshes are fused, the entropy of the entire region will not decrease.
Assume meshes 1 and 2 are fused. The radio parameter distribution of mesh $i$ is ${p_{i1}},{p_{i2}}, \ldots ,{p_{iN}}$, and the area of mesh $i$ is $s_i$. The radio parameter distribution of the fused mesh is $$\begin{aligned}
& \{ {{p'}_1},{{p'}_2}, \cdots ,{{p'}_N}\} = \\
& \left\{ \frac{{{s_1}{p_{11}} + {s_2}{p_{21}}}}{{{s_1} + {s_2}}},\frac{{{s_1}{p_{12}} +
{s_2}{p_{22}}}}{{{s_1} + {s_2}}}, \cdots ,\frac{{{s_1}{p_{1N}} + {s_2}{p_{2N}}}}{{{s_1} +
{s_2}}}\right\}
\end{aligned}$$ As the entropy is concave [@Cover], we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{{{s_1}}}{{{s_1} + {s_2}}}H({p_{11}},{p_{12}}, \ldots ,{p_{1N}}) + \frac{{{s_2}}}{{{s_1} + {s_2}}}H({p_{21}},{p_{22}}, \ldots ,{p_{2N}}) \\
& \le H\left(\frac{{{s_1}{p_{11}} + {s_2}{p_{21}}}}{{{s_1} + {s_2}}},\frac{{{s_1}{p_{12}} +
{s_2}{p_{22}}}}{{{s_1} + {s_2}}}, \ldots ,\frac{{{s_1}{p_{1N}} + {s_2}{p_{2N}}}}{{{s_1} + {s_2}}}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\label{budengshi}
{s_1}{H_1} + {s_2}{H_2} \le ({s_1} + {s_2})H({{p'}_1},{{p'}_2}, \ldots, {{p'}_N}).$$ Before fusion, the entropy of the entire region is $$H = \frac{{{s_1}{H_1} + {s_2}{H_2}}}{S} + \frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 3}^M {{H_i}} }}{S}$$ where $S$ is the region area. After fusion, this entropy is $$H' = \frac{{({s_1} + {s_2})H({{p'}_1},{{p'}_2}, \ldots, {{p'}_N})}}{S} +
\frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 3}^M {{H_i}} }}{S}.$$ From (\[budengshi\]), $H \le H'$, so the entropy of the region is not decreased after fusion.
Duality provides the following theorem.
\[th\_mesh\_division\_reduce\_entropy\] Any mesh division operation will not increase the entropy or the radio parameter error of the region.
Theorem \[th\_mesh\_division\_reduce\_entropy\] shows that if some meshes are divided into smaller meshes (such as the meshes with composite radio propagation environment), and the one-mesh-one-sensor scheme is adopted, then the geographic entropy as well as the RPE can be reduced. We next examine the tradeoff between the number of sensors and the REM accuracy.
REM Construction Tradeoffs
==========================
In section III, we show that the number of meshes (measurements, sensors) impact the geographic entropy as will as the RPE. In this section, we investigate the tradeoff between the number of sensors and the REM accuracy with a near precise result.
$$\label{eq_expectation_of_length_in_mesh}
E[{\xi _i}] = \int_0^{\frac{\pi }{4}} {\left( {\int_0^{\sin \theta } {\left( {x\tan \theta + x\cot \theta } \right){f_X}(x)dx} + \int_{\sin \theta }^{\frac{{\sqrt 2 L\sin \left( {\theta + \frac{\pi }{4}} \right)}}{2}} {\frac{1}{{\cos \theta }}{f_X}(x)dx} } \right){f_\Theta }(\theta )d\theta }$$
$$\label{eq_expectation_of_RPE}
E[{p_{e,i}}] = \int_0^{\frac{\pi }{4}} {\left( {\int_0^{\sin \theta } {\frac{1}{2}\frac{{{x^2}}}{{\sin \theta \cos \theta }}{f_X}(x)dx} + \int_{\sin \theta }^{\frac{{\sqrt 2 L\sin \left( {\theta + \frac{\pi }{4}} \right)}}{2}} {\left( {\frac{x}{{\cos \theta }} - \frac{{\tan \theta }}{2}} \right){f_X}(x)dx} } \right){f_\Theta }(\theta )d\theta }$$
One-mesh-one-sensor
-------------------
If each mesh contains one sensor, the number of sensors equals the number of meshes. From Theorem \[th\_relation\], we have $$p_e \ge {\psi ^{ - 1}}(H),$$ which implies that $p_e$ is lower bounded by a function of entropy ${\psi ^{ - 1}}(H)$. If ${\psi ^{ - 1}}(H) \ne 0$, then the sensing error can never be reduced to $0$. To reduce the probability of error requires that ${p_e} \le \beta$. From Theorem \[TH\_pe\_upper\], we have $$\label{eq_lower_bound_sensors}
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{{\sqrt M }}\frac{{2\sqrt 2 \xi L}}{S}( {1 - \frac{1}{N}}) \le \beta \Rightarrow M \ge ( {\frac{{2\sqrt 2 \xi (N - 1)}}{{L N\beta }}} )^2 \buildrel \Delta \over = {M_1}
\end{aligned}$$ However, because the upper bounds on $p_{e,i}$ and $K$ in Theorem \[TH\_pe\_upper\] are loose, the bound in (\[eq\_lower\_bound\_sensors\]) is also loose. Therefore, we use a probability model to obtain near accurate estimates of $K$ and $p_{e,i}$ as follow
The radio parameter error as a function of $M$ is $${p_e} = \kappa \frac{1}{{\sqrt M }}$$ where $$\kappa = \frac{{\pi + \ln 64}}{{12\pi }}\frac{{\pi \xi }}{{ - 4\sqrt 2 {{\tanh }^{ - 1}}(1 - \sqrt 2 )L}}$$ which is a constant determined by the length of the boundaries of all networks $\xi$ and the length of entire area’s edge $L$.
Fig. \[fig\_boundary\_in\_a\_mesh\] illustrates the boundary of network in a unit mesh $i$ with an impure radio environment. This boundary can be approximated by a line when $M$ is large. We ignore the situation where the boundaries of multiple networks cross the mesh, as the probability of this occurring is low when $M$ is large. The parameters $x$ and $\theta$ determine a line in Fig. \[fig\_boundary\_in\_a\_mesh\], where $x$ is the distance between vertex $A$ and the boundary, and $\theta$ is the angle between this line and horizontal line. Both $x$ and $\theta$ are random variables with probability density functions (PDFs)
![A boundary of network cut a mesh.[]{data-label="fig_boundary_in_a_mesh"}](expection_boundary_in_mesh.eps){width="40.00000%"}
$${f_\Theta }(\theta ) = \frac{4}{\pi },0 \le \theta \le \frac{\pi }{4}$$
and $${f_X}(x) = \frac{2}{{\sqrt 2 L\sin \left( {\theta + \frac{\pi }{4}} \right)}},0 \le x \le \frac{{\sqrt 2 L\sin \left( {\theta + \frac{\pi }{4}} \right)}}{2}$$ The length of the boundary of network in the mesh is $${\xi _i} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{x\tan \theta + x\cot \theta } & {x \le {x_1}} \\
{\frac{1}{{\cos \theta }}} & {{x_1} < x < {x_1} + \frac{{{x_2}}}{2}} \\
\end{array}} \right.$$
The radio parameter error is $${p_{e,i}} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\frac{{{x^2}}}{{\sin 2\theta }}} & {x \le {x_1}} \\
{\frac{x}{{\cos \theta }} - \frac{{\tan \theta }}{2}} & {{x_1} < x < {x_1} + \frac{{{x_2}}}{2}} \\
\end{array}} \right.$$ where $x_1$, $x_2$ and $x_3$ are as shown in Fig. \[fig\_boundary\_in\_a\_mesh\], with values $${x_1} = {x_3} = \sin \theta$$ $${x_2} = {\left[ {\sqrt 2 \sin \left( {\theta + \frac{\pi }{4}} \right) - 2\sin \theta } \right]^ + }$$ with ${[*]^ + } = \max \{ 0,*\}$. The expected values of $\xi_i$ and $p_{e,i}$ are shown in (\[eq\_expectation\_of\_length\_in\_mesh\]) and (\[eq\_expectation\_of\_RPE\]) at the top of the next page, and the corresponding closed form expressions are $$\label{eq_expectation_xi_i}
E[{\xi _i}] = - \frac{{4\sqrt 2 {{\tanh }^{ - 1}}(1 - \sqrt 2 )}}{\pi } \cong 0.7935$$ and $$\label{eq_expectation_pei}
E[{p_{e,i}}] = \frac{{\pi + \ln (64)}}{{12\pi }} \cong 0.1937$$ where ${\tanh ^{ - 1}}(z)$ is the inverse hyperbolic function defined as ${\tanh ^{ - 1}}(z) = \frac{1}{2}\ln \frac{{1 + z}}{{1 - z}}$. We determine the value of $K$, i.e., the number of meshes with an impure radio environment, using (\[eq\_expectation\_xi\_i\]). If the first $K$ meshes have an impure radio environment, then $$E[{\xi _i}]\mathop = \limits^{(a)} \frac{1}{K}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^K {{\xi _i}} \mathop = \limits^{(b)} \frac{1}{K}\xi$$ where $(a)$ is due to the weak Law of Large Numbers (LLN), and $(b)$ is from the fact that the meshes with an impure radio environment cover all the boundaries of networks. The value of $K$ can be estimated as $$\label{eq_estimation_K}
K = \frac{\xi }{{E[{\xi _i}]}} = \frac{{\pi \xi }}{{ - 4\sqrt 2 {{\tanh }^{ - 1}}(1 - \sqrt 2 )\varepsilon }}$$
If the first $K$ meshes have an impure radio environment, then the RPE of the entire region is $$\label{eq_estimation_PRE_whole_region}
{p_e} = \frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^K {{p_{e,i}}} \mathop = \limits^{(c)} \frac{K}{M}E[{p_{e,i}}]$$ where $(c)$ is due to the LLN. Substituting the value of $K$ from (\[eq\_estimation\_K\]) and the value of $E[{p_{e,i}}]$ from (\[eq\_expectation\_pei\]) in (\[eq\_estimation\_PRE\_whole\_region\_final\]) gives $$\label{eq_estimation_PRE_whole_region_final}
{p_e} = \frac{1}{{\sqrt M }}\frac{{\pi + \ln 64}}{{12\pi }}\frac{{\pi \xi }}{{ - 4\sqrt 2 {{\tanh }^{ - 1}}(1 - \sqrt 2 )L}}$$ where $\xi$ is the length of all the boundaries of networks, $L$ is the length of the edges of the entire region, and $N$ is the number of radio parameters. This is a near precise estimate.
Note that this confirms the result ${p_e} = \Theta \left( {\frac{1}{{\sqrt M }}} \right)$. Similar to the derivation of (\[eq\_lower\_bound\_sensors\]), the number of sensors can be obtained using the more precise estimate of $p_e$ in (\[eq\_estimation\_PRE\_whole\_region\_final\]). From the bound ${p_e} \le \beta$, we have $$\label{eq_M2}
M \ge {\left( {\frac{{(\pi + \ln 64)\xi }}{{12\left( { - 4\sqrt 2 {{\tanh }^{ - 1}}(1 - \sqrt 2 )} \right)L\beta }}} \right)^2} \buildrel \Delta \over = {M_2}$$
Random sensor deployment
------------------------
Randomly deploying sensors over the entire region is more realistic than one sensor in each mesh. Suppose there are $J$ sensors and the region is divided into $M$ meshes. With a uniform deployment, the probability that a sensor falls into mesh $i$ is $\frac{1}{M} \forall i$. Thus the probability that there are no sensors in mesh $i$ is $${p_0} = {\left( {1 - \frac{1}{M}} \right)^J}.$$ If $J = kM$, then $\mathop {\lim }\limits_{M \to \infty } {p_0} = {e^{ - k}}$. Thus, the number of meshes that have no sensors is $$\label{eq_vacant_meshes}
M{p_0} = \frac{M}{{{e^k}}}$$ The radio parameters for meshes without a sensor are randomly chosen, so the maximum error probability for an empty mesh is still ${1 - \frac{1}{N}}$. An upper bound on the radio parameter error is then given by $$\label{eq_random_deployment_pe}
p_e^* = \frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {{p_{e,i}}} \le {p_e} + \frac{1}{M}M{p_0}\left( {1 - \frac{1}{N}} \right)$$ where $p_e$ is obtained from (\[eq\_estimation\_PRE\_whole\_region\_final\]). Since $p_e^* \le \beta$, we have $$\label{eq_random_sensor_density}
\begin{aligned}
& M \ge {\left( {\frac{{(\pi + \ln 64)\xi }}{{12( { - 4\sqrt 2 {{\tanh }^{ - 1}}(1 - \sqrt 2 )} )L( {\beta - {e^{ - k}}( {1 - \frac{1}{N}} )} )}}} \right)^2}\\
& \buildrel \Delta \over = {M_3}
\end{aligned}$$
Note that $M_3 > M_2$, i.e., with random deployment the number of sensors required to achieve the same error probability as the one-mesh-one-sensor scheme is larger.
Finally, we analyze the situation when a mesh contains more than one sensor. In this case, the mesh is divided into smaller meshes such that each smaller mesh contains one sensor. From Theorem \[th\_mesh\_division\_reduce\_entropy\], any division operation will not reduce the geographic entropy and therefore not reduce the error probability. Thus (\[eq\_random\_deployment\_pe\]) is still an upper bound on the RPE and (\[eq\_random\_sensor\_density\]) is still a lower bound on the number of meshes (sensors) with random deployment.
![The number of sensors vs. the RPE with five networks.[]{data-label="fig_five_nets"}](error_five_nets.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![The number of sensors vs. the RPE with three networks.[]{data-label="fig_three_nets"}](error_three_nets.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Numerical Results
=================
The relationship between the number of meshes (sensors) and the radio parameter error (RPE) in shown in Figs. \[fig\_five\_nets\] and \[fig\_three\_nets\] for five and three networks, respectively. This verifies (\[eq\_estimation\_PRE\_whole\_region\_final\]) for the one-mesh-one-sensor scheme. The RPE is related to the number of sensors $M$ and the length of the network boundaries $\xi$. As $M$ increases, the RPE decreases, and as $\xi$ increases, the RPE increases. The value of $\xi$ in Fig. \[fig\_five\_nets\] is larger than the corresponding value in Fig. \[fig\_three\_nets\]. Thus to achieve the same RPE (for example, RPE = 0.04), the number of meshes for five networks must be larger than the number with three networks. Note that the RPE is a convex function of $M$, thus when $M$ is sufficiently large, the RPE improvement is not significant.
From (\[eq\_M2\]) and (\[eq\_random\_sensor\_density\]), for the same error probability, the number of sensors with the one-mesh-one-sensor scheme will be smaller that with random sensor deployment. This is verified by Fig. \[fig\_sensor\_number\]. As $k$ increases, the number of sensors with random deployment approaches the number with the one-mesh-one-sensor scheme. This results can be obtained from (\[eq\_random\_sensor\_density\]) as $\mathop {\lim }\limits_{k \to \infty } {M_3} = {M_2}$.
Fig. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\] provides three examples of REM construction. In Fig. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\]($\rm{a_1}$), the REM with the one-mesh-one-sensor scheme has errors along the network boundaries. This is because the radio environment of the meshes along the boundaries is impure and may contain errors in the measurement results. The radio parameter error of each mesh is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\]($\rm{a_2}$). Figs. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\]($\rm{b_1}$) and ($\rm{c_1}$) illustrate the REM with random sensor deployment and $k=1$ and $k=2$, respectively. Note that the results in Fig. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\]($\rm{c_1}$) are more accurate than in ($\rm{b_1}$). This is expected since (\[eq\_random\_sensor\_density\]) indicates that the RPE is a decreasing function of $k$. Figs. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\]($\rm{b_2}$) and ($\rm{c_2}$) show the radio parameter error distribution for the REMs in Figs. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\]($\rm{b_1}$) and ($\rm{c_1}$). respectively. A mesh without any sensors is shown in red. Note that Fig. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\]($\rm{c_2}$) contains fewer red meshes than Fig. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\]($\rm{b_2}$). This confirms (\[eq\_vacant\_meshes\]), which indicates that the number of vacant meshes is a decreasing function of $k$. In Figs. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\]($\rm{a_2}$), ($\rm{b_2}$) and ($\rm{c_2}$), the meshes that are not red or dark blue denote meshes that have an incorrect radio parameter. The number of such meshes is lower in Figs. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\]($\rm{b_2}$) and ($\rm{c_2}$) than in Fig. \[fig\_picture\_REM\_construction\]($\rm{a_2}$). This indicates that random sensor deployment results in fewer measurement errors, but there are more meshes with no sensors when $k > 1$.
![The relationship between the number of sensors and the radio parameter error.[]{data-label="fig_sensor_number"}](sensor_number.eps){width="35.00000%"}
![REM construction results and the corresponding RPE values for the networks in Fig. \[fig\_five\_nets\]; ($\rm{a_1}$) corresponds to the one-mesh-one-sensor scheme with $16 \times 16$ meshes (sensors); ($\rm{b_1}$) corresponds to random sensor deployment with $16 \times 16$ meshes and $k=1$; and ($\rm{c_1}$) corresponds to random sensor deployment scheme with $16 \times 16$ meshes and $k=2$. The RPE values for ($\rm{a_1}$), ($\rm{b_1}$) and ($\rm{c_1}$) are given in ($\rm{a_2}$), ($\rm{b_2}$) and ($\rm{c_2}$), respectively.[]{data-label="fig_picture_REM_construction"}](graph.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we have achieved the relationship between the number of sensors and the radio environment map (REM) accuracy. The concept of geographic entropy is introduced to quantify this relationship. And the influence of sensor deployment on REM accuracy is examined using information theory techniques. The results obtained in this paper are applicable not only for the REM, but also for wireless sensor network deployment.
[99]{}
J. Mitola, [*Cognitive radio: An integrated agent architecture for software defined radio*]{}, Ph.D. dissertation, KTH Royal Inst. of Technol., Stockholm, Sweden, 2000.
Y. Zhao, S. Mao, J. O. Neel, and J. H. Reed, “Performance evaluation of cognitive radios: Metrics, utility functions, and methodology,” [*Proc. IEEE*]{}, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 642–659, Apr. 2009.
S. Grimoud, B. Sayrac, S. Ben Jemaa, and E. Moulines, “An algorithm for fast REM construction,” Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications (CROWNCOM), pp. 251–255, June 2011.
J. Riihijärvi, P. Mähönen, M. Petrova, and V. Kolar, “Enhancing cognitive radios with spatial statistics: From radio environment maps to topology engine,” Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and Communications (CROWNCOM), pp. 1–6, June 2009.
V. Atanasovski et al., “Constructing radio environment maps with heterogeneous spectrum sensors,” IEEE Symp. on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, pp. 660–661, May 2011.
S. Faint, X. O. Üreten, and T. Willink, “Impact of the number of sensors on the network cost and accuracy of the radio environment map,” IEEE 23rd Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), pp. 1–5, May 2010.
J. Perez-Romero, O. Salient, R. Agusti, and L. Giupponi, “A novel on-demand cognitive pilot channel enabling dynamic spectrum allocation,” IEEE International Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN), pp. 46–54, Apr. 2007.
Z. Wei and Z. Feng, “A geographically homogeneous mesh grouping scheme for broadcast cognitive pilot channel in heterogeneous wireless networks,” IEEE GLOBECOM Workshops, pp. 1008–1012, Dec. 2011.
Z. Feng, Z. Wei, Q. Zhang and P. Zhang . “Fractal theory based dynamic mesh grouping scheme for efficient cognitive pilot channel design,” Chinese Science Bulletin, vol. 57, no. 28-29, pp. 3684–3690, Nov. 2012.
M. Feder and N. Merhav, “Relations between entropy and error probability,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 259–266, Jan. 1994.
T. Cover and J. Thomas, [*Elements of Informantion Theory*]{}, Wiley, New York, 2006.
[^1]: This work is accepted by WCNC 2013, supported by the National Basic Research Program (973 Program) of China (No. 2009CB320400), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61227801, 61201152, 61121001), the National Key Technology R&D Program of China (2012ZX03003006), the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-01-0259).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Myosin-V is a motor protein responsible for organelle and vesicle transport in cells. Recent single-molecule experiments have shown that it is an efficient processive motor that walks along actin filaments taking steps of mean size close to 36 nm. A theoretical study of myosin-V motility is presented following an approach used successfully to analyze the dynamics of conventional kinesin but also taking some account of step-size variations. Much of the present experimental data for myosin-V can be well described by a two-state chemical kinetic model with three load-dependent rates. In addition, the analysis predicts the variation of the mean velocity and of the randomness — a quantitative measure of the stochastic deviations from uniform, constant-speed motion — with ATP concentration under both resisting and assisting loads, and indicates a [*sub*]{}step of size $d_{0} \simeq$ 13-14 nm (from the ATP-binding site) that appears to accord with independent observations.'
author:
- 'Anatoly B. Kolomeisky$^{*}$ and Michael E. Fisher$^{\dagger}$'
title: '**[A Simple Kinetic Model Describes the Processivity of Myosin-V]{}**'
---
INTRODUCTION {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Various classes of enzymes, usually termed motor proteins, play important roles in biological processes such as cellular transport, cell division, muscle function and genetic transcription (see, e.g., Lodish et al., 1995). What we may term [*translocatory*]{} motor proteins (in contrast to rotary motor proteins) are epitomized by kinesins, dyneins, myosins, and DNA and RNA polymerases that move under loads along polar linear tracks such as microtubules, actin filaments, and double-stranded DNA, the motion being fueled by the hydrolysis of ATP or related reactions.
Motor proteins may work collectively in large groups, like myosin in muscles, or they may operate individually as do most microtubule-based kinesin and dynein molecules (Leibler and Huse, 1993; Howard, 2001). Those motor proteins that function collectively are typically [*non*]{}processive, i.e., they make at most one mechanical step along their tracks during a catalytic cycle before detaching from the track. On the other hand, individual motors that move vesicles over long distances (up to several microns) need to stay bound to their tracks over many catalytic cycles: such motors are [*processive*]{}. For example, conventional kinesin motors can walk along microtubules taking a hundred or more 8.2 nm steps before dissociating (Howard [*et al.*]{}, 1989; Block [*et al.*]{}, 1990; Vale [*et al.*]{}, 1996).
Recently, single-molecule experiments by Mehta [*et al.*]{} (1999; Mehta, 2001), Rief [*et al.*]{} (2000), Sakamoto [*et al.*]{} (2000), Rock [*et al.*]{} (2001), Veigel [*et al.*]{} (2002) and Nishikawa [*et al.*]{} (2002) have demonstrated that myosin-V and myosin-VI, in contrast to the behavior of other members of the myosin superfamily (Howard, 2001), are also efficient processive molecular motors. Here we will focus on the dynamics of myosin-V.
Myosin-V is a dimeric, two-headed molecule that in the presence of actin readily hydrolyzes ATP to produce ADP and P$_{\mbox{i}}$ (Mehta, 2001). Kinetic experiments in bulk solution (De La Cruz [*et al.*]{}, 1999, 2000; Mehta, 2001) have demonstrated that release of ADP is the rate-limiting step in the actin-activated ATPase cycle. Under conditions of limiting ATP the kinetically prevalent state appears to have both head domains bound to the actin filament as captured in electron micrographs by Walker [*et al.*]{}, (2000); but more generally, see the discussions in Mehta (2001) and De La Cruz [*et al.*]{} (2001).
Optical traps equipped with electronic feedback mechanisms have provided valuable information regarding the dynamics of individual myosin-V molecules under low load (see Mehta, 2001). The experiments allow one to monitor the displacement, $x(t)$, of a single molecule as a function of the time $t$ under different concentrations of ATP, etc., while maintaining a steady external load, $F$, which opposes the directed motion of the motor.
The principle experimental findings can be summarized as follows: (i) Myosin-V moves along actin filaments towards the plus or barbed end taking large steps of size averaging 35-38 nm (Mehta [*et al.*]{}, 1999) approximating the 37 nm pseudo-repeat of the actin filament (Bray, 2001); (ii) The stepping dynamics depends strongly on the ATP concentration: thus, the mean dwell time $\tau(F, \mbox{[ATP]})$ observed between successive steps (preceding a forward step) at low \[ATP\] (=1 $\mu$M) hardly varies with the external load, while under saturating conditions (\[ATP\] $\geq$ 2 mM) the mean dwell time grows rapidly as $F$ approaches the stall force, $F_{S}=3.0 \pm 0.3$ pN (at which, on average, the motor just fails to progress); (iii) The overall stepping rate or mean velocity $$V(F, \mbox{[ATP]}) \approx d \langle x(t) \rangle /dt$$ follows a Michaelis-Menten form in that it is proportional to \[ATP\] at low concentrations but becomes independent of \[ATP\] under saturating conditions; (iv) Tight coupling between chemical and mechanical cycles is valid, with one ATP molecule hydrolyzed per individual myosin-V forward step along an actin filament; but (v) in contrast to the dynamics of conventional kinesin (Coppin [*et al.*]{}, 1997; Visscher [*et al.*]{}, 1999), myosin-V under load not infrequently exhibits sequences of two or three reverse or backward steps; and, finally, (vi) the addition of ADP to the [*in vitro*]{} solution significantly reduces the turnover rate of ATP (as is to be expected); moreover, the inhibitory effect of ADP scales with the concentration of ATP (Rief [*et al.*]{}, 2000) (and even when the mean stepping rate is reduced two-fold the distribution of dwell periods is unaltered).
The growing quantity of information concerning myosin-V has naturally stimulated theoretical discussions of the dynamics. Several models have been proposed and are reviewed by Mehta (2001). In particular, in order to provide an explanation of the observed load-dependence of the processivity, the mean dwell time at temperature $T$ has been modeled phenomenologically \[following a proposal of Wang [*et al.*]{} (1998)\] as a sum of two terms, namely $$\tau(F) = \tau_{1}+\tau_{2} \exp(Fd'/k_{B}T),$$ corresponding, respectively, to putative force-independent and force dependent transitions. It is natural to expect here that $d'$ corresponds to the observed step size $d \simeq 36$ nm (Fisher and Kolomeisky, 1999; Fisher and Kolomeisky, 2001; Hille, 2001). However, fitting the experimental data of Mehta [*et al.*]{} (1999), which is displayed in below, necessitates an (effective) step size $d'$ of 10-15 nm, which is only 30-40 $\%$ of the actual step size. This discrepancy is rationalized by asserting that $d'$ is some “characteristic distance over which load affects the catalysis rate.” Furthermore, this approach fails to account clearly for the observed stalling of the motors at $F_{S} \simeq 3.0$ pN. Clearly, a more soundly based quantitative theory for processivity of myosin-V seems called for in order to satisfactorily describe the currently available data and to provide testable predictions. The present article aims to meet these requirements.
We present a theoretical analysis of the dynamics of myosin-V using simple, discrete-state stochastic models which have recently been developed and analyzed in detail by Kolomeisky and Widom (1998), Fisher and Kolomeisky (1999a, b; 2001; 2002) and Kolomeisky and Fisher (2000a, b); for brevity these articles will be referenced below as [**FK’01**]{}, [**KF’00a**]{}, etc. This approach has been used successfully in [**FK’01**]{} to analyze the extensive experimental data on the dynamics of single conventional kinesin molecules moving [*in vitro*]{} along microtubules obtained by Visscher [*et al.*]{} (1999) and Schnitzer [*et al.*]{} (2000). We will demonstrate that most of the currently available experimental data on the processivity of myosin-V can be well accounted for by the simplest ($N=2$)-state model embodying a theoretical picture in satisfactory accord with other kinetic and structural experiments. Our treatment also provides specific predictions for as yet unexplored features of myosin-V dynamics that can be tested experimentally and should uncover further details of the stepping mechanism.
Theoretical Approach {#theoretical-approach .unnumbered}
====================
For completeness we first outline briefly the class of stochastic models used in our analysis and the [*explicit*]{} analytical results available for them. In the simplest periodic sequential kinetic model, illustrated schematically in , the protein motor is viewed as moving along a linear periodic track and binding at specific sites located at $x=ld$ ($l=0, \pm1, \pm2, \cdots$) where $d$ is a fixed step distance. In a first treatment of myosin-V on actin filaments we may adopt the observed mean value, $\bar{d} \simeq 36$ nm, corresponding to to the helix repeat distance (Bray, 2001). However, as discussed further below, the analysis can be extended to take account of the variations in the individual step sizes seen in the data for myosin-V (Mehta [*et al.*]{}, 1999; Rief [*et al.*]{}, 2000; Walker [*et al.*]{}, 2000; Veigel [*et al.*]{}, 2002): the variation seems primarily to result from binding on actin monomers (at spacing 5.5 nm) adjacent to the main 6.5-monomer helix repeat distance (Steffen [*et al.*]{}, 2001).
The basic model then supposes that in a catalytic cycle which translocates a motor from binding site $l$ to $l+1$ the protein undergoes $N$ intermediate biochemical transitions from states $j_{l}=0_{l}$ to $1_{l}$ to $2_{l}$ $\cdots$ to $(N-1)_{l}$ to $N_{l} \equiv 0_{l+1}$. Kinetic rates $u_{j}$ and $w_{j}$ are associated with the transitions from state $j_{l}$ forwards to state $(j+1)_{l}$ and backwards to state $(j-1)_{l}$, respectively. The state $0_{l}$ represents the motor tightly bound at site $l$ in the absence of fuel molecules — ATP in the case of myosin-V. Binding of a fuel molecule is represented by the transition $0_{l} \rightarrow 1_{l}$, unbinding by $1_{l} \rightarrow 0_{l}$. Subsequent hydrolysis and release of products occur in the forward transitions $1_{l} \rightarrow 2_{l} \rightarrow \cdots$. But it is important to note that [*backwards*]{} intermediate transitions [*and*]{} whole steps (possibly associated with reverse hydrolysis) are allowed [*and*]{} observed experimentally.
For this model the mean velocity, $V( \{ u_{j}, w_{j} \})$, (see ) may be expressed exactly in a closed analytic form in terms of the rate constants $\{ u_{j}, w_{j} \} $ for any value of $N$ ([**FK’99**]{}). Furthermore, similar explicit formulae are available for the [*dispersion*]{} (or effective diffusion constant) of the motion, defined by $$D=D(\{u_{j},w_{j}\})=\frac{1}{2}\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{d}{dt} \left[ \langle x^{2}(t) \rangle - \langle x(t) \rangle^{2} \right].$$ This measures the statistical deviation of the motor trajectories from uniform motion at constant velocity. The knowledge of both the velocity $V$ [*and*]{} the dispersion $D$, conveniently combined in terms of [*randomness*]{} (Svoboda [*et al.*]{}, 1994) $$r=2D/Vd,$$ serves to set bounds on $N$ via a determination of the number of rate-limiting kinetic biochemical transitions and thus yields valuable information regarding the mechanism of processivity (Visscher [*et al.*]{}, 1999; [**KF’00a**]{}; [**FK’01**]{}; [**FK’02**]{}; Koza, 2002).
To account properly for the externally imposed force, $F$, it is essential ([**FK’99**]{}; [**FK’01**]{}) to introduce [*load distribution factors*]{}, $\theta_{j}^{+}$ and $\theta_{j}^{-}$ (for $j=0,1, \cdots, N-1$). Then the transition rates may be taken to vary as $$\begin{aligned}
u_{j} \Rightarrow u_{j}(F)&=&u_{j}^{0} \exp(-\theta_{j}^{+} Fd/k_{B}T), \nonumber \\
w_{j} \Rightarrow w_{j}(F)&=&w_{j}^{0} \exp(\theta_{j}^{-} Fd/k_{B}T),\end{aligned}$$ where the most reasonable requirement ([**FK’99**]{}; [**FK’01**]{}; Hille, 2001) is $$\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} (\theta_{j}^{+} + \theta_{j}^{-})=1,$$ which implies that the condition of stall reflects stochastic quasiequilibrium amongst the (on-pathway) intermediate mechanochemical states. Indeed, these expressions embody a picture of load-dependent activation barriers for forward and reverse rates between intermediate states $j$ that lie on a multidimensional reaction pathway. The load distribution factors $\theta_{j}^{\pm}$ provide significant mechanochemical information since they embody a projection of the valleys and cols (or passes) of the reaction pathway onto the force axis, which we suppose is parallel to the motor track. Thus one may identify [*substeps*]{} of magnitude $$d_{j}=(\theta_{j}^{+}+\theta_{j+1}^{-})d,$$ between motor states $j_{l}$ and $(j+1)_{l}$. If the spatial fluctuations of the center of force of the motor in the intermediate states $j_{l}$ and $(j+1)_{l}$ are sufficiently small relative to $d_{j}$ one may hope to identify this substep in suitably averaged traces $x(t)$ of individual motor motions ([**FK’02**]{}).
For the present purpose we note that the explicit expressions for the mean velocity, $V$, for general $N$ lead to a simple relation for the stalling force as defined by $V(F \rightarrow F_{S}) \rightarrow 0$, namely, $$F_{S}=\frac{k_{B}T}{d} \ln \left[ \prod_{j=0}^{N-1} (u_{j}^{0}/w_{j}^{0}) \right];$$ see [**FK’99**]{}.
The $N$-state periodic kinetic model presented in is, mathematically, an example of the general one-dimensional nearest-neighbor random hopping model for which first-passage questions have been much studied: see van Kampen (1992). Of particular interest here are the so-called splitting probabilities and mean first-passage times. Specifically, in order to analyze observations of motor-protein [*dwell times*]{}, we need the “single-step forward splitting probability,” $\pi_{+}(\{u_{j},w_{j}\})$, defined as the probability that a motor starting at site $l$ will arrive at site $l+1$ [*without*]{} having undergone sufficiently many intermediate reverse transitions to complete a full backwards step from $l$ to site $l-1$. The corresponding conditional mean single-step first-passage time, $\tau_{+}(\{u_{j},w_{j}\})$, then represents the average time a motor spends at site $l$ before leaving and making a [*forward*]{} step to site $l+1$. Because of the periodic structure of the $N$-state model of the (rather elaborate) expressions developed by van Kampen (1992) can be simplified considerably even for general $N$ (Kolomeisky and Fisher, to be published). Here we quote the simplest $N=2$ results which will suffice for our present purposes, namely, for the mean forward-step dwell time, $$\tau_{+}=(u_{0}+u_{1}+w_{0}+w_{1})/(u_{0}u_{1} + w_{0}w_{1}),$$ while the fraction of backward (or reverse) steps is $$\pi_{-}=1-\pi_{+}=w_{0}w_{1}/(u_{0}u_{1} + w_{0}w_{1}).$$
Finally we mention that the basic model exhibited in can be extended in various ways while still retaining explicit expressions for $V$, $D$, etc. In particular, one may allow for detachments or “death” rates, $\delta_{j}$, from the various motor states and for branching ([**KF’00a**]{}), for parallel site-to-site “jumping” ([**KF’00a**]{}), for parallel biochemical processes (Kolomeisky, 2001), and for waiting time distributions and the associated [*degrees of mechanicity*]{}, $M_{j}^{\pm}$, of the various intermediate processes ([**FK’99**]{}; [**KF’00b**]{}; [**FK’01**]{}). However, the range of observational data so far obtained for myosin-V (unlike that known for kinesin) does not yet warrant consideration of these extensions.
Analysis of Myosin-V Data {#analysis-of-myosin-v-data .unnumbered}
=========================
The bulk-solution kinetic data on myosin-V ATPase activity indicate that at least two processes, namely, ATP binding and ADP release, should be taken into account in analyzing the motility (De La Cruz, 1999; Mehta, 2001). While recognizing that a more complete description may require further intermediate states, it is appropriate, therefore to consider first the simplest ($N=2$)-state model. Then, as indicated above, the states $j=0$ correspond to a myosin-V molecule bound to the actin filament in the absence of ATP — presumably with both heads attached, one behind the other (Walker [*et al.*]{}, 2000) — while $j=1$ labels myosin-actin complexes with bound ADP. Thus, in the scheme advanced in Fig. 6 of Mehta (2001), the first and last configurations correspond to $j=0$ while the four intermediate states are gathered into $j=1$; in Fig. 4 of Rief [*et al.*]{} (2000) the $j=0$ state corresponds to that labelled V; in Fig. 9 of De La Cruz [*et al.*]{} (2001) the second configuration corresponds to $j=0$, the remaining three to $j=1$.
It now follows that the forward ATP-binding rate should take the form $u_{0}^{0}=k_{0}^{0}$\[ATP\], where the superscripts 0 denote the limit of zero load: see . On the other hand, the reverse unbinding rate, $w_{1}$, and the forward, ADP release rate, $u_{1}$, should be independent of \[ATP\], but, of course, may depend on $F$.
According to standard chemical kinetic arguments, the backward rate $w_{0}$ should, in principle, be proportional to \[ADP\]; and, indeed, the concentration of P$_{\mbox{i}}$ should also play a role. Note, particularly, in this connection the high affinity of ADP for actomyosin which, as discussed by Mehta (2001) and De La Cruz [*et al.*]{} (2000), had led to significant discrepancies in estimates of steady-state cycling rates. The detailed measurements (Mehta [*et al.*]{}, 1999; Rief [*et al.*]{}, 2000) have, therefore, been performed with the aid of an ATP regeneration system \[as previously adopted in the kinesin experiments of Visscher et al. (1999)\]. In such a set-up neither the concentration of ADP, nor the that of P$_{\mbox{i}}$, is monitored. While experiments that do control \[ADP\] and \[ P$_{\mbox{i}}$\] separately are much to be desired, in their absence we are forced (as in [**FK’01**]{}) to model the ATP regeneration scheme more or less phenomenologically. Thus if (a) we suppose $w_{0}^{0}=k_{0}'\mbox{[ATP]}^{\alpha}$ (which amounts to \[ADP\] $\propto$ \[ATP\]$^{\alpha}$), (b) recall that the stall force, $F_{S}$, is given by , and (c) note that the current experimental observations reveal no significant dependence of $F_{S}$ on \[ATP\] (Mehta, 2001), we are led to adopt $\alpha=1$. Indeed, in light of the use of ATP-regeneration in the experiments, the proportionality of \[ADP\], and hence of $w_{0}$, to \[ATP\] at low concentrations is to be expected: see also [**FK’01**]{}. It should be remarked, however, that the details of our description of the ATP regeneration scheme play only a minor role in fitting the myosin-V processivity data.
Now in many previous experimental studies of processive motor proteins the mean velocities, $V(\mbox{[ATP]}, F)$, have been measured and reported. Such observations must, at least in principle, include some fraction of backward or reverse steps, especially at large loads approaching stall. However, in their experiments on myosin-V (Mehta [*et al.*]{}, 1999; Rief [*et al.*]{}, 2000) the authors opted to measure only dwell times, separating adjacent steps of mean size $d \simeq 36$ nm (Mehta, 2001), [*preceding forward steps*]{}. Thus their reported dwell times, $\tau(\mbox{[ATP]}, F)$, as plotted in , do [*not*]{} precisely correspond to an “overall mean step time,” say $\bar{\tau}$, related to the mean velocity simply via $\bar{\tau} = d/V$ — although at low loads, where the fraction of reverse steps is small, $\bar{\tau}$ should provide a good approximation; but under near stall conditions, when $V \rightarrow 0$, the overall mean step time, $\bar{\tau}$, diverges to infinity whereas the dwell times $\tau( F$$\rightarrow$$ F_{S})$ remain bounded. Rather, we identify the observed dwell times with the conditional single-step mean first-passage times, $\tau_{+}$, identified above: see . Accordingly, our analysis of the myosin-V data is based upon the expression $$\tau(F,\mbox[ATP])= \frac{k_{0}^{0} \mbox{[ATP]}e^{-\theta_{0}^{+} Fd/k_{B}T}+u_{1}^{0}e^{-\theta_{1}^{+} Fd/k_{B}T} + k_{0}'\mbox{[ATP]}e^{\theta_{0}^{-} Fd/k_{B}T}+w_{1}^{0}e^{\theta_{1}^{-} Fd/k_{B}T}}{k_{0}^{0} \mbox{[ATP]} e^{-\theta_{0}^{+} Fd/k_{B}T} u_{1}^{0} e^{-\theta_{1}^{+} Fd/k_{B}T} + k_{0}'\mbox{[ATP]}e^{\theta_{0}^{-} Fd/k_{B}T} w_{1}^{0}e^{\theta_{1}^{-} Fd/k_{B}T}},$$ following from Eqs. 5, 6, and 9, with $d=\bar{d}=36$ nm.
Then, by systematically exploring the full seven-dimensional parameter space specified by ($k_{0}^{0}, \cdots, \theta_{0}^{-}$) we find that the observed stall force, $F_{S}$, and the dynamics of myosin-V as a function of \[ATP\] and of the load, $F$, up to $F_{S}$, are well described by the rates $$\begin{aligned}
k_{0}^{0}=0.70 \pm 0.10 \ \mu\mbox{M}^{-1}\mbox{s}^{-1}, & u_{1}^{0}=12.0 \pm 1.0 \mbox{ s}^{-1}, \\ \nonumber
k_{0}'= (5.0 \pm 0.5) \times 10^{-6} \ \mu\mbox{M}^{-1}\mbox{s}^{-1}, & \quad w_{1}^{0}= (6.0 \pm 0.5) \times 10^{-6} \mbox{ s}^{-1}, \end{aligned}$$ and the load-distribution factors $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{0}^{+}=-0.010 \pm 0.010, & \quad \theta_{1}^{+}=0.045 \pm 0.010, \\ \nonumber
\theta_{0}^{-}= 0.580 \pm 0.010, & \quad \theta_{1}^{-}=0.385 \pm 0.010.\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that consideration of the limits of low and high \[ATP\] and low and high loads, confirm a fair degree of independence of the various fitting parameters. The uncertainties indicated in Eqs. 12 and 13 correspond to the ranges of acceptable fits to the processivity data while constraining the other parameters appropriately. The central values yield the fits presented in as solid curves.
In respect to our fits for $k_{0}^{0}$ and $u_{1}^{0}$ note that the bulk solution kinetic experiments yield an ATP binding rate constant (corresponding to $k_{0}^{0}$) between 0.7 and 1.6 $\mu$M$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$, while the ADP-release rate (corresponding to $u_{1}^{0}$) is about 12-16 s$^{-1}$ (Mehta, 2001; De La Cruz [*et al.*]{}, 1999). The agreement is clearly most satisfactory.
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
Mean Velocity and Load Dependence {#mean-velocity-and-load-dependence .unnumbered}
---------------------------------
The quality of the fits in ensures that the observed (approximate) Michaelis-Menten behavior is respected. Indeed, using the rate and load-distribution parameters in Eqs. 12 and 13 and previous theory (e.g., [**FK’01**]{}) enables us to predict the variation of the mean velocity, $V$, with $F$ and \[ATP\]: see the solid curves . Evidently, the stall force of about 3 pN seen in the experiments is reproduced. Note also, from the dwell-time data imposed on the predictions in using $V \simeq d/ \tau$, that, as anticipated in the discussion before Eq. 11, the approximation $\tau \simeq \bar{\tau} \equiv d/V$ is valid for small loads (up to $F \simeq 2.5$ pN). Indeed, from Eq. 10 (with Eqs. 5, 6, 12, and 13) one finds that the fraction of reverse steps is negligible until $F \gtrsim 2.5$ pN.
Load Dependence of Rates {#load-dependence-of-rates .unnumbered}
------------------------
It is notable from that within the fitting uncertainties there is essentially [*no*]{} load-dependence to the binding of ATP to the myosin-V-actin complex, i.e., $\theta_{0}^{+} \simeq 0$; see also Mehta (2001). This contrasts strongly with the properties of conventional kinesin moving on a microtubule where $\theta_{0}^{+} \simeq 0.13$ was found in [**FK’01**]{} for both $N=2$ and $N=4$ fits. This lack of load-dependence on binding ATP to actin-myosin accounts for the fact that the dwell time remains constant at saturating ATP conditions up to $F \simeq 2.3$ pN: see Fig. 2[*A*]{}.
Nevertheless the other transitions [*are*]{} load dependent with ADP release bearing a modest ($ \sim 5 \%$) fraction of the dependence. In parallel to kinesin, however — see [**FK’01**]{}, the reverse transitions carry most of the load-dependence. Indeed, the load distribution pattern ([**FK’01**]{}) for myosin-V is close to a featureless descending ramp. Note that this result is in striking contrast to the implications of the phenomenological expression Eq. 1 which suggests that only forward (i.e., binding and/or hydrolysis) processes need be considered and could exhibit significant load-dependence. Indeed, our analysis indicates that at least three biochemical transitions in the actin-myosin-V ATPase cycle are load-dependent whereas Eq. 1 entails only a single load-dependent process. It seems that this difference is the main reason why fits for the “characteristic distance” $d'$ in Eq. 1 differ so markedly from the true mean step size $\bar{d} \simeq 36$ nm. Since our analysis recognizes reverse transitions, which, by the fits, occur at a non-vanishing rate that is enhanced under load \[see, again, Eq. 10\], an explanation is provided for the observation of more frequent backward steps in myosin-V at high loads (Rief et al., 2000). Our treatment also provides a basis for a quantitative discussion of the ADP inhibition effect which it would be instructive to explore further experimentally.
Substeps {#substeps .unnumbered}
--------
A striking feature of the data of Rief [*et al.*]{} (2000) is the observation of “half steps” under high loads ($\gtrsim 2$ pN). From the published traces the steps appear to correspond to an intermediate state with a mean center of force lying a distance, say $d_{1/2}$ forward from the bound-state ($j=0$) center with $d_{1/2}/d \simeq 0.48 \pm 0.04$. On the other hand, and the load distribution factors in indicate a substep with $d_{0}/d \simeq 0.38 \pm 0.03$ (corresponding to $d_{0} \simeq 13-14$ nm). Rief [*et al.*]{} (2000) suggest that these “half steps” (always followed by a complementary forward or backward step to complete a movement with $\langle \Delta x \rangle = d$ or 0) reflect an “off-pathway state” because they remain rare even under the high loads that uncover their presence. While this suggestion seems most reasonable on the available evidence, our analysis suggests that the half steps might possibly represent genuine substeps (lying on or close to the main reaction pathway), which appear stochastically under high loads when the forward rates, $u_{1}(F)$, have been slowed down while the reverse rates $w_{1}(F)$ are significantly enhanced.
In other experiments Veigel [*et al.*]{} (2002) observed attachments of single myosin-V molecules to an actin filament (stretched between two optically trapped beads) at \[ATP\]=100 $\mu$M. After some of the attachment events, “staircases” of from two or three to a dozen forward steps were seen of mean size 36 nm; the staircases typically terminated in an effective stall (signaled by interspersed forward and backward steps) before detachment from the filament: see Fig. 3 of Veigel [*et al*]{}. However, the authors concluded that the [*first step*]{} in each staircase had a mean size of only $d_{1}=26.2 \pm 2.3$ nm (similar to the amplitude of isolated attachment events lacking any subsequent steps). A similar initial unitary step of $\sim 20$ nm was seen in experiments by Moore [*et al.*]{} (2001) on heavy meromyosin-like fragments of myosin-V. These displacements were identified (in both articles) as a “working stroke”; and Veigel [*et al.*]{} saw a comparable step of $\sim 21$ nm in attachment events of a [*single-*]{}headed recombinant myosin-V. Furthermore, Veigel [*et al.*]{} in their Fig. 5A, report stiffness measurements (using a sinusoidal driving force) which revealed low-stiffness intervals of variable durations (longer at higher loads): the mid-positions of these intervals was about 20 nm further along the actin filament than the preceding higher-stiffness intervals, a displacement similar to the initial “working stroke.”
In our formulation and fits using a single intermediate mechanochemical state prior to completion of a full ($d=36$ nm) step, such a $d_{1}$ should as the notation chosen suggests, correspond to a $d-d_{0} \simeq 22$ nm “substep.” The agreement of these various findings (within the combined experimental and fitting uncertainties) appears to lend support to our values for the load-distribution factors $\theta_{j}^{\pm}$. However, corresponding substeps have not been identified at low loads by Mehta, Rief and coworkers. Nevertheless, a detailed examination of the sample stepping records for \[ATP\] = 2 mM and $F$ = 1 pN presented in Fig. 2A of Rief *et al.* (2000) reveals plausible indications of substeps in 13 to 16 of a total of around 32 “full" steps of $\sim36$ nm, some of the substeps appearing to have dwell times as long as 0.1 - 0.2 s. More favorable conditions for detecting the predicted substeps and checking their dwell times should be realized at low loads and \[ATP\] $\simeq 10 \mu$M (which corresponds roughly to the effective Michaelis-Menten concentration, $K_M$: see Rief *et al.* (2000) and Fig. 3). Such data not consistent with the present predictions might require the introduction of waiting-time distributions (**KF’00b**): see also the remarks below concerning randomness.
Variability of Step Sizes {#variability-of-step-sizes .unnumbered}
-------------------------
The fits to the data so far described have utilized a fixed step size, $d$, taken equal to the observed mean step size $\bar{d} \simeq 36$ nm that corresponds closely, as mentioned above, to the known (half) repeat distance of the actin filament double helix (Bray, 2001). But separate single-molecule experiments by Steffen et al. (2001) using myosin-S1 motor domains indicate “target zones” for binding to the filament consisting of three adjacent accessible actin monomers at spacings $\Delta d \simeq 5.5$ nm, the active zones repeating along the filament helices at $\sim$36 nm intervals. Furthermore, the processivity data for myosin-V reveal significant variations in individual step sizes about the mean, $\bar{d}$. The observations \[see: Mehta [*et al.*]{} (1999) Table 1; Rief [*et al.*]{} (2000) ; Walker [*et al.*]{} (2000) ; Veigel [*et al.*]{} (2002) \] are consistent with about 60$\%$ of the steps being of size $d_{(0)}=36$ nm while 20$\%$ each are of sizes $d_{(\pm)}=d_{(0)} \pm \Delta d = 41.5$ and 30.5 nm; only a few percent of longer or shorter steps appear. The fact that 40-45$\%$ of the observed steps deviate from $d_{(0)}=36$ nm raises the possibility that our fits using a unitary step size might be misleading or especially sensitive to the spread in sizes.
To address this issue note, first, that steps of distinct sizes, say $d_{(k)}$, should be expected to have different mean dwell times: an ideal set of experimental observations would, then, report the corresponding $\tau_{(k)}(F,\mbox{[ATP]})$ and their probabilities, say $p_{k}$. An analysis using Eq. 11 with $d$ replaced by $d_{(k)}$, etc., could subsequently be performed for each set and might possibly prove revealing. To a leading approximation one may suppose the various dwell times will be independent: in that case, the overall mean dwell time should be given by $$\tau= \sum_{k} p_{k} \tau_{(k)}.$$
More realistically, however, if the target-zone picture is valid, there will be correlations between successive steps: thus on average a short step, say of size $d_{(-)}$, must be followed immediately by a longer step, of size $d_{(0)}$ or $d_{(+)}$, and vice-versa. In principle, such correlations are open to observation and one might, indeed, expect the dwell times to depend on the size of the [*previous step*]{}, say $d_{(k)}'$, as well as on the step to be made. Theoretically the situation could clearly be modeled by a Markov process. \[See, e.g., Steffen et al. (2001).\]
In the absence of such more detailed observations, however, we may test the sensitivity of our fits by further exploratory calculations. As an extreme case, suppose 50$\%$ of the steps are of magnitude $d_{(+)}=41.5$ nm and 50$\%$ of size $d_{(-)}=30.5$ nm. How would the fits change from those assuming a unitary step $d_{(0)}=36$ nm? An answer is displayed by the dashed curves plotted in Fig. 2. These have been obtained by using Eq. 14 with $p_{+}=p_{-}=1/2$ and computing $\tau_{(+)}$ and $\tau_{(-)}$ from Eq. 11 using $d_{(+)}$ and $d_{(-)}$ together with the [*same*]{} zero-load rates and load distributions factors given in Eqs. 12 and 13. As evident from Fig. 2, there is no significant change in the quality of the fits — even though it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the rates and load factors might have some dependence on the $\pm 15\%$ changes in step-size. One might say that “the averages win out” — a not unexpected conclusion.
In fact we may go further and study the effects of [*correlated step sizes*]{} by utilizing the expressions for $N$-state periodic models ([**KF’03**]{}) with $N$ an integral multiple of $N_{0}$, the number of intermediate states in the basic catalytic cycle. In our analysis we have $N_{0}=2$ and so can utilize an $N=2+2=4$ periodic system to describe [*alternating long and short steps*]{} of sizes $d_{(+)}$ and $d_{(-)}$ (with, of course, the same previous [*average*]{} step size $d_{(0)}$). If we again use the zero-load rates and distribution factors in Eqs. 12 and 13, and compute the mean velocity as a function of load, we obtain the dashed curves presented in Fig. 3. Once more the deviations from the $d=\bar{d}$ results are negligible at loads $F < 2$ pN, while at higher loads sufficiently precise data might reveal discrepancies.
We conclude, therefore, that the consequences of replacing a distribution of step sizes by the mean $\bar{d}$ are not significant at current levels of experimental precision. Conversely, unless fairly precise experimental data can be obtained that are categorized by step length, there may be little more that can be reliably determined by fitting such observations.
Randomness {#randomness .unnumbered}
----------
As mentioned previously, the fluctuation statistics of motor motion are effectively captured in the randomness parameter, $r$, as defined in . The fits presented in and 13 suffice to predict the variation of $r$ with \[ATP\] under various loads (or vice versa) [*assuming*]{} that all the rate processes may be adequately represented as standard kinetic transitions: see [**FK’99**]{} and [**KF’00**]{}. The corresponding predictions for $r(\mbox{[ATP]})$ are presented in for loads $F=0.4$ and 2.5 pN. At low \[ATP\] the randomness is close to unity indicating that only one rate-limiting process is effective in this concentration range. However, under a low load a marked dip to $r \simeq 0.5$ occurs around $ \mbox{[ATP]}=10-20 \ \mu$M: this, in turn, is indicative of two competing rate processes that both play a role in this “crossover” regime. On the other hand, at high loads that approach stall, $r$ rises rapidly above unity; however, this is primarily a consequence of the vanishing of the velocity $V$ when $F \rightarrow F_{S}$ since $r$ must then diverge: see also Fig. 5(B), below.
It must be noted, however, that the analogous predictions, on the basis of an ($N=2$)-state kinetic model, for the the randomness of kinesin are [*not*]{} supported by the data of Visscher [*et al.*]{} (1999). Rather, for low loads and $\mbox{[ATP]} \gtrsim 30 \ \mu$M, the randomness falls rapidly and [*remains below*]{} 0.5 up to saturation concentrations: because of the bound $ r \ge 1/N$ ([**FK’99**]{}, Koza, 2002), this is inconsistent with a kinetic description. Thus the data for conventional kinesin demand $N=4$ (or more) states (in accord with the usual biochemical picture of ATP hydrolysis). [*Alternatively*]{}, and, in light of certain experiments (Nishiyama [*et al*]{}., 2001), possibly more realistically, one may invoke a waiting-time distribution to describe the process of hydrolysis and ADP release with a [*mechanicity*]{} $M_{1} \simeq 0.6$ ([**KF’00**]{}, [**FK’01**]{}). Thus measurements of $r(F,\mbox{[ATP]})$ for myosin-V might well prove equally revealing of the mechanism by [*failing*]{} to verify the behavior predicted by !
Reverse or Assisting Loads {#reverse-or-assisting-loads .unnumbered}
--------------------------
Another interesting and potentially instructive set of predictions can be advanced for the behavior under [*negative*]{} or [*assisting*]{} loads, $F<0$. Such experiments have been performed for kinesin by Coppin et al. (1997). Although their data posed certain problems (in particular, a significantly lower overall processivity under low loads) the same load distribution factors (and similar rates) provided a not unreasonable ($N=2$) fit ([**FK’01**]{}) simply by extending the analog of to negative values of $F$. The corresponding predictions for the dwell time and for the randomness as a function of $F$, extending down to $-3$ pN, are displayed in .
A caveat must, however, again be raised in light of subsequent experiments on kinesin by Block (2001) and coworkers. The validity of the extension of to negative $F$ clearly rests on a mechanistic/geometric assumption, namely, that changing abruptly the direction at which the coiled-coil myosin tail leaves the junction with two heads (or motor domains), i.e., from trailing upwards and backward ($F>0$) to pulling upwards and forward ($F<0$) does not result in a corresponding abrupt change in the mechanics of ATP binding, unbinding, or hydrolysis. If the junction were a perfect universal swivel joint, then as $F$, which is just the [*component*]{} of the total load force, say $ \vec{F}$, parallel to the track, passes through zero the stresses and strains within motor should, indeed, vary smoothly. However, the junction cannot be totally torsion free and if, for example, the tail were to rest against part of the head in one configuration but become dissociated in the other, then the smoothness assumption embodied in would fail. Indeed, just such an abrupt change of behavior has since been found by Block and coworkers (2001) for kinesin. Clearly, comparable experiments on myosin-V are desirable and should prove informative.
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
In summary, we have presented a simple two-state stochastic model, with allowance for fluctuating step sizes, which describes well essentially all the available experimental data on single-molecule myosin-V processivity. It reveals that ATP binding is load-independent, while ADP release is weakly load-dependent; but (as for kinesin) the loading forces strongly affect the reverse transition rates. Our analysis is consistent with the observation of tight coupling between catalytic cycles and mechanical steps, i.e., one ATP molecule is consumed per individual step, and with ATP binding and ADP release rates measured in bulk solution. It also indicates that an intermediate myosin-ADP-actin complex has its center of force advanced by 13-14 nm forward from the position prior to ATP binding, in reasonable agreement with various observations indicating a subsequent “working stroke” of around 22 nm. We have discussed specific predictions for the dwell times, mean velocity, and randomness of myosin-V motors in various experimental regimes including the imposition of assisting loads. Further experiments are needed in order to investigate the validity of our theoretical description and to uncover other mechanochemical features of myosin-V.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Discussions with Jonathon Howard and Steven Block concerning kinesin and insightful comments from John Sleep and the referees concerning myosin-V have been appreciated. A.B.K. acknowledges the financial support of the Camille and Henry Dreyfus New Faculty Awards Program (under Grant NF-00-056). M.E.F. is grateful to the National Science Foundation for support (under Grant No. CHE-99-81772).
[99]{}
Block, S.M., L.S.B. Goldstein, and B.J. Schnapp. 1990. Bead movements by single kinesin molecules studied with optical tweezers. [*Nature*]{} 348: 348-352.
Block, S.M. 2001. Lecture at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society of General Physiologists on “Molecular Motors,” Woods Hole, Mass., 9 Sept. 2001 and private communication.
Bray, D. 2001. Cell Movements: from molecules to motility, 2nd Edn. (Garland Publishing, New York) Chap. 5.
Coppin, C.M., D.W. Pierce, L. Hsu, and R.D. Vale. 1997. The load dependence of kinesin’s mechanical cycle. [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 94: 8539-8544.
De La Cruz, E.M., A.L. Wells, S.R. Rosenfeld, E.M. Ostap, and H.L. Sweeney. 1999. The kinetic mechanism of myosin V. [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 96: 13726-13731.
De La Cruz, E.M., H.L. Sweeney, and E.M. Ostap. 2000. ADP inhibition of myosin V ATPase activity. [*Biophys. J.*]{} 79: 1524-1529.
De La Cruz, E.M., E.M. Ostap, and H.L. Sweeney. 2001. Kinetic mechanism and regulation of myosin VI. [*J. Biol. Chem.*]{} 276: 32373-32381.
Fisher, M.E., and A.B. Kolomeisky. 1999(a). The force exerted by a molecular motor. [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 96: 6597-6602. To be denoted [**FK’99a**]{}.
Fisher, M.E., and A.B. Kolomeisky. 1999(b). Molecular motors and the forces they exert. [*Physica A*]{} 274: 241-266. To be denoted [**FK’99b**]{}.
Fisher, M.E., and A.B. Kolomeisky. 2001. Simple mechanochemistry describes the dynamics of kinesin molecules. [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 98: 7748-7753. To be denoted [**FK’01**]{}.
Fisher, M.E., and A.B. Kolomeisky. 2002. The motion of kinesin on a microtubule. [*Biophys. J.*]{} 82: 62a.
Hille, B. 2001. Ion Channels of Excitable Membranes. 3rd Edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass., pp. 478-485.
Howard, J., A.J. Hudspeth, and R.D. Vale. 1989. Movements of microtubules by single kinesin molecules. [*Nature*]{} 342: 154-158.
Howard, J. 2001. Mechanics of Motor Proteins and the Cytoskeleton. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.
Kojima, H., E. Muto, H. Higuchi, and T. Yanagida. 1997. Mechanics of single kinesin molecules measured by optical trapping nanometry. [*Biophys. J.*]{} 73: 2012-2022.
Kolomeisky, A.B. 2001. Exact results for parallel-chain kinetic models of biological transport. [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} 115: 7253-7259.
Kolomeisky, A.B., and B. Widom. 1998. A simplified “ratchet model of molecular motors.” [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} 93: 633-645.
Kolomeisky, A.B., and M.E. Fisher. 2000(a). Periodic sequential kinetic models with jumping branching and deaths. [*Physica A*]{} 279: 1-20. To be denoted [**KF’00a**]{}.
Kolomeisky, A.B., and M.E. Fisher. 2000(b). Extended kinetic models with waiting-time distributions: Exact results. [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} 113: 10867-10877. To be denoted [**KF’00b**]{}.
Koza, Z. 2002. Maximal force exerted by a molecular motor. [*Phys. Rev. E* ]{} 65: 031905:1-5.
Leibler, S., and D.A. Huse. 1993. Porters versus rowers: a unified stochastic model of motor proteins. [*J. Cell. Biol.*]{} 121: 1357-1368.
Lodish, H., A. Berk, S.L. Zipursky, and P. Matsudaira. 1995. Molecular Cell Biology, 3rd ed. Scientific American Books, New York.
Mehta, A. 2001. Myosin learns to walk. [*J. Cell Sci.*]{} 114: 1981-1998.
Mehta, A.D., R.S. Rock, M. Rief, J.A. Spudich, M.S. Mooseker, and R.E. Cheney. 1999. Myosin-V is a processive actin-based motor. [*Nature*]{} 400: 590-593.
Moore, J.R., E.B. Krementsova, K.M. Trybus, and D.M. Warshaw. 2001. Myosin V exhibits a high duty cycle and large unitary displacement. [*J. Cell Biol.*]{} 155: 625-635.
Nishikawa, S., K. Homma, Y. Komori, M. Iwaki, T. Wazawa, A.H. Iwane, J. Saito, R. Ikebe, E. Katayama, T. Yanagida and M. Ikebe. 2002. Class VI myosin moves processively along actin filaments backward with large steps. [*Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.*]{} 290: 311-317.
Nishiyama, M., E. Muto, Y. Inoue, T. Yanagida, and H. Higuchi. 2001. Substeps within the 8-nm step of the ATPase cycle of single kinesin molecules. [*Nature Cell Bio.*]{} 3: 425-428.
Rief, M., R.S. Rock, A.D. Mehta, M.S. Mooseker, R.E. Cheney, and J.A. Spudich. 2000. Myosin-V stepping kinetics: A molecular model for processivity. [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 97: 9482-9486.
Rock, R.S., S.E. Rice, A.L. Wells, T.J. Purcell, J.A. Spudich, and H.L. Sweeney. 2001. Myosin-VI is a processive motor with a large step size. [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 98: 13655-13659.
Sakamoto, T., I. Amitani, E. Yokota, and T. Ando. 2000. Direct observation of processive movement by individual myosin V molecules. [*Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.*]{} 272: 586-590.
Schnitzer, M.J., K. Visscher, and S.M. Block. 2000. Force production by single kinesin motors. [*Nat. Cell. Biol.*]{} 2: 718-723.
Steffen, W., D. Smith, R. Simmons and J. Sleep. 2001 Mapping the actin filament with myosin. [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 98: 14949-14954.
Svoboda, K., P.P. Mitra, and S.M. Block. 1994. Fluctuation analysis of motor protein movement and single enzyme kinetics. [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 91: 11782-11786.
Vale, R.D., T. Funatsu, D.W. Pierce, L. Romberg, Y. Harada, and T. Yanagida. 1996. Direct observation of single kinesin molecules moving along microtubules by fluorescence microscopy. [*Nature*]{} 380: 451-453.
van Kampen, N.G., 1997. Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry. 2nd Edn. Chap. 12, Elsevier. Amsterdam.
Veigel, C., F. Wang, M.L. Bartoo, J.R. Sellers, and J.E. Molloy. 2002. The gated gait of the processive molecular motor, myosin V. [*Nature Cell Biology*]{} 4: 59-65.
Visscher, K., M.J. Schnitzer, and S.M. Block. 1999. Single kinesin molecules studied with a molecular force clamp. [*Nature*]{} 400: 184-189.
Walker, M.L., S.A. Burgess, J.R. Sellers, F. Wang, J.A. Hammer III, J. Trinick, and P.J. Knight. 2000. Two-headed binding of a processive myosin to F-actin. [*Nature*]{} 405: 804-807.
Wang, M.D., M.J. Schnitzer, H. Yin, R. Landick, J. Gelles, and S.M. Block. 1998. Force and velocity measured for single molecules of RNA polymerase. [*Science*]{} 282: 902-907.
. Specification of the simplest $N$-state periodic stochastic model. A motor in state $j_{l}$ can undertake a forward transition at rate $u_{j}$ or it can make a backward transition at rate $w_{j}$. The bound state $N_{l}$ is identified with $0_{l+1}$.
. Fits to the data of Mehta [*et al.*]{} (1999) for the mean dwell times of myosin-V: ([*A*]{}) as a function of external load, $F$, at different ATP concentrations; ([*B*]{}) as a function of \[ATP\] under an external load $F=0.4$ pN and a prediction for $F=2.3$ pN. The solid curves represent Eq. 11 with the central parameter values in Eqs. 12 and 13; the dashed curves represent the mean dwell times predicted for a 50:50 mixture of short, $d_{(-)}=30.5$ nm, and long, $d_{(+)}=41.5$ nm steps using the same values for the other parameters: see the subsection [*Variability of Step Sizes*]{}, below. (Note that in part ([*B*]{}) the dashed curve for $F=0.4$ pN cannot be distinguished from the solid curve.)
. The force-velocity or ($F$, $V$) dependence of myosin-V at various concentrations of ATP as predicted using the parameter values in Eqs. 12 and 13: solid curves. The corresponding dashed curves follow from a model with [*alternating*]{} long and short steps ($d_{(+)}=41.5$ nm and $d_{(-)}=30.5$ nm) but otherwise the same zero-load rate constants and load distribution factors, $\theta_{j}^{\pm}$. The superimposed data bars (for \[ATP\]$=1 \mu$M and 2 mM) derive from the observed dwell times by using the [*approximate*]{} relation $V \simeq d/\tau$ (with $d=36$ nm); they track the predictions for $V(F)$ fairly well because of the paucity of reverse or backward steps under loads $F \lesssim 2.5$ pN.
. Predictions for the variation of the randomness, $r$, of myosin-V as a function of \[ATP\] at low ($F=0.4$ pN) and high external load ($F=2.3$ pN).
. Predicted behavior of myosin-V under assisting (i.e., negative) and resisting (positive) external loads, $F$, for two ATP concentrations: ([*A*]{}) mean dwell time; ([*B*]{}) randomness. See the text for appropriate caveats.
1.5in
(4.5,3.3)
Fig.1
1.5in
(4.5,3.3)
Fig.2A
1.5in
(4.5,3.3)
Fig.2B
1.5in
(4.5,3.3)
Fig.3
1.5in
(4.5,3.3)
Fig.4
1.5in
(4.5,3.3)
Fig.5A
1.5in
(4.5,3.3)
Fig.5B
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Let $G=(V,E)$ be an undirected graph with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w.$ The routing cost of a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ is $\sum_{u,v\in V} d_T(u,v),$ where $d_T(u,v)$ denotes the weight of the simple $u$-$v$ path in $T.$ The [Minimum Routing Cost Spanning Tree]{} (MRCT) problem [@WLBCRT00] asks for a spanning tree of $G$ with the minimum routing cost. In this paper, we parallelize several previously proposed approximation algorithms for the MRCT problem and some of its variants. Let $\epsilon>0$ be an arbitrary constant. When the edge-weight function $w$ is given in unary, we parallelize the $(4/3+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for the MRCT problem [@WCT00MRCT] by implementing it using an ${\cal
RNC}$ circuit. There are other variants of the MRCT problem. In the [Sum-Requirement Optimal Communication Spanning Tree]{} (SROCT) problem [@WCT00PROCTSROCT], each vertex $u$ is associated with a requirement $r(u)\ge 0.$ The objective is to find a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ minimizing $\sum_{u,v\in V} \left(r(u)+r(v)\right) \, d_T(u,v).$ When the edge-weight function $w$ and the vertex-requirement function $r$ are given in unary, we parallelize the $2$-approximation algorithm for the SROCT problem [@WCT00PROCTSROCT] by realizing it using ${\cal RNC}$ circuits, with a slight degradation in the approximation ratio from $2$ to $2+o(1).$ In the weighted $2$-MRCT problem [@Wu02], we have additional inputs $s_1,s_2\in V$ and $\lambda\ge 1.$ The objective is to find a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ minimizing $\sum_{v\in V} \lambda \, d_T(s_1,v) + d_T(s_2,v).$ When the edge-weight function $w$ is given in unary, we parallelize the $2$-approximation algorithm [@Wu02] into ${\cal RNC}$ circuits, with a slight degradation in the approximation ratio from $2$ to $2+o(1).$ To the best of our knowledge, our results are the first parallelized approximation algorithms for the MRCT problem and its variants.
author:
- 'Ching-Lueh Chang[^1]'
- 'Yuh-Dauh Lyuu[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'par.bib'
title: Parallelized approximation algorithms for minimum routing cost spanning trees
---
Introduction
============
Let $G=(V,E)$ be an undirected graph with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w.$ The routing cost of a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ is $\sum_{u,v \in V} d_T(u,v)$ where $d_T(u,v)$ is the weight of any shortest $u$-$v$ path in $T,$ or equivalently, the weight of the simple $u$-$v$ path in $T.$ The [Minimum Routing Cost Spanning Tree]{} (MRCT) problem [@WLBCRT00] asks for a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ with the minimum routing cost. It is also known as the [Shortest Total Path Length Spanning Tree]{} problem. The MRCT problem is first proposed by Hu [@Hu74], who referred to the problem as the [Optimum Distance Spanning Tree Problem]{}. In Hu’s formulation of the more general [Optimum Communication Spanning Tree]{} (OCT) problem [@Hu74], an additional value $\tau_{u,v}\ge 0$ is given for each pair $(u,v)$ of vertices. The communication cost [@Hu74] of a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ is $\sum_{u,v\in V} \tau_{u,v} \, d_T(u,v).$ The OCT problem asks for a spanning tree of $G$ with the minimum communication cost. When $G$ is a complete graph and the edge-weight function $w$ obeys the triangle inequality, a randomized $O(\log {|V|})$-approximation algorithm is known for the OCT problem [@Bar98; @CCGG98; @WLBCRT00; @FRT03]. The MRCT problem is the special case of the OCT problem when $\tau_{u,v}=1$ for all $u,v\in V.$
The MRCT problem has applications in network design [@Hu74; @JLK78] as well as multiple sequences alignment in computational biology [@FD87; @Pev92; @Gus93; @BLP94; @WLBCRT00]. Unfortunately, it is shown to be ${\cal NP}$-hard [@JLK78], and it is ${\cal NP}$-hard even when all edge weights are equal [@JLK78; @GJ79] or when the edge-weight function obeys the triangle inequality [@WLBCRT00].
Exact and approximation algorithms for the MRCT problem have been extensively researched [@BFW73; @Hoa73; @DF79; @Won80; @WCT00MRCT; @WLBCRT00; @FLS02]. Boyce et al. [@BFW73], Hoang [@Hoa73] and Dionne and Florian [@DF79] study branch-and-bound algorithms as well as heuristic approximation algorithms for the [Optimal Network Design]{} problem [@BFW73], which includes the MRCT problem as a special case. Fischetti et al. [@FLS02] give exact algorithms for the MRCT problem while avoiding exhaustive search. Wong [@Won80] gives a polynomial-time $2$-approximation algorithm for the MRCT problem. That is, he gives a polynomial-time algorithm that, given a graph $G=(V,E)$ with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w,$ outputs a spanning tree of $G$ whose routing cost is at most $2$ times the minimum. Subsequent work by Wu et al. [@WCT00MRCT] shows a different polynomial-time $2$-approximation algorithm as well as polynomial-time $15/8, 3/2$ and $(4/3+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithms for the MRCT problem, where $\epsilon>0$ is an arbitrary constant. Their results are later improved by Wu et al. [@WLBCRT00] to give a polynomial-time approximation scheme (PTAS) [@CLRS01] for the MRCT problem. That is, a polynomial-time $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm is given for any constant $\epsilon>0.$
There are other variants of the MRCT problem that also have applications in network design [@WLBCRT00; @WCT00PROCTSROCT; @WCT00PROCTPTAS; @Wu02]. In the [Sum-Requirement Optimal Communication Spanning Tree]{} (SROCT) problem [@WCT00PROCTSROCT], each vertex $u$ is associated with a requirement $r(u)\ge 0.$ The objective is to find a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ minimizing $\sum_{u,v\in V} (r(u)+r(v)) \, d_T(u,v).$ The [Product-Requirement Optimal Communication Spanning Tree]{} (PROCT) [@WCT00PROCTSROCT] problem is to find a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ minimizing $\sum_{u,v\in V} r(u)\, r(v) \, d_T(u,v).$ The SROCT and PROCT problems are clearly generalizations of the MRCT problem. Wu et al. [@WCT00PROCTSROCT] give a $2$-approximation algorithm for the SROCT problem. They also propose a $1.577$-approximation algorithm [@WCT00PROCTSROCT] for the PROCT problem. The result is improved by Wu et al. [@WCT00PROCTPTAS] to yield a polynomial-time approximation scheme (PTAS) for the PROCT problem. Another variant of the MRCT problem is the $2$-MRCT problem [@Wu02]. In this problem, except for $G=(V,E)$ and $w:E\to \mathbb{R}_0^+,$ we are given two source vertices $s_1,s_2\in V.$ The objective is to find a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ minimizing $\sum_{v\in V} d_T(s_1,v) + d_T(s_2,v).$ This problem is ${\cal NP}$-hard even when $w$ obeys the triangle inequality [@Wu02]. Wu [@Wu02] shows a $2$-approximation algorithm as well as a PTAS for this problem. A variant of the $2$-MRCT problem is the weighted $2$-MRCT problem [@Wu02] where an additional $\lambda\ge 1$ is given as input. The objective is to find a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ minimizing $\sum_{v\in V} \lambda \, d_T(s_1,v) + d_T(s_2,v).$ Wu [@Wu02] proposes a $2$-approximation algorithm for the weighted $2$-MRCT problem. When the edge-weight function $w$ obeys the triangle inequality, there is a PTAS for the weighted $2$-MRCT problem [@Wu02].
In this paper, however, we will focus on parallelizing the approximation algorithms for the above problems. We first describe our results concerning the MRCT problem. For an arbitrary $\epsilon>0$ and when the edge-weight function $w$ is given in unary, we show that the $(4/3+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm proposed by Wu et al. [@WCT00MRCT] can be implemented by an ${\cal RNC}$ circuit. That is, the approximation algorithm can be performed by a uniform polynomial-size circuit [@Pap94CC] with random gates and poly-logarithmic depth. Indeed, with a small probability our parallelized algorithm may fail to find a $(4/3+\epsilon)$-approximate solution, in which case it outputs “fail.” Thus, our algorithm does not fail (to find a $(4/3+\epsilon)$-approximate solution) without ever knowing that it fails, which is a desirable property for randomized algorithms with a small probability of failure. We now turn to describe our results concerning the SROCT problem. When the edge-weight and the vertex-requirement functions are given in unary, we parallelize the $2$-approximation algorithm [@WCT00PROCTSROCT] by realizing it using ${\cal RNC}$ circuits, with a slight degradation in the approximation ratio (from the currently best $2$ to our $2+o(1)$). Still, with a small probability our algorithm may fail to output a $(2+o(1))$-approximate solution, in which case it knows the failure and outputs “fail.”
Finally, for the weighted $2$-MRCT problem with the edge-weight function given in unary, we parallelize the $2$-approximation algorithm [@Wu02] into ${\cal RNC}$ circuits, with a slight degradation in the approximation ratio (from the currently best $2$ to our $2+o(1)$). Again, there is a small probability that our algorithm fails to find a $(2+o(1))$-approximate solution, in which case it outputs “fail.”
To the best of our knowledge, our results are the first efforts towards parallelized approximation algorithms for the MRCT problem and its variants. Our results open up new opportunities to compute approximate solutions to the above problems in parallel poly-logarithmic time. In the applications of the MRCT problem to network design [@Hu74; @JLK78] as well as the applications of the SROCT and PROCT problems to network design [@WCT00PROCTSROCT; @WCT00PROCTPTAS], the network is often modeled as a graph with a nonnegative edge-weight function representing the distances between pairs of nodes. Although approximate solutions to the aforementioned problems (MRCT, SROCT, PROCT, weighted $2$-MRCT) are attainable in polynomial time, in any real networking environment, however, the cost of traffic between any pair of nodes may vary over time. Thus, it is highly desirable to be able to compute approximate solutions to these problems as fast as possible, so as to reduce the risk that the traffic costs change during the computation. Our results imply that approximate solutions to the MRCT, SROCT and weighted $2$-MRCT problems can indeed by computed in parallel poly-logarithmic time on multiprocessors.
For other applications of the MRCT problem where the data does not change quickly over time, for example multiple sequences alignment in computational biology [@FD87; @Pev92; @Gus93; @BLP94; @WLBCRT00], being able to compute approximate solutions to the MRCT problem in parallel sublinear time is still beneficial. Indeed, Fischer [@Fis01] argues that in many practical applications today, the input size is so large that even performing linear-time computations is too time-consuming. Certainly, multiple sequences alignment in computational biology constitutes a good example where the input size is usually too large. It is therefore a desirable property that our algorithms operate in parallel sublinear time, and in fact poly-logarithmic time. The main idea underlying our proofs is that many of the previously proposed approximation algorithms for the MRCT, SROCT and weighted $2$-MRCT problems rely heavily on finding shortest paths between pairs of vertices in a graph. This motivates applying the well-known result that ${\cal
NL}\subseteq {\cal NC}$ to parallelize these algorithms since we can guess a path (possibly the shortest one) between two vertices of a graph in nondeterministic logarithmic space. There is the complication that, in our proofs, we will often need to generate the same shortest path between two vertices $u,v,$ whenever a shortest $u$-$v$ path is needed. For this purpose, we use the isolation technique [@Wig94; @GW96; @RA00] to slightly modify the edge-weight function of the input graph, so that there is exactly one shortest path between each pair of vertices with high probability. We then apply the double-counting technique [@RA00] to decide whether the input graph (with the modified edge-weight function) exhibits a unique shortest path between each pair $u,v$ of vertices. If so, we are able use the double counting technique to generate the unique shortest $u$-$v$ path whenever it is needed. The whole procedure runs in unambiguous logarithmic space and our results follow by ${\cal UL}\subseteq {\cal NL}\subseteq {\cal NC}.$ The approximation ratio would be slightly degraded. The degradation comes from randomly modifying the edge-weight function when we apply the isolation technique.
Our paper is organized as follows. Section \[defs\] provides the basic definitions. Section \[firstresult\] presents the parallelized $(4/3+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for the MRCT problem. Section \[SROCTsection\]–\[twoMRCTsection\] describe our parallelized approximation algorithms for the SROCT and the weighted $2$-MRCT problems, respectively. Section \[conclusion\] concludes the paper. Proofs are given in the appendix for references.
Notations and basic facts {#defs}
=========================
Throughout this paper, graphs are simple undirected graphs [@Wes01]. That is, we disallow parallel edges and self-loops. There will always be a nonnegative edge-weight function mapping each edge to a nonnegative real number. For a graph $G,$ $V(G)$ is its vertex set and $E(G)$ is its edge set. Let $R$ be a subgraph of $G.$ A path $P$ connects a vertex $v$ to $R$ (or $V(R)$) if one endpoint of $P$ is $v$ and the other is in $V(R).$ An edge connecting two vertices $u$ and $v$ is denoted $uv.$ A path connecting two vertices $u$ and $v$ is said to be a $u$-$v$ path. A path $(v_0,\ldots,v_k)$ is one which traverses $v_0,\ldots,v_k,$ in that order. A simple path is a path that traverses each vertex at most once [@Wes01]. A graph $G$ contains another graph $G^\prime$ if $G^\prime$ is a subgraph of $G.$ The set of nonnegative real numbers is denoted $\mathbb{R}_0^+.$
\[basicdef\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be an undirected graph and $w:E\to \mathbb{R}^+_0$ be a nonnegative edge-weight function. The lexicographical ordering on $V$ is that of the encodings of the vertices in $V,$ assuming any reasonable encoding of a graph. Let $u,v\in V$ and $R$ be a subgraph of $G.$ The sum of edge weights of $R$ is denoted $w(R).$ When $R$ is a path, $w(R)$ is called the weight or length of $R.$ For $x,y\in V,$ we use $d_G(x,y)$ to denote the weight of any shortest $x$-$y$ path. We use $d_G(x,R)$ (or $d_G(x,V(R))$) for $\min_{z\in V(R)} d_G(x,z).$ The lexicographically first vertex $x^\prime\in V(R)$ satisfying $d_G(x,x^\prime)=d_G(x,R)$ is denoted $\text{closest}(x,R)$ (or $\text{closest}(x,V(R))$). The set of all shortest paths connecting $u$ and $v$ is denoted $\text{SP}_G(u,v).$ $\text{SP}_G(u,R)$ (or $\text{SP}_G(u,V(R))$) is the set of shortest paths connecting $u$ and $R.$ That is, $\text{SP}_G(u,R)$ is the set of paths that connect $u$ and $R$ and have weight equal to $d_G(u,R).$ For $k\in \mathbb{N},$ $S_{k,u}$ denotes the set of vertices reachable from $u$ with at most $k$ edges. $\text{SP}^{(k)}_{u,v}$ denotes the set of all shortest paths among those $u$-$v$ paths with at most $k$ edges. That is, $\text{SP}^{(k)}_{u,v}$ is the set of $u$-$v$ paths with at most $k$ edges whose weight is not larger than any other path with at most $k$ edges. The union of two graphs $G_1=(V_1,E_1)$ and $G_2=(V_2,E_2)$ is the graph $(V_1\cup V_2,E_1\cup E_2).$ The graph $G$ is strongly min-unique with respect to $w$ if for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$ and $u,v\in V,$ we have $\left|\text{SP}^{(k)}_{u,v}\right|\le 1.$ When $w$ is clear from the context, we may simply say that $G$ is strongly min-unique without referring to $w.$
In Definition \[basicdef\], it is not hard to show that $G=(V,E)$ is strongly min-unique if $\left|\text{SP}^{(k)}_{u,v}\right|\le 1$ for all $k\in \{0,\ldots,|V|-1\}$ and $u,v\in V,$ provided $|V|\ge 3.$ The MRCT of a graph, standing for its **M**inimum **R**outing **C**ost spanning **T**ree, is defined below.
([@CW04]) \[routingcost\] Given a connected graph $G=(V,E)$ with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w:E\to \mathbb{R}^+_0,$ the routing cost $c_w(T)$ of a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ is $\sum_{u,v\in V} d_T(u,v).$ A spanning tree of $G$ with the minimum routing cost is an MRCT of $G,$ which is denoted by $\text{MRCT}(G)$ for convenience.
The MRCT problem asks for $\text{MRCT}(G)$ on input $G,w.$ The following fact shows that the routing cost of a tree can be computed efficiently.
([@CW04]) \[loading\] Let $G$ be a graph with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w:E(T)\to \mathbb{R}^+_0$ and $T$ be a spanning tree of $G.$ For each edge $e\in E(T),$ let $T_{e,1}$ and $T_{e,2}$ be the two trees formed by removing $e$ from $T.$ We have $c_w(T)=\sum_{e\in E(T)} 2|V(T_{e,1})|\, |V(T_{e,2})| \, w(e)$ and $c_w(T)\le |V(T)|^3/2 \cdot \max_{e\in E(T)} w(e).$
To ease the description, we introduce the following definition.
([@RA00]) \[unambdef\] A nondeterministic Turing machine $M$ outputs a string $s$ unambiguously on input $x$ if it outputs $s$ on exactly one non-rejecting computation branch, and rejects $x$ on all other computation branches. The unambiguously output string $s$ is also denoted $M(x).$
Throughout this paper, when a nondeterministic Turing machine $A$ runs or simulates another nondeterministic machine $B,$ it means that $A$ runs $B$ and make nondeterministic branches as $B$ does. It does not mean that $A$ enumerates all computation branches of $B$ and simulate them deterministically. For convenience, $A$ does not necessarily have to output $B$’s output. Instead, it may extract portions of $B$’s output for output.
We will need the notion of a general star to introduce the approximation algorithms for the MRCT problem.
([@CW04]) Let $G$ be a connected graph with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w: E\to
\mathbb{R}^+_0$ and $S$ be a subtree of $G.$ A spanning tree $T$ containing $S$ is a general star with core $S$ if each vertex $u\in V$ satisfies $d_T(u,S)=d_G(u,S).$ When $V(S)=\{v\}$ is a singleton, a general star with core $S$ is also called a shortest path tree rooted at $v.$
Given any subtree $S$ of $G=(V,E),$ a general star with core $S$ exists [@WCT00MRCT]. This follows by observing that for any shortest path $P$ connecting $u\in V$ and $S,$ the part of $P$ from any vertex $x\in V(P)$ to $S$ constitutes a shortest path connecting $x$ and $S.$
The notion of a metric graph is defined below.
([@WLBCRT00]) A complete graph $G$ with a non-negative edge-weight function $w$ is metric if $w(xy)+w(yz)\ge w(xz)$ for all $x,y,z\in V(G).$
A parallelized $(4/3+\epsilon)$-approximation for MRCT {#firstresult}
======================================================
We begin with the following form of the famous isolation lemma. It is implicit in some previous works [@Wig94; @GW96; @RA00].
([@RA00]) \[isolation\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph with a nonnegative edge-weight $w: E\to \mathbb{R}^+_0.$ Let $w_r: E\to \mathbb{R}^+_0$ assign the weight of each $e\in E$ independently and randomly from the uniform distribution over a set $W\subseteq \mathbb{R}^+_0.$ With probability at least $1-{|V|^5}/{(2|W|)},$ the graph $G$ is strongly min-unique with respect to $w+w_r.$
The following theorem is implicit in [@RA00]. It uses the double counting technique [@RA00] similar to the inductive counting technique used to prove the Immerman-Szelepcs[é]{}nyi theorem [@Imm88; @Sze88].
([@RA00]) \[doublecount\] There is a nondeterministic logarithmic-space Turing machine FIND-PATH that, on input a graph $G=(V,E)$ with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w:E\to \{0,\ldots,\text{poly}(|V|)\}$ and two vertices $s,t \in V,$ satisfies the following conditions.
- If $G$ is not strongly min-unique, then FIND-PATH outputs “not strongly min-unique” unambiguously.
- If $G$ is strongly min-unique and has an $s$-$t$ path, then FIND-PATH outputs the unique path $P\in\text{SP}_G(s,t)$ and its weight $w(P)$ unambiguously. The edges in $P$ are output in the direction going from $s$ to $t.$
- If $G$ is strongly min-unique and does not have an $s$-$t$ path, then FIND-PATH has no accepting computation branches.
The following theorem is due to Wu et al. [@WCT00MRCT].
([@WCT00MRCT])\[approx\] Let $r\in\mathbb{N}$ be a constant and $G=(V,E)$ be a connected, strongly min-unique graph with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w: E\to \mathbb{R}^+_0.$ For $1\le k\le r+4$ and $S=(v_1,\ldots,v_k)\in V^k,$ let $R_{1,S}$ be the subgraph of $G$ containing only $v_1.$ For $2\le i\le k,$ let $R_{i,S}=R_{i-1,S}\cup P_{i,S}$ where $P_{i,S}\in \text{SP}_G\left(v_i,\text{closest}(v_i,R_{i-1,S}))\right)$ is the unique shortest path connecting $v_i$ and $\text{closest}(v_i,R_{i-1,S}).$ For some $1\le k\le r+4$ and $S\in V^k,$ every general star $T$ with core $R_{k,S}$ satisfies $$c_w(T)\le \left(\frac{4}{3}+\frac{8}{9r+2}\right) \,
c_w(\text{MRCT}(G)).$$
That $R_{i,S}$ in Theorem \[approx\] is a subtree of $G$ for $2\le i\le
k$ is easily shown because $w(e)>0$ for each $e\in E$ by the strong min-uniqueness of $G.$ The core $R_{k,S}$ in Theorem \[approx\] is unambiguously computable in logarithmic space on strongly min-unique connected graphs. To show this, we need the following lemma.
\[add\] There is a nondeterministic logarithmic-space Turing machine $\text{ADD-PATH}$ that, on input a strongly min-unique connected graph $G=(V,E)$ with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w:E\to \{0,\ldots,\text{poly}(|V|)\},$ a subgraph $R$ of $G$ and a vertex $v\in V,$ outputs the unique path $P\in \text{SP}_G\left(v,\text{closest}(v,R)\right)$ unambiguously.
With Lemma \[add\], we are able to compute the core $R_{k,S}$ in Theorem \[approx\] unambiguously in logarithmic space on strongly min-unique connected graphs.
\[core\] Let $r\in\mathbb{N}$ be a constant. There is a nondeterministic logarithmic-space Turing machine CORE that, on input a strongly min-unique connected graph $G=(V,E)$ with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w:E\to \{0,\ldots,\text{poly}(|V|)\}$ and $S=(v_1,\ldots,v_k)\in V^k$ where $1\le
k\le r+4,$ unambiguously outputs $R_{k,S}$ defined below. $R_{1,S}$ is the subgraph of $G$ containing only $v_1.$ For $2\le i\le k,$ $R_{i,S}=R_{i-1,S}\cup P_{i,S}$ where $$P_{i,S}\in
\text{SP}_G\left(v_i,\text{closest}(v_i,R_{i-1,S})\right)$$ is the unique shortest path connecting $v_i$ and $\text{closest}(v_i,R_{i-1,S}).$
With Theorem \[approx\] and Lemma \[core\], it is not hard to show the following fact.
\[substruct\] Let $r\in\mathbb{N}$ be a constant and $G=(V,E)$ be a strongly min-unique, connected graph with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w: E\to \{0,\ldots,\text{poly}(|V|)\}.$ For a sequence $S$ of at most $r+4$ vertices in $V,$ let $C_S=\text{CORE}(G,w,S)$ and $P_u\in \text{SP}_G\left(u,\text{closest}(u,C_S)\right)$ for $u\in V\setminus V(C_S).$ Then $$T_S=C_S \cup \bigcup_{u\in V\setminus V(C_S)} P_u$$ is a general star with core $S,$ and $$c_w(T_S)< \left(\frac{4}{3}+\frac{8}{9r+12}\right) \cdot
c_w(\text{MRCT}(G))$$ for some $S.$
The general star with a core in Fact \[substruct\] can be computed unambiguously in logarithmic space, as the next lemma shows.
\[key\] Let $r\in\mathbb{N}$ be a constant. There is a nondeterministic logarithmic-space Turing machine $\text{STAR}$ that, on input a strongly min-unique connected graph $G=(V,E)$ with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w: E\to \{0,\ldots,\text{poly}(|V|)\}$ and a sequence $S$ of at most $r+4$ vertices in $V,$ outputs $C_S=\text{CORE}(G,w,S)$ and each unique path in $\text{SP}_G\left(u,\text{closest}(u,C_S)\right)$ for $u\in V\setminus V(C_S)$ unambiguously.
The following lemma allows unambiguous logarithmic-space computation of the routing cost of a tree.
\[routpair\] There is a nondeterministic logarithmic-space Turing machine ROUT-PAIR that, on input a tree $T$ with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w: E(T)\to \{0,\ldots,\text{poly}(|V(T)|)\}$ and $s,t\in V(T),$ unambiguously outputs the unique simple path $P^*$ connecting $s$ and $t$ in $T$ and $w(P^*).$
Combining Fact \[substruct\] and Lemmas \[key\]–\[routpair\] gives the following lemma.
\[unambiguousapprox\] Let $r\in\mathbb{N}$ be a constant. There exists a nondeterministic logarithmic-space Turing machine APPROX that, on input a strongly min-unique connected graph $G=(V,E)$ with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w: E\to
\{0,\ldots,\text{poly}(|V|)\},$ unambiguously outputs a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ with $$c_w(T)< \left(\frac{4}{3}+\frac{8}{9r+12}\right) \cdot
c_w(\text{MRCT}(G)).$$
The following lemma will be useful.
\[smallerr\] Let $\alpha>0$ be a constant. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w:E\to
\mathbb{R}^+_0,$ and the minimum nonzero weight assigned by $w,$ if it exists, is at least $1.$ Let $T_1$ and $T_2$ be spanning trees of $G.$ Let $w_r$ assign to each edge $e\in E$ a nonnegative weight $w(e)\le
1/{|V|^4}$ and $w^\prime=w+w_r.$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
c_{w^\prime}(T_1)\le \alpha \, c_{w^\prime}(T_2) \label{eqA}\end{aligned}$$ implies $$\begin{aligned}
c_{w}(T_1)\le \alpha \, (1+\frac{1}{2|V|}) \, c_{w}(T_2) \label{eqB}\end{aligned}$$ for sufficiently large $|V|.$
Combining Theorem \[isolation\] and Lemma \[unambiguousapprox\]–\[smallerr\] yields the following theorem.
\[parallel\] Let $\epsilon>0$ be a constant. There is an ${\cal RNC}^2$ algorithm PARALLEL that, on input a weighted undirected graph $G=(V,E)$ with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w: E\to
\{0,\ldots,\text{poly}(|V|)\},$ satisfies the following.
- If $G$ is disconnected, then $\text{PARALLEL}(G,w)$ outputs “disconnected.”
- If $G$ is connected, then $\text{PARALLEL}(G,w)$ outputs a spanning tree of $G$ unambiguously or outputs “fail” unambiguously. The probability that $\text{PARALLEL}(G)$ outputs a spanning tree of $G$ unambiguously is at least $1-1/{(2|V|)}.$ If $\text{PARALLEL}(G)$ outputs a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ unambiguously, then $$c_{w}(T) \le \left(\frac{4}{3}+\epsilon\right) \cdot
c_{w}(\text{MRCT}(G)).$$
The SROCT problem {#SROCTsection}
=================
We begin this section with the following definition.
([@WCT00PROCTSROCT; @Wu02]) \[variantdef\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w:E\to
\mathbb{R}_0^+$ and $r:V\to \mathbb{R}_0^+$ be a requirement function on vertices. Let $s_1,s_2\in V$ be two vertices of $G$ and $T$ be a spanning tree of $G.$ The sum-requirement communication (s.r.c.) cost of $T$ is $$c^{(s)}_w(T)=\sum_{u,v\in V} (r(u)+r(v)) \, d_T(u,v).$$ The [Sum-Requirement Optimal Communication Spanning Tree]{} (SROCT) problem is to find a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ with the minimum value of $c^{(s)}_w(T)$ over all spanning trees of $G.$ We use $\text{SROCT}(G)$ to denote an arbitrary spanning tree of $G$ with the minimum s.r.c. cost. The two-source routing cost of $T$ with sources $s_1,s_2$ is $$c^{(2)}_w(T,s_1,s_2)=\sum_{v\in V} \left(d_T(s_1,v)+d_T(s_2,v)\right).$$ The $2$-MRCT problem is to find a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ with the minimum value of $c^{(2)}_w(T,s_1,s_2)$ over all spanning trees of $G$ (in this problem $s_1$ and $s_2$ are part of the input). We use $\text{$2$-MRCT}(G)$ to denote an arbitrary spanning tree of $G$ with the minimum two-source routing cost when the sources $s_1,s_2$ are clear from the context. Let $\lambda\ge 1.$ The weighted two-source routing cost of $T$ with sources $s_1,s_2$ and weight $\lambda$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&&c^{(2)}_w(T,s_1,s_2,\lambda)\\
&=&\sum_{v\in V} \left(\lambda \, d_T(s_1,v)+d_T(s_2,v)\right).\end{aligned}$$ The weighted $2$-MRCT problem is to find a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ with the minimum value of $c^{(2)}_w(T,s_1,s_2,\lambda)$ over all spanning trees of $G$ (in this problem $s_1,s_2$ and $\lambda$ are part of the input). We use $\text{W-$2$-MRCT}(G)$ to denote an arbitrary spanning tree of $G$ with the minimum weighted two-source routing cost when $\lambda$ and the sources $s_1,s_2$ are clear from the context.
The SROCT, $2$-MRCT and weighted $2$-MRCT problems are all ${\cal NP}$-hard, even on metric graphs [@WLBCRT00; @WCT00PROCTSROCT; @WCT00PROCTPTAS; @Wu02].
The following theorem gives a $2$-approximation solution to the SROCT problem.
([@WCT00PROCTSROCT]) \[SROCTapprox\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w$ and a nonnegative vertex-requirement function $r.$ There exists a vertex $x\in V$ such that any shortest path tree $T$ rooted at $x$ satisfies $$c^{(s)}_w(T) \le 2 c^{(s)}_w(\text{SROCT}(G)).$$
Theorems \[isolation\]–\[doublecount\], \[SROCTapprox\] and Lemma \[routpair\] give the following parallelized $2$-approximation solution to the SROCT problem.
\[parallelSROCT\] There is an ${\cal RNC}^2$ algorithm PARALLEL-SROCT that, on input a connected graph $G=(V,E)$ with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w:E\to \{0,\ldots,\text{poly}(|V|)\}$ and a nonnegative vertex-requirement function $r:V\to \{0,\ldots,\text{poly}(|V|)\},$ outputs a spanning $T$ of $G$ with $$c^{(s)}_w(T)\le (2+o(1)) \, c^{(s)}_w(\text{SROCT}(G))$$ with high probability. If PARALLEL-SROCT does not output such a spanning tree, it outputs “fail.”
Weighted $2$-MRCT problem {#twoMRCTsection}
=========================
For the weighted $2$-MRCT problem, we can assume without loss of generality that the two sources $s_1,s_2$ are such that $d_G(s_1,s_2)>0,$ where $G$ is the input graph. Otherwise, the problem reduces to finding a shortest path tree rooted at $s_1,$ which was implicitly done in the proof of Theorem \[parallelSROCT\]. Wu [@Wu02] has the following $2$-approximation solution for the weighted $2$-MRCT problem.
([@Wu02]) \[twoMRCT\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w:E\to
\mathbb{R}^+_0,$ two sources $s_1,s_2\in V$ with $d_G(s_1,s_2)>0$ and $\lambda\ge 1.$ Denote $$D_1(v)=(\lambda+1)\, d_G(v,s_1) + d_G(s_1,s_2)$$ and $$D_2(v)=(\lambda+1)\, d_G(v,s_2) + \lambda \, d_G(s_1,s_2)$$ for $v\in V.$ Let $Z_1^w=\{v\mid D_1(v)\le D_2(v)\}$ and $Z_2^w=V\setminus Z_1^w.$ Let $Q\in \text{SP}_G(s_1,s_2)$ be arbitrary. Denote $$\begin{aligned}
Q=\left(q_0=s_1,\ldots,q_j,q_{j+1},\ldots,s_2\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $q_{j+1}$ is the first vertex on $Q$ (in the direction from $s_1$ to $s_2$) that is not in $Z_1^w$ (it is easy to see that $s_1\in Z_1^w$). For each $v\in V,$ let $P_{v,s_1} \in \text{SP}_G(v,s_1)$ and $P_{v,s_2} \in \text{SP}_G(v,s_2)$ be arbitrary. If $T_1=\bigcup_{v\in {Z_1^w}} P_{v,s_1}$ and $T_2=\bigcup_{v\in {Z_2^w}}
P_{v,s_2}$ are trees, then $T=T_1\cup T_2\cup q_j q_{j+1}$ is a spanning tree of $G$ and $$c^{(2)}_w(T)\le 2 c^{(2)}_w(\text{W-$2$-MRCT}(G)).$$
Theorems \[isolation\]–\[doublecount\] and \[twoMRCT\] and Lemma \[routpair\] yield the following theorem.
\[weightedtwoMRCT\] There is an ${\cal RNC}^2$ algorithm $\text{WEIGHTED-$2$-MRCT}$ that, on input a graph $G=(V,E)$ with a nonnegative edge-weight function $w:E\to \{0,\ldots,\text{poly}(|V|)\},$ $s_1,s_2\in V$ and $\lambda\ge 1,$ with high probability outputs a spanning tree $T$ with $$c^{(2)}_w(T)\le (2+o(1))\, c^{(2)}_w(\text{W-$2$-MRCT}(G)).$$ If WEIGHTED-$2$-MRCT does not output such a spanning tree, it outputs “fail.”
We make the following concluding remark. All our algorithms are shown to be ${\cal RNC}^2$-computable by showing that they run in unambiguous logarithmic space and succeed in giving an approximate solution when the random input specifies an edge-weight function $w_r$ such that $G$ is strongly min-unique with respect to $w+w_r.$ By a method similar to that in [@RA00], we can also turn the random weight assignment into polynomially long advices. This is summarized below.
Let $\epsilon>0$ be a constant. There are ${\cal UL}/\text{poly}$ algorithms for $(4/3+\epsilon)$-approximating the MRCT problem, $(2+o(1))$-approximating the SROCT problem and $(2+o(1))$-approximating the weighted $2$-MRCT problem, where the respective edge-weight and vertex-requirement functions are given in unary.
Conclusion
==========
We have given parallelized approximation algorithms for the minimum routing cost spanning tree problem and some of its variants. Our results show that, by exhibiting multiple processors, we can compute approximate solutions to the considered problems in parallel poly-logarithmic time. We hope this will shed light on the many areas in which the considered problems are concerned, for example network design [@Hu74; @JLK78] and multiple sequences alignment in computational biology [@FD87; @Pev92; @Gus93; @BLP94; @WLBCRT00].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors are grateful to Wen-Hui Chen for his helpful comments and suggestions.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
\[Proof of Theorem \[isolation\].\] The theorem is clearly true for $|V|\le 2.$ If $G$ is not strongly min-unique with respect to $w+w_r$ and $|V|\ge 3,$ we have seen that there exist $0\le k\le |V|-1, s,t\in V$ such that $\left|\text{SP}^{(k)}_{s,t}\right|\ge 2$ where the edge weights are given with respect to $w+w_r.$ This implies the existence of an edge $e\in E$ such that at least one path in $\text{SP}^{(k)}_{s,t}$ contains $e,$ and at least one does not. In this case we say that $(k,s,t)$ blames $e.$ Thus, the probability that $G$ is not strongly min-unique is at most the sum over $0\le k\le |V|-1,$ $s,t\in V$ and $e\in E$ of the probability that $(k,s,t)$ blames $e.$ For any $k\in\{0,\ldots,|V|-1\}, s,t\in V,e\in E$ and any partial weight assignment of $w_r$ to $E\setminus\{e\},$ there is at most one assignment of $w_r$ to $e$ to make $(k,s,t)$ blame $e.$ This is because if $(k,s,t)$ blames $e$ when $w_r(e)$ is assigned a value $w_{r,e},$ then increasing or decreasing the value of $w_r(e)$ forces all shortest paths among those $s$-$t$ paths with at most $k$ edges to exclude or include $e,$ respectively, making $e$ no longer blamed by $(k,s,t).$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{0\le k\le |V|-1} \sum_{s,t\in V} \sum_{e\in E} \Pr\left[(k,s,t) \mbox{ blames } e\right]\\
&\le& \sum_{0\le k\le |V|-1} \sum_{s,t\in V} \sum_{e\in E} \frac{1}{|W|}\\
&\le& \frac{|V|^5}{2|W|},\end{aligned}$$ completing the proof.
\[Proof of Theorem \[doublecount\].\] Before describing how FIND-PATH works, we describe a few procedures that are useful. For $k\in\mathbb{N},$ let $c_k=|S_{k,s}|.$ Let $P^{(k)}_{s,v} \in \text{SP}^{(k)}_{s,v}$ be arbitrary and $\Sigma_k=\sum_{v\in
S_{k,s}} w(P^{(k)}_{s,v}).$ Note that the definition of $\Sigma_k$ does not depend on exactly which path in $\text{SP}^{(k)}_{s,v}$ is chosen as $P^{(k)}_{s,v}.$ It is clear that $c_0=1$ and $\Sigma_0=0.$
We first introduce a nondeterministic logarithmic-space subroutine OUTPUT that outputs $S_{k,s}$ unambiguously, given $G,w,s,c_k,\Sigma_k$ and that $\left|\text{SP}^{(k)}_{s,v}\right|=1$ for each $v\in S_{k,s}.$ OUTPUT just needs to nondeterministically guess each vertex $x$ to be in or out of $S_{k,s},$ and if the guess is $x\in S_{k,s}$ then it outputs $x.$ It verifies each guess of $x\in S_{k,s}$ by nondeterministically guessing an $s$-$x$ path with at most $k$ edges and rejecting if it fails. Along the way OUTPUT counts the number $c_k^\prime$ of vertices verified to be in $S_{k,s}$ and accumulates the weights of the guessed $s$-$x$ paths (for $x$ verified to be in $S_{k,s}$) in a variable $\Sigma_k^\prime.$ It then rejects if $c_k^\prime\neq c_k$ or $\Sigma_k^\prime\neq \Sigma_k.$ Clearly, guessing any vertex out of $S_{k,s}$ to be in $S_{k,s}$ results in rejection. For a computation branch of OUTPUT not to reject, it must have $c_k^\prime$ reach $c_k,$ which requires successfully guessing an $s$-$x$ path with at most $k$ edges for each $x\in S_{k,s}.$ But to have $\Sigma_k^\prime$ not exceed $\Sigma_k,$ the guessed $s$-$x$ path for each $x\in S_{k,s}$ should be the unique one in $\text{SP}^{(k)}_{s,x}.$ So $\text{OUTPUT}(G,w,s,c_k,\Sigma_k)$ has a unique non-rejecting computation branch, on which it correctly guesses whether each vertex $x$ belongs to $S_{k,s}$ and if so, correctly guesses the unique path in $\text{SP}^{(k)}_{s,x}.$
We now describe a procedure INDUCTIVE that computes $c_{k+1}$ and $\Sigma_{k+1},$ and determines whether $\left|\text{SP}^{(k+1)}_{s,x}\right|>1$ for some $x\in V$ unambiguously, given $c_k$ and $\Sigma_k$ and that $\left|\text{SP}^{(k)}_{s,v}\right|=1$ for each $v\in S_{k,s}.$ For each vertex $x\in V,$ INDUCTIVE runs $\text{OUTPUT}(G,w,s,c_k,\Sigma_k)$ to determine whether $x\in S_{k,s}$ unambiguously and if so, accumulates the weight $w_x$ of the unique path in $\text{SP}^{(k)}_{s,x}$ as it is guessed by OUTPUT. For each $u$ such that $ux$ is an edge, INDUCTIVE also determines whether $u\in
S_{k,s}$ unambiguously and if so, accumulates the weight $w_u$ of the unique path in $\text{SP}^{(k)}_{s,u}$ as it is guessed. INDUCTIVE then computes the weight of any shortest $s$-$x$ path with at most $k+1$ edges as $$\min Q$$ where $$Q=\{w_x\}\cup \{w_u+w(ux)\mid u\in S_{k,s}, ux\in E\}$$ if $x\in S_{k,s}$ and $$Q=\{w_u+w(ux)\mid u\in S_{k,s}, ux\in E\}$$ otherwise. If $Q=\emptyset,$ INDUCTIVE knows that $x\notin S_{k+1,s}.$ Otherwise $x\in S_{k+1,s}$ and the weight of any path in $\text{SP}^{(k+1)}_{s,x}$ is known to be $\min Q.$ In case of a tie when computing $\min Q,$ INDUCTIVE knows that $\left|\text{SP}^{(k+1)}_{s,x}\right|>1.$ Doing the above for all $x\in V$ allows INDUCTIVE to compute $c_{k+1}=|S_{k+1,s}|$ and $\Sigma_{k+1}$ and determine whether $\left|\text{SP}^{(k+1)}_{s,x}\right|>1$ for some $x\in V$ unambiguously. During the computation of $\min Q,$ INDUCTIVE does not store the set $Q.$ Instead, INDUCTIVE computes the elements of $Q$ one by one and stores the smallest element in $Q$ that has been computed so far, as well as a flag indicating whether $\min Q$ is achieved by two elements at any time.
We are now ready to describe how FIND-PATH works. Assume $|V|\ge 3.$ FIND-PATH starts with $c_0, \Sigma_0$ and repeatedly simulates INDUCTIVE until it computes $c_{|V|},\Sigma_{|V|}$ or until it determines that $\left|\text{SP}^{(k)}_{s,x}\right|>1$ for some $0\le k\le |V|-1$ and $x\in V.$ Doing the above with each other vertex $s^\prime\in V$ replacing the role of $s$ guarantees that if $G$ is not strongly min-unique, then we must find $\left|\text{SP}^{(k)}_{s^\prime,x}\right|>1$ for some $0\le
k\le |V|-1$ and $s^\prime,x\in V.$ Instead, if $G$ is strongly min-unique then FIND-PATH will compute all the way from $c_0,\Sigma_0$ to $c_{|V|},\Sigma_{|V|}.$ It then runs $\text{OUTPUT}(G,w,s,c_{|V|-1},\Sigma_{|V|-1}).$ As we have seen, $\text{OUTPUT}(G,w,s,c_{|V|-1},\Sigma_{|V|-1})$ has a unique non-rejecting computation branch, on which the unique shortest $s$-$t$ path $P\in
\text{SP}^{(|V|-1)}_{s,t}$ is correctly guessed by OUTPUT. The weight $w(P)$ is accumulated along the way. The strong min-uniqueness of $G$ guarantees that $P$ is also the unique path in $\text{SP}_G(s,t).$
\[Proof of Lemma \[add\].\] For each $x\in V(R),$ ADD-PATH runs $\text{FIND-PATH}(G,w,x,v)$ to unambiguously generate the unique shortest path $P_{x,v}\in\text{SP}_G(x,v)$ and its weight $w(P_{x,v}).$ In this way, ADD-PATH could compute $\min_{x\in V(R)} w(P_{x,v})$ as well as $\text{closest}(v,R).$ Then ADD-PATH simulates $\text{FIND-PATH}\left(G,w,v,\text{closest}(v,R)\right)$ to output the unique path $P$ in $\text{SP}_G\left(v,\text{closest}(v,R)\right)$ unambiguously.
\[Proof of Lemma \[core\].\] Clearly, CORE could output $R_{1,S}$ unambiguously. Let $2\le j\le k.$ To output $R_{j,S}=R_{j-1,S}\cup P_{j,S}$ unambiguously, CORE recursively outputs $R_{j-1,S}$ and then runs $\text{ADD-PATH}(G,w,R_{j-1,S},v_j)$ to unambiguously output $P_{j,S}.$ There is an additional complication that CORE does not store $R_{j-1,S}$ before calling ADD-PATH. Instead, whenever ADD-PATH wants to read any bit encoding $R_{j-1,S},$ CORE recursively outputs $R_{j-1,S}$ unambiguously on the fly to support the required bit. Each level of recursion uses up logarithmic space and the depth of recursion is at most $r+4,$ a constant. The space requirement is therefore logarithmic.
\[Proof of Lemma \[key\].\] STAR begins by running $\text{CORE}(G,w,S)$ to output $C_S$ unambiguously. For any $u\in V,$ STAR runs $\text{CORE}(G,w,S)$ to unambiguously determine whether $u\in V(C_S).$ If $u\notin V(C_S),$ STAR needs to output the unique path in $\text{SP}_G\left(u,\text{closest}(u,C_S)\right).$ For this purpose, it computes $\text{closest}(u,C_S)$ as follows. For each $v\in V,$ STAR tests if $v\in V(C_S),$ again by running $\text{CORE}(G,w,S).$ If $v\notin V(C_S),$ STAR goes on with the next $v\in V.$ Otherwise, STAR invokes $\text{FIND-PATH}(G,w,u,v)$ to generate the unique path $P_{u,v} \in \text{SP}_G(u,v)$ and its weight $w(P_{u,v})$ unambiguously. STAR records the $v\in V(C_S)$ that has generated the smallest value of $w(P_{u,v})$ so far, favoring lexicographically smaller values of $v$ in case of a tie. In the end, the recorded $v\in V$ must be $\text{closest}(u,C_S)$ by the definition of $\text{closest}(u,C_S).$ At this time STAR just invokes $\text{FIND-PATH}\left(G,w,u,\text{closest}(u,C_S)\right)$ to output the unique path in $\text{SP}_G\left(u,\text{closest}(u,C_S)\right)$ unambiguously. Doing the above for all $u\in V$ does the job.
\[Proof of Lemma \[routpair\].\] If $s=t$ the task is trivial. We assume otherwise. ROUT-PAIR nondeterministically guesses a path $P$ that does not enter a vertex immediately after it has left that vertex. If $P$ is an $s$-$t$ path, then ROUT-PAIR accepts, otherwise it rejects. The simple $s$-$t$ path in $T$ is the only $s$-$t$ path that does not enter a vertex immediately after leaving it. Its weight $w(P^*)$ can be accumulated as it is guessed.
\[Proof of Lemma \[unambiguousapprox\].\] For each sequence $S$ of at most $r+4$ vertices in $V,$ Lemma \[key\] enables us to unambiguously output $C_S=\text{CORE}(G,w,S)$ and then each unique path $P_u$ in $\text{SP}_G\left(u,\text{closest}(u,C_S)\right)$ for $u\in V\setminus V(C_S).$ Furthermore, Fact \[substruct\] guarantees that $$T_S=C_S \cup \bigcup_{u\in V\setminus V(C_S)} P_u$$ is a spanning tree of $G$ and satisfies $$c_w(T_S)< \left(\frac{4}{3}+\frac{8}{9r+12}\right) \cdot
c_w(\text{MRCT}(G))$$ for some $S.$ Thus, we need only compute $c_w(T_S)$ unambiguously for each sequence $S$ of at most $r+4$ vertices, and output $T_{S^*}$ unambiguously for the sequence $S^*$ of at most $r+4$ vertices satisfying $c_w(T_{S^*})=\min_{S\in V^k, 1\le k\le r+4} c_w(T_S).$ By Definition \[routingcost\], $c_w(T_S)$ can be computed unambiguously by running $\text{ROUT-PAIR}(T_S,w,s,t)$ for all pairs $s,t \in V$ and summing up the weight of the simple paths as they are output. There is a complication that APPROX does not store $T_S$ before calling ROUT-PAIR. Instead, when ROUT-PAIR wants to read any bit in the encoding of $T_S,$ APPROX runs $\text{STAR}(G,w,S)$ to generate the required bit unambiguously on the fly. This enables us to obtain $S^*$ unambiguously and thus $T_{S^*}$ unambiguously by running $\text{STAR}(G,w,S^*).$
\[Proof of Lemma \[smallerr\].\] It is clear that either $c_{w}(T_2)=0$ or $c_{w}(T_2)\ge 1.$ Also, Fact \[loading\] implies that $$\begin{aligned}
c_{w_r}(T_2)\le \frac{1}{2|V|}.\label{smallpart}\end{aligned}$$
If $c_{w}(T_2)=0,$ Eq. (\[smallpart\]) implies that $$c_{w^\prime}(T_2)=c_{w_r}(T_2)\le \frac{1}{2|V|}$$ and thus $c_{w^\prime}(T_1)<1$ for sufficiently large $|V|$ by Eq. (\[eqA\]). This implies $c_{w}(T_1)<1$ and thus $c_{w}(T_1)=0,$ establishing Eq. (\[eqB\]).
If $c_{w}(T_2)\ge 1,$ then Eq. (\[eqA\]) and (\[smallpart\]) imply $$\begin{aligned}
&&c_{w}(T_1)\le c_{w^\prime}(T_1) \\
&\le& \alpha \left(c_w(T_2)+c_{w_r}(T_2)\right)\\
&\le& \alpha \, (1+\frac{1}{2|V|}) \, c_{w}(T_2).\end{aligned}$$
\[Proof of Theorem \[parallel\].\] We will show that PARALLEL needs only take a $\text{poly}(|V|)$-long random input and do the rest of the computation in unambiguous logarithmic space. The standard proof technique for showing that ${\cal UL} \subseteq {\cal NL} \subseteq
{\cal NC}^2$ [@Pap94CC; @Sip05] then completes the proof.
PARALLEL tests the connectedness of $G$ by testing each pair of vertices for connectedness in logarithmic space [@Rei05]. Below we assume that $G$ is connected. If we assume that this theorem is true when $w$ is not identically zero, then PARALLEL can also deal with the identically zero case by using the unit edge-weight function instead. The output spanning tree would have zero routing cost under the identically zero edge-weight function, so item $2$ is still satisfied. Thus, we can assume without loss of generality that $w$ is not identically zero. Furthermore, we can normalize $w$ to give $\min_{e\in E,w(e)\neq 0} w(e)\ge 1.$
The random input to PARALLEL determines an edge-weight function $w_r: E\to \mathbb{R}^+_0$ where for each $e\in E,$ $w_r(e)$ is independently and randomly chosen from the uniform distribution over $\{1/{|V|}^{10},\ldots,{|V|}^6/{|V|}^{10}\}.$ Note that $w_r(e)\le 1/{|V|^4}$ for every $e\in E.$ Denote $w^\prime=w+w_r.$ Let $\hat{T}_w$ be an MRCT with respect to $w$ and $\hat{T}_{w^\prime}$ be that with respect to $w^\prime.$ By Theorem \[isolation\], with probability at least $1-1/{(2|V|)},$ $G$ is strongly min-unique with respect to $w^\prime.$ PARALLEL runs $\text{FIND-PATH}(G,w^\prime,s,t)$ for an arbitrary pair $s,t\in V$ to unambiguously test if $G$ is strongly min-unique with respect to $w^\prime,$ and outputs “fail” if it is not. PARALLEL then runs $\text{APPROX}(G,w^\prime)$ to unambiguously output a tree $T^\prime$ with $$\begin{aligned}
& &c_{w^\prime}(T^\prime) < \left(\frac{4}{3}+\epsilon/2\right) \cdot
c_{w^\prime}(\hat{T}_{w^\prime})\nonumber \\
&\le& \left(\frac{4}{3}+\epsilon/2\right)
\cdot c_{w^\prime}(\hat{T}_w) \label{approxEq}\end{aligned}$$ by invoking Lemma \[unambiguousapprox\] with a sufficiently large constant $r$ such that $8/(9r+12)< \epsilon/2.$
We shall prove that $$\begin{aligned}
c_{w}(T^\prime) \le (\frac{4}{3}+\epsilon) \cdot c_{w}(\hat{T}_w),\label{goal}\end{aligned}$$ which is true by Lemma \[smallerr\] for sufficiently large $|V|.$
\[Sketch of proof of Theorem \[parallelSROCT\].\] We omit the simple case where $w$ is identically zero and assume without loss of generality that $\min_{e\in E, w(e)\neq 0} w(e) \ge 1.$ Let $G_0$ be the subgraph of $G$ formed by the zero-weight edges of $G.$ PARALLEL-SROCT tests whether $G_0$ is a connected spanning subgraph of $G$ in logarithmic space [@Rei05] and if so, outputs a spanning tree of $G_0$ by calling, say, $\text{PARALLEL}(G_0,0)$ where $0$ denotes the identically zero function. Below we assume that $G_0$ is disconnected. The random input to PARALLEL-SROCT determines an edge-weight function $w_r: E\to \mathbb{R}_0^+$ where for each $e\in E,$ $w_r(e)$ is independently and randomly chosen from the uniform distribution over $\{1/{|V|^{10}},\ldots,|V|^6/{|V|^{10}}\}.$ Let $w^\prime=w+w_r.$ Note that $\max_{e\in E} w_r(e)\le 1/|V|^4.$ By Theorem \[isolation\], $G$ is strongly min-unique with respect to $w^\prime$ with high probability. PARALLEL-SROCT uses FIND-PATH to determine if $G$ is strongly min-unique with respect to $w^\prime$ and outputs “fail” if it is not. Below we assume that $G$ is strongly min-unique with respect to $w^\prime.$ For each $x\in V,$ a shortest path tree $T_x$ rooted at $x$ can be output unambiguously by running $\text{FIND-PATH}(G,w^\prime,x,y)$ for each $y\in V.$ The s.r.c. cost of $T_x$ can be computed unambiguously by running $\text{ROUT-PAIR}(T_x,w^\prime,s,t)$ and accumulating the weight of the output path multiplied by $r(s)+ r(t)$ for all $s,t\in V.$ During the computation of ROUT-PAIR, each time any bit encoding $T_x$ is needed, it is generated on the fly. The spanning tree $T_x$ with the minimum (over $x\in V$) s.r.c. cost with respect to $w^\prime$ is output. The final step in establishing the approximation ratio goes by showing that for every spanning tree $T$ of $G,$ $$c^{(s)}_w(T)\ge \max_{v\in V} r(v)$$ by the disconnectedness of $G_0$ and $\min_{e\in E,w(e)\neq 0} w(e)\ge 1,$ whereas $$c^{(s)}_{w_r}(T) \le \max_{u,v\in V} (r(u)+r(v)) \, \frac{|V|^3}{2}
\frac{1}{|V|^4}$$ by Fact \[loading\]. The fact that ${\cal UL} \subseteq {\cal NL} \subseteq {\cal NC}^2$ completes the proof.
\[Sketch of proof of Theorem \[weightedtwoMRCT\].\] We omit the simple case when $w$ is identically zero and assume that $\min_{e\in E, w(e)\neq 0} w(e)\ge 1.$ The case where the zero-weight edges of $G$ form a connected spanning subgraph of $G$ is dealt with as in the proof of Theorem \[parallelSROCT\], so we may assume that it is not the case. The random input to WEIGHTED-$2$-MRCT determines an edge-weight function $w_r: E\to \mathbb{R}_0^+$ where for each $e\in E,$ $w_r(e)$ is independently and randomly chosen from the uniform distribution over $\{1/{|V|^{10}},\ldots,|V|^6/{|V|^{10}}\}.$ Let $w^\prime=w+w_r.$ Note that $\max_{e\in E} w_r(e)\le 1/{|V|}^4.$ WEIGHTED-$2$-MRCT detects whether $G$ is strongly min-unique with respect to $w^\prime$ by running FIND-PATH and outputs “fail” if it is not, which occurs with a small probability by Theorem \[isolation\]. Now, assume that $G$ is strongly min-unique with respect to $w^\prime.$ The sets $Z^{w^\prime}_1,Z^{w^\prime}_2$ in Theorem \[twoMRCT\] where $d_G(\cdot)$ is measured with respect to $w^\prime$ are computable in unambiguous logarithmic space by Theorem \[doublecount\]. For each $v\in V,$ let $P^{(w^\prime)}_{v,s_1}\in \text{SP}_G(v,s_1)$ and $P^{(w^\prime)}_{v,s_2}\in \text{SP}_G(v,s_2)$ be the unique shortest paths with respect to $w^\prime.$ By Theorem \[doublecount\], $T_1=\bigcup_{v\in Z^{w^\prime}_1} P^{w^\prime}_{v,s_1}$ and $T_2=\bigcup_{v\in
Z^{w^\prime}_2} P^{w^\prime}_{v,s_2}$ are unambiguously computable in logarithmic space and they are trees by the strong min-uniqueness of $G$ with respect to $w^\prime.$ The unique shortest path $Q^{w^\prime}=\left(q_0=s_1,\ldots,q_j,q_{j+1},\ldots,s_2\right)\in \text{SP}_G(s_1,s_2)$ with respect to $w^\prime$ is also unambiguously computable by running $\text{FIND-PATH}(G,w^\prime,s_1,s_2),$ so is its first vertex $q_{j+1}$ outside of $Z^{w^\prime}_1.$ Theorem \[twoMRCT\] then implies that a tree $T$ satisfying $$c^{(2)}_{w^\prime}(T) \le 2
c^{(2)}_{w^\prime}(\text{W-$2$-MRCT}_{w^\prime}(G))$$ can be output in unambiguous logarithmic space. The final step in establishing the approximation ratio is to show that for every spanning tree $T$ of $G,$ $$\begin{aligned}
c^{(2)}_w(T,s_1,s_2,\lambda)\ge \lambda+1 \label{oneedge}\end{aligned}$$ whereas $$c^{(2)}_{w_r}(T,s_1,s_2,\lambda) \le \lambda \,
\frac{|V|^2}{|V|^4}+\frac{|V|^2}{|V|^4}.$$ The fact that ${\cal UL} \subseteq {\cal NL} \subseteq {\cal NC}^2$ completes the proof.
[^1]: Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. Email: Email: [email protected]
[^2]: Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. Email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
To a hyperbolic manifold one can associate a canonical projective structure and a fundamental question is whether or not it can be deformed. In particular, the canonical projective structure of a finite volume hyperbolic manifold with cusps might have deformations which are trivial on the cusps.
The aim of this article is to prove that if the canonical projective structure on a cusped hyperbolic manifold $M$ is infinitesimally projectively rigid relative to the cusps, then infinitely many hyperbolic Dehn fillings on $M$ are locally projectively rigid. We analyze in more detail the figure eight knot and the Whitehead link exteriors, for which we can give explicit infinite families of slopes with projectively rigid Dehn fillings.
*MSC:* 57M50; 53A20; 53C15\
*Keywords:* Projective structures; variety of representations; infinitesimal deformations.
author:
- 'Michael Heusener and Joan Porti[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'refsinflex.bib'
title: Infinitesimal projective rigidity under Dehn filling
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
A closed hyperbolic $n$-dimensional manifold inherits a canonical projective structure. This can be easily seen by considering the Klein model for the hyperbolic space. Projective structures on manifolds were studied by Benzécri in the 1960’s [@Benzecri]. Though the hyperbolic structure is rigid for $n>2$ (cf. [@Weil; @Mostow]), it might be possible to deform the canonical projective structure. Kac and Vinberg [@Kac-Vinberg] gave the first examples of such deformations. Koszul [@Koszul] and Goldman later generalized these examples. Johnson and Millson provide deformations of the canonical projective structure by means of bending along totally geodesic surfaces [@JohnsonMillson]. Examples of deformations for Coxeter orbifolds have been obtained by Choi [@Choi] and Marquis [@Marquis].
In the sequel we will use the following notation:
A closed hyperbolic manifold is called *locally projectively rigid* if the canonical projective structure induced by the hyperbolic metric cannot be deformed.
Cooper, Long and Thistlethwaite have studied the deformability of 4500 hyperbolic manifolds from the Hodgson-Weeks census with rank 2 fundamental group [@CLTEM], proving that at most 61 can be deformed. The goal of this paper is to provide infinite families of projectively locally rigid manifolds, by means of Dehn filling.
Let $N$ be a closed hyperbolic $3$-dimensional manifold. We will make use of the fact that geometric structures on $N$ are controlled by their holonomy representation. Hence we consider the holonomy representation of the closed hyperbolic 3-manifold $N$ $$\rho \co\pi_1(N)\to PSO(3,1) \subset PGL(4).$$ If not specified, the coefficients of matrix groups are real: $PGL(4)= PGL(4,\mathbf R)$. The closed manifold $N$ is locally projectively rigid if and only if all deformations of $\rho$ in $PGL(4)$ are contained in the $PGL(4)$-orbit of $\rho$.
Existence or not of deformations is often studied at the infinitesimal level. We may consider the adjoint action on the lie algebra $\mathfrak{so}(3,1)$. Then Weil’s infinitesimal rigidity [@Weil] asserts that $$H^1(\pi_1(N);\mathfrak{so}(3,1)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho})=0.$$ The adjoint action extends to the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{sl}(4) := \mathfrak{sl}(4,\mathbf R)$ and motivates the following definition.
A closed hyperbolic three manifold $N$ is called *infinitesimally projectively rigid* if $$H^1(\pi_1(N);\mathfrak{sl}(4)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho})=0.$$
Infinitesimal rigidity implies local rigidity, but the examples of [@CLTGT] and [@CLTEM] show that the converse is not true.
We are working with aspherical manifolds, so computing the cohomology of a manifold or of its fundamental group does not make any difference.
For cusped manifolds one has a similar definition. Let $M$ denote a compact three manifold with boundary a union of tori and whose interior is hyperbolic with finite volume.
The manifold $M$ is called *infinitesimally projectively rigid* if the inclusion $\partial M\subset M$ induces an injective homomorphism $$0\to H^1(M;\mathfrak{sl}(4)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho})\to H^1(\partial M;\mathfrak{sl}(4)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho}).$$
The following theorem provides infinitely many examples of infinitesimally projectively rigid $3$-dimensional manifolds.
\[thm:fillingstrong\] Let $M$ be a compact orientable 3-manifold whose interior is hyperbolic with finite volume. If $M$ is infinitesimally projectively rigid, then infinitely many Dehn fillings on $M$ are infinitesimally projectively rigid.
A hyperbolic Dehn filling on $M$ induces a noncomplete structure on $M$, that can be viewed as a hyperbolic cone structure with cone angles $2\pi$. In some cases this cone angle can be decreased to zero, yielding the complete structure on $M$. The methods of Theorem \[thm:fillingstrong\], give the following:
\[thm:fromonetomany\] Let $M$ be compact orientable 3-manifold whose interior is hyperbolic with cusps. If a Dehn filling on $M$ satisfies:
- it is infinitesimally projectively rigid,
- the noncomplete induced structure on $M$ can be joined to the complete one by a path of hyperbolic cone structures parametrized by cone angle from $2\pi$ to $0$,
then infinitely many Dehn fillings on $M$ are infinitesimally projectively rigid.
By Hodgson and Kerckhoff estimation of the size of the Dehn filling space [@HodgsonKerckhoff], in a cusped manifold the deformation of Theorem \[thm:fromonetomany\] exists for all but at most 60 Dehn fillings. Hence:
\[cor:sixtyinfty\] Let $M$ be a one cusped hyperbolic manifold of finite volume. If 61 Dehn fillings on $M$ are either non-hyperbolic or infinitesimally projectively rigid, then infinitely many fillings are so.
Those results are proved using the fact that all parameters of Thurston’s hyperbolic Dehn filling space corresponding to non infinitesimally projectively rigid fillings on $M$ are contained in a proper analytic subset of the Dehn filling space, provided $M$ itself is infinitesimally projectively rigid. This technique goes back to Kapovich in the setting of deformations of lattices of $PSO(3,1)$ in $PSO(4,1)$ [@Kapovich].
Moreover, we obtain explicit examples of infinite families of infinitesimally projectively rigid manifolds. The Dehn filling parameters of these families lie on certain real analytic curves, and a careful analysis of the infinitesimal deformations of the corresponding manifolds results in the following proposition:
\[prop:fig8explicit\] For $n$ sufficiently large, the homology sphere obtained by $1/n$-Dehn filling on the figure eight knot is infinitesimally projectively rigid.
In fact, for every $k\in\mathbf Z$, $k\neq 0$, there exists $n_{k}>0$ such that if $n\geq n_k$ then the $k/n$-Dehn filling on the figure eight knot is infinitesimally projectively rigid.
Theorem \[thm:fillingstrong\] provides infinitely many rigid Dehn fillings. On can ask whether there are still infinitely many non-rigid Dehn fillings. Though we do not have an example for manifolds, the following proposition shows that there are infinitely many non-rigid orbifolds obtained by Dehn fillings on the cusped manifold that satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:fillingstrong\].
\[prop:nonrigid\] The orbifold $\mathcal O_n$ with underlying space $S^3$, branching locus the figure eight knot and ramification index $n$ is not locally projectively rigid for sufficiently large $n$. More precisely, its deformation space is a curve.
For any $n\in\mathbf N$, the Fibonacci manifold $M_n$ is the cyclic cover of order $n$ of the orbifold $\mathcal O_n$ in Proposition \[prop:nonrigid\] [@HKM]. Hence $M_n$ is not projectively rigid, as deformations of the projective structure of $\mathcal O_n$ induce deformations of $M_n$. There is an abundant literature about those manifolds. For instance, $M_4$ is not Haken but $M_n$ is Haken for $n\geq 5$, and Scannell has proved that they are not infinitesimally rigid in $SO(4,1)$ [@Scannell].
Using that punctured torus bundles with tunnel number one are obtained by $n$-Dehn filling on the Whitehead link (cf. [@Akiyoshi]), we shall prove:
\[prop:twist\] All but finitely many punctured torus bundles with tunnel number one are infinitesimally projectively rigid.
All but finitely many twist knots complements are infinitesimally projectively rigid.
The real hyperbolic space $\mathbf H^3$ naturally embeds in the complex hyperbolic space $\mathbf H_{\mathbf C}^3$. We may study the corresponding deformation theory coming from viewing $PSO(3,1)= \operatorname{Isom}^+(\mathbf H^3)$ in $PSU(3,1)=\operatorname {Isom}_0(\mathbf H^3_{\mathbf C})$, i.e. the identity component of complex hyperbolic isometries.
We say that $M$ is *infinitesimally $\mathbf H^3_{\mathbf C}$-rigid* if the sequence $$0\to H^1(M;\mathfrak{su}(3,1)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho})\to H^1(\partial M;\mathfrak{su}(3,1)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho})$$ is exact
In particular, if $\partial M=\emptyset$, then we require $H^1(M;\mathfrak{su}(3,1)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho})=0$. The study of deformations in $PGL(4)$ and $PSU(3,1)$ are related, as we shall see in Subsection \[subsectioncomplex\]. In particular we have the following theorem of Cooper, Long and Thistlethwaite.
[@CLTGT] \[thm:projectivehyperbolic\] Let $M^n$ be a real hyperbolic manifold of finite volume, $n\geq 3$. Then $M^n$ is infinitesimally projectively rigid if and only if $M^n$ is infinitesimally $\mathbf H^n_{\mathbf C}$-rigid
This equivalence is described by means of Lie algebras, and it is used along the paper, because some things are easier to understand in the complex hyperbolic setting instead of the projective one.
The article is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:Thurstonsslice\] we recall Thurston’s construction of deformations of hyperbolic structures and the generalized Dehn filling coefficients. In Section \[sec:infinitesimaldefs\] we introduce the main tools in order to study infinitesimal deformations. The next two sections are devoted to cohomology computations, namely in Section \[sec:invariantsubspaces\] we compute invariant subspaces of the Lie algebras and in Section \[sec:cohmologytorus\] we analyze the image in cohomology of the restriction to the torus boundary. The proof of Theorems \[thm:fillingstrong\] and \[thm:fromonetomany\] is given in Section \[sec:function\], by means of an analytic function on the deformation space: when this function does not vanish, then the corresponding Dehn filling is infinitesimally rigid. To prove Propositions \[prop:fig8explicit\] and \[prop:twist\], we require the notion of flexing slope, treated in Section \[sec:flexingslopes\], as well as explicit computations on the figure eight knot and the Whitehead link exteriors, made in Section \[sec:examples\].
Dehn filling and Thurston’s slice {#sec:Thurstonsslice}
=================================
In this section we recall the deformation space introduced by Thurston in his proof of hyperbolic Dehn filling theorem [@ThurstonNotes].
Along the paper, $M$ denotes a compact manifold with boundary a union of $k>0$ tori and hyperbolic interior: $$\partial M=\partial_1 M\sqcup\cdots\sqcup \partial_k M,$$ where each $\partial_i M\cong T^2$.
The deformation space of hyperbolic structures is described by the *Thurston slice*. Given $\lambda_i,\mu_i\in\pi_1(\partial M)$ a pair of simple closed curves that generate the fundamental group on each component $\partial M_i$, Thurston introduced a parameter $$u=(u_1,\ldots,u_k) \in U\subset \mathbf C^k,$$ defined on $U$ a neighborhood of $0$. The neighborhood $U$ parametrizes the deformations of the complete holonomy of the interior of $M$. Two structures parametrized by $u$ and $u'\in U$ are equivalent (the developing maps differ by composing with an isometry of $\mathbf H^3$) if and only if $$\label{eqn:samecharacter}
(u_1,\ldots,u_k)= (\pm u_1',\ldots, \pm u_k') .$$ This is a consequence of the fact that (\[eqn:samecharacter\]) is a criterion for having the same character, and the fact that deformations are parametrized by conjugacy classes of holonomy [@CEG].
\[thm:thurston\] There exists an open neighborhood $0\in U\subset \mathbf C^k$, an analytic family of representations $\{\rho_u\}_{u\in U}$, of $\pi_1(M)$ in $PSL_2(\mathbf C)$ and analytic functions $v_i=v_i(u)$, $i=1,\ldots,k$ so that:
(i) The parameters $u_i$ and $v_i$ are the complex length of $\rho_u(\mu_i) $ and $\rho_u(\lambda_i)$ respectively.
(ii) The function $\tau_i(u)=v_i(u)/u_i$ is analytic. Moreover $v_i=\tau_i(0) u_i + (\vert u\vert ^3)$, where $\tau_i(0)\in\mathbf C$ is the cusp shape and has nonzero imaginary part.
(iii) The structure with holonomy $\rho_u$ is complete on the $i$-th cusp if and only if $u_i=0$.
(iv) When $u_i\neq 0$, the equation $$\label{eqn:Dehnfilling}
p_i\, u_i+q_i\, v_i=2\pi \, \mathbf i$$ has a unique solution for $(p_i,q_i)\in\mathbf R^2$. The representation $\rho_u$ is the holonomy of a incomplete hyperbolic structure with *generalized Dehn filling coefficients* $(p_i,q_i)$ on the $i$-th cusp.
See [@BoileauPorti App. B] for a proof, for instance.
In his proof of hyperbolic Dehn filling, Thurston shows that there is a diffeomorphism between $U$ and a neighborhood of $\infty$ in $(\mathbf R^2\cup\{\infty\})^k$ that maps componentwise $0$ to $\infty$ and $u_i\neq 0$ to $(p_i,q_i)\in\mathbf R^2$ satisfying $p_i\, u_i+q_i\, v_i=2\pi \, \mathbf i$.
The geometric interpretation of generalized Dehn filling coefficients is the following one:
(i) When $p_i,q_i\in\mathbf Z$ are coprime, then the completion for $\rho_u$ is precisely the Dehn filling with slope $p_i\mu_i+q_i\lambda_i$.
(ii) When $p_i/q_i=p'_i/q'_i\in\mathbf Q\cup\infty$ with $p'_i,q'_i\in\mathbf Z$ coprime, then the completion for $\rho_u$ is a cone manifold, obtained by Dehn filling with slope $p'_i\mu_i+q'_i\lambda_i$ where the core of the torus is a singular geodesic with cone angle $2\pi p'_i/p_i$.
(iii) When $p_i/q_i\in \mathbf R\setminus\mathbf Q$, then the metric completion is the one point compactification.
A particular case that we will use later is when $u_i=\alpha_i\, \mathbf i$ for some $\alpha_i\in \mathbf R$, $\alpha_i>0$. Then $p_i=2\pi/\alpha_i$ and $q_i=0$, and $\rho_{(\mathbf i\alpha_1,\ldots ,\mathbf i\alpha_k)}$ is the holonomy of a hyperbolic cone manifold with cone angles $(\alpha_1,\ldots ,\alpha_k)$.
The real analytic structure will be crucial in our arguments. When viewed in $PSL_2(\mathbf C)$, $\rho_u$ is complex analytic, but we will work with the real analytic structure, which is the same as for $PSO(3,1)$. In particular the following lemma will be useful.
\[lem:analytic\] For each $i=1,\ldots,k$, if $\tau_i(u)=v_i(u)/u_i$, then the map $$\begin{array}{rcl}
U\subset\mathbf C^k & \to & \mathbf R^2 \\
u & \mapsto & \frac 1{\vert p_i+q_i\tau_i\vert ^2}(p_i,q_i)
\end{array}$$ is real analytic.
Using Equation (\[eqn:Dehnfilling\]), we obtain: $$p_i=-2\pi\frac{Re(u_i\tau_i)}{\vert u_i\vert^2 Im(\tau_i)},
\qquad
q_i=2\pi\frac{Re(u_i)}{\vert u_i\vert^2 Im(\tau_i)},
\qquad
p_i+q_i \tau_i=\frac{2\pi\mathbf i}{u_i}.$$ The lemma is an straightforward consequence from these equalities and the fact that the imaginary part of $\tau_i(0)$ does not vanish.
Infinitesimal deformations {#sec:infinitesimaldefs}
==========================
The matrix of the Lorentzian inner product is denoted by $$J=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & & \\
& 1 & & \\
& & 1 & \\
& & & -1
\end{pmatrix}.$$ So that $$O(3,1)=\{ A\in GL(4)\mid A^{t}JA=J\},$$ and the connected component of the identity of its projectivization $PSO(3,1)$ is the group of orientation preserving isometries of $\mathbf H^3$. Its Lie algebra is $$\mathfrak{so}(3,1)=\{ a\in \mathfrak{sl}(4) \mid a^{t} J= -J a\}.$$
Following Johnson and Millson [@JohnsonMillson], along the paper we shall use the decomposition of $\mathfrak{sl}(4)$ as direct sum of $PSO(3,1)$-modules via the adjoint action: $$\label{eqn:sl}
\mathfrak{sl}(4)= \mathfrak{so}(3,1)\oplus \mathfrak{v},$$ where $$\mathfrak{v}=\{ a\in \mathfrak{sl}(4) \mid a^{t} J= J a\}.$$ Notice that $\mathfrak v$ is not a Lie algebra, but just a $PSO(3,1)$-module.
Hence given a representation $\rho\co\pi_1(M)\to PSO(3,1)$ we obtain a *canonical splitting* in homology: $$H^*(M; \mathfrak{sl}(4)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho})= H^*(M; \mathfrak{so}(3,1)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho})\oplus H^*(M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho}).$$ In the remaining of the section, we shall recall the known results about the cohomology group $H^1(M; \mathfrak{so}(3,1)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho})$ (Subsection \[subsection:so(3,1)\]) and provide some properties of $H^*(M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho})$.
Infinitesimal deformations in real hyperbolic space {#subsection:so(3,1)}
---------------------------------------------------
Infinitesimal deformations in $\operatorname{Isom}^+(\mathbf H)=PSO(3,1)$ are well understood, and described by $H^1(M; \mathfrak{so}(3,1)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho})$. We summarize here the main results:
Let $M$ be a finite volume hyperbolic 3-manifold with $k$ cusps and let $U$ be as in Theorem \[thm:thurston\]. For all $u\in U$:
(i) The inclusion $\partial M\subset M$ induces a monomorphism $$0\to H^1(M; \mathfrak{so}(3,1)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_u})\to H^1(\partial M; \mathfrak{so}(3,1)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_u}).$$
(ii) If we choose one essential simple closed curve $\mu_i\subset \partial_i M$ for each boundary component, then the inclusion of the union $\mu=\mu_1\cup\cdots \cup \mu_k \subset M$ induces a monomorphism $$0\to H^1(M; \mathfrak{so}(3,1)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_u})\to H^1(\mu; \mathfrak{so}(3,1)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_u}).$$
(iii) $\dim
H^1(M; \mathfrak{so}(3,1)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_u})=2 k$.
(iv) $\dim
H^1(M,\mu ; \mathfrak{so}(3,1)_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_u})=2 k$.
This proposition can be seen as the algebraic part of Thurston’s hyperbolic Dehn filling theorem. When $\partial M=\emptyset$ it is due to Weil [@Weil], and when $\partial M\neq \emptyset$, it is Garland rigidity [@Garland]. See [@KapovichBook] or [@Garland] for a proof.
Killing form, cup product and Kronecker pairing in $\mathfrak{v}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The *Killing form* on any Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ is defined as: $$B(X,Y)= \operatorname{trace}( ad_X \circ ad_Y )
\qquad\forall X,Y \in\mathfrak{g},$$ where $ad_X \in \mathrm{End}(\mathfrak{g})$ denotes the endomorphism given by $ad_X(Y)= [X,Y]$. If $\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sl}(4)$, then $B(X,Y)= 8 {\operatorname{tr}}(X\cdot Y)$.
Both the form $B$ on $\mathfrak{sl}(4)$ and its restriction to $\mathfrak{so}(3,1)$ are nondegenerate. Moreover $\mathfrak{v}$ is the orthogonal complement to $\mathfrak{so}(3,1)$: $$\mathfrak{sl}(4)=\mathfrak{so}(3,1)\perp\mathfrak{v}.$$ Therefore $B$ restricted to $\mathfrak{v}$ is nondegenerate
A *cup product* on cohomology is defined by using $B$: $$\label{eqn:cupproduct}
H^p(M;\mathfrak{v})\otimes H^q(M,\partial M;\mathfrak{v})\xrightarrow{\cup} H^{p+q}(M,\partial M;\mathfrak{v}\otimes \mathfrak{v})\xrightarrow{B_*} H^{p+q}(M,\partial M;\mathbf R)$$ where the first arrow is the usual cup product, and $B_*$ denotes the map induced by $B\co \mathfrak{v}\otimes \mathfrak{v}\to \mathbf R$. Since we do not use any other cup product, this one will be simply denoted by $\cup$. This cup product induces *Poincaré duality* since $B$ is non degenerated, cf. [@JohnsonMillson]. As $B$ is symmetric, this cup product is symmetric or antisymmetric depending on whether the product of dimensions $p\,q$ is even or odd, as the usual cup product.
The Killing form is also used to define a *Kronecker pairing* between homology and cohomology. Consider $C_*(\widetilde M)$ the group of chains of the universal covering, with the action of $\pi_1(M)$. The chain group is the tensor product $\mathfrak{v}\otimes_{\pi_1M} C_*(\widetilde M)$, so that a cycle is an element $\sum v_i \otimes c_i$, $c_i\in C_*(\widetilde M)$ and $v_i\in \mathfrak{v}$. Moreover the cochain group is the set of morphisms ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{\pi_1M} (C_*(\widetilde M); \mathfrak{v})$, and a cocycle is a morphism of $\pi_1M$-modules, $\theta\co C_*(\widetilde M)\to \mathfrak{v}$. Then the Kronecker pairing is given by: $$\label{eqn:Kronecker}
\begin{array}{cclcl}
H^p(M;\mathfrak{v}) & \times & H_p(M; \mathfrak{v}) & \to & \mathbf R \\
\ [ \theta ] & & \left[ \sum_i v_i\otimes c_i\right] & \mapsto & \sum_i B(\theta(c_i),v_i)\,.
\end{array}$$ This pairing gives duality between homology and cohomology.
Complex hyperbolic space {#subsectioncomplex}
------------------------
Consider $\mathbf C^{3,1}$ i.e. $\mathbf{C}^4$ with the hermitian product $$\langle w, z\rangle= w_1 \bar z_1+ w_2 \bar z_2+ w_3 \bar z_3
- w_4 \bar z_4 = w^t J \bar z = z^* w$$ where $z^*=\bar z^t J$. Its projectivization $\mathbf P^{3,1} := \mathbf P(\mathbf C^{3,1})$ gives rise to complex hyperbolic space $\mathbf H^3_{\mathbf C }$. More precisely, $\mathbf H^3_{\mathbf C }=\{ [v]\in\mathbf P^{3,1}\mid \langle v, v\rangle <0\}$ cf. [@Goldman; @Epstein]. Here and in the sequel $[v]$ denotes the line generated by the non zero vector $v\in \mathbf C^{3,1}$.
Let $$SU(3,1)=\{A\in SL(4,\mathbf C)\mid \bar A^t J A= J \}.$$ The group of holomorphic isometries of complex hyperbolic space is its projectivization $PSU(3,1)=PU(3,1)$, with Lie algebra: $$\mathfrak{su}(3,1)=\{ a\in \mathfrak{sl}(4,\mathbf C)\mid \bar a^t J= -J a \}.$$ The key point is that, as $SO(3,1)$-module, this Lie algebra has a decomposition: $$\label{eqn:su}
\mathfrak{su}(3,1)=\mathfrak{so}(3,1)\perp \mathbf i\, \mathfrak{v}.$$ Thus:
\[remark:Vcomplex\] The subspace $\mathfrak{v}=\{ a\in\mathfrak{sl}(4)\mid a^t\,J=J\, a\}$ can be seen as the imaginary part of infinitesimal deformations in complex hyperbolic space.
Equation (\[eqn:su\]) holds true in any dimension, and, since it is an isomorphism of $PSO(n,1)$-modules, it gives an isomorphism in cohomology: $$\begin{gathered}
H^1(M;\mathfrak{sl}(n+1))=H^1(M;\mathfrak{so}(n,1))\oplus H^1(M;\mathfrak{v})
\cong
\\
H^1(M;\mathfrak{so}(n,1))\oplus H^1(M;\mathbf{i}\mathfrak{v})
= H^1(M;\mathfrak{su}(n,1)).\end{gathered}$$ Using this isomorphism, the proof follows.
We will use Remark \[remark:Vcomplex\] and Equation (\[eqn:su\]) to understand the computations for the cohomology with coefficients in $\mathfrak{v}$ in a Riemannian setting.
In order to understand the Killing form on $\mathfrak{su}(3,1)$ we follow the exposition of Goldman [@Goldman 4.1.3]. Let $$v_+=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ 1
\end{pmatrix}
\quad
\textrm{ and }
\quad
v_-=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 0 \\ -1 \\ 1
\end{pmatrix}$$ be two null vectors in $\mathbf{C}^{3,1}$ representing two distinct boundary points of $\mathbf{H}^3_\mathbf{C}$. Then the element $$\eta := -\frac 1 2 (v_+ v_-^* - v_- v^*_+) =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}$$ is the infinitesimal generator of a 1-parameter subgroup of isometries fixing the points $[v_\pm]\in\partial \mathbf{H}^3_\mathbf{C}$ and translating along the geodesic between $[v_+]$ and $[v_-]$.
Decompose the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{su}(3,1)$ into eigenspaces $$\mathfrak g_k = {\operatorname{Ker}}({\operatorname{ad}}_\eta -k \mathbf{I})$$ of ${\operatorname{ad}}_\eta$. The eigenspace $\mathfrak g_k$ is nonzero only for $k\in\{0,\pm1,\pm2\}$. More explicitly we have: $$\mathfrak g_0 = \Big\{
\begin{pmatrix}
a & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(a)}2 & t\\
0 & t &-\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(a)}2
\end{pmatrix} \Big| a\in\mathfrak u(2),\; t\in\mathbf R\Big\},$$ $\mathfrak g_{\pm1} = \{ v v^*_\pm - v_\pm v^* \mid v\in V(v_\pm)^\bot\}$ and $\mathfrak g_{\pm2} = \{ \mathbf{i} s v_\pm v^*_\pm \mid s\in \mathbf R\}$ where $V(v_\pm)$ denotes the vector space generated by $v_+$ and $v_-$. Note that $V(v_\pm)$ the positive two-dimensional complex subspace of $\mathbf C^{3,1}$ given by $z_3=z_4=0$. As usual we have $[\mathfrak g_k,\mathfrak g_l]\subset\mathfrak g_{k+l}$ with the convention that $\mathfrak g_{k+l} =0$ if $|k+l|>2$. This tells us immediately that $\mathfrak g_{k}$ is orthogonal with respect to the Killing form to $\mathfrak g_{l}$ for all $k\neq-l$.
Now let $G_\pm\subset PSU(3,1)$ denote the stabilizer of the point $[v_\pm]\in\partial \mathbf{H}^3_\mathbf{C}$. The Lie algebra $\mathfrak g_\pm$ of $G_\pm$ is given by $$\mathfrak g_\pm = \mathfrak g_0 \oplus \mathfrak g_{\pm1}
\oplus \mathfrak g_{\pm2}.$$ Note also that $\mathfrak h_\pm =\mathfrak g_{\pm1}
\oplus \mathfrak g_{\pm2}$ is the Lie algebra of parabolic transformations fixing the point $[v_\pm]$.
As a consequence of this discussion we obtain the following lemma.
\[lem:orthogonalparabolic\] The Killing form of $\mathfrak{su}(3,1)$ restricted to $\mathfrak g_\pm$ is degenerated. More precisely, the radical $rad(\mathfrak g_\pm) = \mathfrak g_\pm \cap \mathfrak g_\pm^\bot = \mathfrak h_\pm$ consist exactly the infinitesimal parabolic transformations.
Let us consider the sign $+$, the other case is analogous. We have $$\mathfrak g_0^\bot = \mathfrak h_+ \oplus \mathfrak h_-,\quad
\mathfrak g_1^\bot = \mathfrak g_0 \oplus \mathfrak h_+ \oplus \mathfrak g_{-2} \text{ and }
\mathfrak g_2^\bot = \mathfrak g_0 \oplus \mathfrak h_+ \oplus \mathfrak g_{-1}\,.$$ This follows since $\mathfrak g_{k}$ is orthogonal with respect to the Killing form to $\mathfrak g_{l}$ for all $k\neq-l$. Hence $\mathfrak g_+ \cap \mathfrak g_+^\bot =
\mathfrak g_+\cap \mathfrak g_0^\bot \cap \mathfrak g_1^\bot
\cap \mathfrak g_2^\bot =\mathfrak h_+=
\mathfrak g_{1}\oplus \mathfrak g_{2}$.
Invariant subspaces in complex hyperbolic geometry {#sec:invariantsubspaces}
==================================================
In this section we shall compute subspaces of the module $\mathfrak v$ that are invariant by certain elements of $PSO(3,1)$. This will be used later when computing cohomology. For a set of hyperbolic isometries $\Gamma\subset PSO(3,1)$, we shall compute the invariant subspace in $\mathfrak{v}$: $$\mathfrak{v}^{\Gamma}=\{v\in \mathfrak{v}\mid {\operatorname{Ad}}_\gamma(v)=v, \ \forall\gamma\in\Gamma\}.$$
For our computations, we will view elements in $\mathfrak v$ as lying in $\mathbf i \mathfrak v$, namely as infinitesimal isometries of $\mathbf H^3_\mathbf C$. We also use the following lemma (see [@Bourbaki III.9.3] for a proof).
\[lem:tangentcommutator\] For $\gamma\in PSU(3,1)$, $\mathfrak{su}(3,1)^\gamma={\operatorname{Ker}}({\operatorname{Ad}}_\gamma- {\boldsymbol{1} })$ is the Lie algebra of the centralizer of $\gamma$ (i.e. the Lie subgroup of elements in $PSU(3,1)$ that commute with $\gamma$).
Alternatively, the computation of invariant subspaces could also be made with the analogue of Lemma \[lem:tangentcommutator\] for $GL(4)$ or just by explicit computation of the adjoint action on $\mathfrak{v}$.
The centralizer of an element is obtained by means of the stabilizer of an invariant object in $\mathbf H^3_{\mathbf C}\cup \partial \mathbf H^3_{\mathbf C}$. This explains the organization of this section, one subsection for each object.
Geodesics.
----------
Consider the Riemannian geodesic $\gamma$ in $\mathbf H^3_{\mathbf C}$ between $[v_+]$ and $[v_-]$. Let $\mathfrak g_0\subset \mathfrak{su}(3,1)$ denote the Lie algebra of the subgroup $G_0\subset PSU(3,1)$ which fixes the endpoints of the geodesic $\gamma$ (see [@Goldman 4.1.3]). Notice that $G_0\cong \mathbf R\times U(2)$, where $\mathbf R$ acts by translations and $ U(2)$ is the pointwise stabilizer, isomorphic to the stabilizer of a point in $\mathbf H^2_{\mathbf C}$, hence $\mathfrak g_0\cong\mathbf R\oplus \mathfrak{u}(2)$.
\[lem:invhyperbolic\] Let $A\in PSO(3,1)$ be a hyperbolic element of complex length $l+\mathbf i\, \alpha$, $l\neq 0$.
(i) If $\alpha\not\in\pi\mathbf Z$, then $\dim \mathfrak{v}^{A}=1$.
(ii) If $\alpha\in\pi\mathbf Z$, then $\dim \mathfrak{v}^{A}=3$.
We let $\gamma$ denoted the axis of $A$. After conjugation we might assume that $\gamma$ is the geodesic between $[v_+]$ and $[v_-]$ and hence $$A=
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\alpha & -\sin\alpha &0 & 0\\
\sin\alpha & \cos\alpha& 0&0\\
0 & 0 &\cosh l &\sinh l\\
0 & 0 &\sinh l &\cosh l\\
\end{pmatrix}.$$
If $\alpha=\pi$, then $A$ commutes with the whole stabilizer $G_0$. Moreover, the subgroup of $PSO(3,1)$ preserving $\gamma$ is isomorphic to $P(O(2)\times O(1,1))$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\dim \mathfrak{v}^A &=\dim (\mathfrak{g}_0)-\dim (\mathfrak{so}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{so}(1,1))\\
&=5-2=3.\end{aligned}$$
If $\alpha\neq \pi$, then the Lie algebra of the centralizer of $A$ in $\mathfrak{su}(3,1)$ is isomorphic to $\mathbf R\oplus (\mathfrak{so}(2)\times \mathfrak{u}(1))\subset \mathbf R\oplus \mathfrak{u}(2)$, hence three-dimensional and therefore $$\dim \mathfrak{v}^A=3-2=1.$$
Complex hyperbolic lines
------------------------
Complex hyperbolic space is the projectivization of the subset of the time-like vectors of $\mathbf C^{3,1}$. A *complex hyperbolic line* is defined as the intersection of $\mathbf H^3_{\mathbf C}$ with a complex projective line. The group $SU(3,1)$ acts transitively on the set of complex planes that contain time-like vectors. Hence all complex hyperbolic lines are isomorphic to $\mathbf H^1_\mathbf{C}$, and a standard model for a complex hyperbolic line is the image of the plane given by $x_1=x_2=0$. The intersection of a complex hyperbolic line with $\partial \mathbf H^3_\mathbf{C}$ is a smooth circle called a *chain*. Two distinct boundary points of $\mathbf H^3_\mathbf{C}$ are contained in a unique chain and the Riemannian geodesic between the two boundary points is contained in the corresponding complex hyperbolic line.
The identity component of the stabilizer of a chain is given by $P(U(2)\times U(1,1)) \subset PSU(3,1)$.
Let $A\in PSO(3,1)$ be an elliptic element of rotation angle $\alpha\in (0,2\pi)$.
(i) If $\alpha=\pi$, then $\dim \mathfrak{v}^{A}=5$.
(ii) If $\alpha\neq\pi$, then $\dim \mathfrak{v}^{A}=3$.
The fixed point set of $A$ is a complex line, whose stabilizer is $P(U(2)\times U(1,1))$.
If $\alpha=\pi$ then $A$ commutes with all elements in this stabilizer. As the stabilizer of a geodesic in $PSO(3,1)$ is two dimensional ($SO(2)\times\mathbf R$) we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\dim \mathfrak{v}^A&=\dim ((\mathfrak{u}(1,1)\oplus\mathfrak{u}(2)) -1-\dim (\mathfrak{so}(2)\oplus\mathbf R)\\
&=
\dim \mathfrak{u}(1,1)+ \dim \mathfrak{u} (2)-3= 4+ 4-3=5.\end{aligned}$$ When $\alpha\neq \pi$, then the centralizer of $A$ is the projectivization of $$\Big\{
\begin{pmatrix}
\zeta C & 0\\ 0 & B\end{pmatrix} \Big| C\in SO(2),\;\zeta\in U(1),\; B\in U(1,1) \Big\}$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\dim \mathfrak{v}^A&=\dim (\mathfrak{u}(1,1)\oplus\mathfrak{so} (2) ) -2\\
&= 4+ 1-2=3. \end{aligned}$$
Parabolic elements and Heisenberg geometry {#subsection:Heisenberg}
------------------------------------------
In the sequel we will use the notation of Section \[subsectioncomplex\], i.e. we will fix two light-like vectors $v_\pm\in\mathbf C^{3,1}$ representing two distinct boundary points $[v_\pm]\in\partial \mathbf H^3_\mathbf{C}$. Moreover we will use the root-space decomposition of $\mathfrak{su}(3,1)$. The Heisenberg group $\mathcal H_-$ is the group of parabolic transformations fixing the point $[v_-]$, i.e.$\exp\co\mathfrak g_{-1}\oplus \mathfrak g_{-2}\to\mathcal H_-$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\exp(v_- v^* - v v_-^*&+ \mathbf{i}\ t\ v_-v_-^*)\notag \\ &= I_4 + v_- v^* - v v_-^*-
(\|v\|^2/2 -\mathbf{i}t) v_-v_-^*\notag\\
&=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & z_1 & z_1 \\
0 & 1 & z_2 & z_2 \\
-\bar z_1 & -\bar z_2 & 1-\|v\|^2/2 +\mathbf{i}t & -\|v\|^2/2 +\mathbf{i}t \\
\bar z_1 & \bar z_2 & \|v\|^2/2 -\mathbf{i}t & 1+\|v\|^2/2 -\mathbf{i}t
\end{pmatrix}\notag \\ &=: H(z_1,z_2,t) \label{eqn:heisemberg}\end{aligned}$$ where $v=(z_1,z_2,0,0)^t\in v_+^\bot\cap v_-^\bot$ is a space-like vector and hence $\langle v,v\rangle = \|v\|^2= |z_1|^2+|z_2|^2 \geq 0$.
Following the exposition in Goldman’s book [@Goldman 4.2], the boundary a $\infty$ of $\mathbf H_{\mathbf C}^3$ minus the point $[v_-]$ can be identified with a *Heisenberg space*, i.e. a space equipped with a simply transitive left action of the Heisenberg group $\mathcal H_-$. Hence by looking at the orbit of $[v_+]$ we have a bijection $\mathcal H_- \to \partial \mathbf H_{\mathbf C}^3\setminus\{[v_-]\}$ given by $$H(z_1,z_2,t) \mapsto H(z_1,z_2,t) [v_+] =
\begin{bmatrix} 2z_1\\ 2z_2\\
1-\|z\|^2 +2\mathbf i t\\
1+\|z\|^2 -2\mathbf i t\end{bmatrix}$$ where $\|z\|^2= |z_1|^2 + |z_1|^2$.
In the sequel we shall represent points of $\mathcal H_-$ by triples of points $(z_1,z_2,t)$ where $z_1,z_2\in \mathbf C$, $t\in\mathbf R$ with multiplication $$\begin{gathered}
(\omega_1,\omega_2, s)\cdot (z_1,z_2,t) = (\omega_1+z_1,\omega_2+z_2,s+t+\operatorname{Im}(\omega_1\bar z_1+\omega_2\bar z_2) ),
\\
\forall (\omega_1,\omega_2, s), (z_1,z_2,t)\in\mathcal H.\end{gathered}$$ Therefore, $\mathcal H_-$ is a nilpotent $5$-dimensional real Lie group, which is a nontrivial central extension $$0\to\mathbf R\to \mathcal H_-\to\mathbf C^2\to 0\,.$$ The center are the elements of the form $(0,0,t)$, $t\in\mathbf R$.
In the sequel we will make use of the *Siegel domain model* $\mathfrak H^3$ of $\mathbf H_\mathbf{C}^3$. Here $$\mathfrak H^3 =\Big\{ w =\begin{pmatrix} w_1\\w_2\\w_3\end{pmatrix}\in\mathbf C^3 \; \Big| \;|w_1|^2 + |w_2|^2 < 2\Re(w_3)\Big\}$$ is obtained in the following way: we choose the point $[v_-]\in\partial\mathbf{H}_\mathbf{C}^3$ and we denote by $H\subset \mathbf P^{3,1}$ the projective hyperplane tangent to $\partial\mathbf{H}_\mathbf{C}^3$ at $[v_-]$. More precisely, $H$ is the projectivization of $v_-^\bot \subset \mathbf C^{3,1}$ given by the equation $z_3+z_4 =0$. The corresponding affine embedding $\mathbf C^3 \to \mathbf{C P}^{3}\setminus H$ is given by $$\begin{pmatrix} w_1\\w_2\\w_3\end{pmatrix} \mapsto
\begin{bmatrix} w_1\\ w_2\\ 1/2 - w_3\\ 1/2 + w_3\end{bmatrix}\;.$$ It is easy to see that $\mathbf{H}_\mathbf{C}^3$ correspond to the Siegel domain $\mathfrak H^3\subset \mathbf C^3$. In this model the whole stabilizer $G_-$ of the point $[v_-]$ at infinity is the semidirect product: $$G_-=\mathcal H_- \rtimes (U(2)\times \mathbf R)\,.$$ Here $U(2)$ acts linearly on the factor $\mathbf C^2$, and trivially on the factor $\mathbf R$. Moreover $\mathbf R$ acts as follows: $$(I_2,\lambda) (z_1,z_2,t) (I_2,-\lambda)=(e^{-\lambda} z_1,e^{-\lambda} z_2, e^{-2\lambda} t), \ \forall \lambda\in\mathbf R,\ \forall (z_1,z_2,t)\in\mathcal H.$$
In this construction, the subgroup of real parabolic transformations corresponds to $\mathbf R^2\times \{0\}\subset \mathcal H_-$.
\[lem:invparabolic\]
(i) If $A$ is a nontrivial parabolic element of $PSO(3,1)$, then $
\dim \mathfrak{v}^A=3
$.
(ii) If $\Gamma < PSO(3,1)$ is a rank 2 parabolic subgroup, then $
\dim \mathfrak{v}^\Gamma=1
$.
Using the representation in the Heisenberg group $\mathcal H_-$, we may assume that up to conjugation $A$ is $(1,0,0)\in \mathcal H_-$. Note that the centralizer of $A$ is contained in $G_-$. This follows from the fact that $A$ has a unique fixed point on $\overline{\mathbf H^3_\mathbf{C}}$ and every element which commutes with $A$ has to fix this point.
Now a direct calculation gives that the centralizer of $A$ in $G_-$ is $5$-dimensional and given by $$\Big\{ ( s, z, t) \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & a\end{pmatrix} \in G_- \mid s,t\in \mathbf R,\, z\in\mathbf C\text { and } a\in U(1) \Big\}.$$
Thus $\dim (\mathfrak{su}(3,1)^A)=5$, and since $\dim (\mathfrak{so}(3,1))^A=2$ (the tangent space to the real parabolic group itself), the first assertion follows.
For the last assertion, we view $\Gamma$ as a rank 2 subgroup of the Heisenberg group $$\Gamma < \mathbf R^2\times\{ 0\} < \mathcal H_-.$$ Its centralizer is contained in $G_-$ and is precisely the subgroup of elements with real coordinates: $$\mathbf R^3\cong \{(s_1,s_2,t) \in \mathcal H_- \mid s_1,s_2,t\in \mathbf R\} < \mathcal H_-\,.$$ As the subgroup of real parabolic transformations $\mathbf R^2\times \{0\}$ is the centralizer of $\Gamma$ in $PSO(3,1)$, it follows that $\mathfrak{v}^\Gamma=\{(0,0)\}\times\mathbf R $ is one dimensional.
Cohomology of the torus {#sec:cohmologytorus}
=======================
In this section, we analyze the cohomology of the boundary $\partial M$ and the image of the map induced by inclusion $\partial M\subset M$, which is a Lagrangian subspace.
A Lagrangian subspace
---------------------
As in Section \[sec:Thurstonsslice\], let $\rho_u$ denote a representation contained in Thurston’s slice, where $u=(u_1,\ldots,u_k)\in U\subset \mathbf C^k$ is a point in the deformation space. The subspace invariant by the image of the peripheral subgroup of the $i$-th component is denoted by $\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}$, and its orthogonal complement by $$\big(\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}\big)^\bot=
\{ v\in \mathfrak{v} \mid B(v,w)=0,\ \forall w\in \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}\}.$$
\[lem:invkilling\]
(i) For $u_i\neq 0$, the radical of $\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}$ is trivial, i.e.$$\big(\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}\big)^\bot\cap \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}= 0.$$
(ii) For every $u\in U$, the invariant subspace $\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}$ has dimension one.
When $u_i\neq 0$, $\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))$ consists of loxodromic and/or elliptic elements that preserve a geodesic, and we want to apply Lemma \[lem:invhyperbolic\] (i). For this, we need an element $\gamma\in\pi_1(\partial_i M)$ such that $\rho_u(\gamma )$ satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma \[lem:invhyperbolic\] (i). If the real part of $u_i$ does not vanish and the imaginary part of $u_i$ is not contained in $\mathbf Z\pi$ then we choose $\mu_i $. If the real part of $u_i$ vanishes, by Theorem \[thm:thurston\] the real part of $v_i$ does not, and the condition on the complex length applies to either $\gamma=\lambda_i$ or $\gamma=\lambda_i\mu_i$, that have respective complex lengths $v_i$ and $u_i+v_i$. The same argument applies when the imaginary part of $u_i$ is zero.
By Lemma \[lem:invhyperbolic\] (i) and its proof, $\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}$ is the one dimensional subspace generated by (a conjugate of) $$\left( \begin{smallmatrix}
1& & & \\
& 1 & & \\
& & -1 & \\
& & & -1 \\
\end{smallmatrix}\right),$$ and both assertions of the lemma are clear when $u_i\neq 0$.
When $u_i=0$, assertion (ii) is Lemma \[lem:invparabolic\] (ii).
Note that the cup product on $H^1(\partial M;\mathfrak{v})$ is the orthogonal sum of the cup products on the groups $H^1(\partial_i M;\mathfrak{v})$. More precisely, if we denote by $\mathit{res}_i\co H^1(\partial M;\mathfrak{v})\to H^1(\partial_i M;\mathfrak{v})$ la restriction induced by the inclusion $\partial_i M\hookrightarrow \partial M$ then for $z_1,z_2\in H^1(\partial M;\mathfrak{v})$ we have $$\label{eqn:cupsum}
z_1\cup z_2 = \sum_{i=1}^k \mathit{res}_i(z_1)\cup\mathit{res}_i(z_2)\,.$$
\[lem:rankone\] Let $u=(u_1,\ldots,u_k)\in U$.
(i) When $u_i\neq 0$, there is a natural isomorphism $$H^*(\partial_i M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u}})\cong H^*(\partial_i M;\mathbf R)\otimes \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}.$$
(ii) For $u\in U$, $\dim H^1(\partial M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u}})=2\, k$, and the image of the map $$H^1(M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u}})\to H^1(\partial M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u}})$$ is a Lagrangian subspace of $H^1(\partial M; \mathfrak{v}_{Ad\rho})$ for the cup product (in particular it has dimension $k$).
To prove assertion (i), we use the decomposition of Lemma \[lem:invkilling\]: $$\mathfrak{v}= \big(\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}\big)^\bot\oplus \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))},$$ which is a direct sum of $\pi_1(\partial M) $-modules, and therefore it induces a direct sum in cohomology. Since $\big(\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}\big)^\bot$ has no invariant subspaces, $$H^0(\partial_i M, \big(\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}\big)^\bot)=0.$$ In addition, the Killing form restricted to $ \big(\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}\big)^\bot $ is non-degenerate, thus by duality and by vanishing of the Euler characteristic $$H^*(\partial_i M, \big(\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}\big)^\bot)=0.$$ Hence $$H^*(\partial_i M; \mathfrak{v})= H^*(\partial_i M; \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))} )\cong H^*(\partial_i M;\mathbf R)\otimes \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}.$$
The proof of assertion (ii) is a standard application of duality, that we reproduce for completeness (cf. [@HodgsonThesis]). We are interested in the following part of the exact cohomology sequence of the pair $(M,\partial M)$: $$H^1(M;\mathfrak{v}) \stackrel{j^*}{\longrightarrow} H^1(\partial M; \mathfrak{v}) \stackrel{\Delta}{\longrightarrow} H^2(M, \partial M; \mathfrak{v})\,.$$ The maps $j^*$ and $\Delta$ are dual to each other: for $z_1\in H^1(M;\mathfrak{v})$ and $z_2\in H^1(\partial M; \mathfrak{v})$, $$\langle j^*(z_1)\cup z_2, [\partial M]\rangle =
\langle z_1 \cup \Delta (z_2),[M,\partial M] \rangle,$$ where $[M,\partial M]\in H_3(M,\partial M;\mathbf R)$ and $[\partial M]\in H_2(\partial M;\mathbf R)$ denote the respective fundamental classes. It follows that $\dim \operatorname{Im}( j^*) = \frac12 \dim H^1(\partial M; \mathfrak{v}) =k$. Moreover $\Delta\circ j^* =0$ implies that $\operatorname{Im}( j^*)$ is isotropic and hence Lagrangian since $\dim \operatorname{Im}( j^*) =k$.
\[cor:dim\] Let $M$ be a cusped manifold, then $\dim H^1(M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u}})\geq k$, $\forall u\in U\subset\mathbf C^k$.
Moreover $M$ is infinitesimally projectively rigid iff $\dim H^1(M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{0}})= k$.
Follows directly from Lemma \[lem:rankone\] and from the decomposition $\mathfrak{sl}(4) = \mathfrak{so}(3,1)\oplus \mathfrak{v}$ (\[eqn:sl\]).
Parabolic representations
-------------------------
Let ${\lambda}$ and ${\mu}$ be two generators of $\mathbf Z^2$ and $$\varrho\co\mathbf Z^2\to PSO(3,1)$$ a representation into a parabolic group. Up to conjugation we suppose that the boundary point $[v_-]$ is the fixed point of the parabolic group. Viewing the parabolic group as translations of $\mathbf R^2$, $\varrho({\lambda})$ is a translation of vector $v_ {\lambda}$, and $\varrho({\mu})$ of vector $v_ {\mu}$. Assume that the representation has rank $2$, (i.e.$v_ {\lambda}$ and $v_ {\mu}$ are linearly independent). Then:
\[lem:angles\] If the angle $\varphi$ between $v_ {\lambda}$ and $v_ {\mu}$ is not in $\frac\pi3\mathbf Z$ then the map induced by restrictions $$H^1(\mathbf Z^2;\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\varrho}) \xrightarrow{i_{\lambda}^*\oplus i_{\mu}^*} H^1({\lambda};\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\varrho})\oplus H^1({\mu};\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\varrho})$$ is injective. Moreover, $\operatorname{rank}(i_{\lambda}^*)=\operatorname{rank}(i_{\mu}^*)=1$.
We follow the notation from Subsection \[subsection:Heisenberg\]. We may assume that $v_ {\lambda}=(1,0)$, $v_ {\mu}=(a \cos\varphi, a\sin\varphi )\in\mathbf R^2$, $a\,\sin\varphi\neq 0$. In the Heisenberg model $\mathcal H_-$, $\varrho({\lambda})=(1,0,0)$ and $\varrho({\mu})=(a \cos\varphi, a\sin\varphi ,0)$. For $\theta\in\mathbf R$, we define a representation $\varrho_{\theta}\co \mathbf Z\oplus\mathbf Z\to G_-$ by $$\varrho_{\theta}({\lambda})= \varrho({\lambda})
\quad\textrm{ and }\quad
\varrho_{\theta}({\mu})= \varrho({\mu})
\begin{pmatrix} 1& 0 \\ 0 & e^{\mathbf i \theta}\end{pmatrix} .$$ Notice that $\varrho_{\theta}({\lambda})$ and $ \varrho_{\theta}({\mu})$ commute, because $\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1& 0 \\ 0 & e^{\mathbf i \theta}\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ fixes $(1,0)$.
Differentiating at $\theta=0$, we obtain an infinitesimal deformation i.e. a cocycle $d_\mu\co\mathbf Z^2\to \mathfrak g_- = \mathfrak g_0\oplus \mathfrak g_{-1}\oplus \mathfrak g_{-2}$ given by $$d_\mu(\gamma) = \frac{ d \varrho_{\theta}(\gamma) }{d\theta}\bigg|_{\theta=0} \varrho_{0}(\gamma)^{-1}\,.$$ The cocycle $d_\mu\co \mathbf Z^2 \to \mathfrak{g}_-$ is trivial when restricted to ${\lambda}$. More precisely we obtain $$d_\mu(\lambda) = 0 \quad \text{ and }\quad
d_\mu(\mu) = \begin{pmatrix} 0& 0 \\ 0 & \mathbf i \end{pmatrix} .$$
Notice that the derivative of the canonical embedding $U(2)\to PSU(3,1)$ determinate by $$A \mapsto \begin{pmatrix} A& 0 \\ 0 & I_2 \end{pmatrix}$$ is the map $\mathfrak u(2)\to \mathfrak {su}(3,1)$ given by $$a \mapsto \begin{pmatrix} a& 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} - \frac{{\operatorname{tr}}a} 4 I_4\,$$ and that $$\begin{pmatrix} 0& 0 \\ 0 & \mathbf i \end{pmatrix} \mapsto \frac{\mathbf i }4
\begin{pmatrix}
- 1 & & & \\
& 3 & & \\
& & -1 & \\
& & & -1
\end{pmatrix} \in \mathbf i \mathfrak v\,.$$
Hence we obtain a cocycle $z_\mu\co \mathbf Z^2 \to \mathfrak{v}$ given by $z_\mu(\lambda)= 0$ and $z_\mu(\mu) = a_{\lambda}$ where $$a_\lambda :=
\begin{pmatrix}
- 1 & & & \\
& 3 & & \\
& & -1 & \\
& & & -1
\end{pmatrix} \in \mathfrak v\,.$$
In the same way we obtain a second cocycle $z_\lambda\co \mathbf Z^2 \to \mathfrak{v}$ given by $z_\lambda(\lambda)= a_\mu$ and $z_\lambda(\mu) = 0$ where $$a_ {\mu}=\label{eqn:infbending2}
\begin{pmatrix}
1-2\cos(2\varphi) & 2\sin(2\varphi) & & & \\
2\sin(2\varphi)& 1+2\cos(2\varphi)& & & \\
& & -1 & \\
& & & -1
\end{pmatrix}\in\mathfrak v\,.$$ Here $\varphi$ is the angle between $v_{\mu}$ and $v_{\lambda}$. The matrix $a_{\mu}$ is the analogue of $a_ {\lambda}$, as $\mathbf i\, a_{\mu}$ is an infinitesimal rotation in the direction perpendicular to $v_ {\mu}$, and of course it is invariant by $\varrho({\mu})$ (it can be obtained by conjugating $a_{\lambda}$ by a rotation of angle $\varphi$). We claim that the cocycle $z_\mu$ is cohomologically nontrivial when restricted to $\mu$, i.e. nontrivial in $H^1({\mu};\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\varrho})$. This proves that $z_\mu$ is a nontrivial cocycle, and $\operatorname{rank}(i_{\mu}^*)\geq 1$. By symmetry of the generators, $z_\lambda$ is a nontrivial cocycle and $\operatorname{rank}(i_{\lambda}^*)\geq 1$. Moreover, since $i_{\mu}^*(z_\lambda)=0= i_{\lambda}^*(z_\mu)$ it follows that the image of $i_{\mu}^*\oplus i_{\lambda}^*$ is $2$-dimensional and the assertion of the lemma follows.
To prove the claim, we will use the cup product $$H^1({\mu};\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\varrho})\times H^0({\mu};\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\varrho})\to H^1({\mu};\mathbf R)\cong \mathbf R$$ associated to the Killing form defined in (\[eqn:cupproduct\]). Recall that $a_\mu\in H^0({\mu};\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\varrho})= \mathfrak{v}^{\varrho({\mu})}$ is invariant under the action of $\mu$. The cup product $i_{\mu}^* (z_\mu)\cup a_ {\mu}$ is a represented by the homomorphism $H_1(\mu; \mathbf R)\to\mathbf R$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\big(i_{\mu}^* (z_\mu)\cup a_ {\mu}\big)(\mu) &=
B(a_\lambda,a_ {\mu})= 8{\operatorname{tr}}(a_\lambda\cdot a_ {\mu})\\&=32(1+2\cos(2\varphi))
=128\big(\cos^2(\varphi) - \frac 1 4\big)\,.\end{aligned}$$ This is nonzero by the hypothesis about the angle $\varphi$ between $v_ {\lambda}$ and $v_ {\mu}$, hence $i_{\mu}^* (z_ \mu)\cup a_ {\mu}$ is not homologous to zero.
Notice that in the proof of Lemma \[lem:angles\], instead of the cup product we could have considered the Kronecker paring between homology and cohomology, and we would have ended up checking the non-vanishing of the same evaluation of the Killing form $B(a_ {\lambda},a_ {\mu})$.
Before the next lemma, we still need a claim about symplectic forms on vector spaces.
\[lem:cupproduct\] Let $(V,\omega)$ be a $2$-dimensional symplectic subspace. Suppose that $f,g\co V\to\mathbf R$ are linear forms which form a basis of the dual space $V^*$, i.e. $f\oplus g\co V\to \mathbf R^2$ is an isomorphism.
Then there exists a constant $c\in\mathbf R$, $c\neq 0$, such that, for every $x,y\in V$ $$\omega(x,y)= c (f(x) g(y) - g(x) f(y)) \,.$$
The claim is a consequence of the fact that the space of antisymmetric bilinear forms on $\mathbf R^2$ is one dimensional.
\[lem:almosteveryslope\] If a subspace $L\subset H^1(\partial M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0})$ is Lagrangian for the cup product, then there exist simple closed curves $\mu_1\in \pi_1(\partial_1 M)$, …, $\mu_k\in \pi_1(\partial_k M)$ so that the image of $L$ injects in $H^1(\mu_1;\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0})\oplus \cdots \oplus H^1(\mu_k;\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0}) $. Moreover, injectivity fails if we consider only $k-1$ curves.
Along this proof, the action on $\mathfrak v$ is the adjoint of the holonomy of the complete structure, so ${\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0$ is omitted from notation. For $j=1,\ldots,k$, let $res_j\co H^1(\partial M; \mathfrak v)\to H^1(\partial_j M; \mathfrak v)$ denote the map induced by restriction, which is also the projection to the $j$-th factor of the isomorphism $$H^1(\partial M; \mathfrak v)\cong H^1(\partial_1 M; \mathfrak v)\perp\cdots\perp H^1(\partial_k M; \mathfrak v).$$ Recall that this is an orthogonal sum for the cup product (\[eqn:cupsum\]).
We prove the lemma by induction on $k$. When $k=1$, it suffices to chose two curves $\mu_1$ and $\lambda_1$ in $\partial_1 M$ that satisfy the hypothesis of Lemma \[lem:angles\]. Hence $$i_{\mu_1}^*\oplus i_{\lambda_1}^*\co
H^1(\partial_1M;\mathfrak{v})\to H^1(\mu_1;\mathfrak{v}) \oplus H^1(\lambda_1;\mathfrak{v})$$ is injective. Then for at least one of the curves, say $\mu_1$, $i_{\mu_1}^*(L)\neq 0$.
For the induction step, we chose the corresponding curves on the $k$-th component $\mu_k$ and $\lambda_k$, so that $$i_{\mu_k}^*\oplus i_{\lambda_k}^*\co
H^1(\partial_kM;\mathfrak{v})\to H^1(\mu_k;\mathfrak{v}) \oplus H^1(\lambda_k;\mathfrak{v})$$ is injective, and assume that $i_{\mu_k}^*(L)\neq 0$.
Let $L'\subset H^1(\partial_1M;\mathfrak{v})\perp \cdots\perp H^1(\partial_{k-1} M;\mathfrak{v})$ be the projection to the first $k-1$ factors of the kernel of $i_{\mu_k}^*$ restricted to $L$; i.e. $$L'= (res_1\oplus\cdots\oplus res_{k-1})(\ker i_{\mu_k}^*\vert_L)$$ We first check that $L'$ is isotropic. Given $x,y\in L'$, there exist $x_k,y_k\in H^1(\partial_{k} M;\mathfrak{v})$ such that $(x,x_k)$, $(y,y_k)\in L$ and $i_{\mu_k}^*(x_k)=i_{\mu_k}^*(y_k)=0$. Thus, by Claim \[lem:cupproduct\] and equation (\[eqn:cupsum\]): $$0=(x,x_k)\cup(y,y_k)=x\cup y + c_k (i_{\mu_k}^*(x_k) i_{\lambda_k}^*(y_k)-i_{\lambda_k}^*(x_k) i_{\mu_k}^*(y_k))=x\cup y.$$ Finally we claim that the dimension of $L'$ is $k-1$. Since $\dim((\ker (i_{\mu_k}^*\vert_L))=k-1$, we need to check that $res_1\oplus\cdots\oplus res_{k-1}$ restricted to $\ker i_{\mu_k}^*\vert_L$ is injective. Let $x\in \ker(res_1)\cap\cdots \cap \ker (res_{k-1})\cap \ker (i_{\mu_k}^*\vert_L)$, we want to check that $x=0$. Notice that $x\in H^1(\partial_kM;\mathfrak v)\cap L\cap \ker (i^*_{\mu_k})$. Choose $y\in L$ such that $i_{\mu_k}^*(y)\neq 0$, this is possible because $i_{\mu_k}^*(L)\neq 0$. Then, using that $x\in H^1(\partial_ kM;\mathfrak v)$, Claim \[lem:cupproduct\] and Equation (\[eqn:cupsum\]), $$0=x\cup y= c_k (i_{\mu_k}^*(x) i_{\lambda_k}^*(y)-i_{\lambda_k}^*(x) i_{\mu_k}^*(y))= -c_k i_{\lambda_k}^*(x) i_{\mu_k}^*(y)$$ for some $c_k\neq 0$. Since $i_{\mu_k}^*(y)\neq 0$, $i_{\lambda_k}^*(x)=0$. Therefore $x=0$.
The function on the deformation space {#sec:function}
=====================================
Recall that $M$ denotes a compact manifold with boundary a union of $k>0$ tori and hyperbolic interior. The goal of this section is to give a sufficient cohomological condition which guarantees that infinitely many fillings on $M$ are infinitesimally rigid. For this we need several tools for constructing a function on the deformation space. The first one is given by the following lemma. All statements are up to taking a smaller neighborhood of $0$, $U\subset \mathbf C^k$.
\[lem:cohomologyclasses\] As in Section \[sec:Thurstonsslice\], let $U\subset \mathbf C^k$ be an open neighborhood of $0$ which parametrizes the deformations of the complete holonomy of the interior of $M$.
1. There exists a nonvanishing element $a_u^i\in \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}$ that varies analytically in $u\in U$.
2. There exists a family of cohomology classes $\{z_u^1,\ldots,z_u^k\}$ that define a basis for the image of $H^1(M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u}})\to H^1(\partial M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u}})$ and that varies analytically in $u\in U$.
To vary analytically depends on the construction we take for cohomology, but we always think of an analytic map on a finite dimensional space of cocycles, either in simplicial cohomology (fixing a triangulation and varying the bundle) or in group cohomology (fixing a generating set for the fundamental group).
The first assertion follows directly from Lemma \[lem:invkilling\] (ii).
For the second part we will use Lemma \[lem:rankone\] (ii). The rank of $H^1(M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u}})\to H^1(\partial M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u}})$ is $k$. Hence it suffices to take a basis when $u=0$, $\{ z_0^1,\ldots , z_0^k\}$ and then make it vary in the kernel of $H^1(\partial M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u}})\to H^2(M,\partial M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u}})$, which is an analytic family of $k$-dimensional vector spaces.
For $i=1,\ldots,k$ we consider the following $1$-cycle in the $i$-th torus $\partial_iM$ of the boundary $$a_u^i\otimes \frac1{\vert p_i+q_i\tau_i\vert ^2}(p_i\mu_i+q_i\lambda_i)$$ in simplicial homology. This twisted cycle is the image of the untwisted cycle $$\frac{p_i\mu_i+q_i\lambda_i}{ \vert p_i+q_i\tau_i\vert ^2}\in
H_1(\partial_i M, \mathbf R)$$ by the natural map $$H_1(\partial_i M, \mathbf R) \xrightarrow{a^i_{u}\otimes\cdot} H_1(\partial_i M, \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))})
\to H_1(\partial_i M, \mathfrak{v})$$ that consists in tensorizing by $a_u^i$ and composing with the map induced by the inclusion of coefficients $\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}\to \mathfrak{v}$.
Let $\langle . \,, .\rangle$ denote the Kronecker pairing between homology and cohomology. We define $$f(u)= \det \bigg( \big(\langle z_u^i, a_u^j\otimes
\frac{p_j\mu_j+q_j\lambda_j}{\vert p_j+q_j\tau_j\vert ^2}\rangle\big)_{ij}\bigg)$$ where $p_i$ and $q_i$ are the generalized Dehn filling coefficients corresponding to $u\in U$ (see Section \[sec:Thurstonsslice\]). If we view $z_u$ as a map on simplicial chains taking values on $\mathfrak{v}$, and $B$ denotes the Killing form, then $$f(u)= \det \bigg( B\big( z_u^i(
\frac{p_j\mu_j+q_j\lambda_j}{\vert p_j+q_j\tau_j\vert ^2} ), a_u^j\big)\bigg).$$
The function $f$ depends on several non-canonical choices. But we are only interested in the zero locus of $f$ and this set does not depend on the different cocycles involved in the definition of $f$. Notice also that Lemma \[lem:analytic\] implies that $f$ is analytic and $f(0)=0$. [Proposition \[prop:nonrigid\] below shows that the zero locus $f^{-1}(\{0\})$ of $f$ might be one dimensional and that in general $0\in f^{-1}(\{0\})$ is not isolated point (see Section \[sec:orbi\]).]{}
In the sequel let $u_{(\mathbf p, \mathbf q)}$ denote the parameter of the structure whose completion gives the Dehn filling with coefficients $(p_1,q_1),\ldots,(p_k,q_k)$ where $(p_i,q_i)$ are pairs of coprime integers.
\[lemma:fnonzero\] If
(i) $f(u_{(\mathbf p, \mathbf q)})\neq 0$ and
(ii) $\dim H^1(M, \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u_{(\mathbf p, \mathbf q)}}})=k$,
then $H^1(M_{(\mathbf p, \mathbf q)},\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u_{(\mathbf p, \mathbf q)}}})=0$.
In this proof the representation $\rho_{u_{(\mathbf p, \mathbf q)}}$ is fixed and we remove ${\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u}$ from notation.
Hypothesis (i) and (ii) imply that $$\{a_u^1\otimes (p_1\mu_1+ q_1\lambda_1),\ldots ,a_u^k\otimes (p_k\mu_k+ q_k\lambda_k)\}$$ is a basis for $H_1(M;\mathfrak{v})$. Hence for $\gamma :=\gamma_1\cup\cdots\cup\gamma_k$, $\gamma_i=p_i\mu_i+q_i\lambda_i$, the following composition gives an isomorphism in homology: $$\bigoplus_{i=1}^k H_1(\gamma_i;\mathbf R)\to \bigoplus_{i=1}^kH_1(\gamma_i; \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))})\to H_1(\gamma; \mathfrak{v})\to H_1(M;\mathfrak{v}).$$ Equivalently, we have an isomorphism in cohomology: $$\label{ref:eqniso}
H^1(M;\mathfrak{v})
\to
H^1(\gamma; \mathfrak{v})\to
\bigoplus_{i=1}^k
H^1(\gamma_i; \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))})
\to
\bigoplus_{i=1}^k
H^1(\gamma_i;\mathbf R).$$
Let $N$ denote a tubular neighborhood of the filling geodesics, so that $N=N_1\cup \cdots \cup N_k$ is the union of $k$ solid tori, $N\cup M$ is the closed manifold $M_{(\mathbf p, \mathbf q)}$ and $N\cap M=\partial M$. We claim that the inclusions induce an isomorphism $$H^i(M;\mathfrak{v})\oplus H^i(N; \mathfrak{v})\to H^i(\partial M; \mathfrak{v})$$ for $i=0$ and $i=1$. Then by Mayer-Vietoris, $H^1(M_{(\mathbf p, \mathbf q)},\mathfrak{v})=0$ follows.
Let us check the claim. When $i=0$, $H^0(M;\mathfrak{v})\cong \mathfrak{v}^{Ad\rho_u(\pi_1M)}=0$, and the required isomorphism comes from the fact that $\pi_1(N_j)$ and $\pi_1(\partial_j M)$ have the same image under $\rho_u$ and hence the same invariant subspace.
When $i=1$, we notice that by Lemma \[lem:rankone\] $$H^1(\partial_i M,\mathfrak{v})=H^1(\partial_i M,\mathbf R)\otimes \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))},$$ and $\dim \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}=1$, by Lemma \[lem:invkilling\]. Similarly, $$H^1(N_i,\mathfrak{v})=H^1(N_i,\mathbf R)\otimes \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial_i M))}.$$ Then the proof follows from isomorphism (\[ref:eqniso\]) and the natural isomorphism induced by inclusions: $$H^1(\partial_ i M;\mathbf R)\cong H^1(N_i;\mathbf R)\oplus H^1(\gamma_ i;\mathbf R).$$
By analyticity we get:
\[cor:giverigidity\] If the generic dimension of $H^1(M;\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_u})$ is $k$ and if $f$ is non-constant in a neighborhood of $0$, then infinitely many Dehn filling are infinitesimally rigid.
The dimension of $H^1(M;\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_u})$ is bounded below by $k$ and lower semicontinuous on $u\in U$ (it is larger on a proper analytic subset). Hence the set of $u\in U$ where $\dim H^1(M;\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_u})\neq k$ or $f(u)=0$ is a proper analytic subset of $U$, and it misses infinitely many Dehn fillings by [@Porti Lemme 4.4].
For a collection of simple closed curves $\mu=\{\mu_1,\ldots \mu_k\}$, where $\mu_i\subset\partial_i M$ is non trivial in homology, let $\rho_{\mathbf i\alpha}$ denote the holonomy of the corresponding hyperbolic cone structure with cone angle $\alpha$ and meridians $\mu$.
\[prop:conerigid\] Assume that there exists a collection of simple closed curves as above $\mu\subset \pi_1(\partial M)$ and some $\varepsilon>0$ so that, $\forall 0<\alpha<\varepsilon$, $$\dim H^1(M, \mu; \mathfrak{v}_{Ad \rho_{\alpha \mathbf i }})=3 k.$$ Then infinitely many Dehn fillings are infinitesimally rigid.
Our goal is to prove the proposition by applying Corollary \[cor:giverigidity\]. Since $\rho_{\alpha \mathbf i }(\mu_j)$ is a rotation of angle $0<\alpha<\pi$, by Lemma \[lem:invhyperbolic\] $\dim H^0(\mu_j;\mathfrak{v}_{Ad\rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}})=\dim \mathfrak{v}^{Ad\rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}(\mu_j)}=3$, and therefore $\dim H^0(\mu;\mathfrak{v}_{Ad\rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}})=3 k$.
Then the long exact sequence of the pair $(M,\mu)$ starts as follows: $$0\to H^0(\mu, \mathfrak{v}_{Ad \rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}})\to H^1(M,\mu, \mathfrak{v}_{Ad \rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}})\to H^1(M, \mathfrak{v}_{Ad \rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}})\to\cdots.$$ Since $\dim H^0(\mu; \mathfrak{v}_{Ad \rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}})= \dim H^1(M,\mu, \mathfrak{v}_{Ad \rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}})$, we have an inclusion $$0\to H^1( M; \mathfrak{v}_{Ad \rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}})\to H^1(\mu; \mathfrak{v}_{Ad \rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}}).$$ The inclusion of $\mu$ in $M$ factors through $\partial M$, hence by Lemma \[lem:rankone\], it follows that $$\dim H^1( M; \mathfrak{v}_{Ad \rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}})=k,$$ which is the first condition for applying Corollary \[cor:giverigidity\], by lower semicontinuity of the dimension of $H^ 1$.
Moreover, using Lemma \[lem:rankone\] (i), it follows that $$H^1(M; \mathfrak{v}_{Ad\rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}})\cong
\bigoplus_{j=1}^k H^1(\mu_j;\mathbf R) \otimes \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}(\pi_1(\partial_j M))}\,.$$ This implies that one can choose a basis $\{z_u^1,\ldots,z_u^k\}$ for $H^1(M; \mathfrak{v}_{Ad\rho_{\alpha \mathbf i}})$, where $z_u^j=\hat \mu_j\otimes a_{{\alpha\, \mathbf i}}^j$ and $\hat \mu_j\in H^1(\mu_j;\mathbf Z)$ is the dual of the fundamental class in $H_1(\mu_j;\mathbf Z)$. Thus, since $p_j=2\pi/\alpha$ and $q_j=0$, we get $$f(\alpha \mathbf i)=\frac{\alpha^k}{(2\pi)^k}B(a_{\alpha\, \mathbf i}^1, a_{\alpha\, \mathbf i}^1)\cdots B(a_{\alpha\, \mathbf i}^k, a_{\alpha\, \mathbf i}^k) \neq 0,$$ as the Killing form on $
\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{{\alpha\, \mathbf i}}(\pi_1(\partial_j M))}
$ is nondegenerate.
As $M$ is infinitesimally projectively rigid, by Lemma \[lem:almosteveryslope\] we can choose a set of slopes $\mu=\mu_1\cup\cdots \cup \mu_k$, so that $$0\to H^1(M;\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0})\to H^1(\mu;\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0})$$ is exact. By the long exact sequence of the pair $(M,\mu)$, since $\dim \mathfrak{v}^{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0(\mu_j)}=3$, this is equivalent to saying that $\dim H^1(M,\mu;\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0})=3 k$. By analyticity and lower semicontinuity of the dimension of the cohomology, the hypothesis of Proposition \[prop:conerigid\] holds true.
Let $M_{(\mathbf p,\mathbf q)}$ be infinitesimally projectively rigid. Then $u_{(\mathbf p,\mathbf q)}\in U$ denotes the parameter in the Thurston slice corresponding to the holonomy of the structure on $M$ induced by the Dehn filling.
As in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:fnonzero\], a Mayer-Vietoris argument gives that $$\dim H^1(M; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u_{(\mathbf p,\mathbf q)}}})=k.$$ Moreover, if the parameter $u_{(\mathbf p,\mathbf q)}$ is contained in the domain of definition of $f$ then $f({u_{(\mathbf p,\mathbf q)}})\neq 0$. A priory the domain of definition of $f$ could be a smaller neighborhood of the origin: the problem is that the cohomology classes $z_{u}^1,\ldots, z^k_{u}\in {\operatorname{Im}}( H^1(M;\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho})\to H^1(\partial M; {\operatorname{Ad}}\rho))$ could be linearly dependent or even not be defined outside a small neighborhood of $0$. To fix that, we use the path of hyperbolic cone structures, that gives a segment in $U$, that we parametrize by the cone angle $\alpha\in [0,2\pi]$. Let $u_{\alpha}\in U$ denote the parameter of the deformation space and $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_k$ the boundary slopes. By compactness, the segment $ [0,2\pi]$ is covered by intervals $(\alpha_i,\alpha_{i+1})$ where there exists cohomology classes $z_{\alpha}^1,\ldots, z_{\alpha}^k\in {\operatorname{Im}}( H^1(M;\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho})\to H^1(\partial M; {\operatorname{Ad}}\rho))$ that vary analytically on $\alpha$ and are linearly independent for each $\alpha\in(\alpha_i,\alpha_{i+1})$, by Lemma \[lem:cohomologyclasses\]. On each interval we may use the cohomology classes to construct functions similar to $f$, i.e. as the determinant of the matrix of Kronecker pairings between $z_{\alpha}^i$ and the homology class represented by $a_{\alpha}^j\otimes \frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \gamma_j$. This finite sequence of paths and the usual analyticity argument gives that in a neighborhood of $0$, $f\neq 0$ and the generic dimension of the cohomology is the expected one. Hence we may apply Corollary \[cor:giverigidity\].
Flexing slopes {#sec:flexingslopes}
==============
Let $M^3$ be a cusped hyperbolic manifold of finite volume which is infinitesimally projectively rigid. Let $\gamma$ be a slope of $\partial_1 M$, We say that $\gamma$ is a *flexing slope* if the map $$i_{\gamma}^*\co H^1(M;\mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0})\to H^1(\gamma; \mathfrak{v}_{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0})$$ is nontrivial.
\[prop:flexingslope\] Let $M^3$ be a cusped hyperbolic manifold of finite volume which is infinitesimally projectively rigid and let $\mu,\lambda\in\partial_1 M$ be a pair of simple closed curves generating the fundamental group of $\partial_1 M$. Let $(p_n ,q_n)\in\mathbf Z^2$ be a sequence of coprime integers lying on a line $a \, p_n+ b\, q_n = c$. If $\gamma= -b \mu+a \lambda$ is a flexing slope, then $M^3_{(p_n,q_n),\infty,\cdots,\infty}$ is infinitesimally rigid for $n$ large enough.
After changing the basis in homology, the curves $\mu$ and $\lambda$ are chosen such that $a=1$, $b=0$, i.e. $\lambda=(0,1)$ is the flexing slope. We also may assume $(p_n,q_n)=(c,n)$.
Let us consider the path $$s\mapsto \begin{cases} (c,\frac 1s) & \text{ if } s\neq 0\\
\infty & \text{ if } s =0 \end{cases}$$ in the parameter space. Denote by $u(s)$ the corresponding point in the deformation space.
The path $u(s)$ is a real analytic on ${s\in (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)}$.
Setting $\tau(u)=v(u)/u$, from $p\, u+q\, v= u( c+\frac{1}{s}\tau(u))=2\pi\mathbf i$ we can write $$u({s\, c+ \tau(u)})
={s\, 2\pi\mathbf i}.$$ Since $\tau(0)\neq 0$ and $\tau$ is analytic on $u$, this allows to define $u$ as analytic function on $s$, by applying the analytic version of the implicit function theorem.
Let $\theta_u\in {\operatorname{Im}}\big(H^1(M;\mathfrak{v}_{Ad\rho_u})\to H^1(\partial_1M;\mathfrak{v}_{Ad\rho_u})\big)$ be an analytic family of cohomology classes, so that $i_{\lambda}^*(\theta_0)\neq 0$. This is always possible since $i_{\lambda}^*$ factors through $H^1(\partial_1M;\mathfrak{v}_{Ad\rho_u})$.
The two cohomology classes $z_{\mu}, z_{\lambda}\in H^1(\partial_1 M;\mathfrak{v}_{Ad\rho_0})$ as defined in the proof of Lemma \[lem:angles\] satisfy $i_{\mu}^*(z_{\lambda})=i_{\lambda}^*(z_{\mu})=0$, $i_{\mu}^*(z_{\mu})\neq 0$, and $i_{\lambda}^*(z_{\lambda})\neq 0$. Hence we may assume that $$\theta_0= z_{\lambda}+ \beta z_{\mu},\qquad\textrm{ for some }
\beta\in\mathbf R.$$
Let also $a_{u(s)}\in \mathfrak{v}^{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u(s)}(\pi_1(\partial_1 M))}$ be an analytic family of invariant elements, with $a_0\neq 0$. As in Lemma \[lem:cohomologyclasses\], we want to see that for $s>0$, the following function does not vanish: $$\begin{aligned}
f(s) := &\bigg\langle \theta_{u(s)}, a_{u(s)}\otimes \frac{ c\mu+\frac1s\lambda}{| c +\frac1s\tau|^2}
\bigg\rangle\\ = & \frac{s}{| s\,c+\tau|^2}
\big\langle
\theta_{u(s)} ( s\,c\mu+\lambda ), a_{u(s)}
\big\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
Notice that it follows from the proof of Lemma \[lem:invkilling\] that for small $s$, $s\neq0$, the restriction of the Killing form on the subspace $\mathfrak{v}^{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_{u(s)}(\pi_1(\partial_1 M))}$ is positive definite i.e. $B(a_{u(s)},a_{u(s)})>0$ for sufficiently small $s\neq 0$.
\[lem:Bsto0\] If $\Vert a_{u(s)} \Vert=B(a_{u(s)},a_{u(s)})^{1/2}$, then $$\lim\limits_{s\to 0}\frac{B( \theta_{u(s)}(\lambda), a_{u(s)})}
{\Vert a_{u(s)}\Vert}=16
\quad\textrm{ and }\quad
\lim\limits_{s\to 0}\frac{B( \theta_{u(s)}(\mu), a_{u(s)})}{\Vert a_{u(s)}\Vert}=16\beta.$$
Assuming the lemma we obtain $$\frac{f(s)}{s\, \Vert a_{u(s)}\Vert}=
\frac1{| s\, c+\tau | ^2}
\left(
\frac{B( \theta_{u(s)}(\lambda), a_{u(s)})}{\Vert a_{u(s)}\Vert}
+s\, c
\frac{B( \theta_{u(s)}(\mu), a_{u(s)})}{\Vert a_{u(s)}\Vert}
\right)$$ and hence $$\lim_{s\to0} \frac{f(s)}{s\, \Vert a_{u(s)}\Vert} =
\frac{16}{|\tau_0|^2}\,.$$ Hence $f(s)\neq 0$ for $s\neq 0$. Moreover, since the dimension of $H^1(M; \mathfrak{v}_{Ad\rho_{u}})$ is lower semicontinuous, it still satisfies $\dim (H^1(M; \mathfrak{v}_{Ad\rho_{u(s)}}))= k$. By analyticity those conditions are satisfied for all but finitely many $s$, hence we may apply Lemma \[lemma:fnonzero\].
This concludes the proof of Proposition \[prop:flexingslope\] assuming Lemma \[lem:Bsto0\].
Before proving Lemma \[lem:Bsto0\], we still need a further computation. Let $w_0\in \mathfrak{su}(3,1)$ denote $$w_0=\frac{\mathbf i}{2} V_0,\qquad \text{ where }
V_0=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & & \\
& 1 & & \\
& & -1 & \\
& & & -1
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Note that $w_0$ is contained in $\mathfrak g_0\subset\mathfrak{su}(3,1)$ which is the Lie algebra of the stabilizer of $[v_\pm]\in\partial_{\infty} \mathbf H^3_{\mathbf C}$.
\[lem:vutaylor\] The invariant element $a_u\in \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_u(\pi_1(\partial M))}$ can be chosen such that: $$a_u= p(u)+ 4\left(\sinh^2\frac u2\right) V_0$$ where $p(u)$ is an infinitesimal parabolic transformation.
Since $w_0$ is invariant by the stabilizer $G_0$ for $u\neq 0$, $a_u$ can be obtained by conjugating $w_0$, and then by normalizing the result so that the limit exists if $u$ tends to $0$.
Recall that in the Heisenberg model the subgroup of real parabolic representations corresponds to $\mathbf R^2\times\{0\}\subset \mathcal H_- \subset G_- = \mathcal H_- \rtimes(U(2)\times\mathbf R)$. Note also that $w_0$ is the image of $\mathbf i I_2$ under the canonical inclusion $\mathfrak u(2)\hookrightarrow \mathfrak{su}(3,1)$.
Suppose that $(x,y,0)\in\mathbf R^2\times\{0\}$ is the second fixed point of $\rho_u(\pi_1 \partial M)$. In the notation of $PSL_2(\mathbf C)$ we have $$\rho_u(\mu)=\pm\begin{pmatrix} e^{u/2} & 1 \\ 0 & e^{-u/2} \end{pmatrix},$$ hence $$x+\mathbf i y = \frac{-1}{2\sinh(u/2)}.$$ Using the formalism of $G_-$, the conjugate of $w_0$ we are looking for is: $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Ad}}_{(x,y,0)}
\begin{pmatrix} \mathbf i & 0 \\ 0 &\mathbf i \end{pmatrix}
&= \frac{d}{dt} (x,y,0)
\begin{pmatrix} e^{\mathbf i t} & 0 \\ 0 &e^{\mathbf i t} \end{pmatrix} (-x,-y,0)\bigg|_{t=0}\\
&= \frac{d}{dt} (x,y,0) (-xe^{\mathbf i t},-ye^{\mathbf i t},0)\begin{pmatrix} e^{\mathbf i t} & 0 \\ 0 &e^{\mathbf i t} \end{pmatrix}\bigg|_{t=0}\\
&= \frac{d}{dt}
\big(x(1-e^{\mathbf i t}) ,y(1-e^{\mathbf i t}),(x^2+y^2)\sin(t)\big) \begin{pmatrix} e^{\mathbf i t} & 0 \\ 0 &e^{\mathbf i t}\end{pmatrix} \bigg|_{t=0}\\
&= \big(- \mathbf i x , - \mathbf i y ,(x^2+y^2) \big) +
\begin{pmatrix} \mathbf i & 0 \\ 0 & \mathbf i\end{pmatrix}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Under the inclusion $\mathfrak g_-\hookrightarrow\mathfrak{su}(3,1)$ this element is written as $$\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\mathbf i}2 & & & \\
& \frac{\mathbf i}2 & & \\
& & -\frac{\mathbf i}2 & \\
& & & -\frac{\mathbf i}2
\end{pmatrix}
-
\mathbf i \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & x & y \\
0 & 0 & x & y \\
-x & x & 0 & 0 \\
-y & y & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
+
\mathbf i (x^2+y^2) \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & -1
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Hence $ {\operatorname{Ad}}_{(x,y,0)}(w_0) = w_0 +\textrm{Parabolic}$.
Now $x^2+y^2=\frac{1}{4\sinh^2(u/2)}$ and in order to obtain an invariant matrix which converges when $u\to 0$ we take $$a_u= -\mathbf i 4 \left(\sinh^2\frac u2\right) Ad_{(x,y,0)}(w_0)= 4 \left(\sinh^2\frac u2\right) V_0 +\textrm{Parabolic}$$ and the lemma is clear.
Using Lemmas \[lem:vutaylor\] and \[lem:orthogonalparabolic\] we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
B(a_u,a_u)^{1/2} & = & 4 \sinh^2\frac u2 \, B(V_0,V_0)^{1/2} = 8 \sinh^2\frac u2 ; \\
B( \theta_{u(s)}(\lambda),a_{u(s)}) & = & B( \theta_{u(s)}(\lambda), V_0) \,4 \sinh^2\frac u2 .\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\frac {B( \theta_{u(s)}(\lambda),a_{u(s)})} {\Vert a_{u(s)}\Vert }=
\frac 1 2 B( \theta_{u(s)}(\lambda), V_0)\to \frac12
B( \theta_{u(0)}(\lambda), V_0) \textrm{ as }
s\to 0,$$ and $$B( \theta_{u(0)}(\lambda), V_0)= B(z_{\lambda}(\lambda),V_0)=\\
B(a_\mu,W_0)
= 32\,.$$ A similar computation holds for $\theta_{u(s)}(\mu)$.
Examples {#sec:examples}
========
In this section we compute two examples, the figure eight knot and the Whitehead link exteriors. We start introducing some notation. Let $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbf{R}^4$ be a column vector. As in Section \[subsectioncomplex\] we will use the following notation: $\mathbf{x}^*=\mathbf{x}^t J$. Then for all $\mathbf x, \mathbf y\in\mathbf R^4$ we have that $\mathbf x \mathbf y^* + \mathbf y\mathbf x^*\in\mathfrak v$. In the sequel we will make use of the following basis $\{ v_1,\ldots, v_9\}$ of $\mathfrak v$: $$v_i = \mathbf e_i \mathbf e_i^* + \mathbf e_4 \mathbf e_4^* \qquad \text{ for $i=1,\ldots,3$},$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
v_4 = \mathbf e_1 \mathbf e_2^* + \mathbf e_2 \mathbf e_1^*, &
v_5 = \mathbf e_1 \mathbf e_3^* + \mathbf e_3 \mathbf e_1^*, &
v_6 = \mathbf e_1 \mathbf e_4^* + \mathbf e_4 \mathbf e_1^*,\\
v_7 = \mathbf e_2 \mathbf e_3^* + \mathbf e_3 \mathbf e_2^*, &
v_8 = \mathbf e_2 \mathbf e_4^* + \mathbf e_4 \mathbf e_2^*, &
v_9 = \mathbf e_3 \mathbf e_4^* + \mathbf e_4 \mathbf e_3^*\,.\end{aligned}$$
The figure eight knot
---------------------
In this section we explain the computations to show that the figure eight knot exterior is infinitesimally projectively rigid.
Let $\Gamma$ be the fundamental group of the figure eight knot exterior. We fix a presentation of $\Gamma$: $$\label{eq:presfig8}
\Gamma=\langle x,\, y \mid x y^{-1} x^{-1} y x y^{-1} x y x^{-1} y^{-1} \rangle.$$ where $x$ and $y$ represent meridians.
By Corollary \[cor:dim\], it suffices to show that $\dim H^1(\Gamma,\mathfrak{v}_{Ad\rho_0})=1$.
We start with a holonomy representation of the complete structure in $SL_2(\mathbf C)$ [@Riley]: $$x\mapsto \left( \begin {array}{cc} 1&1\\\noalign{\medskip}0&1\end {array}
\right)
\qquad
y\mapsto \left( \begin {array}{cc} 1&0\\\noalign{\medskip}\frac{1-i\sqrt {3}}2 &
1\end {array} \right),$$
Using for instance the construction described in [@CLTEM], the representation in $PSO(3,1)$ is given by: $$\rho_0(x)=
\begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0&0\\
0&1&-1&1\\
0&1&1/2&1/2\\
0&1&-1/2&3/2
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad
\rho_0(y)=
\begin{pmatrix}
1&0& \sqrt {3}/2& \sqrt {3}/2\\
0&1&1/2&1/2\\
-\sqrt {3}/2&-1/2&1/2&-1/2\\
\sqrt {3}/2&1/2&1/2&3/2
\end{pmatrix}
$$ Notice that the holonomy of $x$ and $y$ have a fixed point in the light cone, which are respectively: $$v_+ =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ 1
\end{pmatrix}
\quad
\textrm{ and }
\quad
v_- =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 0 \\ -1 \\ 1
\end{pmatrix}.
$$ With respect to the basis $\{v_1,\ldots,v_9\}$ for $\mathfrak{v}$ the adjoint representation is given by: $${\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0(x)= \left(
\begin {matrix}
1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\[1ex]
1&2&2&0&0&0&-2&2&-2\\[1ex]
\frac14&\frac54&\frac12&0&0&0&1&1&\frac12\\[1ex]
0&0&0&1&-1&-1&0&0&0\\[1ex]
0&0&0&1&\frac12&-\frac12&0&0&0\\[1ex]
0&0&0&-1&\frac12&\frac32&0&0&0\\[1ex]
\frac12&\frac32&0&0&0&0&-\frac12&\frac32&0\\[1ex]
\frac32&\frac52&2&0&0&0&-\frac32&\frac52&-2\\[1ex]
\frac34&\frac74&\frac12&0&0&0&0&2&\frac12
\end{matrix} \right)$$ and $$\small
{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0(y)= \left(
\begin{matrix}
\frac74&\frac34&\frac32&0&\sqrt {3}&-\sqrt {3}&0&0&\frac32\\[1ex]
\frac14&\frac54&\frac12&0&0&0&1&1&\frac12\\[1ex]
1&\frac12&\frac12&\frac{\sqrt {3}}{2}&-\frac{\sqrt {3}}2&
-\frac{\sqrt{3}}2&-\frac12&\frac12&-\frac12\\[1ex]
\frac{\sqrt {3}}4&\frac{\sqrt {3}}4&\frac{\sqrt {3}}2&1&1/2&-1/2&
\frac{\sqrt {3}}2&\frac{\sqrt {3}}2&\frac{\sqrt {3}}2\\[1ex]
-\frac{3\sqrt {3}}4&-\frac{\sqrt {3}}4&0&-\frac12&-\frac14&
\frac54&-\frac{\sqrt {3}}4&-\frac{\sqrt {3}}4&0\\[1ex]
-\frac{5\sqrt {3}}4&-\frac{3\sqrt {3}}4&-\sqrt {3}&-\frac12&-\frac54&\frac94&-\frac{\sqrt {3}}4&-\frac{\sqrt {3}}4&-\sqrt {3}\\[1ex]
-\frac14&-\frac34&0&-\frac{\sqrt {3}}2&-\frac{\sqrt {3}}4&
\frac{\sqrt {3}}4&\frac14&-\frac34&0\\[1ex]
\frac34&\frac54&1&\frac{\sqrt {3}}2&\frac{\sqrt {3}}4&
-\frac{\sqrt {3}}4&\frac34&\frac74&1\\[1ex]
-\frac32&-1&-\frac12&-\frac{\sqrt {3}}2&0&\sqrt {3}&0&-1&\frac12
\end {matrix}\right).$$ The cohomology group $H^1(\Gamma;\mathfrak{v})$ is computed as the quotient $Z^1/B^1$, where $Z^1$ is the space of cocycles and $B^1$ the space of coboundaries: $$\begin{aligned}
Z^1&=&\{d:\Gamma\to \mathfrak{v}\mid d(\gamma_1\gamma_2)= d(\gamma_1)+Ad\rho_0(\gamma_1) d(\gamma_2),\ \forall\gamma_1,\gamma_2\in \Gamma \},
\\
B^1&=&\{d\in Z^1\mid d(\gamma)=(Ad\rho_0(\gamma)-1) a, \ \forall\gamma\in \Gamma, \textrm{ for some } a\in \mathfrak{v}\}.\end{aligned}$$
Since $\mathfrak{v}$ has no element globally invariant by $\Gamma$, $\dim B^1=\dim \mathfrak{v}= 9$. We claim that $\dim Z^1=10$. To compute this dimension, we use the isomorphism of $\mathbf R$-vector spaces: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
Z^1 & \leftrightarrow &\{ (a,b)\in \mathfrak{v}^2\mid \tfrac {\partial w}{\partial x}\cdot a + \tfrac {\partial w}{\partial y}\cdot b =0 \} \\
d & \leftrightarrow & (d(x),d(y))
\end{array},$$ where $w=x y^{-1} x^{-1} y x y^{-1} x y x^{-1} y^{-1}$ is the relation in the presentation of $\Gamma$, and $\frac {\partial w}{\partial x}$, $\frac {\partial w}{\partial y}$ stand for the Fox derivatives [@LubotzkyMagid]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac {\partial w}{\partial x} & = &
1-xy^{-1}x^{-1}+x y^{-1} x^{-1} y+ y x y^{-1} x^{-1}- y,
\\
\frac {\partial w}{\partial y} & = &
-x y^{-1}+ x y^{-1} x^{-1}- y x y^{-1} x^{-1}+y x y^{-1} -1.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $Z^1$ is isomorphic to the kernel of the linear map from $\mathfrak{v}\times \mathfrak{v}$ to $\mathfrak{v}$ with matrix: $$\label{eqn:boundary}
\left(
{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0(\frac {\partial w}{\partial x}) \; ,\;
{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0(\frac {\partial w}{\partial y})
\right).$$
One can check that this matrix has rank 8, by means of an elementary but tedious computation. Hence $\dim Z^1=10$, as claimed.
To prove Proposition \[prop:fig8explicit\] we need to show:
\[rem:flex\] The longitude is a flexing slope.
With this remark, Proposition \[prop:fig8explicit\] is just an application of Proposition \[prop:flexingslope\]. To prove that the longitude is a flexing slope, we need to analyze more carefully the previous computation.
By looking at the kernel of matrix (\[eqn:boundary\]), we choose one cocycle $d$ determined by: $$d(x)= \begin {pmatrix}
0&0&0&0\\
0&0&-3&-1\\
0&-3&0&0\\
0&1&0&0
\end {pmatrix}
\quad\textrm{ and }\quad
d(y)= 0
\,.$$ Let $l= y x^{-1} y^{-1} x^2 y^{-1} x^{-1} y$ be the longitude that commutes with $x$. Then, by Fox calculus, $$d(l)=\begin {pmatrix}
60&-4\,\sqrt {3}&60\,\sqrt {3}&-68\,\sqrt {3}\\
-4\,\sqrt {3}&-4&-12&12\\
60\,\sqrt {3}&-12&178&-206\\
68\,\sqrt {3}&-12&206&-234
\end {pmatrix}\,.$$ To see that $d$ restricted to $l$ is nontrivial, following the proof of Lemma \[lem:angles\], we must find an invariant element $a\in \mathfrak{v}^{{\operatorname{Ad}}\rho_0(l)}$ such that $B(d(l),a)\neq 0$. Since: $$\rho_0(l)= \begin {pmatrix}
1&0&-2\,\sqrt {3}&2\,\sqrt {3}\\
0&1&0&0\\
2\,\sqrt {3}&0&-5&6\\
2\,\sqrt {3}&0&-6&7
\end {pmatrix} ,$$ following again the proof of Lemma \[lem:angles\], we choose $$a=\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & & & \\
& 3 & & \\
& & -1 & \\
& & & -1
\end{pmatrix},$$ and we have that $B(d(l),a)=-16\neq 0$.
Orbifolds with branching locus the figure eight knot {#sec:orbi}
----------------------------------------------------
Let ${\mathcal O}_n$ denote the orbifold with underlying space $S^3$, branching locus $\mathrm{Sing}({\mathcal O}_n)$ the figure eight knot and ramification index $n$. The orbifold ${\mathcal O}_n$ is hyperbolic for $n\geq4$. Note that the orbifold ${\mathcal O}_n$ has a finite cyclic covering $\widetilde{{\mathcal O}_n} \to {\mathcal O}_n$ where $M_n :=\widetilde{{\mathcal O}_n}$ is the so called Fibonacci manifold which is widely studied in the literature [@HKM].
The aim of this subsection is to prove Proposition \[prop:nonrigid\], which states that ${\mathcal O}_n$ is not locally projectively rigid for sufficiently large $n$, and that its deformation space is a curve.
As before, $\Gamma_0 := \Gamma = \pi_1({\mathcal O}_n\setminus \mathrm{Sing}({\mathcal O}_n))$ denotes the fundamental group of the figure eight knot exterior, so that $$\Gamma_{1/n} := \pi_1^\mathrm{orb}({\mathcal O}_n) \cong \Gamma / \langle m^n\rangle,$$ for $m\in\Gamma$ representing a meridian. Note that there exists an exact sequence $$0\to\pi_1(M_n)\to \pi_1^\mathrm{orb}({\mathcal O}_n) \to \mathbf Z / n\mathbf Z \to 0\,.$$
The figure eight knot is amphicheiral and hence there exists an automorphism of $\Gamma_0$ preserving the longitude and sending the meridian to its inverse. Such an automorphism $\varphi_0\co\Gamma_0\to\Gamma_0$ is given by $$\varphi_0(x) = x^{-1} \text{ and } \varphi_0(y)= y x^{-1} y^{-1} x y^{-1}.$$ By direct calculation using Presentation (\[eq:presfig8\]) and the meridian/longitude pair $m=x$ and $l= y x^{-1} y^{-1} x^2 y^{-1} x^{-1} y$, one checks that $\varphi_0$ is an automorphism and that $$\varphi_0(m)= m^{-1} \text{ and }\varphi_0(l) =l.$$ Hence $\varphi_0$ induces automorphisms $$\varphi_{1/n}\co \Gamma_{1/n}\to\Gamma_{1/n}.$$
Let $\rho_0\co\Gamma_0\to PSO(3,1)$ and $\rho_{1/n}\co\Gamma_{1/n}\to PSO(3,1)$ denote the holonomy representations. Then by Mostow–Prasad rigidity there exists a unique element $A_{1/n}\in PSO(3,1)$ such that $$\label{eq:Ad}
\rho_{1/n}\circ\varphi_{1/n} = {\operatorname{Ad}}_{A_{1/n}}\circ \rho_{1/n}$$ for $n\geq 4$, including $0 = 1/\infty$.
For any group homomorphism $\varphi\co\Gamma\to \Gamma'$ and any $\Gamma'$-module $\mathfrak a'$ we denote by $ \mbox{}^{\varphi}\mathfrak a'$ the $\Gamma$-module with underlying set $\mathfrak a'$ and the $\Gamma$ action $\gamma\circ a' = \varphi(\gamma)\circ a'$. It is easy to check that $\varphi$ induces a map $$f^*\co H^*(\Gamma',\mathfrak a')\to H^*(\Gamma, \mbox{}^{\varphi}\mathfrak a')$$ (see [@Bro82 III.8]). Now any $\Gamma$-module $\mathfrak a$ and any morphism of $\Gamma$-modules $\alpha\co \mbox{}^{\varphi}\mathfrak a'\to \mathfrak a$ there is an induced map in cohomology $(\varphi,\alpha)^*\co H^*(\Gamma,\mathfrak a)\to H^*(\Gamma,\mathfrak a)$ given by $$(\varphi,\alpha)^* = \alpha_* \circ \varphi^* .$$
Now Equation (\[eq:Ad\]) tells us that ${\operatorname{Ad}}_{A_{1/n}^{-1}}\co \mbox{}^{\varphi_{1/n}} \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}
\to \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}$ is a $\Gamma_{1/n}$-module morphism and hence there is a induced map $$\varphi_{1/n}^* := (\varphi_{1/n},{\operatorname{Ad}}_{A_{1/n}^{-1}})^*\co
H^1(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) \to
H^1(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$$ given by $\varphi_{1/n}^*(z) = {\operatorname{Ad}}_{A_{1/n}^{-1}}\circ z\circ \varphi_{1/n}$.
In the sequel we shall compute the action of $\varphi^*_{1/n}$ first on the homology $H^*(\partial M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) $ and then we shall deduce its action on $H^*(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$.
For $4\leq n <\infty$, we have a natural isomorphism $$H^*(\partial M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) \cong
H^*(\partial M,\mathbf{R}) \otimes
\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{1/n}(\pi_1 \partial M)}$$ (see Lemma \[lem:rankone\]). For $n=\infty$ Lemma \[lem:angles\] applies and hence $$i_l^*\oplus i_m^*\co H^1(\partial M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{0}})\to
H^1(l,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{0}})\oplus H^*(m,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{0}})$$ is injective. Moreover ${\operatorname{rk}}(i_l^*)={\operatorname{rk}}(i_m^*)=1$.
In the sequel let $\varphi^*\co H^*(\partial M,\mathbf{R})\to H^*(\partial M,\mathbf{R})$ denote the the map induced in the untwisted cohomology with real coefficients.
\[lem:2\] For $n<\infty$, with respect to the isomorphism $H^*(\partial M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) \cong
H^*(\partial M,\mathbf{R}) \otimes
\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{1/n}(\pi_1 \partial M)}
$, the isomorphism $\varphi^*_{1/n}$ on cohomology is given by $$\varphi^*_{1/n}= \varphi^* \otimes
{\mathrm{Id} }_{\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{1/n}(\pi_1 \partial M)}}.
$$ For $n=\infty$, we have $$i_l^*\circ \varphi^*_0 = i^*_l \text{ and }
i_m^*\circ \varphi^*_0 = - i^*_m\,.$$
If $n\geq 4$ then $\rho_{1/n}(m)$ is an elliptic element and $\rho_{1/n}(l)$ is a pure hyperbolic translation. This can be seen for example by using the trace identity $${\operatorname{tr}}\rho(l) = {\operatorname{tr}}^4 \rho(m) - 5 {\operatorname{tr}}^2 \rho(m) + 2,$$ which holds for every irreducible representation $\rho\co\Gamma\to SL(2,\mathbf C)$ (see for example [@Porti p. 113]). Hence up to conjugation we may assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{1/n} (m) &=
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos (2\pi/n) & -\sin (2\pi/n) & 0 & 0 \\
\sin (2\pi/n) & \cos( 2\pi/n) & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 &0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \intertext{ and }
\rho_{1/n} (l) &=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 &0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & \cosh (\lambda_n) & \sinh (\lambda_n) \\
0 & 0 & \sinh (\lambda_n) & \cosh(\lambda_n)\\
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ With this normalization we obtain $$\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{1/n}(\pi_1 \partial M)} = \Big\langle
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 &0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 &0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 &0 & 0 & -1
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\Big\rangle$$ and $$A_{1/n}=
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 &0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0\\
0 &0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 &0 & 0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\right)
\begin{pmatrix}
R_\alpha &0\\
0 & T_\eta
\end{pmatrix}$$ where $R_\alpha$ is a rotation of angle $\alpha\in\mathbf R$ and $T_\eta$ is a hyperbolic translation of length $\eta\in\mathbf R$. The actual values of $\alpha$ and $\eta$ are not needed since the above form of $A_{1/n}$ already implies that it acts trivially on $\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{1/n}(\pi_1 \partial M)}$ i.e.$${\operatorname{Ad}}_{A_{1/n}}\big|_{\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{1/n}(\pi_1 \partial M)}}
={\mathrm{Id} }_{\mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{1/n}(\pi_1 \partial M)} },$$ and the first assertion of the lemma follows.
In order to prove the second assertion recall that $$\rho_0(m)=\rho_0(x) =
\exp\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 &0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 1\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\text{ and }
\rho_0(l)=
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0 & 0 & -2\sqrt3 &2\sqrt3 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
2\sqrt3 &0 & 0 & 0 \\
2\sqrt3 &0 & 0 & 0
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\,.$$ Hence $A_{0}= M
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 &0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0\\
0 &0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 &0 & 0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ for some $M$ in the parabolic group that fixes $v_+=\operatorname{Fix}(\langle \rho_0(m),\rho_0(l)\rangle )$, and that maps $v_-$, the point fixed by the parabolic group containing $\rho_0(y)$, to $\rho_0(yx^{-1}) \cdot v_-$, because $\varphi_0(y)= y x^{-1} y^{-1} x y^{-1}$. With respect to our normalization we have $$v_+=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ 1
\end{pmatrix}
,\quad
v_-=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 0 \\ -1 \\ 1
\end{pmatrix} \quad\text { and }\quad
\rho_0(yx^{-1}) \cdot v_- =
\begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt 3 \\ -1 \\ 0 \\ 2
\end{pmatrix} .$$ Hence $$M = \exp
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -\sqrt3/2 &\sqrt3/2 \\
0 & 0 & 1/2 & -1/2\\
\sqrt3/2 & -1/2 & 0 & 0 \\
\sqrt3/2 & -1/2 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \quad\text{ and }\quad
A_0=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & -\sqrt3/2 &\sqrt3/2 \\
0 & -1 & 1/2 & -1/2\\
\sqrt3/2 & 1/2 & 1/2 & 1/2 \\
\sqrt3/2 & 1/2 & -1/2 & 3/2
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Let us consider the two cocycles $z_m,z_l\co\pi_1(\partial M)\to\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_0}$ which were constructed in the proof of Lemma \[lem:angles\]: $z_m\co \pi_1(\partial M) \to \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_0}$ given by $z_m(l)= 0$ and $z_m(m) = a_{l}$ where $$a_l =
\begin{pmatrix}
- 1 & & & \\
& 3 & & \\
& & -1 & \\
& & & -1
\end{pmatrix} \in \mathfrak v,$$ and $z_l\co \pi_1(\partial M) \to \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_0}$ given by $z_l(l)= a_m$ and $z_l(m) = 0$ where $$a_m=
\begin{pmatrix}
3 & & & \\
& -1 & & \\
& & -1 & \\
& & & -1
\end{pmatrix} \in \mathfrak v\,.$$ These cocycles satisfy: $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
i_m^*([z_m]) &\neq 0, \quad & \quad i_l^*([z_m]) &= 0, \\
i_m^*([z_l]) &= 0, \quad & \quad i_l^*([z_l]) &\neq 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_0^* z_m (m) &= {\operatorname{Ad}}_{A_0^{-1}} z_m(m^{-1})\\
&= - {\operatorname{Ad}}_{A_0^{-1}} {\operatorname{Ad}}_{\rho_0(m)^{-1}} a_l\\
&= - \begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0& 0& 0 \\
0& 3 & 2 & -2 \\
0& 2& 0 & -9\\
0& 2& 9& -2
\end{pmatrix}
\intertext{and}
\varphi_0^* z_m (l) &= {\operatorname{Ad}}_{A_0^{-1}} z_m(l) =0\,.\end{aligned}$$
Since $$\langle i_m^*\varphi_0^* z_m, a_m\rangle =
B(a_m, \varphi_0^*z_m (m))=32=- B(a_m,a_l)$$ it follows that $i_m^* \varphi_0^*z_m\sim -i_m^* z_m$ (see the argument at the end of the proof of Lemma \[lem:angles\]). On the other hand we have: $$\varphi_0^* z_l (m)=0 \text{ and }
\varphi_0^* z_l (l) = {\operatorname{Ad}}_{A_0^{-1}}(a_m) =
\begin{pmatrix}
3 & 0& -2\sqrt 3& 2\sqrt 3 \\
0& -1 & 0 &0 \\
-2\sqrt 3& 0 & 2 & -3\\
-2\sqrt 3& 0 & 3 &- 4
\end{pmatrix} .$$ Since $B(a_l, \varphi_0^* z_l (l) ) = -32 =B(a_l,a_m)$ it follows that $i_l^*\varphi_0^* z_l \sim i_l^*z_l$.
\[cor:3\] For sufficiently large $n\in\mathbf{N}$ the composition $$H^1(M, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) \hookrightarrow
H^1(\partial M, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\to
H^1(m, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$$ is the zero map.
The longitude $l$ is a flexing slope (see Remark \[rem:flex\]). Thus by Lemma \[lem:2\] the map $\varphi_0^*\co H^1(M, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{0}})\to H^1(M, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{0}})$ is the identity.
Next notice that for $n$ sufficiently large, we have an inclusion $$H^1(M, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) \hookrightarrow
H^1(\partial M, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\,.$$ The eigenvalues of $\varphi_{1/n}^*\co H^1(\partial M, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) \to
H^1(\partial M, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$ are $\pm 1$ since the restriction of $\varphi_{1/n}$ to the subgroup generated by $m$ and $l$ is an involution. Moreover, $\varphi_{1/n}^*$ preserves $H^1(M, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) \hookrightarrow
H^1(\partial M, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$ and hence the induced map $\varphi_{1/n}^*$ on $H^1(M, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$ is $\pm{\mathrm{Id} }$ and by continuity this restriction is the identity.
On the other hand we have $\varphi_{1/n}(m) = m^{-1}$, hence by Lemma \[lem:2\] and Lemma \[lem:rankone\], $\varphi_{1/n}^*$ induces $-{\mathrm{Id} }$ on the image of $H^1(\partial M, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\to H^1(m,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$.
\[lem:4\] There is a natural isomorphism $H^*({\mathcal O}_n, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) \cong
H^*(\Gamma_{1/n}, \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$.
The orbifold ${\mathcal O}_n$ has a finite cyclic covering $\widetilde{{\mathcal O}_n} \to {\mathcal O}_n$ where $\widetilde{{\mathcal O}_n}$ is a manifold. The compact, hyperbolic manifold $\widetilde{{\mathcal O}_n}$ is aspherical, hence there is a canonical isomorphism $$H^*(\pi_1(\widetilde{{\mathcal O}_n}), \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\cong
H^*(\widetilde{{\mathcal O}_n},\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\,.$$ Then the lemma follows since $H^*(\pi_1({\mathcal O}_n), \mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$ and $H^*({\mathcal O}_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$ are the invariant subspaces of the map $t^*$ induced by the covering transformation $t\co \widetilde{{\mathcal O}_n}\to\widetilde{{\mathcal O}_n}$, i.e.$$H^*(\pi_1({\mathcal O}_n),\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) =
H^*(\pi_1(\widetilde{{\mathcal O}_n}),\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})^{t^*}
\text{ and }
H^*({\mathcal O}_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) =
H^*(\widetilde{{\mathcal O}_n},\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})^{t^*}.$$
\[prop:5\] For sufficiently large $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ we have
1. $H^1(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{sl}(4)_{\rho_{1/n}})\cong
H^1(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\cong{\mathbb{R}}$ is one-dimensional and $\varphi^*_{1/n}$ acts trivially on it.
2. $H^2(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{sl}(4)_{\rho_{1/n}})\cong
H^2(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\cong{\mathbb{R}}$ is one-dimensional and $\varphi^*_{1/n}$ acts by multiplication by $-1$ on it.
We start with the decomposition $$H^*(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{sl}(4)_{\rho_{1/n}})=
H^*(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{so}(3,1)_{\rho_{1/n}})\oplus
H^*(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}).$$ The group $H^1(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{so}(3,1)_{\rho_{1/n}})=0$ vanishes by Weil’s infinitesimal rigidity and hence $$H^2(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{so}(3,1)_{\rho_{1/n}})=0$$ by Poincaré duality and Lemma \[lem:4\]. Thus $$H^i(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{sl}(4)_{\rho_{1/n}})=H^i(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) \text{ for $i=1,2$.}$$ In order to compute $H^i(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\cong
H^i({\mathcal O}_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$ we shall apply the Mayer-Vietoris sequence to the decomposition ${\mathcal O}_n=M\cup N_n$ where $N_n=\mathcal N(\mathrm{Sing}({\mathcal O}_n))$ is a regular neighborhood of the singular locus such that $M\cap N_n = \partial M$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
H^0({\mathcal O}_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) &\cong
H^0(M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\cong \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{1/n}(\pi_1(M))} =0\\
\intertext{and}
H^0(\partial M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) &\cong \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{1/n}(\pi_1(\partial M))} = \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{1/n}(\pi_1(N_n))}
\cong
H^0(N_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}),\end{aligned}$$ we obtain the following exact sequence $$H^1({\mathcal O}_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) \rightarrowtail
H^1(M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\oplus H^1(N_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\to
H^1(\partial M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\twoheadrightarrow
H^2({\mathcal O}_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\,.$$ Notice that the last arrow is surjective, as $\dim H^2(\partial M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) = \dim H^2( M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})=1$. By Corollary \[cor:3\], both groups $H^1(M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$ and $H^1(N_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$ have the same image in $H^1(\partial M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$ which is exactly the kernel of the map $H^1(\partial M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\to
H^1(m,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$. Notice also that $\dim H^1(\partial M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) =2$ and $$\dim H^1(N_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) =
\dim H^0(N_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) =
\dim \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{1/n}(\pi_1 N_n) } =1\,.$$ Therefore we get $\dim H^1({\mathcal O}_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}}) =1$. Moreover, the map $\varphi_{1/n}^*$ acts trivially on $H^1( \mathcal O_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$ since by the proof of Corollary \[cor:3\] it acts trivially on $H^1( M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$, and $H^1({\mathcal O}_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$ injects into $H^1( M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$.
On the other hand we have $$H^1(\partial M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\cong
H^1(\partial M,{\mathbb{R}})\otimes \mathfrak{v}^{\rho_{1/n}(\pi_1\partial M)},$$ $\varphi(m)=m^{-1}$ and $\varphi(l)=l$. Hence the eigenvalues of $\varphi_{1/n}^*\co H^1(\partial M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})\to
H^1(\partial M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$ are $\pm1$. The eigenspace corresponding to the eigenvalue $+1$ is the image of $H^1( M,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$ (and $H^1(N_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$). Hence $\varphi_{1/n}^*$ acts as $-{\mathrm{Id} }$ on $H^2({\mathcal O}_n,\mathfrak{v}_{\rho_{1/n}})$.
We shall show that every Zariski tangent vector $v\in H^1(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{sl}(4)_{\rho_{1/n}})$ is integrable. We use the following general setup: let $\Gamma$ be a finitely presented group and let $\rho\co \Gamma \to GL(m,\mathbf R)$ be a representation. A *formal deformation* of $\rho$ is a representation $\rho_t\co \Gamma\to GL(m, ,\mathbf R [[t]]) $ such that $ \rho_0 = \rho$. Here $ \mathbf R [[t]] $ denotes the ring of formal power series and $\rho_0\co\Gamma\to{\mathbb{C}}$ is the evaluation of $\rho_t$ at $t=0 $.
Every formal deformation $\rho_t$ of $\rho$ can be written in the form $$\rho_t ( \gamma) =(I_m + t u_1(\gamma) + t^2 u_2(\gamma) +
\cdots ) \rho(\gamma)$$ where $I_m$ denotes the identity matrix and $u_i\co \Gamma\to \mathfrak{gl}(m)$ are maps i.e. elements of $C^1( \Gamma,\mathfrak{gl}(m)_\rho)$. An easy calculation gives that $u_1 \in Z^1( \Gamma,\mathfrak{gl}(m)_\rho)$ is a cocycle (Weil’s theorem). More generally we have the following:
\[lem:def\] Let $\rho\co\Gamma\to GL(m)$ be a homomorphism. Then $\rho_{t}\co \Gamma\to GL(m,\mathbf R [[t]])$ given by $$\varrho_{t}(\gamma) =
(I_m+t u_1(\gamma)+t^2 u_2(\gamma)+t^3 u_3(\gamma)+\cdots)
\rho(\gamma)$$ is a homomorphism if and only if for all $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $k\geq 1$, we have $$\delta u_{k} + \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} u_i {\overset{.}{\cup}}u_{k-i} = 0\,.$$
The proof of this lemma is an easy calculation, by induction on $k$. Here the cup product ${\overset{.}{\cup}}$ is the composition of the usual cup product $\cup$ with the matrix multiplication $$H^1(\Gamma,\mathfrak{gl}(m)_\rho)\otimes
H^1(\Gamma,\mathfrak{gl}(m)_\rho) \xrightarrow{\cup}
H^2(\Gamma,\mathfrak{gl}(m)_\rho \otimes \mathfrak{gl}(m)_\rho)\xrightarrow{\boldsymbol{\cdot}}
H^2(\Gamma,\mathfrak{gl}(m)_\rho)$$ i.e. given to cochains $c_1,c_2\in C^1( \Gamma,\mathfrak{gl}(n)_\rho)$ the cup product $c_1{\overset{.}{\cup}}c_2 \in C^1( \Gamma,\mathfrak{gl}(m)_\rho)$ is given by $$c_1{\overset{.}{\cup}}c_2 (\gamma_1, \gamma_2)=
c_1(\gamma_1) {\operatorname{Ad}}_{\rho(\gamma_1)} \big(c_2(\gamma_2)\big)\,.$$
The sequel the representation $\rho$ is going to be always $\rho_{1/n}$, hence we omit it from notation. Note that the $\Gamma_{1/n}$-module $\mathfrak{gl}(4)$ decomposes as a direct sum $$\mathfrak{gl}(4) = \mathbf R \oplus \mathfrak{sl}(4)$$ where $\mathbf R \cong \mathbf R \cdot I_n$ is the trivial module, it is the center of $\mathfrak{gl}(4)$. Moreover $H^i(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathbf R)=0$ for $i=1,2$ since $H_1(M_n,\mathbf Z)$ is finite (no root of unity is a zero of the Alexander polynomial of the figure eight-knot). Hence $$H^i(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{gl}(4))=
H^i(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{v})\text{ for $i=1,2$.}$$
First we claim that the cup product $$H^1(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{gl}(4))\otimes H^1(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{gl}(4)) \xrightarrow{{\overset{.}{\cup}}}
H^2(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{gl}(4))$$ vanishes. This is because $H^i(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{gl}(4))=
H^i(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{v})$, $i=1,2$, and $\varphi^*_{1/n}$ acts as multiplication with $(-1)^{i+1}$ on $H^i(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{v})$ by Proposition \[prop:5\]. Hence $$-(v{\overset{.}{\cup}}v) = \varphi^*_{1/n} (v{\overset{.}{\cup}}v) = \varphi^*_{1/n} (v) {\overset{.}{\cup}}\varphi^*_{1/n} (v) = (v{\overset{.}{\cup}}v)\,.$$
Therefore the first obstruction to integrability of a vector $v\in H^1(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{gl}(4))$ which is this cup product $v{\overset{.}{\cup}}v$ vanishes. The next obstruction is a Massey product: if $u_1 \in Z^1(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{sl}(4))$ is a cocycle representing $v$, then $u_1{\overset{.}{\cup}}u_1 + \delta u_2 =0$, for some $1$-cochain $u_2$, and the Massey product $\langle v\rangle^3$ is the cohomology class of $u_1{\overset{.}{\cup}}u_2 + u_2{\overset{.}{\cup}}u_1$. In general this is not unique, because $u_2$ can be replaced $u_2+z$ for any cocycle $z$, which means that two possible values for $\langle v\rangle^3$ differ by an element in $v{\overset{.}{\cup}}H^1(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{gl}(4)) +
H^1(\Gamma_{1/n},\mathfrak{gl}(4)){\overset{.}{\cup}}v$. Since the cup product vanishes, $\langle v\rangle^3$ is unique. Using the naturality of the constructions and by Proposition \[prop:5\] (1), we have: $$\varphi_{1/n}^*(\langle v\rangle^3)=
\langle \varphi_{1/n}^*(v)\rangle^3=
\langle v\rangle^3$$ Moreover, by Proposition \[prop:5\] (2) and uniqueness of the Massey product, $$\varphi_{1/n}^*(\langle v\rangle^3)=-\langle v\rangle^3,$$ which implies that $\langle v\rangle^3=0$. In a similar way, one can define all Massey products of higher order and the same argument shows that they are zero (see [@Kraines]). This implies that all obstructions to integrability vanish, and we apply Artin’s theorem [@Art68], to conclude that formal integrability implies actual integrability of $v$.
The Whitehead link
------------------
A similar computation as for the figure eight knot tells us that the Whitehead link $L=K_1\sqcup K_2$ is infinitesimally projectively rigid. Let $\Gamma=\pi_1(M)$ denote the fundamental group of the Whitehead link exterior $M$. We will work with the presentation: $$\Gamma=\langle x, y\mid x y^{-1} x^{-1} y x^{-1} y^{-1} x y x^{-1} y x y^{-1} x y x^{-1} y^{-1} \rangle$$ where $x$ is a meridian for $K_1$ and $y$ is a meridian for $K_2$. The holonomy representation $\rho\co\Gamma\to SL_2(\mathbf C)$ is given by $$x\mapsto \left( \begin {array}{cc} 1&1\\\noalign{\medskip}0&1\end {array}
\right)
\qquad
y\mapsto \left( \begin {array}{cc} 1&0\\\noalign{\medskip} -1-\mathbf{i} &
1\end {array} \right)$$ (see [@RileyLink] for details). A computation analogous to the one of the previous subsection shows that $\operatorname{dim} H^1(M; \mathfrak{v}_{Ad\rho})=2$.
Once we know the dimension of the deformation space, we have a geometric tool to understand the deformations: let $S$ denote the thrice puncture sphere illustrated in Figure \[fig:whitehead\]. By symmetry of the components of the link, there are two of them. The surface $S$ intersects one boundary torus in a longitude $l_x = y x^{-1}y^{-1}x y^{-1} x^{-1} y x $, and the other one in two meridians $y$ and $z=x^{-1} y^{-1}x y x^{-1} y x$, with opposite orientation. The restriction of the holonomy onto $\pi_1 (S)$ is conjugate to a representation into $SL_2(\mathbf R)$. Hence $S$ a totally geodesic thrice puncture sphere in the link complement.
\[lem:longitudeWhitehead\] Let $\partial_1 M$ denote the boundary component of $K_1$. Every slope on $\partial_1 M$ different from the longitude $l_x$ is a flexing slope.
We consider the bending along $S$. If we restrict this bending to $\partial_1 M$, it is itself a bending along the longitude $l_x$, and it happens to be precisely the deformation constructed in the proof of Lemma \[lem:angles\]. Thus, except for the longitude itself, this deformation is nontrivial when restricted to any slope of the torus, because the cusp shape of the Whitehead link lies in the Gaussian integers $\mathbf Z[\mathbf i ]$, thus the angle of any slope with the longitude $l_x$ can never be $\pi/3$, and we can apply Lemma \[lem:angles\].
Lemma \[lem:longitudeWhitehead\] and Proposition \[prop:flexingslope\] imply that for almost all $n$ the $(n,1)$-Dehn fillings are infinitesimally projectively rigid. According to [@Akiyoshi] those fillings are precisely the punctured torus bundles with tunnel number one.
Twists knots are obtained by $(1,n)$-Dehn fillings, but we cannot apply Proposition \[prop:flexingslope\], because the longitude is not a flexing slope. However, the path $(p,q)=(1,s)$ for $s\in\mathbf R$ and $s\geq 1$ is contained in the whole deformation space (cf. [@Akiyoshi]). Hence, since the coefficients $(1,1)$ correspond to the figure eight knot exterior, with an argument similar to Theorem \[thm:fromonetomany\], the $(1,n)$-Dehn fillings are infinitesimally rigid for all but finitely many $n$.
[^1]: Partially supported by the Spanish Micinn through grant MTM2009-07594. Prize ICREA 2008
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the relativistic Schrödinger equation with a time dependent vector and scalar potential on a bounded cylindrical domain. Using a Geometric Optics Anzats we stablish a logarithmic stability estimate for the recovery of the vector potentials.'
author:
- 'Salazar, Ricardo.'
title: 'Stability estimate for the relativistic Schrödinger equation with time-dependent vector potentials'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'F. [Csikor]{},$^{1,}$ G. I. [Egri]{},$^{1}$ Z. [Fodor]{},$^{1,2}$ S. D. [Katz]{},$^{2}$ [^1] [^2] K. K. [Szabó]{}$^{1}$ and A. I. [Tóth]{}$^{1}$'
title: |
[\
\
\
]{} The QCD equation of state at finite $T/\mu$ on the lattice
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
QCD at finite $T$ and/or $\mu$ is of special importance since it can be used to describe the early universe, neutron stars and also heavy ion collisions. Present and future heavy ion collisions are carried out at CERN, in Brookhaven and at GSI to detect and study experimentally the QGP phase, i.e. QCD at large temperature and moderate chemical potentials [@Wilczek:1999ym; @Kogut:2002kk]. It is very important to understand the theoretical grounds of the underlying physics. First principle answers can be gained from lattice QCD calculations e.g. to obtain the equation of state (EoS).
The experiments are carried out at $\mu\neq 0$ but unfortunately until recently the lattice results were limited to $\mu=0$. Though lattice QCD can be easily formulated at non-vanishing chemical potentials [@Hasenfratz:1983ba; @Kogut:1983ia] we cannot use Monte-Carlo simulations at $\mu\neq 0$ as the determinant of the Euclidean Dirac operator and so the functional measure becomes complex.
Recently two of us proposed a new technique [@Fodor:2001au], the so-called overlap improving multi-parameter reweighting method to study lattice QCD at finite $\mu$ . This procedure proved to be good enough to give the phase boundary on the $T$-$\mu$ plane for four flavours [@Fodor:2001au], for 2+1 flavours [@Fodor:2002pe] and the equation of state [@Fodor:rovid; @Fodor:long]. Essentially the same technique was used succesfully by other studies [@Allton:2002zi; @Karsch:eos; @Choe:2002mt]; however, instead of evaluating the fermionic determinant exactly it can be approximated by its Taylor series with respect to $\mu$. Other approaches, like simulations at imaginary chemical potential and analytic continuation led to results that are in good agreement with those of our method [@deForcrand:2002ci; @deForcrand:2003hx; @D'Elia:2002gd].
In this paper we determine the EoS on the line of constant physics (LCP). An LCP can be defined by a fixed ratio of the strange quark mass ($m_s$) and the light quark masses ($m_ud$) to the $\mu=0$ transition temperature ($T_c$). Our parameter choice approximately corresponds to the physical strange quark mass. However, the ratio of the pion mass ($m_{\pi}$) and the rho mass ($m_{\rho}$) is around 0.5-0.75, which is roughly 3 times larger than its physical value. In our lattice analysis we use $2+1$ flavour QCD with dynamical staggered quarks. The determination of the EoS at finite chemical potential needs several observables at non-vanishing $\mu$-s. These are produced by the use of the multi-parameter reweighting method. We employ the integral method to calculate the pressure [@Engels:1990vr].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we summarize the lattice parameters and the technique by which the lines of constant physics can be determined. Section 3 presents the equation of state at vanishing chemical potential. Sections 4 deals with the question how to reweight into the region of $\mu\neq 0$ and how to estimate the error of the reweighted quantities. In Section 5 we give the equation of state for non-vanishing chemical potential and temperature. Those who are not interested in the details of the lattice techniques should simply omit Sections 2–4 and jump to Section 5, or refer to [@Fodor:rovid]. Finally, Section 6 contains a summary and the conclusions. The details of this work can be found in [@Fodor:long].
Lattice parameters and the line of constant physics {#sec:lat_param}
===================================================
In this paper we use $2+1$ flavour dynamical QCD with unimproved staggered action. Simulations are done for the equation of state along two different lines of constant physics and at 14 different temperatures. The temperature range spans up to $3 T_c$. In physical units our parameters correspond to pion to rho mass ratio of $m_\pi/m_\rho
\approx 0.5 - 0.75$ and lattice spacings of $a \approx 0.12-0.35$ fm.
The finite temperature contributions to the EoS are obtained on $4\cdot 8^3$, $4\cdot 10^3$ and $4\cdot 12^3$ lattices, which can be used to extrapolate into the thermodynamical limit (we usually call them hot lattices). On these lattices we determine not only the usual observables (plaquette, Polyakov line, chiral condensates) but also the determinant of the fermion matrix and the baryon density ($n_B$) at finite $\mu$. $10000-20000$ trajectories are simulated at each bare parameter set. Plaquettes, Polyakov lines and the chiral condensates are measured at each trajectories whereas the CPU demanding determinants and related quantities are evaulated at every 30 trajectories. For our parameters the CPU time used for the production of configurations is of the same order of magnitude as the CPU time used for calculating the determinants.
Since we usually move along the line of constant physics by changing the lattice spacing $a$ and keeping the masses fixed we will explicitely write out the lattice spacing $a$ in our formulas. In this paper we study lattices with isotropic couplings. We write $\mu_B$ for the baryonic chemical potential, whereas for the quark chemical potential ($u,d$ quarks) we use the notation $\mu$. Similarly, the baryon density is denoted by $n_B $ and the light quark density by $n$.
In the remaining part of this section we discuss the role of LCP when determining the EoS in pure gauge theory and in dynamical QCD. After that we determine the lines of constant physics, along which our simulations are done.
In order to detetermine the temperature $T=1/[N_ta(\beta)]$ of the pure gauge theory, we have to compute the lattice spacing ($a$) as a function of the gauge coupling ($\beta$). In the $d$ dimensional space of the bare parameters one defines $d$ appropriately chosen quantities. The LCP is given by $d-1$ constraints and it is parametrized by a non-constrained combination of the above quantities. For the $2+1$ flavour staggered action we have three bare parameters ($\beta$, and two masses, $m_{ud},m_s$). Thus, we need two constraints. There are several possibilities for these constraints and consequently there are many ways to define an LCP. A convenient choice for two of the three quantities can be the bare quark masses ($m_{ud}$ and $m_s$). A more physical possibility is to use the pion and kaon masses ($m_\pi,m_K$).
In our analysis first we use the bare quark masses ($m_{ud}$ and $m_s$) and the transition temperature to define an LCP. In this paper we use two[^3] LCP’s (LCP$_1$ and LCP$_2$). The conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{constraint}
\begin{array}{c}
m_{ud}=0.48T_c =0.48/(N_ta) \ \ \ \ {\rm and}\ \ \ \ \
m_s=2.08\cdot m_{ud}\\
m_{ud}=0.384T_c=0.384/(N_ta) \ \ \ \ {\rm and}\ \ \ \ \
m_s=2.08\cdot m_{ud}
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ are taken as the constraints for LCP$_1$ and LCP$_2$, respectively. For both LCP’s we determined four different transition couplings ($\beta_c$) by susceptibility peaks on $N_t=1/(T_ca)=4$, 6, 8 and 10 lattices with spatial extensions $N_s{\mathop{\gsi}}3N_t/2$ and quark masses given by eq. (\[constraint\]). The quark masses or the transition gauge couplings can be used to parametrize the LCP’s.
By the finite temperature technique, described above, only a few points of the LCP’s can be obtained. To interpolate $\beta(a)$ between these points (and extrapolate slightly away from them) we use the renormalization group inspired ansatz proposed by Allton [@Allton:1996kr]. A particularly illustrative parametrization is obtained by inverting eq. (\[constraint\]) and using $N_t$ as a continuous parameter. Figure \[LCP\] shows LCP$_1$ and LCP$_2$ with our simulation points. The simulation points in the “non-LCP” approach – often used in the literature – are also shown. Note that even though the determination of the LCP$_1$ and LCP$_2$ are done on finite temperature lattices, the obtained bare parameters are used in the rest of the paper for $T=0$ and $T \neq 0$ simulations.
![The lines of constant physics (LCP$_1$ and LCP$_2$) on the $\beta$ vs. $m_{ud}a$ plane. The strange quark mass is given by $m_s=2.08 m_{ud}$ for both LCP’s. The simulation points are shown by squares/triangles and connected by dashed/dotted lines for LCP$_1$/LCP$_2$, respectively. The diamonds along a horizontal line represent the simulation points in the “non-LCP” approach. Additional 4 diamonds in the vertical direction show the simulation points used to test the path independence of the integral method. \[LCP\]](lcp12.eps){width="8cm"}
Equation of state along the lines of constant physics (LCP) at $\mu=0$ {#sec_mu0}
======================================================================
In previous studies of the EoS with staggered quark actions, the pressure and the energy density were determined as functions of the temperature for fixed value of the bare quark mass $m_qa$ in the lattice action [@Bernard:1997cs; @Engels:1997ag; @Karsch:2000ps]. In these studies a fixed $N_t$ was used (e.g. $N_t = 4$ or 6) at different temperatures. Since $T=1/(N_t a)$ the temperature is set by the lattice spacing which changes with $\beta$. This convenient, fixed bare $m_qa$ choice leads to a system which has larger and larger physical quark masses at decreasing lattice spacings (thus, at increasing temperatures). Increasing physical quark masses with increasing temperatures could result in systematic errors of the EoS.
Clearly, instead of this sort of analysis (in the rest of the paper we refer to it as “non-LCP approach”) one intends to study the temperature dependence of a system with fixed physical observables, therefore on an LCP.
In our analysis we use full QCD with staggered quarks along the LCP and compare these results with those of the “non-LCP approach”.
Now, we briefly review the basic formulas and emphasize the issues related to the EoS determination along an LCP.
The energy density and pressure are defined in terms of the free-energy density ($f$): $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon (T)=f-T \frac{\partial{f}}{\partial {T}},\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ && p(T) = -f.\end{aligned}$$ Expressing the free energy in terms of the partition function ($f=-T/V \log Z =$\
$ -T \partial (\log Z)/\partial V$) we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eps_p}
\epsilon (T)=\frac{T^2}{V}\frac{\partial{\log Z}}{\partial {T}}, \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ &&
p(T) = T\frac{\partial (\log Z)}{\partial V}.\end{aligned}$$
The temperature and volume are connected to this lattice spacing by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TV}
T=\frac{1}{a N_t}, && V=a^3 N_s^3.\end{aligned}$$
Inspecting eqs.(\[eps\_p\], \[TV\]) we see that $(\epsilon-3p)/T^4$ is directly proportional to the total derivative of $\log Z$ with respect to the lattice spacing: $$\label{interaction}
\frac{\epsilon-3p}{T^4}=-\frac{N_t^3}{N_s^3}a \frac{d (\log Z)}{d a}.$$ Here, the derivative with respect to $a$ is defined along the LCP, which means that only the lattice spacing changes and the physics (in our case $m_q/T_c$) remains the same. We can write: $$\frac{d}{da}=\frac{\partial \beta}{\partial a}\frac{\partial}{\partial \beta} +
\sum_q \frac{\partial (m_q a)}{\partial a}\frac{\partial}{\partial (m_q a)}.$$ Since the LCP is defined by $m_q/T_c={\rm const.}$, the partial derivative $\partial (m_qa)/\partial a$ becomes simply $m_q$. The derivatives of $\log Z$ with respect to $\beta$ and $m_q$ are the plaquette and $\bar{\Psi}\Psi_q$ averages multiplied by the lattice volume. We get: $$\label{interaction-measure}
\frac{\epsilon-3p}{T^4}=-N_t^4 a
\left(\overline{{\rm Pl}} \left. \frac{\partial \beta}{\partial a}\right|_{\rm LCP}+
\sum_q \overline{\bar{\Psi}\Psi}_{q} m_{q} \right).$$
The pressure is usually determined by the integral method [@Engels:1990vr]. The pressure is simply proportional to $\log Z$, however it cannot be measured directly. One can determine its partial derivatives with respect to the bare parameters. Thus, we can write: $$\label{integral}
\frac{p}{T^4}=\left[-\frac{N_t^3}{N_s^3}\int^{(\beta,m_q a)}_{(\beta_0,m_{q0} a)}
d (\beta,m_q a)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\partial \log Z}/{\partial \beta} \\
{\partial \log Z}/{\partial (m_q a)}
\end{array} \right )\right]- \frac{p_0}{T^4}.$$ Since the integrand is the gradient of $\log Z$, the result is by definition independent of the integration path (we explicitely checked this path independence). For the substracted vacuum term we used the zero temperature pressure, i.e. the same integral on $N_{t0}= N_s$ lattices. The lower limits of the integrations (indicated by $\beta_0$ and $m_{q0}$) were set sufficiently below the transition point. By this choice the pressure becomes independent of the starting point (in other words it vanishes at vanishing temperature). In the case of $2+1$ staggered QCD eq. (\[integral\]) can be rewritten appropriately and the pressure is given by $$\label{pmu0}
\frac{p}{T^4}=
-N_t^4\int^{(\beta,m_q a)}_{(\beta_0,m_{q0} a)}
d (\beta,m_{ud} a,m_s a)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\langle{\rm Pl}\rangle \\
\langle\bar{\Psi}\Psi_{ud}\rangle \\
\langle\bar{\Psi}\Psi_{s}\rangle
\end{array} \right),$$ where we use the following notation for subtracting the vacuum term: $$\langle {\cal O}(\beta,m) \rangle=
{\overline {{\cal {O}}}(\beta,m)}_{T\neq 0}-
{\overline {{\cal O}}(\beta,m)}_{T=0}.$$
![The equation of state at $\mu$=0. (a) The left panel shows the pressure $p$, as a function of the temperature. All quantities are normalised by $T^4$. In order to lead the eye the solid line connects the data points obtained along the LCP$_2$, whereas the dashed line connects the data points obtained in the “non-LCP approach” (see text). The Stefan-Boltzmann limit is also shown by an arrow for $N_t$=4 lattices. The EoS along the LCP and the “non-LCP approach” differ from each other at high T. (b) The same for $\epsilon$-3p. \[eosmu0\]](eos_p.eps){width="14cm"}
Figure \[eosmu0\] shows the EoS at vanishing chemical potential on $N_t =4$ lattices for LCP$_2$ and for the non-LCP approach. The pressure and $\epsilon-3p$ are presented as a function of the temperature. The parameters of LCP$_2$ and those of the non-LCP approaches coincide at $T = T_c$. The Stefan-Boltzmann limit valid for $N_t = 4$ lattices is also shown.
It can be seen that the EoS along the LCP and the “non-LCP approach” differ from each other at high temperatures. This is an obvious consequence of the fact that in the “non-LCP approach” the bare quark mass increases linearly with the temperature. The “LCP” pressure is much closer to the SB limit.
Reliability of reweighting and the best reweighting lines {#sec_rely}
=========================================================
The aim of this section is to study the reliability of the multi-parameter reweighting (for another study of reweighting see [@Ejiri:2004yw]). We also determine its region of validity by a suitably estimated error. To start with let us briefly review the multi-parameter reweighting.
As proposed in [@Fodor:2001au] one can identically rewrite the partition function in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{multi-parameter}
Z(m,\mu,\beta) =
\int {\cal D}U\exp[-S_{bos}(\beta_0,U)]\det M(m_0,\mu=0,U)\\
\left\{\exp[-S_{bos}(\beta,U)+S_{bos}(\beta_0,U)]
\frac{\det M(m,\mu,U)}{\det M(m_0,\mu=0,U)}\right\},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $U$ denotes the gauge field links and $M$ is the fermion matrix [^4]. The chemical potential $\mu$ is included as $\exp(a\mu)$ and $\exp(-a\mu)$ multiplicative factors of the forward and backward timelike links, respectively. In this approach we treat the terms in the curly bracket as an observable – which is measured on each independent configuration, and can be interpreted as a weight – and the rest as the measure. Thus the simulation can be performed at $\mu=0$ and at some $\beta_0$ and $m_0$ values (Monte-Carlo parameter set). By using the reweighting formula (\[multi-parameter\]) one obtains the partition function at another set of parameters, thus at $\mu\neq 0$, $\beta\neq\beta_0$ or even at $m\neq m_0$ (target parameter set). [^5]
Expectation values of observables can be determined by the above technique. In terms of the weights (i.e. the expression in the curly bracket of eq. (\[multi-parameter\])) the averages can be determined as: $$\label{multi-parameter2}
{\overline {\cal O}}(\beta,\mu,m)=\frac{\sum \{w(\beta,\mu,m,U)\}
{\cal O}(\beta,\mu,m,U)}{\sum
\{w(\beta,\mu,m,U)\}}.$$
Now we present an error estimate of the reweighting procedure which also shows how far we can reweight in the target parameter space [^6].
The steps of the new procedure are as follows. First, we assign to each configuration of our initial sample the weight $w$ valid at the chosen target parameter set i.e. $$w=\exp\left\{\Delta\beta\cdot V\cdot(Pl)+\frac{n_f}{4}[\ln\det M(\mu)-\ln\det M(\mu=0)]\right\}
\label{eq:newweight}$$ where $V$ is the lattice volume. Next, we carry out Metropolis-like accept/reject steps with the series of these new weights. This procedure generates a new, somewhat smaller, sample. The configurations of this new sample are taken with a unit weight to calculate expectation values, variances and integrated autocorrelation times [@Ferrenberg:1995] (the latter grows at every rejection due to the repetition of certain configurations). The expectation values are taken from eq. (\[multi-parameter2\]), whereas the errors are estimated from the new procedure.
We still have to clarify two important points: thermalization and the possible lack of relevant configurations. We solved the first problem by defining a thermalization segment at the beginning of every newly generated sample which we cut off from the sample before calculating the expectation values and the errors. An obvious assumption is to claim that the already thermalized sample containing valuable information starts with the first different configuration right after the one with the largest weight. This ensures that if there is only one configuration in the initial sample which “counts” at the target parameters then this information will not be lost. The second problem cannot be solved perfectly. This problem occurs e.g. when a phase transition is very strong.
![ (a) The left panel shows a well functioning error estimate. The squares correspond to direct simulations (out of $60000$ configurations), the crosses denote the results of the multi-parameter reweighting method (out of $\approx 2500$ independent configurations) while the circles are the points of the Glasgow-type reweighting (out of $\approx 7000$ independent configurations). (b) In the right panel the meaning of the symbols are unchanged but the sample sizes for the reweighting techniques are decreased to 1200 independent configurations. Noticeably, in case of the Glasgow-type reweighting the fact that the sample does not contain any configuration from the target phase causes systematic errors in the expectation values and mainly in their uncertainties. This is because in case of strong phase transitions – like in our case – it is far too difficult to define a reliable thermalization stage by virtue of the weights. By increasing the sample size helps in this situation leading to the results of the left panel. \[fig:metro1\]](pbp.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![ (a) The left panel shows a well functioning error estimate. The squares correspond to direct simulations (out of $60000$ configurations), the crosses denote the results of the multi-parameter reweighting method (out of $\approx 2500$ independent configurations) while the circles are the points of the Glasgow-type reweighting (out of $\approx 7000$ independent configurations). (b) In the right panel the meaning of the symbols are unchanged but the sample sizes for the reweighting techniques are decreased to 1200 independent configurations. Noticeably, in case of the Glasgow-type reweighting the fact that the sample does not contain any configuration from the target phase causes systematic errors in the expectation values and mainly in their uncertainties. This is because in case of strong phase transitions – like in our case – it is far too difficult to define a reliable thermalization stage by virtue of the weights. By increasing the sample size helps in this situation leading to the results of the left panel. \[fig:metro1\]](pbp_3600.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
To illustrate the new technique let us take a look at the $n_f=4$ flavour case at $m_qa=0.05$ bare quark mass on $4\cdot 6^3$ size lattice at imaginary chemical potential. Note that for purely imaginary chemical potentials direct simulation is possible, therefore it is possible to check the validity of any possible error estimation method. We carried out simulations[^7] at Im$(\mu)=0$ in the phase transition point, i.e. at $\beta=5.04$ ($\approx 2500$ independent configurations) and at $\beta=5.085$ ($\approx 7000$ independent configurations). From these two starting points with the use of the reweighting we tried to predict the plaquette ($Pl$) and the $\bar{\psi}\psi$ expectation values and their uncertainties at $\beta=5.085$ and Im$(\mu)\neq 0$, that is at the target, imaginary chemical potential values. We calculated the plaquette and the $\bar{\psi}\psi$ expectation values by (\[multi-parameter2\]) at the target points, and we also used the new Metropolis-type method defined above which leads to very similar results.
The results are shown in Figure \[fig:metro1\] (see explanation there). The infinitely large errors of the single-parameter reweighting (Glasgow-method) indicate that the whole sample is thermalization, that is it does not provide information about the expectation value in the required point. In the right panel of Figure \[fig:metro1\] the second problem (lack of relevant configuration) mentioned above is seen.
When we determine the EoS the jackknife errors are suitable to estimate the uncertainties of the reweighted quantities in an appropriate region. We used the new error estimates only to provide the limit of the applicability of the reweighting procedure and of the jackknife method.
We can define reweighting lines on the $\beta$–$\mu$ plane so as to make the least possible mistake during the reweighting procedure. To do this we introduce the notion of overlap measure which we denote by $\alpha$. The overlap measure is the normalised number of different configurations in the sample created with the Metropolis-type reweighting after cutting off the thermalization. We plotted the contour lines of $\alpha$ in the left panel of Figure \[fig:contour\]. The dotted areas are unattainable, that means here the overlaps vanish, the errors are infinitely large. The best reweighting line can be defined for each simulation point. For a given value of $\mu$ we choose $\beta$ so that $\alpha$ be maximal. The points of the best reweighting lines are given by the rightmost points of the contours of the overlap in Fig. \[fig:contour\] (a).
Then the best reweighting lines are the contours of constant overlap or equivalently of constant error.
![ (a) The left panel shows the real chemical potential–$\beta$ plane. 33000 configurations were simulated at the parameter set at the critical $\beta$ in the $n_f=2+1$ flavour case. The dotted lines are the contours of the constant overlap. The dotted area is the unknown territory where the overlap vanishes. The solid line is the phase transition line determined by the peaks of susceptibility. (b) In the right panel the volume and the $\mu$ dependence of the overlap ($\alpha$) is shown. Upper curves correspond to smaller lattice sizes, $4\cdot 6^3$, $4\cdot 8^3$, $4\cdot 10^3$ and $4\cdot 12^3$ respectively. \[fig:contour\]](kontur.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![ (a) The left panel shows the real chemical potential–$\beta$ plane. 33000 configurations were simulated at the parameter set at the critical $\beta$ in the $n_f=2+1$ flavour case. The dotted lines are the contours of the constant overlap. The dotted area is the unknown territory where the overlap vanishes. The solid line is the phase transition line determined by the peaks of susceptibility. (b) In the right panel the volume and the $\mu$ dependence of the overlap ($\alpha$) is shown. Upper curves correspond to smaller lattice sizes, $4\cdot 6^3$, $4\cdot 8^3$, $4\cdot 10^3$ and $4\cdot 12^3$ respectively. \[fig:contour\]](voldep.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
The right panel of Figure \[fig:contour\] shows the $\mu$ dependence of the overlap at fixed $\beta$ and quark mass parameters for different volumes ($V=4\cdot 6^3$, $4\cdot
8^3$, $4\cdot 10^3$ and $4\cdot 12^3$). As expected, for fixed $\mu$ larger volumes result in worse overlap. One can define the “half-width” ($\mu_{1/2}$) of the $\mu$ dependence by the chemical potential value at which $\alpha=1/2$. One observes an approximate scaling behaviour for the half-width: $\mu_{1/2}\propto V^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma \approx 1/3$.
It is obvious that the two-parameter reweighting used previously does not follow the LCP ($\beta$ gets smaller but the quark mass remains $m_0a$). Nevertheless, the best reweighting line along the LCP can be determined by two techniques. One of them is the three-parameter reweighting, the other one is the interpolating method.
As it can be seen in the left panel of Figure \[fig:contour\], the change in $\beta$ is not very large for the two-parameter reweighting. Therefore, one can remain on the LCP by a simultaneous, small change of the mass parameter of the lattice action. This results in a three-parameter reweighting (reweighting in $ma$, $\beta$ and $\mu a$). Similarly to the two-parameter reweighting one can construct the best three-parameter reweighting line.
Another possibility to stay on the line of constant physics at finite $\mu$ is the interpolating technique. One uses the two-parameter reweighting for two LCP’s and interpolates between them. The result of this method and the predicition of the three-parameter reweighting agree quite well. This indicates that the requirement for the best overlap selects the same weight lines even for rather different methods.
Equation of state at non-vanishing chemical potential \[sec\_muneq0\]
=====================================================================
In this section we study the EoS at finite chemical potential. Since we are interested in the physics of finite baryon density we use $\mu=\mu_u=\mu_d\neq 0$ for the two light quarks and $\mu_s=0$ for the strange quark.
The pressure ($p$) can be obtained from the partition function as $p$=$T\cdot\partial \log Z/ \partial V$ which can be written as $p$=$(T/V) \cdot \log Z$ for large homogeneous systems. On the lattice we can only determine the derivatives of $\log Z$ with respect to the parameters of the action ($\beta, m, \mu$), so $p$ can be written as a contour integral[@Engels:1990vr]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{p}{T^4}&=&\frac{1}{T^3 V} \int d(\beta, m,\mu )
\left(
\left\langle \frac{\partial(\log Z)}{\partial \beta}\right\rangle,
\left\langle \frac{\partial(\log Z)}{\partial m}\right\rangle,
\left\langle \frac{\partial(\log Z)}{\partial \mu }\right\rangle\right).\end{aligned}$$ The integral is by definition independent of the integration path. The chosen integration paths are shown on Fig \[weightlines\].
The energy density can be written as $\epsilon =(T^2/V)\cdot \partial(\log Z)/\partial {T}
+(\mu T/V)\cdot \partial(\log Z)/\partial\mu$. By changing the lattice spacing $T$ and $V$ are simultaneously varied. The special combination $\epsilon-3p$ contains only derivatives with respect to $a$ and $\mu$: $$\frac{\epsilon-3p}{T^4}=-\left.\frac{a}{T^3V}\frac{\partial \log(Z)}{\partial a}\right|_\mu
+\left. \frac{\mu}{T^3 V}\frac{\partial(\log Z)}{\partial\mu}\right|_a.$$
![Illustration of the integral method at finite chemical potential (left panel). The solid lines are $\mu={\rm const}$ lines on the $\mu a - \beta$ plane. Dashed lines are the best reweighting lines starting from different simulation points. Arrows show the path of integration we used when evaluating eq. (7.6). \[weightlines\]](method_i2.eps){width="8cm"}
![The equation of state at, $\mu_B =100$, 210, 330, 410 and 530 MeV. The left panel shows the pressure difference between the $\mu = 0$ and $\mu\neq 0$ cases normalized by $T^4$, whereas on the right panel the normalization is done by the $N_t=4$ lattice Stefan-Boltzman limit. Note, that $\Delta p / \Delta p^{SB}$ seems to show some scaling behaviour (it depends mostly on the temperature; whereas its dependence on $\mu$ is much weaker). Thus, the $\mu$ dependence of $\Delta p$ is almost completely given by the $\mu$ dependence of the free gas. \[eosmu\]](eos_mu1.eps){width="14cm"}
![(a) $(\epsilon-3p)/T^4$ (b) Dimensionless baryon number density as a function of $T/T_c$ at $\mu_B$=100,210,330,410 MeV and $\mu_B$=530 MeV. \[eosmu3\]](eos_mu3.eps){width="14cm"}
We present lattice results on $\Delta p(\mu,T)=p(\mu\neq
0,T)-p(\mu=0,T)$, $\epsilon(\mu,T)$-3$p(\mu,T)$ and $n_B(\mu,T)$. Our statistical errorbars are also shown. They are rather small, in many cases they are even smaller than the thickness of the lines.
On the left panel of Fig. \[eosmu\] we present $\Delta p/T^4$ for five different $\mu$ values. On the right panel normalisation is done by $\Delta p^{SB}$, which is $\Delta p(\mu,T\rightarrow\infty)$. Notice the interesting scaling behaviour. $\Delta p / \Delta p^{SB}$ depends only on T and it is practically independent from $\mu$ in the analysed region. The left panel of Fig. \[eosmu3\] shows $\epsilon$-3$p$ normalised by $T^4$, which tends to zero for large $T$. The right panel of Fig. \[eosmu3\] gives the dimensionless baryonic density as a function of $T/T_c$ for different $\mu$-s.
The error coming from reweighting has been discussed previously. Another source of error is the finiteness of the physical volume. The volume dependence of physical observables is smaller than the statistical errors for the plaquette average or quark number density.
Conclusions, outlook
====================
We studied the thermodynamical properties of QCD at finite chemical potential. We used the overlap improving multi-parameter reweighting method. Our primary goal was to determine the equation of state (EoS) on the line of constant physics (LCP) at finite temperature and chemical potential.
We have pointed out that even at $\mu$=0 the EoS depends on the fact whether we are on an LCP or not. According to our findings pressure and $\epsilon$ - 3p (interacion measure) on the LCP have different high temperature behaviour than in the “non-LCP approach”.
We discussed the reliability of the reweighting technique. We introduced an error estimate, which successfully shows the limits of the method yielding infinite errors in the parameter regions, where reweighting gives wrong results. We showed how to define and determine the best weight lines on the $\mu$–$\beta$ plane.
We discussed the two-parameter reweighting technique. Two techniques were presented (three-parameter reweighting and the interpolating method) to stay on the LCP even when reweighting to non-vanishing chemical potentials.
We calculated the thermodynamic equations for $\mu \neq 0$ and determined the EoS along an LCP. We presented lattice data on the pressure, the interaction-measure and the baryon number density as a function of temperature and chemical potential. The physical range of our analysis extended upto $500-600$ MeV in temperature and baryon chemical potential as well.
Clearly much more work is needed to get the final form of non-perturbative EoS of QCD. Extrapolation to the thermodynamic and continuum limits is a very CPU demanding task in the $\mu \neq 0$ case. Physical $m_\pi/m_\rho$ ratio should be reached by decreasing the light quark mass. Finally, renormalised LCP’s should be used when evaluating thermodynamic quantites.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was partially supported by Hungarian Scientific grants, OTKA-T37615/T34980/T29803/M37071/OMFB1548/OMMU-708. For the simulations a modified version of the MILC public code was used (see http://physics.indiana.edu/ sg/milc.html). The simulations were carried out on the Eötvös Univ., Inst. Theor. Phys. 163 node parallel PC cluster.
[99]{}
F. Wilczek, hep-ph/0003183; M. G. Alford, K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B [**422**]{} 247 (1998); M. G. Alford, K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. B [**537**]{} 443 (1999); R. Rapp, T. Schafer, E. V. Shuryak and M. Velkovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{} 53 (1998); K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, hep-ph/0011333. For recent lattice reviews see: J. B. Kogut, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**119**]{}, 210 (2003); Z. Fodor, Nucl. Phys. A [**715**]{}, 319 (2003); E. Laermann and O. Philipsen, hep-ph/0303042; S. Muroya, A. Nakamura, C. Nonaka and T. Takaishi, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**110**]{}, 615 (2003); S. D. Katz, hep-lat/0310051. P. Hasenfratz and F. Karsch, Phys. Lett. B [**125**]{} 308 (1983). J. B. Kogut, H. Matsuoka, M. Stone, H. W. Wyld, S. H. Shenker, J. Shigemitsu and D. K. Sinclair, Nucl. Phys. B [**225**]{} 93 (1983). Z. Fodor and S. D. Katz, Phys. Lett. B [**534**]{} 87 (2002), \[arXiv:hep-lat/0104001\]. Z. Fodor and S. D. Katz, JHEP [**0203**]{} 014 (2002). Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B [**568**]{} 73 (2003). F. Csikor, G. I. Egri, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, K. K. Szabo and A. I. Toth, hep-lat/0104016 C. R. Allton [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} 074507 (2002). C. R. Allton, S. Ejiri, S. J. Hands, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, C. Schmidt Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} 014507 (2003). S. Choe [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} 054501 (2002). P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen, Nucl. Phys. B [**642**]{} 290 (2002). P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen, Nucl. Phys. B [**673**]{}, 170 (2003). M. D’Elia and M. P. Lombardo, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 014505 (2003). J. Engels, J. Fingberg, F. Karsch, D. Miller and M. Weber, Phys. Lett. B [**252**]{} 625 (1990). C. R. Allton, hep-lat/9610016. C. W. Bernard [*et al.*]{} \[MILC Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{} 6861 (1997). J. Engels, R. Joswig, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, M. Lutgemeier and B. Petersson, Phys. Lett. B [**396**]{} 210 (1997). F. Karsch, E. Laermann and A. Peikert, Phys. Lett. B [**478**]{} 447 (2000). S. Ejiri, arXiv:hep-lat/0401012. A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{} 2635 (1988). A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{} 1195 (1989). I. M. Barbour, S. E. Morrison, E. G. Klepfish, J. B. Kogut and M. P. Lombardo, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**60A**]{} 220 (1998). F. Csikor, Z. Fodor and J. Heitger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{} 21 (1999). Y. Aoki, F. Csikor, Z. Fodor and A. Ukawa, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{} 013001 (1999). Ferrenberg, Landau, Swendsen Phys. Rev. E [**51**]{} 5092(1995).
M. E. J. Newman, R. G. Palmer J. Stat. Phys. [**97**]{} 1011 (1999).
[^1]: presented by S. D. Katz
[^2]: On leave from Inst. Theor. Phys., Eötvös Univ.
[^3]: As we will see later, two LCP’s are needed for the determination of the EoS at finite chemical potential.
[^4]: For $n_f\neq 4$ staggered dynamical QCD one simply takes fractional powers of the fermion determinant.
[^5]: Note the appearent similarity of the present method with those of [@Ferrenberg:1988yz; @Ferrenberg:1989ui; @Barbour:1998ej; @Csikor:1998eu; @Aoki:1999fi].
[^6]: For other techniques to estimate the errors of the reweighting method see e.g. [@Ferrenberg:1995; @Newman]
[^7]: This parameter set is identical to the one used in [@Fodor:2001au]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
harvmac [^1][$^\star$ This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, under Contract DE-AT03-88ER 40384 Mod A006 Task C.]{}
Hidenori SONODA$^\dagger$[^2][$^\dagger$ E-mail: [email protected]]{} and Wang-Chang SU$^*$[^3][$^*$ E-mail: [email protected], Address after 1 October 1996: Department of Physics, National Tsing-Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan]{}
*Department of Physics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095–1547, USA*
In asymptotic free field theories we show that part of the OPE of the trace of the stress-energy tensor and an arbitrary composite field is determined by the anomalous dimension of the composite field. We take examples from the two-dimensional O(N) non-linear sigma model.
Ø[[O]{}]{} \#1[\#1 ]{} It is well known that in a renormalizable field theory the anomalous dimensions of composite fields determine the leading behavior of their OPE (operator product expansion) coefficients \[\]. In this note we wish to show that part of the OPE of the stress-energy tensor and an arbitrary composite field is determined by the anomalous dimension of the composite field. Let us recall that in two dimensional conformal field theory the OPE of the stress-energy tensor and a conformal field is completely determined by the scale dimension of the conformal field \[\]. The relation to be derived below is a weak generalization of this remarkable property of conformal field theory.
Let us consider an asymptotic free field theory with one dimensionless parameter $g$ in the $D$-dimensional euclidean space. (Examples: $g$ is the temperature for the O(N) non-linear sigma model in $D=2$, and the strong fine structure constant for QCD without quarks in $D=4$.) Let $\beta (g)$ be the beta function of the parameter: Let $g(t)$ be the solution of the above RG (renormalization group) equation which satisfies the initial condition $g(t=0) = g$. With a spatial distance $r$ we can form an RG invariant $g(\ln r)$. Note the asymptotic behavior Let $\Phi_a$ be a composite field with scale dimension $x_a + \gamma_a (g)$, where $\gamma_a (g) \equiv \gamma_{a,1} g + ...$ is the anomalous dimension. The field satisfies the RG equation where we assume no mixing for simplicity of the discussion.
We denote the trace of the stress-energy tensor by $\H$ which satisfies the canonical RG equation: We consider the OPE of the trace $\H$ and an arbitrary composite field $\Phi_a$: where $\dO$ is the $D-1$ dimensional angular volume element, and we have taken the angular average. We are only interested in the coefficients for which $x_b \le x_a$. The RG constrains the coefficients as follows: We wish to show that the leading behavior of the diagonal element $H_a^{~a} (g)$ is given by where $\gamma_{a,1}$ is the first Taylor coefficient of the anomalous dimension of $\Phi_a$. This implies that To derive eqn. , we first recall that the volume integral of the trace $\H$ generates a scale transformation or equivalently an RG transformation \[\]. Treating the short-distance singularities carefully, we obtain By differentiating the above asymptotic expansion with respect to $\ep_k$ we obtain the relation of the coefficient $S_a^{~b}$ to $\C_a^{~b}$ in : The RG constrains the coefficient $S_a^{~b}$ in the form Hence, from eqs. , , and , we obtain We note that under the change of normalization the matrix $\sigma_a^{~b}$ in eqn. changes homogeneously Especially the diagonal element $\sigma_a^{~a}$ is independent of the normalization. On the other hand, the anomalous dimension changes inhomogeneously If we allow $N_a (g)$ which either vanishes or diverges at $g=0$, even the first Taylor coefficient $\gamma_{a,1}$ becomes normalization dependent.
We now choose to normalize $\Phi_a$ so that its two-point function has a non-vanishing limit as $g \to 0$: where ${\cal N}_a$ is a positive constant. Under this restriction, only such $N_a (g)$ which is finite and non-vanishing at $g=0$ is allowed, and the first Taylor coefficient $\gamma_{a,1}$ becomes independent of normalization. With this convention, we now argue that To see this, we study the asymptotic expansion perturbatively for an infinitesimal $g$ for the case $n=2$ and $a_1 = a_2 = a$. The trace $\H$ is proportional to the beta function $\beta$ which is of order $g^2$, and we expect the right-hand side of to vanish to order $g^2$. Because of the RG equation and eq. , we find that the diagonal coefficient $S_a^{~a} (\ep;g)$ must agree with the anomalous dimension $\gamma_a (g)$ to first order in $g$. Since we obtain eqn. . Finally, eqn. follows from eqs. and .
The matrix $\sigma_a^{~b}$ have been calculated for the two-dimensional O(N) non-linear sigma model \[\]. Here are three examples: ($\beta_1
= {N-2 \over \pi}$)
\(i) The spin field $A \equiv \Phi^I (I=1,...,N)$ normalized by satisfies (ii) The first order derivative $B \equiv {1 \over \sqrt{g}} \partial_\mu
\Phi^I$ satisfies and we find (iii) The second order derivative $C \equiv {1 \over g} \partial^2 \Phi^I$ satisfies and we find In the above examples, the relation , which was missed in ref. , is verified explicitly.
Before concluding this letter, we consider yet another OPE: where $\H_{\mu\nu}$ is the stress-energy tensor field which has no anomalous dimension. The RG implies Using the conservation law for the stress-energy tensor, we obtain This implies Hence, Comparing this with eqn. , we find that the difference between $\tilde{C}_a^{~b} (\ep;g)$ and $S_a^{~b} (\ep;g)$ is independent of $\ep$. Therefore, using the RG constraints and , we obtain where $k_a$ is a constant. Since the constant $k_a$ is the value of $\tilde{H}_a^{~a} (g)$ at $g=0$, we can resort to the free theory at $g=0$ for its determination. Then we find where $x_a$ is the naïve scale dimension of $\Phi_a$. Thus, the leading behavior of the diagonal term $\tilde{C}_a^{~a}$ is given by In conclusion we have derived the following leading behavior of the OPE’s in asymptotic free field theories: where $\gamma_{a,1}$ is the first Taylor coefficient of the anomalous dimension of the field $\Phi_a$ which is normalized so that its two-point function has a non-vanishing limit at $g=0$ (eqn. ). The above OPE’s constitute a weak generalization of the structure of the OPE of the stress-energy tensor and an arbitrary conformal field in two dimensional conformal field theory. The extension of eqs. to asymptotic free field theories with more than one parameter is straightforward.
Analogous results for the equal-time commutator of $\H$ and the elementary field $\phi$ in the perturbative $\phi^4$ theory was obtained earlier in refs. and \[\], and more recently in ref. \[\]. Here, we emphasize the importance of normalizing the composite fields properly (see ) to get the above results .
[^1]:
[^2]:
[^3]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider D-branes wrapped around supersymmetric cycles of Calabi-Yau manifolds from the viewpoint of $N=2$ Landau-Ginzburg models with boundary as well as by consideration of boundary states in the corresponding Gepner models. The Landau-Ginzburg approach enables us to provide a target space interpretation for the boundary states. The boundary states are obtained by applying Cardy’s procedure to combinations of characters in the Gepner models which are invariant under spectral flow. We are able to relate the two descriptions using the common discrete symmetries of the two descriptions. We thus provide an extension to the boundary, the bulk correspondence between Landau-Ginzburg orbifolds and the corresponding Gepner models.'
---
[hep-th/9907131]{}\
[IMSc 99/07/25]{} \
Jan 2000 (ver 3)
[**Worldsheet approaches to D-branes on supersymmetric cycles**]{}\
Suresh Govindarajan[^1]\
[*Department of Physics,\
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras,\
Chennai 600 036, India\
*]{} T. Jayaraman and Tapobrata Sarkar[^2]\
[*The Institute of Mathematical Sciences,\
Chennai 600 113, India*]{}
Introduction
============
Dirichlet branes (D-branes), which are a simple realisation of Ramond-Ramond charged solitonic objects in superstring theory, have played an important role in our understanding of non-perturbative aspects of string theory[@polchinski]. Among other things, they has played an important role in the understanding of string duality and its relationship with M-theory, analysis of stringy black holes, etc. D-branes as formulated in string theory admit a world-sheet conformal field theory (CFT) description in contrast to the description of these objects as solitonic p-branes encountered as solutions of the low-energy effective actions of string theory.
The world-volume theories of D-branes have provided us with interesting examples of supersymmetric gauge theories. In its simplest form, the world-volume spectrum of a flat D-brane is obtained by the dimensional reduction of ten-dimensional super Yang-Mills theory. One may also consider situations where some or all of the spatial directions of the D-brane are wrapped around some cycle in a curved manifold that forms part of ten-dimensional space-time. In order to preserve some supersymmetry it has to be ensured that the cycle is actually a supersymmetric cycle[@bbs; @bsva; @bsvb]. In general, the bulk of the effort thus far has been in understanding the cases where the curved manifold is obtained by a reasonably simple modification of a flat manifold including that of tori, and orbifolds of both tori and flat space.
However some progress has been made in providing a conformal field theory description of D-branes wrapped around supersymmetric cycles in Calabi-Yau spaces. The first important step was provided by the work of Ooguri, Oz and Yin[@ooy], who formulated the general boundary conditions on the world-sheet $N=2$ super conformal field theory (SCFT) that would be necessary to describe such cycles. Subsequently using the work of Cardy on boundary CFT[@cardy], Recknagel and Schomerus[@reck] described in some generality the boundary states in the so-called Gepner models[@ictpgepner; @gepner], that would be relevant to the description of both even and odd dimensional supersymmetric cycles in the corresponding Calabi-Yau manifolds. Further in refs. [@gutsat] some applications of this construction have been pursued. A more general construction of boundary states relevant to curved D-branes have also been pursued by Fuchs and Schweigert[@fs]. In later work, Recknagel and Schomerus have also studied the role of boundary operators in such constructions[@reckb]. Other approaches have studied the case of D-branes in the context of group manifolds as described by WZW models[@stanciua; @stanciub; @kato]. While this paper was in preparation, the important work of Brunner, Douglas, Lawrence and Römelsberger[@quintic] appeared that studied in detail the structure and several aspects of D-branes on the quintic, using both Gepner models and other techniques. We consider the techniques of this paper to be complementary to the ideas and results contained therein.
In this paper, we pursue two different worldsheet approaches to understanding such D-branes wrapped on supersymmetric cycles in Calabi-Yau manifolds. For simplicity we restrict ourselves to the case where all the spatial coordinates are wrapped on the appropriate supersymmetric cycle and hence from the viewpoint of the non-compact spacetime, we have a zero-brane. From this point of view, the world-volume theory describes the moduli of the corresponding D-brane wrapped on the cycle inside the Calabi-Yau manifold[@bsva; @bsvb].
The two approaches that we use are the boundary $N=2$ supersymmetric Landau-Ginzburg (LG) formulation and a boundary state construction in terms of the Gepner model. The Landau-Ginzburg formulation of strings on Calabi-Yau manifolds has been very successful in understanding various aspects of such closed string theories. We extend this by considering the same LG models on worldsheets with boundary, in a manner that preserves a $N=2$ worldsheet supersymmetry on the boundary. We find that these LG models with boundary provide a natural description of D-branes wrapped on both even and middle-dimensional supersymmetric cycles in the general Calabi-Yau manifold.
In the second description, we use the Gepner model construction. However, in contrast to other approaches mentioned earlier we consider linear combinations of characters of the spacetime SCFT and the internal SCFT that are invariant under spectral flow. With this approach we are able to construct the cylinder partition functions in a manner that explicitly demonstrates that some of spacetime supersymmetry is preserved and thus leads to a vanishing partition function. The associated boundary states are constructed for these partition functions. This is illustrated by the $1^3$ and $2^2$ Gepner models that describe a $T^2$ compactification. The approach that we use is closely related to the techniques that have been used by the Rome group to describe the construction of Type-I strings using Gepner models[@romea; @romeab; @romeb; @romec]. However we note that their formulation has not kept track of the construction of D-brane states and their properties even though they have investigated the question of anomaly cancellation and tadpole cancellation in some detail[@romea; @romeab; @romeb; @romec]. We are able to relate the boundary state construction to the boundary condition LG description by making use of a common discrete symmetry group occurring in both the Gepner model and its corresponding LG orbifold.
We would like to emphasise the point of view taken throughout this paper. When we refer to D-branes, we mean the object which the boundary CFT describes. In some cases, this coincides with the supergravity description of D-branes. However, this is not expected to be generically true especially in the case of compactifications on Calabi-Yau three-folds where the “large volume branes” (these typically admit supergravity descriptions) may exhibit rather different behaviour in the “small volume” limit. According to the modified geometric hypothesis of Douglas et al.[@quintic], for the so called A-branes, i.e., D-branes which correspond to A-type boundary conditions, the “large volume” results for central charges and masses of A-branes do not get modified in the “small volume” limit. This is not so for the case of B-branes, i.e., D-branes which correspond to B-type boundary conditions. Based on this, the geometric properties which we have extracted for the A-branes in section 4, which we construct using the boundary state formalism, is expected to hold.
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 contains the necessary background and the notation followed in the paper. In section 3, we consider Landau-Ginzburg theories in the presence of boundaries which preserve $N=2$ supersymmetry. We obtain general boundary conditions on the LG fields when $N=2$ supersymmetry is preserved and relate these to supersymmetric cycles. In section 4, we study D-branes in Gepner models making use of spectral flow invariant orbits. Cardy’s prescription is used after suitably resolving the S-matrix. The $1^3$ and $2^2$ models are analysed in detail though the analysis is more general. We also attempt to use the LG formulation in order to obtain a spacetime picture for the boundary states. In section 5, we conclude with a discussion on open issues and possible extensions of the work described in the paper. In an appendix, we discuss the transformations of the boundary states in the $2^2$ Gepner model under the action of the discrete symmetry group of the model.
Background
==========
The $N=2$ Supersymmetry Algebra
--------------------------------
The generators of the $N=2$ super conformal algebra are the energy momentum tensor, $T(z)$ its worldsheet superpartners, $G$ and $\overline{G}$ of conformal weight $3/2$, and a U(1) current, $J$, with conformal weight $1$. The algebra is given by the following relations that can be derived from the operator product expansions of the generators[@warnerreview]. $$\begin{aligned}
\left[L_m, L_n\right]&=& \left(m-n\right)L_{m+n}~+~{c \over 12}m
\left(m^2-1\right)\delta_{m+n,0} \nonumber \\
\left[L_m, G_{n + a}\right] &=&\left( {m \over 2} - (n
+ a)\right) G_{m+n +a} \nonumber \\
\left[L_m, \overline{G}_{n - a}\right] &=&\left( {m \over 2} - (n
- a)\right) \overline{G}_{m+n - a} \nonumber \\
\left[J_m, J_n \right]&=& {c \over 3}m \delta_{m+n,0} \nonumber \\
\left[L_n, J_m \right]&=&-m J_{m+n} \nonumber \\
\left[J_n, G_{m + a}\right] &=& G_{m+n + a}
\nonumber \\
\left[J_n, \overline{G}_{m - a}\right] &=& - \overline{G}_{m+n - a}
\nonumber \\
\{ G_{n+a}, \overline{G}_{m-a} \}&=&2L_{m+n}+\left(n-m+2a
\right) J_{m+n}+{c \over 3} \left( (n+a)^2 - {1 \over 4} \right)
\delta_{m+n,0} \end{aligned}$$ The parameter $a\in[0,1)$. $a=0$ corresponds to the Ramond (R) algebra and $a={1\over2}$ corresponds to the Neveu-Schwarz (NS) algebra. We shall refer to states in representations of the Ramond algebra as Ramond states and similarly, one obtains Neveu-Schwarz states. Primary states of the $N=2$ algebra are labelled by their dimension $h$ and $U(1)$ charge $q$.
A subset of the primary fields of the NS algebra are the chiral primary fields. which create states that are annihilated by the operator $G_{-1/2}$, i.e, $$G_{-1/2}| \phi \rangle = 0\quad,$$ where $|\phi\rangle$ is the state created by a chiral primary field $\phi$. The dimension and $U(1)$ charge of a chiral primary field satisfy $$h_{\phi} = {q_{\phi} \over 2}\quad.$$ Anti-chiral fields creates states annihilated by $\overline{G}_{-1/2}$ with $h=-q/2$.
In a theory with $(2,2)$ worldsheet supersymmetry, i.e., theories with $N=2$ supersymmetry in the holomorphic(left-moving) and anti-holomorphic(right-moving) sectors, one can construct four combinations of the chiral and anti-chiral fields. These are $(c,c),
(a,a), (c,a),$ and $(a,c)$ states in the theory.
An important aspect of the $N=2$ algebra is the existence of a spectral flow isomorphism. One can show that the after the following redefinition: $$\begin{aligned}
L_n'~&=&~L_n~+~\eta J_n ~+~ {1 \over 6}\eta^{2}c \delta_{n,0} \nonumber
\\
J_n'~&=&~J_n~+~{1 \over 3} \eta c \delta_{n,0} \nonumber \\
\left(G_r\right)'&=~&G_{r + \eta}\quad, \nonumber \\
\left(\overline{G}_r\right)'&=~&\overline{G}_{r - \eta}\quad,\end{aligned}$$ the redefined operators also satisfy the $N=2$ algebra with a moding shifted by the parameter $\eta$ ($a\rightarrow a+\eta$). This correspondence can be carried over to the states in the representation of the algebra. This is done by means of the spectral flow operator $U_\eta$ defined by $$U_{\eta}~=~e^{i \sqrt{{c \over 3}} \eta \phi}\quad,$$ where the $U(1)$ current is given by $J=i\sqrt{c/3}\ \partial_z \phi$. The dimension and $U(1)$ charge of the new field obtained by spectral flow of a primary field with weight $h$ and $U(1)$ charge $q$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\eta}&=&h + q \eta + {\eta^2 \over 6}c \nonumber \\
q_\eta&=&q + \eta {c \over 3}\end{aligned}$$ When $\eta={1\over2}$, the spectral flow operator interpolates between the Neveu-Schwarz and the Ramond sectors. In the context of spacetime supersymmetric string theory, this spectral flow relates spacetime bosons to spacetime fermions.
For a given representation $p$ of the $N=2$ algebra, the character is defined as $$\chi_p\left(\tau, z, u \right)~=~e^{-2 i \pi u}\ {\rm Tr}\ [e^{2 i \pi z
J_0}\ e^{2 i \pi \tau (L_0-{c \over 24})}]$$ where the trace runs over the particular representation denoted by $p$ and $u$ is an arbitrary phase. The explicit formulae for the characters of certain models in terms of the Jacobi theta functions will be written down later. Under spectral flow with parameter $\eta$, the character for the $\eta$-shifted representation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{\eta}_p\left(\tau, z,0\right)&=&{\rm Tr}\ [e^{2 i \pi J_0'}\
e^{2 i \pi \tau (L_0' - {c \over 24})}] \nonumber \\
&=&\chi_p\left(\tau, z+\eta \tau, -{1 \over 6} \eta^2 \tau c
- {1 \over 3} \eta z c \right)
\label{twistedcharacter}\end{aligned}$$
Boundary states for N=2 SCFT
-----------------------------
A BPS state such as a D-brane wrapped on a supersymmetric cycle will preserve half the spacetime supersymmetry. Using the correspondence between spacetime supersymmetry and the existence of a global $N=2$ supersymmetry on the worldsheet, the presence of a BPS state will be signalled by the boundary preserving a linear combination of the $(2,2)$ worldsheet supersymmetry. The analysis of Ooguri et al. shows that there are two possible linear combinations[@ooy][^3].\
[**A-type boundary condition:**]{} $$J_+ = - J_-\quad,\quad G_+=\pm \overline{G}_-\quad,\quad e^{i\phi_+} =
e^{-i\phi_-}$$ [**B-type boundary condition:**]{} $$J_+ = J_-\quad,\quad G_+ = \pm G_-\quad,\quad e^{i\phi_+} = (\pm)^d
e^{i\theta} e^{i\phi_-}\quad,$$ where the $\phi_\pm$ are the scalars associated with the bosonisation of the $U(1)$ current of the $N=2$ supersymmetry algebra in the left and right-moving sectors. These boundary conditions are for the open string channel.
Boundary states which preserve a $N=2$ supersymmetry are expected to be related to D-branes wrapping around supersymmetric cycles. The boundary states satisfy the closed string equivalent of the above boundary conditions. In order to do this, we write the boundary conditions in the closed string channel with the replacement $J_- \rightarrow -J_-$, $G_- \rightarrow i G_-$ and $\overline{G}_- \rightarrow i \overline{G}_-$ as compared to the open string channel. The A-type boundary condition then reads, $$\left(J_+ - J_-\right)|B\rangle=0\quad;\quad\left( G_+\pm
i\overline{G}_-
\right)|B\rangle = 0\quad,$$ where $|B\rangle$ is a boundary state. The condition on the $U(1)$ current picks out a selection rule for the fields of the theory that can contribute to the boundary state, namely for the A-type boundary condition, corresponding to D-branes wrapping around middle dimensional cycles, we have $q_+ = q_-$ for the $U(1)$ charge. Thus, the $(c,c)$ and $(a,a)$ states can contribute to the A-type boundary state while the $(a,c)$ and $(c,a)$ states cannot. Similarly, for the B-type boundary condition $$\left(J_+ + J_-\right)|B\rangle = 0\quad;\quad\left( G_+\pm iG_-
\right)|B\rangle = 0$$ implying that the $(c,a)$ and $(a,c)$ states contribute to the boundary state.
Generalising a procedure due to Ishibashi, one can construct solutions of the above conditions for all primary fields which satisfy the condition involving the two $U(1)$ charges in addition to the condition on the conformal weights[@ishibashi]. The explicit form of the Ishibashi state associated with such a representation $a$ is given by $$|a\rangle\rangle ~=~\sum_N |a;N\rangle \otimes U \overline{ |a;N\rangle}$$ where $|a,N\rangle$ is an orthonormal basis for the representation $a$ and $U$ is an anti-unitary matrix which preserves the highest weight state $|a\rangle$. For A-type boundary conditions, one has to replace $U$ with $U\Omega$ where $\Omega$ is the mirror automorphism of the $N=2$ algebra[@reck]. We shall label the Ishibashi states for the A-type and B-type boundary conditions by $|a\rangle\rangle_A$ and $|a\rangle\rangle_B$ respectively.
Cardy’s construction
--------------------
The set of Ishibashi states form a basis for the boundary states. Thus, any boundary state $|\alpha\rangle$ is given by a linear combination of the Ishibashi states $$|\alpha\rangle = \sum_a\ {{\psi_\alpha}^a\over{({S_0}^a})^{1\over2}}\ |a\rangle\rangle\quad,$$ where $S$ is the modular S-matrix and $0$ refers to the identity operator. The ${\psi_\alpha}^a$ are not arbitrary but will have to satisfy a consistency condition which we will now derive. The arguments are due to Cardy[@cardy] but we will follow the discussion in ref. [@zuber]. Consider a conformal field theory associated with a chiral algebra on a cylinder with perimeter $T$ and length $L$ subject to boundary conditions $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The partition function of the system can be calculated in two ways: One can consider the result as coming from periodic ‘time’ $T$ evolution with the prescribed boundary conditions. Topologically, this corresponds to an annulus. The annulus partition function is given by $${\cal A}_{\alpha\beta} = \sum_i {n_{i\alpha}}^{\beta}\ \chi_i(q)\quad,
\label{annone}$$ where ${n_{i\alpha}}^{\beta}$ denotes the number of times the irreducible representation $i$ occurs in the spectrum of the Hamiltonian $H_{\alpha\beta}$ (which generates the ‘time’ evolution) and $q=e^{-\pi
T/L}$. Another way corresponds to treating the $L$ direction as time and the partition function for time evolution from the boundary state $|\alpha\rangle$ to the boundary state $|\beta\rangle$ is given by $${\cal C}_{\alpha\beta}=\sum_a {{{\psi_\alpha}^a({\psi_\beta}^a)^{\dagger}
\ \chi_a(\tilde{q})}\over{S_0}^a} \quad,
\label{cylone}$$ where $\tilde{q}=e^{-4\pi L/T}$ and the sum is over Ishibashi states. On equating eqn. (\[annone\]) to the modular transformation $\tau
\rightarrow -1/\tau$ (with $\tau = i2L/T$) of eqn. (\[cylone\]), one obtains the following consistency condition: $${n_{i\alpha}}^{\beta} =\sum_a {{S_i}^a \over {S_0}^b}
\ {\psi_\alpha}^a\ ({\psi_\beta}^a)^{\dagger}\quad.
\label{consist}$$ In the above, note that the sum is over Ishibashi states while the index $i$ is over characters of all irreducible representations of the chiral algebra. Note that these two are not necessarily the same except for theories such as the one whose toroidal partition function is given by the charge conjugation modular invariant combination.
It can be shown[@zuber] that the matrices $n_i =
{(n_{i})_\alpha}^{\beta}$ form a representation to the fusion algebra $$\sum_\beta {n_{i\alpha}}^{\beta} {n_{j\beta}}^{\gamma} =
\sum_k {N_{ij}}^k {n_{k\alpha}}^{\gamma}\quad,$$ where ${N_{ij}}^k$ is the fusion matrix. In general, the boundary theory need not preserve all the symmetries in the bulk. More general situations have been studied by Fuchs and Schweigert[@fstwo]. A simple example which illustrates the general situation is the three-state Potts model[@potts].
Cardy has provided a solution to the consistency equation (\[consist\]) for theories whose toroidal partition function is given by the charge conjugation invariant. He constructs boundary states (and hence boundary conditions) corresponding to the representations $a$ which appear in the Ishibashi states. Let us label the corresponding boundary states by $|\tilde{a}\rangle$ given by $$|\tilde{a}\rangle = \sum_b {{S_a}^b\over{({S_0}^b)^{1/2}}}\ |b\rangle\rangle
\quad,$$ where the sum is over Ishibashi states. This solves eqn. (\[consist\]) for $${n_{i\tilde{a}}}^{\tilde{b}} = {N_{ia}}^b\quad,$$ The consistency condition now turns into the Verlinde formula.
Complications can arise in attempting to apply Cardy’s results directly. One which we will encounter is that different representations may have the same Virasoro character. This will show up as a multiplicity in the appearance of the characters in the toroidal partition function. In addition, the S-matrix will not have several of its usual properties such as it being symmetric and so on. In such cases, the S-matrix needs to be [*resolved*]{}. There is a fairly general procedure due to Fuchs, Schellekens and Schweigert which one uses to obtain a resolved S-matrix which has its usual properties[@resolve]. Sometimes, however there exists some discrete symmetry which distinguishes representations which have the same character. In these cases, one can use the charge under the discrete symmetry to obtain a resolved (or at least a partially resolved) S-matrix. We refer the reader to ref. [@resolve] for the procedure to resolve the S-matrix. In the case of Gepner models, we will discover that this is the case generically and we will need to resolve the S-matrix before using Cardy’s solution to eqn. (\[consist\]).
Brief review of Gepner models
-----------------------------
Gepner models are exactly solvable supersymmetric compactifications of type II string theory, where the internal part of the SCFT is constructed by tensoring together $N=2$ minimal models. The central charge of the minimal model of level $k$ is given by $$c=\frac{3k}{k+2}$$ A simple construction of the minimal model of level $k$ is realised by adding one free boson to the $Z_k$ parafermionic field theory. This is done as follows: from the free bosonic theory with the field denoted by $\phi$, and the $Z_k$ parafermionic theory with parafermionic fields labelled by $\psi_1$ and its hermitian conjugate, $\psi_1^{\dagger}$, one can construct $$\begin{aligned}
G(z)&=&\sqrt{\frac{2k}{k+2}}\psi_1:e^{i \phi \sqrt{\frac{k+2}{k}}}:
\nonumber \\
\overline{G}(z)&=&\sqrt{\frac{2k}{k+2}}\psi_1^{\dagger}
:e^{- i \phi \sqrt{\frac{k+2}{k}}}: \nonumber \\
J&=&i \sqrt{\frac{2k}{k+2}} \partial_z \phi\end{aligned}$$ The operator product expansions for these generators satisfy the $N=2$ super conformal algebra. The primary fields of the theory are labelled by three integers $l,m,s$, and denoted by $\Phi^l_{m,s}$ whose dimension $h$ and $U(1)$ charge $q$ are given by are given by $$\begin{aligned}
h&=&\frac{l(l+2) - m^2}{4(k+2)}~+~\frac{s^2}{8}
\nonumber \\
q&=&\frac{m}{k+2} - \frac{s}{2}\end{aligned}$$ where $l=0,1, \cdots,k$ and $m=-(k+1),-k,\cdots,(k+2)$ mod $(2k+4)$ and $s=0,2,\pm1$. The labelling integers satisfy the constraint $l+m+s\in 2Z$. In addition, there is an identification given by $(l,m,s)\sim
(k-l,m+k+2,s+2)$. The $N=2$ characters of the minimal models are defined in terms of the usual Jacobi theta functions as: $$\chi_m^{l(s)}\left(\tau, z, u \right) = \sum_{j~{\rm mod}~k} C^l_{m+4j-s}
(\tau) \theta_{2m+(4j-s)(k+2),2k(k+2)}\left(\tau, 2kz, u \right)$$ where $\theta_{n,m}(\tau,z,u)$ denotes the Jacobi theta function, and the $C^l_m(\tau)$ are the characters of the parafermionic field theory. The characters $\chi_m^{l(s)}$ have the property that they are invariant under $s
\rightarrow s+4$ and $m \rightarrow m+2(k+2)$ and are zero if $l+m+s \neq
0$ mod $2$. By using the properties of the theta functions, the modular transformation of the minimal model characters is found to be $$\chi_{m}^{l(s)} \left( -{1 \over \tau},0,0 \right) = C \sum_{l',m',s'}
\sin
\left({\pi(l+1)(l'+1) \over k+2} \right)\exp \left({i \pi mm' \over
k+2}\right)
\exp\left(- {i \pi ss' \over 2} \right) \chi_{m'}^{l'(s')}(\tau,0,0)$$ where in the above sum one imposes $l'+m'+s'=0$ mod $2$ and $C$ is a constant.
Gepner constructed compactifications of the heterotic string which had spacetime supersymmetry by representing the internal part by a tensor product of $N=2$ minimal models. His considerations are equally applicable for compactifications of the type II string. Consider the tensor product of $n$ minimal models of level $k_i$ ($i=1,\cdots,n)$. The total central charge of the internal model is given by $$c_{\rm int} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{3k_i}{k_i+2}\quad,$$ where $c_{\rm int}=15 -3d/2$, where $d$ is the dimensionality of spacetime. Thus, for $d=4$, $c_{\rm int}=9$. Gepner constructs a spacetime supersymmetric partition function by first projecting onto states for which total $U(1)$ charges in both the left-moving and right-moving sectors is an odd integer. Then, in order to preserve $N=1$ worldsheet supersymmetry, the NS sector states of each sub-theory are coupled to each other and do not mix with the $R$ sector states. He thus multiplies all the $NS$ sector partition functions in each sub-theory and similarly for other sectors i.e, $\widetilde{NS}$, $R$ and $\widetilde{R}$. Here, $NS$ refers to the Virasoro character in the NS sector ($NS={\rm tr}_{NS}\
q^{L_0-c/24}$) while $R$ refers to the Virasoro character in the R sector ($R={\rm tr}_{R}\ q^{L_0-c/24}$). $\widetilde{NS}$ and $\widetilde{R}$ refer to the Virasoro characters in the appropriate sector with the inclusion of $(-)^F$, where $F$ is the worldsheet fermion number ($\widetilde{NS}={\rm tr}_{NS}\ (-)^F\ q^{L_0-c/24}$). The full partition function is a sum of the contributions from the four sectors. Modular invariance of the full partition function is a consequence of modular invariance in each of the sub-theories.
A related construction due to Eguchi et al. makes use of [*supersymmetric characters*]{} in order to construct modular invariant partition functions for Gepner models[@eguri]. The analysis of Gepner showed the relationship between spacetime supersymmetry and spectral flow with $\eta={1\over2}$ in the $N=2$ supersymmetry algebra. The supersymmetric character is obtained by first constructing the Virasoro character in the Neveu-Schwarz (NS) sector and then including all characters (whose states are related to the original one by spectral flow in steps of $\eta={1\over2}$). For example, the graviton character is obtained by first considering the identity operator. Then, one applies the spectral flow operation once to obtain a state in the Ramond sector. The second application leads one back to the NS sector. This procedure is repeated until one returns to the original state after a few iterations. The supersymmetric character (in the lightcone gauge) can be written as $$X_i = {1\over2}\left\{NS_i \left({\theta_3\over\eta}\right)^m
-\widetilde{NS}_i \left({\theta_4\over\eta}\right)^m
- R_i \left({\theta_2\over\eta}\right)^m
+\widetilde{R}_i\left({\theta_1\over\eta}\right)^m\right\}\quad,$$ where $({\theta\over\eta})^m$ come from level one SO$(2m)$ characters associated with the non-compact spacetime of dimension $d$(with $m=(d-2)/2$). The signs reflect the GSO projection required in order to obtain the correct spin-statistics connection. As a consequence of spacetime supersymmetry, each supersymmetric character vanishes identically. See ref. [@ictpgepner; @gepner] for the details of the argument.
The modular invariant partition function on a torus for a type II string compactified on a Gepner model is now constructed as follows. One first constructs the supersymmetric character $X_0$ associated with the graviton (this is associated with the identity operator in the Gepner model). One then obtains all other characters $X_i$ ($i=1,\cdots,r)$ which are obtained by applying the $S:\tau\rightarrow -{{1}\over\tau}$ modular transformation to $X_0$, the graviton character. Then, one constructs a modular invariant bilinear combination from the full set of characters thus obtained. In the sequel, we will restrict ourselves to the case where the partition function on the torus (for the type II string compactified on a Calabi-Yau given by a Gepner model) is given by the following modular invariant combination $${\cal T} = \sum_{i=0}^{r}\ D_i \ |X_i|^2\quad,$$ where $D_i={S_{0i}\over S_{i0}}$ is the multiplicity with which character $X_i$ occurs in the torus partition function.
Landau-Ginzburg description of Gepner models
--------------------------------------------
There is a lot of evidence that the level $k$ $N=2$ minimal model can be obtained as the RG fixed point of a Landau-Ginzburg model (with global $N=2$ supersymmetry)of a single scalar superfield with superpotential $\Phi^{k+2}$. It has been shown that the central charge of the RG fixed point matches that of the minimal model and more recently, the elliptic genus of the two theories was shown to match[@wittenindex].
The massless spectra and symmetries of certain Gepner models are in one to one correspondence with those obtained in some Calabi-Yau compactifications[@ictpgepner; @gepner]. This result was initially shown by Gepner for the quintic hypersurface in $CP^4$ which is equivalent to the $(k=3)^5$ Gepner model. For this example, it was shown in ref. [@distler] that certain Yukawa couplings between the massless fields also agreed from both sides. The explanation of this phenomenon came first by a path integral argument due to Greene et. al [@gvw]. Using the relationship between the level $k$ $N=2$ minimal model and the the LG theory with superpotential $\Phi^{k+2}$, for the Gepner model given by $(k_1 ,k_2 ,...k_n)$, they chose the LG superpotential $W(\Phi_1, \Phi_2,
\cdots\Phi_n)=\Phi_1^{k_1+2}+\Phi_2^{k_2+2}+\cdots\Phi_n^{k_n+2}$. Assuming that the $D$ terms in the theory are irrelevant operators and their effect can be neglected in the path integral for this model, it was shown in ref. [@gvw] that one exactly ends up with the constraint that defines a Calabi-Yau manifold in weighted projective space. There was a need to impose a discrete identification in order to make the argument work. This corresponds to an orbifolding of the LG model and gives rise to the integer projection imposed by Gepner in order to have spacetime supersymmetry. Thus the precise statement is that the Gepner model is equivalent to the LG orbifold. The Calabi-Yau - Landau-Ginzburg correspondence was later proved more rigourously by Witten [@wittenphases] where it was shown how a varying Kähler parameter interpolates between the geometrical (Calabi-Yau) and the non-geometrical (Landau-Ginzburg) phases.
For instance the string vacuum that corresponds to five copies of the $k=3$ $N=2$ minimal model, is obtained by orbifolding by $\exp[i2\pi
J_0]$, where $J_0$ measures the left $U(1)$ charge. Other more complicated orbifolding possibilities exist (and lead to other Calabi-Yau manifolds) but we will not need to consider other possibilities in this paper. A $N=2$ LG theory which has not been orbifoldized contains only $(c,c)$ and $(a,a)$ states. However, in order that a LG description of a $N=2$ super conformal field theory reproduce the string vacuum it is essential that it also include the $(a,c)$ states. These states appear in the twisted sector of the LG orbifold[@vafa; @intril].
D-branes in Landau-Ginzburg models
===================================
In this section, we will describe D - branes wrapped on supersymmetric cycles using the Landau-Ginzburg description of Calabi-Yau manifolds. We will first generalise the bulk Landau-Ginzburg theory by including boundary terms which preserve part of the worldsheet supersymmetry following the work of Warner[@warner]. We will obtain the analog of A and B type boundary conditions in this system. For the case of the quintic, we will show that A-type boundary conditions naturally choose a real submanifold which is the supersymmetric three-cycle constructed by Becker et al.[@bbs].
We will consider the massive Euclidean Landau-Ginzburg theory in two dimensions, with complex bosons $\phi_i$ and complex Dirac fermions denoted by $\psi, \overline{\psi}$, with the left and right moving components denoted by the subscripts $+$ and $-$ respectively. The action for the model (in which we have taken the boundary to lie on the line $x^0\equiv x =0$ and $x^1\equiv y$) is given by $$S= S_{\rm bulk} + S_{\rm boundary}\quad,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm bulk} = \int_{- \infty}^{0}dx^0 \int _{- \infty}^{\infty} dx^1
&&\left\{ -\left( \partial_\alpha\overline{\phi}_i \partial_\alpha
\phi_i \right)\right.\nonumber \\
&-&{1\over2} \left( \overline{\psi}_{-i}
\partial_0 \psi_{-i} - \overline{\psi}_{+i} \partial_0 \psi_{+i}
- \partial_0(\overline{\psi}_{-i})\psi_{-i} + (\partial_0
\overline{\psi}_{+i})\psi_{+i}\right) \nonumber \\
&+& {i \over 2} \left(
\overline{\psi}_{-i}\partial_1 \psi_{-i} + \overline{\psi}_{+i} \partial_1
\psi_{+i} - \partial_1(\overline{\psi}_{-i})\psi_{-i} - \partial_1(\overline
{\psi}_{+i})\psi_{+i}\right) \nonumber \\
&+&\left. \left( \frac{\partial^2 W}{\partial \phi_i \partial \phi_j}\right)
\psi_{+i} \psi_{-j} + \left(
\frac{\partial^2\overline{W}}{\partial\overline{\phi}_i
\partial\overline{\phi}_j}\right)
\overline{\psi}_{+i} \overline{\psi}_{-j} - |\frac{\partial W}{\partial
\phi_i} |^2 \right\} \nonumber \\
S_{\rm boundary}=
\int_{- \infty}^{\infty}dy &&\left( -{1\over2}\overline{\psi}{_i}
\gamma^* \psi_i \right) \end{aligned}$$
In the above $W(\phi)$ is a quasi-homogeneous superpotential. As is usual for theories with boundary, the kinetic energy term for the fermions written in symmetric form. In addition, we have included an explicit boundary term following the work of Warner[@warner].[^4]. We have used an off diagonal basis where the two dimensional $\gamma$ matrices are defined by $$\gamma^0 = \pmatrix{0&i\cr -i&0}\quad
\gamma^1 = \pmatrix{0&1\cr 1&0}\quad
\gamma^* = \pmatrix{1&0\cr 0&-1}\quad.$$
The supersymmetry transformations of this model are given explicitly in terms of the components to be $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \phi_i &=& - \left( \psi_{+i} \epsilon_+ + \psi_{-i}
\epsilon_- \right) \nonumber \\
\delta \overline{\phi}_i &=& \left( \overline{\psi}_{-i} \overline{\epsilon}
_- + \overline{\psi}_{+i} \overline{\epsilon}_+ \right) \nonumber \\
\delta \psi_{+i}&=& \left( -\partial_0 \phi_i + i \partial_1
\phi_i \right) \overline{\epsilon}_+ + \frac{\partial
\overline{W}}{\partial \overline{\phi}_i}
\epsilon_- \nonumber \\
\delta \overline{\psi}_{+i}&=& \left( \partial_0 \overline{\phi}_i - i
\partial_1 \overline{\phi}_i \right) \epsilon_+
- \frac{\partial W}{\partial \phi_i} \overline{\epsilon}_-\nonumber \\
\delta \psi_{-i}&=& \left( \partial_0 \phi_i +
i \partial_1 \phi_i \right) \overline{\epsilon}_- - \frac{
\partial \overline{W}}{\partial \overline{\phi}_i}\epsilon_+ \nonumber \\
\delta \overline{\psi}_{-i}&=& \left( - \partial_0 \overline{\phi}_i -
i \partial_1 \overline{\phi}_i \right) \epsilon_- + \frac{\partial W}
{\partial \phi_i} \overline{\epsilon}_+\end{aligned}$$ This action is now varied under ordinary and supersymmetric variation, giving rise to boundary terms, and consistent boundary conditions are imposed in order to cancel these. The boundary terms coming from ordinary variation can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{ord}S = - \int _{-\infty}^{\infty}dy (\partial_0
\overline{\phi}_i)\delta \phi_i&+&(\partial_0 \phi_i) \delta
\overline{\phi}_i
+ {1 \over 2} \left( \overline{\psi}_{-i} - \overline{\psi}_{+i}\right)
\left(\delta \psi_{+i} + \delta \psi_{-i} \right) \nonumber \\
&-& {1\over2}\left( \psi_{+i} - \psi_{-i}\right)\left(\delta
\overline{\psi}_{-i} + \delta \overline{\psi}_{+i} \right)\end{aligned}$$ evaluated on the line $x=0$. Similarly, the boundary terms arising out of supersymmetric variations of the action can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{susy}S = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dy
&&\left[-{1 \over 2}\partial_0
\phi_i\left(\overline{\psi}_{-i} - \overline{
\psi}_{+i}\right) + {i \over 2} \partial_1 \phi_i
\left( \overline{\psi}_{-i} + \overline{ \psi}_{+i}\right)\right]
\left(\overline{\epsilon}_- - \overline{\epsilon}_+ \right) \nonumber \\
&+&\left[ {1 \over 2}\partial_0 \overline{\phi}_i \left( \psi_{+i} -
\psi_{-i}\right) + {i \over 2}\partial_1\overline{\phi}_i
\left( \psi_{+i} + \psi_{-i}\right)\right]\left(\epsilon_+ -
\epsilon_- \right) \nonumber \\
&+&{1 \over 2} \left[ \left( \frac{\partial W}{\partial \phi_i}
\right) (\psi_{+i} + \psi_{-i})(\overline{\epsilon}_- +
\overline{\epsilon}_+) - \left( \frac {\partial \overline{W}}
{\partial \overline{\phi}_i} \right) ( \overline{\psi}_{-i}
+ \overline{\psi}_{+i})(\epsilon_+ + \epsilon_-) \right] \end{aligned}$$
A-type boundary conditions
--------------------------
Following our earlier discussion on the A-type boundary conditions, we will look for the unbroken $N=2$ supersymmetry to be given by [^5] $$\epsilon_+=\overline{\epsilon}_- \quad.$$ The above choice is dictated by A-type boundary condition $G_L^+ = \pm
G_R^-$ for the supersymmetry generators.
The supersymmetric variation the action $S$ after imposing $\epsilon_+=\overline{\epsilon}_-$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{\rm susy} S =
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dy
&&\left[-{1 \over 2}\partial_0
\phi_i\left(\overline{\psi}_{-i} - \overline{
\psi}_{+i}\right) + {i \over 2} \partial_1 \phi_i
\left( \overline{\psi}_{-i} + \overline{ \psi}_{+i}\right)\right]
(\epsilon_+ - \epsilon_-)\nonumber \\
&+&\left[ {1 \over 2}\partial_0 \overline{\phi}_i \left( \psi_{+i} -
\psi_{-i}\right) + {i \over 2}\partial_1\overline{\phi}_i
\left( \psi_{+i} + \psi_{-i}\right)\right]
(\epsilon_+ - \epsilon_-)\nonumber \\
&+&{1 \over 2} \left[
\frac{\partial W}{\partial \phi_i}
( \psi_{+i}
+ {\psi}_{-i})
- \frac {\partial \overline{W}}
{\partial \overline{\phi}_i} ( \overline{\psi}_{+i}
+ \overline{\psi}_{-i})
\right] (\epsilon_+ + \epsilon_-) \end{aligned}$$
Further, let us assume that the fermions also satisfy the following condition:[^6] $$(\psi_{+i} - \overline{\psi}_{-i})|_{x=0} =0
\label{bou1}$$
The following set of boundary conditions on the bosonic fields makes the action invariant under the $N=2$ supersymmetry. The bosonic boundary conditions are also consistent with the supersymmetric variation of the fermionic boundary condition in eqn. (\[bou1\]). $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_0 \left( \phi_i - \overline{\phi}_i \right)|_{x=0}&=& 0
\nonumber \\
\partial_1 \left(\phi_i + \overline{\phi}_i \right)|_{x=0}&=&0 \nonumber \\
\left. \left(\frac{\partial W}{\partial \phi_i} - \frac{
\partial \overline{W}}{\partial \overline{\phi}_i}\right)\right|_{x=0}&=&0
\label{bou2}\end{aligned}$$ Hence (\[bou1\]) and (\[bou2\]) give us a set of boundary conditions on the fields such that we have an unbroken $N=2$ supersymmetry on the boundary. The last line of the eqn. (\[bou2\]) has to be viewed as a consistency condition on the boundary condition. It has a simple interpretation (in the infrared limit) provided the equation $W=0$ admits a pure imaginary solution. It corresponds to the statement that for directions along the brane, the variation of $W$ has to vanish. For example, for a circle given by $f(x,y)=(x^2+y^2-1)=0$, the analogous statement is that $\partial_\phi f =0$, where $\phi$ is the angle in cylindrical polar coordinates. We will see that similar conditions appear even for B-type boundary conditions whenever a Neumann boundary condition is imposed on fields.
These ‘mixed’ boundary conditions should correspond to a D- brane wrapped on some cycle of Calabi-Yau given by the equation $W(\phi)=0$. Let us see if this can be substantiated. Notice that, the last of the equations in (\[bou2\]) implies that the real part of all the complex scalar fields $\phi_i$ can be chosen to vanish on the boundary at $x=0$. Thus, the target space interpretation is that the cycle corresponds to a submanifold of the Calabi-Yau given by the coordinates becoming imaginary on the boundary. As shown in [@bbs], for the quintic hypersurface defined in $CP^4$ by the equation $$\Sigma_{i=1}^{5}\left( \phi_i \right)^5~=~0\quad,$$ imposing the reality (or equivalently pure imaginary)[^7] condition on all the $\phi_i$ indeed provides one with a submanifold which is a supersymmetric three-cycle.
Actually, (\[bou1\]) and (\[bou2\]) are not the most general choice of boundary conditions. The following set of boundary conditions is more general: $$\begin{aligned}
(\psi_{+i} - {A_i}^j\ \overline{\psi}_{-j})|_{x=0} &=&0\nonumber \\
\partial_0 \left( \phi_i -{A_i}^j\ \overline{\phi}_j \right)|_{x=0}&=& 0
\nonumber \\
\partial_1 \left(\phi_i +{A_i}^j\ \overline{\phi}_j \right)|_{x=0}&=&0 \nonumber \\
\left.\left({A_i}^j\ \frac{\partial W}{\partial \phi_j} - \frac{
\partial \overline{W}}{\partial \overline{\phi}_i}\right)\right|_{x=0} &=&
0\quad,\end{aligned}$$ where the symmetric matrix $A$ satisfies $AA^{*}=1$ and it is block diagonal i.e., it does not mix fields with different charge under the $U(1)$ of the unbroken $N=2$ supersymmetry algebra. One simple choice is given by $A={\rm Diag}(e^{i\theta_1},\cdots,e^{i\theta_n})$ subject to the condition involving the superpotential being satisfied.
Given a matrix $A$ which provides boundary conditions consistent with the superpotential, we can construct other consistent choices. Let us assume that the superpotential is invariant under a discrete group $G$ which acts holomorphically on the fields. Let $^g\phi_i={g_i}^j\phi^j$ be the the action of $g\in G$. The invariance of the superpotential under $G$ implies that $W(\phi)=W(^g\phi)$. Corresponding to the element $g$, we can construct another $N=2$ preserving boundary condition on the fields given by $A_g=g^{-1}\cdot A \cdot g^*$. Clearly, if $g$ is a real matrix, then $A$ and $A_g$ belong to the same conjugacy class and we do not obtain new boundary conditions.
Clearly with a LG theory it would be difficult to provide a description of the boundary states in the cylinder channel with the same degree of explicitness that we can associate with free-field theories. However we can notice the following. We can label the boundary states by the primary fields associated with them as in the general case discussed by Cardy and implemented by Recknagel and Schomerus. Since for the A-type boundary condition, one needs equal charges from the left and right moving sectors in the construction of the boundary state, it is clear that the lowest states are associated with the application of the LG fields themselves on the ground state vacuum of the theory. It is clear that this may involve appropriate number of $\phi$ fields, such that the $U(1)$ charge projection condition is satisfied, a similar set of states with the application of $\bar\phi$ fields and also states built by application of both $\phi$ and $\bar\phi$ fields such that they have integral $U(1)$ charge. Some of these states will be obviously in the massive sector and will not contribute to massless states but as we shall see later such states are required in the general definition of the boundary state. This ties in rather nicely with the method for the construction of boundary states that we will pursue in section IV of the paper. In this connection we note also that so far we have no means yet, strictly within the LG formulation, to determine the normalization of the boundary states as is done by the method of Cardy for the boundary states of an arbitrary minimal model.
B-type boundary conditions
--------------------------
Again, following the earlier analysis, for B-type boundary conditions the $N=2$ supersymmetry is given by $$\epsilon_+ = -\epsilon_- \quad.$$ We will now look for boundary conditions on the fields such that the above supersymmetry is preserved.
Under supersymmetry variation of the action, (after setting $\epsilon_+ =
-\epsilon_-$ as required), we obtain a boundary term of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dy &&\left\{\left[\partial_0
\phi_i\left(\overline{\psi}_{-i} - \overline{ \psi}_{+i}\right) - i
\partial_1 \phi_i \left( \overline{\psi}_{-i} + \overline{
\psi}_{+i}\right)\right] \overline{\epsilon}_+ \right.\nonumber \\
&+&\left.\left[ \partial_0 \overline{\phi}_i \left( \psi_{+i}~-~
\psi_{-i}\right) + i\partial_1\overline{\phi}_i \left( \psi_{+i} +
\psi_{-i}\right)\right]\epsilon_+ \right \} \end{aligned}$$ The vanishing of the above boundary term suggests two possible boundary conditions:
1. $\partial_0 \phi_i|_{x=0} =0$ and $(\psi_{-i} +
\psi_{+i})|_{x=0}=0$. This corresponds to Neumann boundary conditions on the field $\phi_i$ and its complex conjugate $\overline{\phi}_i$. Consistency with supersymmetry imposes the additional condition ${{\partial W}\over{\partial\phi_i}}|_{x=0}=0$. Note that this is a condition in spacetime where it says that the tangential derivative along the boundary vanishes.
2. $\partial_1 \phi_i|_{x=0} =0$ and $(\psi_{-i} -
\psi_{+i})|_{x=0}=0$. This corresponds to Dirichlet boundary conditions on the field $\phi_i$ and its complex conjugate $\overline{\phi}_i$.
Since the above set of boundary conditions treat both the real and imaginary parts of the complex scalar fields $\phi_i$ in identical fashion, the cycle which is chosen by the boundary conditions will correspond to a holomorphic submanifold of the Calabi-Yau. Thus the cycle is a supersymmetric cycle.
Again, one can construct a general boundary condition. It is specified by a hermitian matrix $B$ which satisfies $B^2=1$ and is block diagonal i.e., it does not mix fields with different charge under the $U(1)$ of the unbroken $N=2$ supersymmetry algebra. The general boundary condition is given by $$\begin{aligned}
(\psi_{+i} + {B_i}^j\psi_{-j})|_{x=0}=0\quad, \nonumber \\
\partial_0(\phi_i + {B_i}^j\phi_j)|_{x=0}=0\quad, \nonumber \\
\partial_1(\phi_i - {B_i}^j\phi_j)|_{x=0}=0\quad, \nonumber \\
\left.\left({{\partial W}\over{\partial\phi_i}} + {B^*_i}^j {{\partial
W}\over{\partial\phi_j}}\right)\right|_{x=0}=0 \end{aligned}$$ Since $B$ squares to one, its eigenvalues are $\pm1$. An eigenvector of $B$ with eigenvalue of $+1$ corresponds to a Neumann boundary condition and $-1$ corresponds to a Dirichlet boundary condition.
What would B-type boundary states look like with Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions on the LG fields? With Neumann or Dirichlet boundary conditions it is easy to see that the $U(1)$ current obeys boundary conditions that require all boundary states to have equal and opposite charges in the left and right moving sectors. This implies that all the boundary states for such cycles must come from the twisted sector in the LG theory. It is not immediately clear what difference the Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions would make since in the twisted sector the zero-mode of the LG fields are no longer present. However it is nevertheless clear that the even supersymmetric cycles are charged under the Ramond-Ramond ground states of the twisted sector. Before we turn to specific examples we would like to add that all the massless states could probably be constructed by an extension of the method of Kachru and Witten[@kachruwitten] where they used the cohomology of the $\bar Q_+$ charge to define the massless states in the left-moving sector of a (2,2) compactification of the heterotic string. In the case of D-branes, in the open string sector, we have only one $L_0$ operator and two supercharges. It is clear that an extension of the methods of ref. [@kachruwitten] will be possible[@future].
Examples
--------
We have seen that A-type boundary conditions in the LG model are specified by a matrix $A$ and similarly by a matrix $B$ for B-type boundary conditions. The choices of these boundary conditions is not arbitrary. One has to in particular ensure that the consistency conditions involving the superpotential are satisfied. In all the examples that we consider, for B-type boundary conditions, we are unable to impose Neumann boundary conditions on all fields simultaneously. This is illustrated by considering a simple example involving one scalar field (like the LG model associated with the $N=2$ minimal model at level $k$). The only consistent boundary condition one can impose in this case is the Dirichlet one.
### The $1^3$ model
This model is described by the superpotential involving three scalar fields given by $W= (\phi_1^3+\phi_2^3+\phi_3^3)$. A-type boundary conditions pick out the submanifold (one-cycle) given by $$(x_1^3+x_2^3+x_3^3)=0\quad,$$ where $x_i = {\rm Im} \phi_i$. The discrete symmetry group of this superpotential is given by $G = (S_3\times (Z_3)^3 )/Z_3$[^8]. Other supersymmetric cycles which can be constructed from this cycle are $(ix_1,i\omega^a x_2,
i\omega^b x_3)$, where $a$ and $b$ are integers satisfying $a+b=0$ mod $3$[^9]. These correspond to choosing $A={\rm Diag}(1,\omega^a,\omega^b)$. Thus, we end up with three $Z_3$ related cycles corresponding to $a=b=0$, $a=1,b=2$ and $a=2,b=1$ respectively. One can verify that the three one-cycles are non-intersecting.
There exists another choice for $A$ given by $A_1={\rm
Diag}[1,1,\exp(i2\pi/3)]$, which leads to the one-cycle given by $$(x_1^3+x_2^3-x_3^3)=0\quad,$$ where $x_i = {\rm Im} \phi_i$ ($i=1,2$), $x_3={\rm Im} (\exp(-i\pi/3)
\phi_3)$. By studying the action of $S_3$ on this cycle, we will see that this cycle is not chosen in the Gepner model construction.
Earlier, we had imposed the condition $a+b=0$ mod $3$ in the matrix $A$. Relaxing this condition, we will get two more sets of one-cycles corresponding to $a+b=1,2$ mod $3$. Within each set, the one-cycles are non-intersecting. However, if one considers one-cycles from different sets, they can intersect. For example, the one-cycle chosen by $A={\rm Diag}(1,1,1)$ intersects the one-cycle chosen by $A={\rm Diag}(1,\omega,\omega)$ at the point $(0,1,1)\simeq
(0,\omega, \omega)$ in homogeneous coordinates. The cylinder amplitude between these two states will not vanish since the two boundary states do not preserve the same supersymmetry generators. Further, one expects to see a tachyon in the open string spectrum.
For B-type boundary conditions, we find the following consistent choices:
1. Choose $B={\rm Diag}(-1,-1,-1)$ which corresponds to Dirichlet boundary conditions on all scalars. Let $\phi_i=c_i$ where $c_i$ are constants. Presumably, they will have to satisfy $(c_1^3+c_2^3+c_3^3)=0$ given the infrared limit of the bulk theory but this does not follow from the consistency conditions. Clearly $(c_1,c_2,c_3)$ corresponds to a point (in homogeneous coordinates) on the torus and corresponds to a supersymmetric zero-cycle.
2. For $B=\pmatrix{0&-1&0\cr-1&0&0\cr0&0&-1}$, the consistency conditions imply that $\phi_1+\phi_2=0$ and $\phi_3=0$ with $(\phi_1-\phi_2)$ being free i.e., satisfying Neumann boundary conditions.
We are unable to find choices for $B$ such that one obtains two Neumann and one Dirichlet boundary condition in addition to the all Neumann case which can be clearly ruled out by analysing the consistency condition involving the superpotential.
### The $2^2$ model
This model is described by the superpotential $W=\phi_1^4 + \phi_2^4 +
\phi_3^2$, where we have included a ‘trivial’ quadratic piece. For A-type boundary conditions given by $A=1$, there are no real solutions. However, choosing $A={\rm Diag}(1,i,1)$, one obtains the one-cycle given by the equation $$x_1^4 - x_2^4 + x_3^2 =0\quad,$$ where $x_1={\rm Im} \phi_1$ , $x_2 = {\rm Im}(\phi_2/\sqrt{i})$ and $x_3={\rm
Im}\phi_3$. This equation has solutions for real $x_i$. The discrete symmetry group of this model is given by $G=(S_2\times (Z_4)^2\times Z_2
)/Z_4$. Choosing an element of $G$ given by $g=(i^a,i^b, (-)^c)$ with $a+b+2c=0$ mod $4$. By following the procedure mentioned earlier we obtain $A_g = {\rm Diag}[(-)^a,i(-)^b,1]$ which provides cycles related to $A={\rm Diag}(1,i,1)$ by a $Z_2$ subgroup.
There is another choice given by $A_2={\rm Diag}(1,1,-1)$, one obtains the one-cycle given by the equation $$x_1^4 + x_2^4 - x_3^2 =0\quad,$$ where $x_1={\rm Im} \phi_1$ , $x_2={\rm Im} \phi_2$ and $x_3={\rm Re}
\phi_3$. Again, this one-cycle is not chosen by the Gepner model model construction. This cycle is invariant under the $S_2$ exchange while the first choice is not invariant.
### The Quintic
We have already seen the example of a real three-cycle obtained from the A-type boundary conditions with $A=1$. The Quintic has a discrete symmetry group $G=(S_5\times (Z_5)^5/Z_5)$. A subgroup is given by the $Z_5$ generated by $$g:(\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3,\phi_4,\phi_5)\rightarrow
(\phi_1,\alpha \phi_2,\alpha^2 \phi_3,\alpha^3 \phi_4,\alpha^4
\phi_5)\quad,$$ where $\alpha$ is any non-trivial fifth root of unity. This boundary condition corresponds to a three-cycle of the quintic which is related to the real three-cycle by the $Z_5$ transformation. It follows trivially that this cycle is a special Lagrangian submanifold of the deformed quintic and hence a supersymmetric cycle. It is clear that this procedure leads to the construction of supersymmetric cycles. Considering the full group $G$, one can generate $G$-related supersymmetric cycles by the choice $g={\rm
Diag}(1,\alpha^a,\alpha^b,\alpha^c,\alpha^d)$, where $a,b,c,d$ are integers which satisfy $a+b+c+d=0$ mod $5$.
For B-type boundary conditions, we find the following three consistent choices for the matrix $B$: (i) $B_1={\rm
Diag}(-1,-1,-1,-1,-1)$; (ii) $B_2=\pmatrix{-\sigma_1&0\cr 0& -1_{3\times3}}$ and (iii) $B_3=\pmatrix{-\sigma_1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & -\sigma_1 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 &
-1}$, where $\sigma_1=\pmatrix{0&1 \cr 1 &0}$ is a Pauli matrix. The first choice is the all Dirichlet one. The second choice has one Neumann and four Dirichlet conditions and the last one has two Neumann and three Dirichlet conditions on some linear combinations of the fields.
### The Conifold
The deformed conifold is described by a non-compact Calabi-Yau associated with the superpotential[@gm; @ghoshal] $$W = \phi_1^2 + \phi_2^2 + \phi_3^2 + \phi_4^2 -{\mu\over{\phi_5}}\quad,$$ where $\mu=0$ is the conifold limit and $\mu=|\mu|e^{i\phi}$ is complex. Imposing A-type boundary conditions with $A={\rm
Diag}(1,1,1,1,e^{2i\phi})$ chooses the three-cycle given by the equation ($x_i={\rm Im}\phi_i$, $i=1,2,3,4$ and $x_5={\rm Im}(\phi_5 e^{-i\phi})$) $$x_1^2 + x_2^2 + x_3^2 + x_4^2 -{|\mu|\over{x_5}}=0\quad.$$ Working in inhomogeneous coordinates $y_i = x_i\sqrt{x_5}$, we obtain an $S^3$ of radius $\sqrt{|\mu|}$ which is known to be a special Lagrangian submanifold of the conifold and hence is a supersymmetric cycle[@hitchina; @hitchinb; @stenzel].
D-branes in Gepner models
=========================
In this section we will be constructing the boundary states associated with cycles of a Calabi-Yau space which can be obtained as a Gepner model. The Calabi-Yau is specified by tensoring together $N=2$ minimal models and truncating to states with integer charge under the $U(1)$ of the $N=2$ supersymmetry.
The partition function on a torus for a type II string compactified on a Calabi-Yau manifold given by a Gepner model is given by[@eguri] $${\cal T} = \sum_{i=0}^{r}\ D_i \ |X_i|^2\quad,$$ where $D_i={S_{0i}\over S_{i0}}$ is the multiplicity with which the supersymmetric character $X_i$ occurs in the torus partition function and $X_0$ is the graviton character.
Since the multiplicities $D_i$ are generically not equal to one, one needs to resolve the S-matrix associated with the Gepner model. There is a procedure due to Fuchs, Schellekens and Schweigert which we employ to resolve the S-matrix[@resolve]. The Cardy prescription can then be applied to the resolved S-matrix in order to obtain the boundary states corresponding to D-branes wrapped around cycles of the Calabi-Yau corresponding to the Gepner model. The resolution of the S-matrix for models such as the quintic is computationally complex and hence we will illustrate the procedure for the simple case of the $1^3$ and $2^2$ Gepner models (for A-type boundary conditions). Here, we will see a very nice match with respect to the analysis using the LG description and hence be able to directly achieve a target space interpretation for the boundary states.
We should point out the differences between our approach and that of Recknagel and Schomerus. In their construction, the boundary conditions such as $J_+=J_-$ are imposed separately in each of the minimal models which enters the theory after which they construct boundary states for by tensoring together boundary states of the individual minimal models. Thus, the boundary is forced to preserve the $N=2$ algebra of each minimal model rather than the diagonal $N=2$. This seems to ensure that the setting is “rational”. In our construction, we work with spectral flow invariant orbits. Given the intimate relationship between spacetime supersymmetry and spectral flow, our restriction may seem natural in the context of D-branes since they are BPS states in spacetime. The supersymmetric characters can be seen to be sums of characters of the extended algebra ${\cal W}$, one obtains by including the $\eta={1\over2}$ spectral flow operator to the $N=2$ algebra[@eguri]. Thus, our boundary states preserve the extended algebra ${\cal W}$ rather than the $N=2$ of the individual minimal models. “Rationality” is obtained because we work with only a finite number of supersymmetric characters rather than characters of the irreducible representations of ${\cal W}$. We believe that these two approaches complement each other and must not be considered to be distinct.
The $1^3$ Gepner model
----------------------
This $1^3$ Gepner model is obtained by the tensoring of three copies of the $k=1$ $N=2$ minimal model. This is the Gepner model for a torus at its SU$(3)$ point. The characters of the $k=1$ minimal model in the NS sector will be labelled as follows. ($\chi^l_m \equiv \chi^{l(s=0)}_{m} +
\chi^{l(s=2)}_{m}$)
------------------------- ------ ----- --------------------------------------------- --
$\chi^l_m$ q h Label
\[3pt\] $\chi^{0}_{0}$ 0 0 $A=\theta_{0,3}({\tau\over2})/\eta(\tau)$
\[3pt\] $\chi^{1}_{1}$ 1/3 1/6 $B=\theta_{2,3}({\tau\over2})/\eta(\tau)$
\[3pt\] $\chi^{1}_{-1}$ -1/3 1/6 $B_c=\theta_{4,3}({\tau\over2})/\eta(\tau)$
\[3pt\]
------------------------- ------ ----- --------------------------------------------- --
$B$ is associated with a chiral primary state and $B_c$ is associated with an anti-chiral primary state. Under spectral flow(with $\eta=1$), we have the sequence $$A\rightarrow B\rightarrow B_c\rightarrow A$$
The spectral flow invariant orbits for this model in the NS sector are
Label Orbit $q$; $h$
-------- -------------------- ----------------------
$NS_0$ $A^3 +B^3 + B_c^3$ $q=h=0$
$NS_1$ $3 A B B_c$ $q=0$; $h={1\over3}$
In the above table, the values of $q$ and $h$ correspond to the state with the smallest value of $h$ occurring in the spectral flow invariant $NS$ orbit. $NS_0$ is the graviton orbit and the other orbit is massive i.e., it corresponds to massive states in the non-compact spacetime. The choice of $3 A B B_c$ rather than $ A B B_c$ as the character for the $NS_1$ state can be understood as follows: Let us assume that the three minimal models are labelled $1,2,3$ respectively. Then a spectral flow invariant orbit is given by $(A_1 B_2 B_{c3} + B_1 B_{c2} A_3 + B_{c1} A_2 B_3)$, where we have explicitly kept the minimal model label. Getting rid of these labels leads to $3 A B B_c$ and hence our choice. The S-matrix for this model is derived to be $$S={1\over\sqrt{3}}\pmatrix{1&2\cr 1&-1}$$ $D_0=1$ and $D_1=2$. It is sufficient to consider the NS sector to obtain the S-matrix. One can show that this S-matrix is identical to that obtained from the modular transformation of the full supersymmetric character[@ictpgepner; @gepner]. A modular invariant torus partition function for this model is given by $${\cal T} = \sum_{i=0}^1\ D_i\ |X_i|^2$$ where $X_i$ are the supersymmetric characters[^10].
However, as things stand one cannot apply Cardy’s prescription here since the character $X_1$ occurs with multiplicity $2$ in the toroidal partition function. In order to obtain the resolved S-matrix, one splits $D_1=2=1+1$. Thus the resolved S-matrix is a $3\times3$ matrix. It is $$\widetilde{S} = {1\over\sqrt{3}}
\pmatrix{1&1&1\cr1&\omega&\omega^2\cr 1&\omega^2&\omega}$$ where $\omega$ is a cube root of unity. This resolved S-matrix is the S-matrix for the SU$(3)$ level $k=1$ Wess-Zumino-Witten model which is consistent with the fact that this Gepner model corresponds to compactification on a torus at its SU$(3)$ point. One can check that:
- $\widetilde{S}^2 = C$ where $C=\pmatrix{1&0&0\cr0&0&1\cr0&1&0}$ is the charge conjugation matrix.
- $\widetilde{S}$ is symmetric and unitary.
- $\widetilde{S}^4=1$.
- $(\widetilde{S}T)^3 = \widetilde{S}^2$ with $T=$ Diag$(-i,-i\omega, -i\omega)$.
Let $|0\rangle\rangle_A$, $|1\rangle\rangle_A$, $|1^c\rangle\rangle_A$ be the Ishibashi states (associated with the characters $X_0$, $X_{1}$, $X_{1}^c$) which satisfy A-type boundary conditions. We apply Cardy’s procedure using the resolved S-matrix and obtain the following boundary states $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde{0}\rangle &=& 3^{-1/4} \left (|0\rangle\rangle_A +
|1\rangle\rangle_A + |1^c\rangle\rangle_A \right)\\
|\tilde{1}\rangle &=& 3^{-1/4} \left (|0\rangle\rangle_A +
\omega |1\rangle\rangle_A +\omega^2 |1^c\rangle\rangle_A \right)\\
|\tilde{2}\rangle &=& 3^{-1/4} \left (|0\rangle\rangle_A +
\omega^2 |1\rangle\rangle_A +\omega |1^c\rangle\rangle_A \right)\end{aligned}$$ Note that if we kept track of the minimal model labels, under the exchange of labels $2\leftrightarrow3$, $ |1\rangle\rangle_A
\leftrightarrow|1^c\rangle\rangle_A$. Thus, under the same exchange $|\tilde{1}\rangle \leftrightarrow |\tilde{2}\rangle$ with the state $|\tilde{0}\rangle$ being invariant. These boundary states fit in beautifully with the analysis of the $1^3$ model in the LG description. There we obtained a set of A-type boundary conditions parametrised by $A={\rm Diag}(1,\omega^a,\omega^b)$ with $a+b=0$ mod $3$. We make the following correspondence: The $a=b=0$ boundary condition is identified with the state $|\tilde{0}\rangle$ and $(a,b)=(1,2),(2,1)$ with the other two boundary states (using properties of these b.c.’s under the $2\leftrightarrow3$ exchange in the LG model)[^11]
A more direct correspondence can be worked out by considering the part of the boundary state involving only the $(c,c)$ and $(a,a)$ states. Following the analysis in the LG orbifold, the boundary condition given by the matrix $A={\rm Diag}(1,\omega^a,\omega^b)$ corresponds to multiplying the $(a,a)$ field by the phases given in $A$. Let $(\bar{\phi}_1,\bar{\phi}_2,\bar{\phi}_3)$ be the generators of the $(a,a)$ ring. Multiplying this by $A$, one sees that $|0\rangle\rangle_A
\rightarrow |0\rangle\rangle_A $, $|1\rangle\rangle_A \rightarrow
\omega^a |1\rangle\rangle_A $ and $|1^c\rangle\rangle_A \rightarrow
\omega^b |1^c\rangle\rangle_A $, where we have used $a+b=0$ mod $3$. Thus, these boundary states are related to D1-branes of the type IIB string wrapping around non-intersecting supersymmetric one-cycles on the torus at the SU$(3)$ point as follows from the LG analysis of the earlier section. We can also compare with the result of Recknagel and Schomerus. The nine states they obtain for this model can be grouped into sets of three. The grouping is chosen by the condition that within each set, the same spacetime supersymmetry is preserved by all states. Thus, within a set, off-diagonal cylinder amplitudes should vanish by supersymmetry. The three states we construct belong to one set.
It is easy to verify that the cylinder partition function ${\cal
C}_{\tilde{i}\tilde{i}} = 3^{-1/2} (X_0 + X_1 + X_{1}^c)$. This reflects the $Z_3$ relationship between the three supersymmetric cycles. Under a modular transformation, the annulus partition function we obtain is given by ${\cal A}_{\tilde{i}\tilde{i}} = X_0$. This implies that $n_{\tilde{0}\tilde{0}}^i = \delta_{i0}$ i.e, only the identity sector propagates in the vacuum channel. Both amplitudes vanish as required by supersymmetry. Finally, the annulus amplitude ${\cal
A}_{\tilde{0}\tilde{i}} = X_i$. Thus, we see that the massive character $X_1$ is related to off-diagonal D-brane configurations (i.e., a D-brane configuration that begins at one boundary and ends at another).
The $2^2$ Gepner model
----------------------
This Gepner model describes a torus at the SU$(2)\times$SU$(2)$ point. The characters of the $k=2$ minimal model in the NS sector will be labelled as follows. ($\chi^l_m \equiv \chi^{l(s=0)}_{m} + \chi^{l(s=2)}_{m}$)
------------------------- ------ ----- ------------------------------------------------
$\chi^l_m$ q h Label
\[3pt\] $\chi^{0}_{0}$ 0 0 $A=\chi_0(\tau)\theta_{0,2}(2\tau)+
\chi_{1\over2}(\tau)\theta_{2,2}(2\tau)$
\[3pt\] $\chi^{2}_{2}$ 1/2 1/4 $B=\chi_0(\tau)\theta_{1,2}(2\tau)+
\chi_{1\over2}(\tau)\theta_{3 ,2}(2\tau)$
\[3pt\] $\chi^{2}_{-2}$ -1/2 1/4 $B_c=\chi_0(\tau)\theta_{3,2}(2\tau)+
\chi_{1\over2}(\tau)\theta_{1,2}(2\tau)$
\[3pt\] $\chi^{2}_{0}$ 0 1/2 $C=\chi_0(\tau)\theta_{2,2}(2\tau)+
\chi_{1\over2}(\tau)\theta_{0,2}(2\tau)$
\[3pt\] $\chi^{1}_{1}$ 1/4 1/8 $D=\chi_{1\over{16}}(\tau)\theta_{1 ,2}(\tau)$
\[3pt\] $\chi^{1}_{-1}$ -1/4 1/8 $D_c=\chi_{1\over{16}}(\tau)
\theta_{3,2}(\tau)$
\[3pt\]
------------------------- ------ ----- ------------------------------------------------
where $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_0(\tau) &=& {1\over2}\left(\sqrt{{\theta_3(\tau)}\over{\eta(\tau)}} +
\sqrt{{\theta_4(\tau)}\over{\eta(\tau)}}\right)\quad,\\
\chi_{1\over2}(\tau) &=& {1\over2}\left(\sqrt{{\theta_3(\tau)}\over{\eta(\tau)}}
- \sqrt{{\theta_4(\tau)}\over{\eta(\tau)}}\right)\quad{\rm and}\\
\chi_{1\over{16}}(\tau)&=&\sqrt{{\theta_2(\tau)}\over{2\eta(\tau)}}\end{aligned}$$ are the Ising model characters. Under spectral flow (with $\eta=1$), we have the sequences $$A\rightarrow B\rightarrow C\rightarrow B_c\rightarrow A$$ $$D\rightarrow D_c \rightarrow D$$.
The spectral flow invariant orbits for this model are
Label Orbit $q$; $h$
-------- -------------------------- -------------------
$NS_0$ $A^2 +B^2 + C^2 + B_c^2$ $q=h=0$
$NS_1$ $2(A C + B B_c)$ $q=0;h={1\over2}$
$NS_2$ $ 2D D_c$ $q=0;h={1\over4}$
$NS_0$ is the graviton orbit and the other two orbits are massive. The S-matrix for this model is derived to be $$S={1\over2}\pmatrix{1&1&2\cr 1&1&-2\cr 1&-1&0}$$ $D_0=1$, $D_1=1$ and $D_2=2$.
In order to resolve the fixed point ambiguity, we need to split the $D_2$ as the sum of squares. $D_2$ can be written as $1+1$ leading to a resolution of $S$ as a $4\times4$ matrix. The resolved S-matrix is given by $$\widetilde{S}={1\over2}\pmatrix{1&1&1&1\cr1&1&-1&-1\cr1&-1&-1&1\cr1&-1&1&-1}$$ This resolved S-matrix is the S-matrix for the SO$(4)$ level $k=1$ Wess-Zumino-Witten model which is again consistent with the symmetry associated with the spacetime torus corresponding to this Gepner model. As one can see, $\widetilde{S}$ is symmetric and squares to the identity matrix.
Now, one can apply Cardy’s procedure using the resolved S-matrix. Let $|0\rangle\rangle_A$, $|1\rangle\rangle_A$ $|2^+\rangle\rangle_A$, $|2^-\rangle\rangle_A$ be the Ishibashi states associated with the characters $X_0,X_1,X_{2,\pm}$ which satisfy A-type boundary conditions. Then Cardy’s formula leads to the following four boundary states: $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde{0}\rangle &=& 2^{-1/2} \left (|0\rangle\rangle_A +
|1\rangle\rangle_A+
|2^+\rangle\rangle_A + |2^-\rangle\rangle_A \right)\\
|\tilde{1}\rangle &=& 2^{-1/2} \left (|0\rangle\rangle_A
+|1\rangle\rangle_A -
|2^+\rangle\rangle_A - |2^-\rangle\rangle_A \right)\\
|\tilde{2}\rangle &=& 2^{-1/2} \left (|0\rangle\rangle_A
-|1\rangle\rangle_A -
|2^+\rangle\rangle_A + |2^-\rangle\rangle_A \right) \\
|\tilde{3}\rangle &=& 2^{-1/2} \left (|0\rangle\rangle_A
-|1\rangle\rangle_A +
|2^+\rangle\rangle_A - |2^-\rangle\rangle_A \right)\end{aligned}$$ We thus obtain four boundary states. These four states are related to each other by an $S_2\times Z_2$ subgroup of the discrete symmetry group. The $Z_2$ is the same one which gave different one-cycles in the LG description. The boundary state $|\tilde{0}\rangle$ can be identified with the boundary condition corresponding to $A={\rm Diag}(1,i,1)$. We relegate to the appendix the detailed discussion as to how the other choice for $A$ is ruled out.
We will now compare with the results of Gutperle and Satoh (GS) for the $2^2$ model obtained by using the method of Recknagel and Schomerus. One can show that $NS_0 = \theta_3(\tau)[\theta_3^2(\tau) +
\theta_4^2(\tau)]/\eta(\tau)$ and $NS_1 = \theta_3(\tau)[\theta_3^2(\tau)
- \theta_4^2(\tau)]/\eta(\tau)$. (Here $\eta$ is the Dedekind eta function and $\theta_i$ are the standard theta functions.) The annulus amplitude ${\cal A}_{\alpha\alpha}= X_0$ which can be seen to be equal to partition function for $(l_1',l_2')=(0,0)$ in the notation of GS (upto factors of $\eta$). The boundary state $|\tilde{0}\rangle + |\tilde{1}\rangle$ gives rise to the annulus amplitude $(2X_0 + 2X_1)$ which is equal to the GS calculation for $(l_1',l_2')=(1,1)$. Interestingly, there does not seem to be a consistent boundary state which can give rise to the $(l_1',l_2')=(1,0)$. For example, there is a state given by the combination of Ishibashi states $|0\rangle\rangle_A + |1\rangle\rangle_A$ which cannot be written as an integer sum of the four boundary states we have constructed. This state gives the annulus amplitude for $(l_1',l_2')=(1,0)$ but is ruled out by its incompatibility with eqn. (\[consist\]).
The $1^6$ Gepner model
----------------------
In order to illustrate the increase in the degree of complexity, we consider the simplest non-toroidal model: the $1^6$ Gepner model. This corresponds to one of the orbifold points in K3 moduli space. The notation for the $k=1$ characters are as in the $1^3$ model.
Label Orbit Multiplicity
-------- -------------------------------------- --------------
$NS_0$ $A^6 +B^6 + B_c^6$ 1
$NS_1$ $A^3 B^3 + B^3 B_c^3 + B_c^3 A^3$ 20
$NS_2$ $3A^2 B^2 B_c^2 $ 30
$NS_3$ $A^4 B B_c + A B^4 B_c + A B B_c^4$ 30
$NS_0$ corresponds to the graviton orbit, $NS_1$ is a massless orbit and $NS_2$, $NS_3$ are massive orbits. In the above table, by multiplicity we mean the number of distinct orbits which occur if we keep track of the minimal model labels.
The S-matrix is calculated from the S-matrix of the minimal model to be $$S={1\over{9}}\pmatrix{1&20&30&30\cr1&-7&3&3\cr1&2&3&-6\cr1&2&-6&3}$$ $D_0=1$, $D_1=20$, $D_2=30$ and $D_3=30$. The resolved S-matrix is expected to be an $81\times 81$ matrix which increases the complexity of the operation. However, in this example, if one keeps track of the minimal model labels, one should in principle be able to directly compute the resolved S-matrix. This is because we find that the multiplicity is equal to the $D_i$ associated with the orbit. This is not generically true. This model is presumably tractable if one uses a computer program to automate the process.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
In this paper, we have studied D-branes wrapped around supersymmetric cycles using boundary LG as well as boundary CFT formulations. The LG formulation is suitable for understanding the boundary conditions from the target space viewpoint while the boundary CFT formulation provides the corresponding boundary state. The common discrete symmetry group associated with both the LG orbifold and the corresponding Gepner model has been a useful tool in relating boundary conditions to boundary states. It also suggests that the boundary states constructed by Recknagel and Schomerus by tensoring boundary states for the individual minimal models may be further classified by means of charges associated with the discrete symmetry group. In our method, this is also seen through the resolution of the S-matrix of the Gepner model.
Clearly it is important to extend the program of studying closed string vacua for Calabi-Yau compactifications involving the use of LG models and the general structure of N=2 superconformal theories to the case of D-brane states. In relation to the approach to this problem that we have adopted in this paper the following points are worth noting:
i\) We need to extend the use of the Landau-Ginzburg model techniques so that more relevant information can be extracted. As has been noted by other authors, this may involve the extension of the methods of the $N=2$ topological field theory techniques to the case of boundary $N=2$ SCFTs. In particular, index calculations of various kinds may be performed in the LG model using purely free-field techniques by extension of similar techniques used in the closed string case [@wittenindex]. For example, it would be useful to compute the Tr$(-1)^F$ in the Ramond sector of the open string by such techniques and compare them to the calculations of ref. [@quintic].
ii\) It is clear that some information on the boundary states can be obtained even if they will not approach the level of detail that is characteristic of the flat space case. In this connection, as we have emphasised earlier, our construction of boundary states in the case of the Gepner models uses a modular transformation matrix that acts on the conformal blocks that are basically spectral flow invariant orbits. Clearly this construction carries a lesser amount of detail than the boundary state construction of ref. [@reck] but could well make more transparent the connection between the boundary states in the tensor product of minimal models and the boundary states in the LG approach.
iii\) The construction that we have used here for the boundary states seems a priori difficult to extend to the case of K3 and Calabi-Yau three-fold compactifications. In particular the fixed point resolution would appear to be hopelessly complicated even in the simplest cases. But since the resolution would involve presumably no more than the use of the full symmetry of the model it might be possible to solve the problem by computer techniques. In such a situation, the results presented for the $T^2$ in this paper would be extendable to the case of compactifications like the quintic Calabi-Yau. The diagonal partition functions (that is between identical branes) in the cylinder channel and hence in the annulus channel are however known even despite the fixed point resolution even in the complicated cases by our construction. Its extension to non-diagonal cases by our methods would be of considerable interest.
iv\) It is of interest to see whether the LG-CY correspondence shown by Witten by making use of linear sigma models will go through for the case of linear sigma models with boundary[@jlos]. In this paper, we introduced a generalised boundary condition parametrised by two matrices $A$ and $B$ for A-type and B-type boundary conditions respectively. It will be useful to examine these matrices in the context of the linear sigma model.
[**Acknowledgments**]{} We thank M. Blau, J. Majumdar, K. Paranjpe, A. Sen, K. Srinivas and S. Wadia for useful discussions. T. Sarkar would like to thank the Abdus Salam ICTP, Trieste for its hospitality, where part of this work was completed. T. Jayaraman would like to thank the Abdus Salam ICTP, Trieste for hospitality at the Extended Workshop on String Theory during the course of which this paper was finalised.
Discrete symmetries and the $2^2$ boundary states
=================================================
In this appendix, we will discuss how the discrete symmetries of the $2^2$ model enables us to understand the resolution of the S-matrix and make connection with the choice of boundary condition in the $2^2$ LG model.
The character $D$ is associated with the LG field $\phi$. We will thus use $\phi_i$ to represent the corresponding chiral primary in the $i$-th minimal model. Thus the character $B$ is associated with $\phi^2$. The part of the Ishibashi state involving only the chiral primaries associated with $DD_c$ will look something like $$|2^\pm\rangle\rangle = (\phi_1 \bar{\phi}_2 \pm \phi_2 \bar{\phi}_1)|0\rangle
+ \cdots\quad,$$ where there is a sign ambiguity in the definition if we require that it be an eigenstate of the permutation group $S_2$. Both states will be associated with the same character $NS_2 = 2 D D_c$. The resolution of the S-matrix distinguishes between these two boundary states. Under $S_2$, we have that $|2^\pm \rangle \rangle\rightarrow \pm
|2^\pm\rangle\rangle$. The Ishibashi state associated with $NS_0$ remains invariant under this $S_2$. However, for the character associated with $NS_1$, there are two possible Ishibashi states $$|1^\pm\rangle\rangle = (\phi_1^2 \bar{\phi}_2^2 \pm \phi_2^2
\bar{\phi}_1^2)|0\rangle
+ \cdots\quad,$$ where $\pm$ denotes the $S_2$ eigenvalue. Requiring that $S_2$ relate the boundary state $|\tilde{0}\rangle$ to either $|\tilde{2}\rangle$ or $|\tilde{3}\rangle$ picks the minus sign. Thus, we get under this $S_2$ $|\tilde{0}\rangle \leftrightarrow |\tilde{3}\rangle$ and $|\tilde{1}\rangle \leftrightarrow |\tilde{2}\rangle$.
There is another $Z_2$ subgroup of the discrete symmetry group generated by $\phi_1\rightarrow i \phi_1$ and $\phi_2\rightarrow -i \phi_2$ (This corresponds to $a=1$,$b=3$ using the notation given in the examples section for the $2^2$ model.) One can check that under this $Z_2$, $|2^\pm
\rangle \rangle\rightarrow - |2^\pm\rangle\rangle$. One can also see that the states associated with $NS_0$ and $NS_1$ remain invariant under this $Z_2$. Under the action of this $Z_2$ one has $|\tilde{0}\rangle
\leftrightarrow |\tilde{1}\rangle$ and $|\tilde{2}\rangle \leftrightarrow
|\tilde{3}\rangle$
In order to translate this picture into the LG language let us summarise the effect of the two discrete groups on the LG fields. Under the $S_2$, $\phi_1\leftrightarrow\phi_2$ and under the $Z_2$, $\phi_1\rightarrow
i\phi_1$ and $\phi_2\rightarrow -i \phi_2$. We had discovered two different boundary conditions in the LG model given by $A={\rm
Diag}(1,i,1)$ and $A_2={\rm Diag}(1,1,-1)$. Under the $S_2\times Z_2$, $A$ gives rise to four different boundary conditions, while the $A_2$ boundary condition is invariant under $S_2$. Thus the Gepner model construction seems to choose the boundary condition specified by $A$.
[99]{} J. Polchinski, “Dirichlet-branes and Ramond-Ramond charges,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} (1995) 4724 = [hep-th/9510017]{}. K. Becker, M. Becker and A. Strominger, “Fivebranes, membranes and nonperturbative string theory, Nucl. Phys. [**B 456**]{} (1995) 130 =[hep-th/9507158]{}. M. Bershadsky, V. Sadov and C. Vafa, “D-Strings on D-Manifolds,” Nucl. Phys. [**B463**]{} (1996) 398-414 = [hep-th/9510225]{}. M. Bershadsky, V. Sadov and C. Vafa, “D-Branes and Topological Field Theories,” Nucl. Phys. [**B463**]{} (1996) 420-434 = [hep-th/9511222]{}. H. Ooguri, Y. Oz and Z. Yin, “D-Branes on Calabi-Yau spaces and their mirrors,” Nucl.Phys. [**B477**]{} (1996) 407 =[hep-th/9606112]{}. J. L. Cardy, “Boundary conditions, fusion rules and the Verlinde formula," Nucl. Phys. [**B 324**]{} (1989) 581. A. Recknagel and V. Schomerus, “D-branes in Gepner models," Nucl. Phys. [**B531**]{} (1998) 185 =[hep-th/9712186]{}. D. Gepner, “Lectures on $N=2$ string theory,” [*High Energy Physics and Cosmology: proceedings*]{} Ed. J.C. Pati, S. Randjbar-Daemi, E. Sezgin, Q. Shafi. World Scientific, 1990 and references therein. D. Gepner, “Space-time supersymmetry in compactified string theory and superconformal models," Nucl. Phys. [**B296**]{} (1988) 757; “Exactly solvable string compactifications on manifolds of $SU(N)$ holonomy,” Phys. Lett. [**B199**]{} (1987) 380. M. Gutperle, Y. Satoh, “D-branes in Gepner models and supersymmetry," Nucl. Phys. [**B543**]{} (1999) 73 =[hep-th/9808080]{}. J. Fuchs and C. Schweigert, “Branes: from free fields to general backgrounds,” Nucl. Phys. [**B530**]{} (1998) 99 = [hep-th/9712257]{}. A. Recknagel and V. Schomerus “Boundary deformation theory and moduli spaces of D-branes," Nucl. Phys. [**B545**]{} (1999) 233 = [hep-th/9811237]{}. S. Stanciu, “D-branes in Kazami-Suzuki models,” Nucl. Phys. [**B526**]{} (1998) 295-310 = [hep-th/9708166]{}. S. Stanciu and A. Tseytlin, “D-branes in curved spacetime: Nappi-Witten background,” JHEP [**9806**]{} (1998) 010. M. Kato and T. Okada, “D-Branes on group manifolds,” Nucl. Phys. [**B499**]{} (1997) 583-595 = [hep-th/9612148]{}. I. Brunner, M. R. Douglas, A. Lawrence and C. Römelsberger, “D-branes on the quintic,” [hep-th/9906200]{}. M. Bianchi and A. Sagnotti, “On the systematics of open string theories,” Phys. Lett. [**B247**]{} (1990) 517. M. Bianchi and A. Sagnotti, “Twist symmetry and open string Wilson lines,” Nucl. Phys. [**B361**]{} (1991) 519. M. Bianchi, G. Pradisi and A. Sagnotti, “Toroidal compactification and symmetry breaking in open string theories,” Nucl. Phys. [**B376**]{} (1992) 365. C. Angelantonj, M. Bianchi, G. Pradisi, A. Sagnotti and Y.S. Stanev, “Comments on Gepner models and type I vacua in string theory,” Phys. Lett. [**B387**]{} (1996)743 = [hep-th/9607229]{} and references therein. N. P. Warner, “$N=2$ supersymmetric integrable models and Topological field theories,” [hep-th/9301088]{}, [*High Energy Physics and Cosmology 1992: proceedings*]{} Ed. E. Gava et al., World Scientific (1993). N. Ishibashi, “The boundary and crosscap states in conformal field theories,” Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A4**]{} (1989) 251. R. E. Behrend, P. A. Pearce, V. A. Petkova and J.-B. Zuber, “On the classification of bulk and boundary conformal field theories,” [hep-th/9809097]{}. J. Fuchs and C. Schweigert, “Symmetry breaking boundaries I. General theory,” [hep-th/9902132]{}. J. Fuchs and C. Schweigert, “Completeness of boundary conditions for the critical three-state Potts model,” Phys. Lett. [**B441**]{} (1998) 141 =[hep-th/9806121]{}. J. Fuchs, A. N. Schellekens and C. Schweigert “A matrix $S$ for all simple current extensions,” [hep-th/9601078]{}. E. Witten, “On the Landau-Ginzburg description of $N=2$ minimal models,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A9**]{} (1994) 4783 = [hep-th/9304026]{}. T. Eguchi, H. Ooguri, A. Taormina, S. K Yang, “Superconformal algebras and string compactification on manifolds with $SU(n)$ holonomy,” Nucl. Phys. [**B 315**]{} (1989) 193. J. Distler and B. Greene, “Some exact results on the superpotential from Calabi-Yau compactifications,” Nucl. Phys. [**B309**]{} (1988) 295. B.R. Greene, C. Vafa and N.P. Warner, “Calabi-Yau manifolds and renormalization group flows,” Nucl. Phys. [**B324**]{} (1989) 371 E. Witten, “Phases of $N=2$ theories in two dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. [**B403**]{} (1993) 159 = [hep-th/9301042]{}. C. Vafa, “String vacua and orbifoldized L.-G. models,” Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A4**]{} (1989) 1169. K. Intriligator and C. Vafa, “Landau-Ginzburg orbifolds,” Nucl. Phys. [**B339**]{} (1990) 95-120. N. P. Warner, “Supersymmetry in boundary integrable models,” Nucl. Phys. [**B450**]{} (1995) 663 = [hep-th/9506064]{}. S. Kachru and E. Witten, “Computing the complete massless spectrum of a Landau-Ginzburg orbifold,” Nucl. Phys. [**B407**]{} (1993) 637-666 = [hep-th/9307038]{}. D. Ghoshal and S. Mukhi, “ Topological Landau-Ginzburg model of two-dimensional string theory,” Nucl. Phys. [**B425**]{} (1994) 173 = [hep-th/9312189]{}. D. Ghoshal and C. Vafa, “c=1 String as the Topological Theory of the Conifold,” Nucl. Phys. [**B453**]{} (1995) 121 = [hep-th/9506122]{}. N. Hitchin, “Lectures on Special Lagrangian Submanifolds,” [math/9907034]{}. N. Hitchin, “The moduli space of special Lagrangian submanifolds,” [dg-ga/9711002]{}. M. B. Stenzel, “Ricci-Flat metrics on the complexification of a compact rank one symmetric space,” Manuscripta Math. [**80**]{} (1993) 151-163. T. Jayaraman, A. Lawrence, H. Ooguri, T. Sarkar (unpublished). S. Govindarajan, T. Jayaraman and T. Sarkar (work in progress).
[^1]: Email: [email protected]
[^2]: Email: jayaram,[email protected]
[^3]: We denote left-movers by the subscript $+$ and right-movers by the subscript $-$.
[^4]: The dictionary which relates Warner’s notation to ours is as follows: $ \lambda_1 = \psi_{+i},\ \lambda_2 = \psi_{-i},\
\overline{\lambda}_1 = \overline{\psi}_{-i},\
\overline{\lambda}_2 = \overline{\psi}_{+i},\
\alpha_1 = \overline{\epsilon}_-,\
\alpha_2 = \overline{\epsilon}_+,\
\overline{\alpha}_1 = \epsilon_+,\
\overline{\alpha}_2 = \epsilon_- $.
[^5]: One can also choose $\epsilon_+=-\overline{\epsilon}_-$ here.
[^6]: Since $J_+=-J_-$ for A-type boundary conditions, we are not permitted to set $\psi_{+i}+\psi_{-i}=0$ on the boundary. Thus one has to choose $(\psi_{+i}-\overline{\psi}_{-i}) =0$ on the boundary.
[^7]: We will nevertheless refer to this as real submanifold.
[^8]: $S_3$ is the permutation group with three elements (here it permutes the three fields), the three $Z_3$’s are generated by the action $\phi^i
\rightarrow \omega
\phi_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$). ($\omega$ is a non-trivial cube root of unity.) The quotient $Z_3$ is the diagonal $Z_3$.
[^9]: This condition comes from requiring that the discrete symmetry generator commute with the supersymmetry generator.
[^10]: The multiplicity of two associated with $NS_1$ again is related to the fact that if we kept track of the minimal model labels, there are two distinct spectral flow invariant orbits given by the even permutation $NS_{1} =(A_1 B_2 B_{c3}
+ B_1 B_{c2} A_3 + B_{c1} A_2 B_3)$ and the odd permutation $NS_{1}^c=(B_1
A_2 B_{c3} + B_{c1} B_2 A_3+ A_1 B_{c2} B_3)$. This actually completely resolves the S-matrix here. In more complicated situations, this will enable us to partially resolve the S-matrix.
[^11]: The other choice of boundary condition given by $A_1={\rm Diag}(1,1,\exp[i2\pi/3])$ is ruled out because the equation for the one-cycle is clearly not invariant under the $2\leftrightarrow3$ exchange.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyzed 2 ultra-carbonaceous interplanetary dust particles and 2 cometary Wild 2 particles with infrared spectroscopy. We characterized the carrier of the 3.4 $\mu$m band in these samples and compared its profile and the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratios to the 3.4 $\mu$m band in the diffuse interstellar medium (DISM), in the insoluble organic matter (IOM) from 3 primitive meteorites, in asteroid 24 Themis and in the coma of comet 103P/Hartley 2. We found that the 3.4 $\mu$m band in both Wild 2 and IDPs is similar, but different from all the other astrophysical environments that we compared to. The 3.4 $\mu$m band in IDPs and Wild 2 particles is dominated by CH$_{2}$ groups, the peaks are narrower and stronger than in the meteorites, asteroid Themis, and the DISM. Also, the presence of the carbonyl group C=O at $\sim$1700 cm$^{-1}$ (5.8 $\mu$m) in most of the spectra of our samples, indicates that these aliphatic chains have O bonded to them, which is quite different from astronomical spectra of the DISM. Based on all these observations we conclude that the origin of the carrier of the 3.4 $\mu$m band in IDPs and Wild 2 samples is not interstellar, instead, we suggest that the origin lies in the outermost parts of the solar nebula.'
author:
- 'G. Matrajt'
- 'G. Flynn'
- 'D. Brownlee'
- 'D. Joswiak'
- 'S. Bajt'
bibliography:
- 'FTIR2.bib'
title: 'The origin of the 3.4 $\mu $m feature in Wild 2 cometary particles and in ultracarbonaceous interplanetary dust particles'
---
Aim of paper
============
In this work we performed a coordinated study of cometary and interplanetary particles. We first used an electron microscope to locate the carbonaceous materials in the samples and determine their morphological aspects. We then performed *in situ* infrared spectroscopy directly on the carbonaceous materials to investigate their 3.4 $\mu$m band and the presence of other organic-related peaks (carbonyl, aromatics, etc). Finally we compared the 3.4 $\mu$m feature of our samples to the 3.4 $\mu$m feature of other astrophysical environments.
Introduction
============
The NASA Stardust spacecraft returned particles collected from the coma of comet 81P/ Wild 2 (hereafter Wild 2). Hundreds of cometary particles ranging from 1 $\mu$m to 100 $\mu$m in size were collected by impact into aerogel with an encounter velocity of 6.1 km/s [@brownlee2006]. The examination of these samples has provided many unexpected findings, including the presence of refractory minerals [@simon2008], the presence of chondrule-like objects [@nakamura2008] and low abundance of presolar grains [@stadermann2008]. Indigenous organic materials are also observed in Wild 2 samples [@sandford2006; @matrajt2008; @cody2008; @cody2011; @gallien2008; @wirick2009; @degregorio2010; @degregorio2011; @clemett2010; @nakamura-messenger2011]. The abundance of organic matter in the Wild 2 samples was lower than expected because the most of the submicron material was destroyed upon capture [@brownlee2006]. Coordinated analyses of organic material have shown that the organic material in the Wild 2 particles is very diverse in its morphology, isotopic and chemical composition, abundance, spatial distribution and complexity [@matrajt2008; @degregorio2010; @degregorio2011; @nakamura-messenger2011]. Infrared spectroscopy [@sandford2006; @keller2006; @munozcaro2008; @bajt2009] has shown that aliphatics are present in most tracks and particles. In some cases, the aliphatic molecules are indistinguishable from the organics intrinsic to aerogel [@munozcaro2008]. But in most cases the organics are very different from the compounds found in aerogel, which is mainly dominated by CH$_{3}$ groups [@bajt2009].
Interplanetary dust particles (IDPs) are materials collected in the Earth’s stratosphere usually considered to be among the most primitive samples of the solar system [@brownlee1976; @sandford1987]. Most IDPs are very carbon-rich, having in average 10-12 wt${\%}$ C content [@schramm1989]. The carbonaceous materials in these IDPs are made of organic molecules [@thomas1993; @flynn2003], including aromatic and aliphatic compounds [@clemett1993; @keller2004]. These carbonaceous phases often have H and N isotopic anomalies [@messenger2000; @aleon2003; @keller2004] proving that they are indigenous and suggesting that they formed through low-temperature chemical reactions [@messenger2000; @keller2004; @floss2006] in a presolar cold molecular cloud or at the edges of the protoplanetary disk.
In the present study we analyzed with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy two IDPs and two Wild 2 samples that have been previously characterized by other analytical [@matrajt2008; @matrajt2012]. These past studies revealed that all of these samples have carbonaceous materials with $^{15}$N and D excesses and it was suggested that this is primitive organic matter that has changed little or not at all since the formation of the Solar System [@flynn2003; @keller2004; @matrajt2008; @matrajt2012; @matrajt2013]. However, owing to their small size, the nature of these phases has been poorly constrained. In this work we characterized these organic materials with FTIR to determine 1) the nature of the organics; 2) the characteristics of the 3.4 $\mu$m band and 3) the origin of these carbonaceous materials (solar $\textit{vs}$ interstellar).
Samples
=======
In this study we worked with two IDPs, that we nicknamed Chocha and GS and two fragments from two Stardust tracks that we nicknamed Febo and Ada.
GS
--
Particle GS (curatorial name L2055-R-1,2,3,4,5 cluster ${\#}$7) is a “Grigg-Skjellerup timed-collection” IDP. Calculations [@messenger2002] predicted that 1 to 50${\%}$ of the total flux of IDPs $>$40 $\mu$m in diameter collected after Earth passed through comet 26P/Grigg-Skjellerup’s dust stream in April 2003 would originate from this comet. A dedicated collection of this dust stream was organized by NASA known as “Grigg-Skjellerup collection”. Our sample is an ultra-carbonaceous particle made of $>$ 90 ${\%}$ carbon, anhydrous minerals (mainly olivines and diopside) and Fe-Mg carbonates. Previous studies of the carbonaceous materials of this particle showed that it is composed of several carbonaceous textures which have N isotopic anomalies [@matrajt2012].
CHOCHA
------
Particle Chocha is an IDP from collector flag W7154. It is an anhydrous ultra-carbonaceous particle made of $>$ 95${\%}$ carbon. It also contains anhydrous minerals, mainly olivine, pyroxene (diopside) and Fe-Ni sulfides (pyrrhotite and pentlandite). Previous studies of the cabonaceous materials of this particle showed that it is composed of several carbonaceous textures which all have N isotopic anomalies [@matrajt2012].
FEBO
----
Particle Febo is fragment ${\#}$ 2 from Stardust track ${\#}$ 57. The particle is made mainly of pyrrhotite and fine-grained material and also contains small silicates. Previous studies of the carbonaceous materials, found in the periphery of the pyrrhotite and between the small fine grains, showed that they have several textures and N and H isotopic anomalies [@matrajt2008].
ADA
---
Particle Ada is fragment ${\#}$ 2 from Stardust track ${\#}$ 26. The particle is made mainly of tridymite and fayalite. Previous studies of the carbonaceous materials, found in the periphery of the particle, showed that they have several textures and N and H isotopic anomalies (Matrajt et al 2008).
Methoods
========
Sample preparation
------------------
The Wild 2 particles were received from NASA inside aerogel chips, also known as keystones. The entire aerogel chips and the IDPs were embedded in acrylic, then cut with a diamond knife to a thickness of less than 50 nm to make it transparent to the electron beam. Acrylic was then dissolved out from the cut sections with chloroform vapors, following the methodology developed by @matrajt2006.
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)
--------------------------------------
All microtome slices were studied with a 200 keV Tecnai field-emission electron microscope in transmission mode. We used a CCD Orius camera to study the morphologies and textures of the carbonaceous materials. We also used a Gatan Imaging Filter (GIF) detector to acquire carbon maps.
Fourier Transform Infra Red (FTIR) spectroscopy {#bozomath}
-----------------------------------------------
Fourier transformed Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy is a technique often used for the $\textit{in situ}$ identification of organic functional groups. The mid infrared spectral region, from 650 to 4000 cm$^{-1}$, shows unique absorption features characteristic of organic materials. We used the infrared microscope located on beamline U2B of the National Synchrotron Light source at Brookhaven National Laboratory to study samples Febo, GS and Chocha. Spectra were obtained over a range of 4000 to 650 cm$^{-1}$ and with an energy resolution of 4 cm$^{-1}$ and a spatial resolution of 3-5 $\mu$m, using a Thermo-Nicolet Continuum FTIR bench (KBr beamsplitter) in transmission mode, and a MCT-A detector. Sample Ada was analyzed at the Advanced Light Source (ALS) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, using a Thermo-Nicolet Magna 760 FTIR bench (KBr beamsplitter) and a SpectraTech Nic-Plan IR microscope in reflectance mode, and an MCT-A detector. The preliminary IR data of Ada was published in a conference abstract [@wopenka2008].
Results
=======
Table \[table1\] shows the peak assignments for all the peak positions found in all four samples and it also shows which assignments were found for each of the samples studied. Table \[table2\] shows the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratios. Ratios were calculated using the optical depth of the CH$_{3}$ peak at $\sim$ 2956 cm$^{-1}$ and the optical depth of the CH$_{2}$ peak at $\sim$ 2926 cm$^{-1}$ [@sandford1991]. We made a baseline correction by fitting the baseline with a straight line across the range from 3100 cm$^{-1}$ to 2800 cm$^{-1}$. Table \[table3\] shows a comparison of peaks from the 3.4 $\mu$m region and the C=O peak between our samples and other objects (DISM, comet 103P/Hartley, Murchison IOM, Orgueil IOM, Tagish Lake, asteroid 24 Themis).
The IR peak assignments and interpretations were done based on former IR studies of IDPs [@keller2004; @matrajt2005; @munozcaro2006] and the Tagish Lake meteorite [@matrajt2004] and are as follows: 3255 cm$^{-1}$ is the OH stretch in water, carboxylic acids or alcohols. 2990 cm$^{-1}$ is a =C-H stretching 2950-2956 cm$^{-1}$ is the CH$_{3}$ asymmetric stretching in aliphatic hydrocarbons. 2918-2920 cm$^{-1}$ is the CH$_{2}$ asymmetric stretching in hydrocarbons. 2896 and 2860-2870 cm$^{-1}$ are the CH$_{3}$ symmetric stretchings in hydrocarbons. 2845-2855 cm$^{-1}$ is the CH$_{2}$ symmetric stretching in aliphatic hydrocarbons. 2160 cm$^{-1}$ is a C=C stretching vibration in alkenes. 1740 cm$^{-1}$ is the carbonyl (C=O) in esters. 1730, 1714-1717 and 1700 cm$^{-1}$ are C=O stretching in ketone and carboxylic acids. 1685 cm$^{-1}$ is the H-O-H stretching in water. 1480 and 1447 cm$^{-1}$ are CH$_{3}$ and CH$_{2}$ bending vibrations, respectively. 1435 cm$^{-1}$ is C=C stretching in aromatics. 1386 cm$^{-1}$ is the CH$_{3}$ symmetric bending. 1270 and 1240 cm$^{-1}$ are C-O-C vibrations in esters. 1190 and 1147 cm$^{-1}$ are unknown. 1065 cm$^{-1}$ is a C-OH vibration in secondary cyclic alcohol. 987, 970 and 910 cm$^{-1}$ are CH=CH bending vibrations. Absorption at 1650-1654 cm$^{-1}$ is the C=C stretching in aromatics. 1448 cm$^{-1}$ is the CH$_{2}$ bending in aliphatics or the CO$^{3-}$ in carbonates. 1418 cm$^{-1}$ is the C=C stretching in aromatics. 1350 cm$^{-1}$ is the CH$_{3}$ bending in aliphatic hydrocarbons. 1220 cm$^{-1}$ is the CH$_{2}$ wagging mode. 1160 cm$^{-1}$ is CH$_{2}$ twisting mode. 1216, 1136 and 1106 cm$^{-1}$ are Si-O stretching in silicates. 1070, 1060 and 952 cm$^{-1}$ are the Si-O stretching in pyroxenes. 930 cm$^{-1}$ is the Si-O stretching in silicates and 887 cm$^{-1}$ is Si-O stretching in olivine.
IDP GS
------
### TEM
Energy filtered transmission electron microscopy (EFTEM) carbon maps revealed that most of the microtomed area of the particle is made of carbonaceous material (Figure \[GS-TEM\]). The bright field (BF) images of the different carbonaceous areas revealed several types of morphologies: spongy, globular, smooth, dirty and vesicular. These morphologies, previously described in adjacent sections of this same IDP and other IDPs [@matrajt2012] can be described as follows (Figure \[GS-composite\]): vesicular morphology is characterized by having small vesicles or voids found in a C-rich smooth material. Usually the voids are smaller than the section thickness ($\sim$50-70 nm). Globular morphology is characterized by round-shaped structures that may be hollow or filled. Dirty morphology is characterized by a carbonaceous material that has mineral grains (typically sulfides) embedded in it. Spongy morphology is characterized by a lace mesh-like material. Smooth morphology is characterized by a shapeless and textureless material.
### IR
Figure \[GS-absorbance\] shows a FTIR spectrum of the entire particle. Peaks are observed at 3255, 2951, 2920, 2896, 2870, 2845 and 1070 cm$^{-1}$. Also, a broad band from 1545 to 1455 cm$^{-1}$ is observed. From the peak assignments we deduced that this particle contains water bonded to its structure, probably to carbonates. It also contains organics that correspond to aliphatic hydrocarbon chains containing symmetric and assymetric stretchings and silicates. The broad band from 1545 and 1455 cm$^{-1}$ corresponds to carbonates. Figure \[GS-absorbance-zoom\] shows the aliphatic stretching peak area (3000-2800 cm$^{-1}$) zoomed. The CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ band depth ratio found was 1.0 (Table \[table2\]).
IDP Chocha
----------
### TEM
EFTEM carbon maps revealed that $>$ 95$\%$ of the microtomed area of the particle is made of carbonaceous material (Figure \[Chocha-TEM\]). The bright field (BF) images of the different carbonaceous areas revealed several types of morphologies (Figure \[Chocha-composite\]): spongy , vesicular, smooth, globular, and dirty. These morphologies were previously described in adjacent sections of this same IDP and other IDPs [@matrajt2012].
### IR
Figure \[Chocha-absorbance\] shows a FTIR spectrum of the entire particle. Peaks are observed at 2956, 2920, 2847, 1740, 1654, 1448, 1350, 1220 and 1160 cm$^{-1}$. There is also a broad band centered at 3270 cm$^{-1}$. From the peak assignments (Table \[table1\]) we deduced that this particle contains aliphatic hydrocarbon chains containing symmetric and assymetric stretchings. The organic material also contains carbonyl, probably in the form of esters, and either olefinic or aromatic C=C molecules. The particle also has silicates. The broad band is the OH stretch in water. The CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratio found was 4.6 (Table \[table2\]).
Wild 2 Febo
-----------
### TEM
EFTEM carbon maps of the microtomed section revealed several small areas that are carbon-rich (Figure \[Febo-TEM\]). The BF images of the different carbonaceous areas reveal several types of morphologies (Figure \[Febo-composite\]): dirty , vesicular and smooth. The dirty and vesicular morphologies were previously described in adjacent sections of this same particle [@matrajt2008] and are identical to morphologies identified in IDPs [@matrajt2012].
### IR
Figure \[Febo-absorbance\] shows two FTIR spectra from two areas of the particle. The left one was acquired primarily on top of the sulfide area (black area of the particle in figure \[Febo-TEM\]). The right spectrum was primarily acquired from the fine-grained area of the particle (arrow in Figure \[Febo-TEM\]), which is the area where all the C-rich materials were observed. Peaks in the left spectrum are observed at 2954, 2920, 2855, 1730, 1717, 1700, 1685 and 1650 cm$^{-1}$. There is also a broad band between 1070 and 957 cm$^{-1}$ centered at 1010 cm$^{-1}$. The peak assignments indicate that this portion of the particle contains hydrocarbons with aliphatic chains, carbonyl in ketones and carboxylic acids and water bonded to the structure of the organic molecules. There is also some evidence of aromatic or olefinic C=C molecular bonds. The broad band is the Si-O stretch in silicates.
The peaks in the right spectrum are observed at 2950, 2920, 2860, 1730, 1060, 952, 930 and 887 cm$^{-1}$. The peak assignments indicate that this side of the particle has aliphatic hydrocarbon chains and carbonyl in ketones and carboxylic acids. There is also evidence of olivines and pyroxenes. The CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ band depth ratio was 1.96 (Table \[table2\]).
Wild 2 Ada
----------
### TEM
EFTEM carbon maps of microtomed sections revealed several small areas that are carbon-rich (Figure \[Ada-TEM\]). The BF images of the different carbonaceous areas reveal two types of morphologies: globular and smooth. These morphologies were previously described in adjacent sections of this same particle [@matrajt2008] and are identical to morphologies identified in IDPs [@matrajt2012].
### IR
Figure \[Ada-absorbance\] shows two FTIR spectra of two different microtomed sections. Peaks are observed at 2954, 2918, 2847, 2160, 1714, 1418, 1216, 1136 and 1106 cm$^{-1}$. Peak assignments (Table \[table1\]) indicate that this particle contains chains of aliphatic hydrocarbons, some of which have C=C groups attached to them. There is also evidence of carbonyl in ketone and carboxylic acids and either olefinic or aromatic C=C bonds. Olivines are the main silicate present in this sample. The CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ band depth ratio was 4.3 (Table \[table2\]).
Acrylic
-------
Although the acrylic embedding medium we used for our samples was removed from sections using chloroform vapors, we measured a piece of acrylic with FTIR under the same experimental conditions used for our samples to have a reference spectrum and ensure that the interpretations of the organics in the samples are not biased by the organics found in acrylic. Figure \[Acrylic-absorbance\] shows a FTIR spectrum of this acrylic. The peaks observed are at 2990, 2949, 1727, 1480, 1447, 1435, 1386, 1270, 1240, 1190, 1147, 1065, 987, 970 and 910 cm$^{-1}$. Peak assignments (Table \[table1\]) indicate that acrylic is composed of aliphatic hydrocarbons, ketones and carboxylic acids, aromatics and esters. There are also secondary cyclic alcohols. Figure \[comparison-absorbance\] shows a comparison of acrylic with IDP Chocha and Wild 2 particle Ada. The spectrum of acrylic is very different from the other two spectra. First, the peaks in the 3000 cm$^{-1}$ region are shifted in the acrylic toward higher values (2995 and 2950 cm$^{-1}$), while both in Chocha and Ada these peaks are in similar positions and shifted toward lower values (2917 and 2848 cm$^{-1}$). Acrylic has a C=C-H stretching that is absent in Ada and Chocha. Acrylic is dominated by CH$_{3}$ while Ada and Chocha are dominated by CH$_{2}$ groups (Table \[table1\]). Second, the relative heights of these peaks are very different in the acrylic spectrum. Third, Ada, Chocha and acrylic have a peak around 1700 cm$^{-1}$, but in the acrylic this peak is very narrow and strong comparing to the one found in our samples and its position is slightly shifted to lower values comparing to our samples. Additionally, sample GS lacks a peak at this position (Figure \[GS-absorbance\]), clearly indicating that the presence of this peak in our samples is not related to the acrylic embedding medium. Forth, all the peaks below 1500 cm$^{-1}$ in the acrylic spectrum are narrower and stronger (more intense) than in Chocha (and they are absent in Ada). Fifth, some peaks in the acrylic spectrum (in the 1000 cm$^{-1}$ region) are absent in our samples. In general, peaks in the acrylic spectrum are better defined (more net) and narrower and stronger than in the samples we studied. It is clear that the organic material measured in our samples is unambiguously indigenous to the particles and not a contamination from the acrylic embedding medium. The CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ band depth ratio could not be calculated because acrylic does not have a CH$_{2}$ peak at 2920 cm$^{-1}$.
Discussion
==========
The textures and morphologies of the carbonaceous materials we found in our samples are identical to the morphologies found in carbonaceous materials from carbonaceous chondrites [@garvie2004; @garvie2006; @nakamura-messenger2006], from interplanetary dust particles [@matrajt2012] and from other Wild 2 particles [@matrajt2008; @degregorio2010; @matrajt2013]. These carbonaceous materials are organic refractory molecules, given that they survive atmospheric entry or hypervelocity impact into aerogel [@matrajt2012; @matrajt2013]. Both IDPs and Wild 2 samples suffered from heating while being decelerated either in the stratosphere or aerogel. The effects of heating on the organics in these type of samples are poorly known. However, past studies have shown that pyrolyzed terrestrial kerogens tend to increase their CH$_{3}$/CH$_{2}$ ratios as well as their degree of aromatization [@ehrenfreund1991]. For example, under the effects of heating the Orgueil meteorite decreased its CH$_{3}$/CH$_{2}$ ratio. It was suggested that such a decrease means that the -CH$_{3}$ groups are engaged in thermally labile structures ($\textit{i.e.}$ bounded to N and/or O). This would cause a faster decomposition of CH$_{3}$ groups relative to the CH$_{2}$ groups and would change the CH$_{3}$/CH$_{2}$ ratios [@ehrenfreund1991]. It could also be due simply to the general loss of H from these materials during pyrolysis [@jones2012I]. This is, however, not the case for the samples analyzed in our study. Both IDPs and Wild 2 particles contain abundant O and N bonded to their organic materials [@flynn2003; @matrajt2005; @sandford2006; @matrajt2008; @degregorio2010; @matrajt2012; @matrajt2013] indicating that the CH$_{3}$ groups did not decompose by outgassing of thermally labile structures during deceleration. CH$_{3}$ groups are simply less abundant in IDPs and Wild 2 samples relative to other astrophysical environments. Therefore, we believe that the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratios discussed in the following sections reflect the primary composition of the organic molecules from the parent bodies of our samples.
In the following paragraphs we will discuss the characteristics of the 3.4 $\mu$m feature of this organic refractory material and we will compare this feature to the one observed in the interstellar medium, meteoritic material from carbonaceous chondrites (CCs), comet Hartley 2 and asteroid Themis. Because infrared spectroscopy is primarily a qualitative analytical technique, these comparisons will remain purely qualitative.
The meteoritic material that has been previously investigated with infrared spectroscopy consists of two different components. First, a general carbonaceous component of the meteorite, which consists of all the carbonaceous materials present in the sample. Second, a residue component, which consists of carbonaceous materials that are water insoluble and are usually termed $\textquoteleft$$\textquoteleft$ insoluble organic matter$\textquotedblright$ (IOM). This residue is obtained by a series of acid treatments that involve several chemicals including hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrofluoric acid (HF). These treatments are designed to concentrate the carbonaceous material by dissolving the silicates [@reynolds1978; @alexander1998]. The general carbonaceous component was investigated mainly in the Tagish Lake meteorite [@matrajt2004], whereas the acid residue component was investigated in the Orgueil and Murchison meteorites [@ehrenfreund1991; @devries1993; @flynn2003; @flynn2010]. In the discussion that follows, we will refer to the IOM of Murchison and Orgueil meteorites. However, for Tagish Lake we will refer to Tagish Lake as the general carbonaceous component. This distinction is important given that it was recently demonstrated that exposing organic matter to HF and HCl, alters significantly the organic molecules by increasing the aliphatic CH$_{3}$/CH$_{2}$ ratio and changing the aromatic contents [@flynn2010].
The 3.4 $\mu$m band
-------------------
The C-H stretch region in the IR spectrum is also known as the 3.4 $\mu$m band. Past observations of several lines of sight of the diffuse interstellar medium [@sandford1991; @pendleton1994; @chiar2000] have shown that this 3.4 $\mu$m region shows strong similarities with the 3.4 $\mu$m band of the insoluble organic matter (IOM) of meteorites Orgueil and Murchison [@ehrenfreund1991; @devries1993]. One way to directly compare the spectra of the DISM with meteoritic materials, including Wild 2 samples and IDPs, is through the comparison of the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ band depth ratio. The peaks at $\sim$2956 cm$^{-1}$ and $\sim$2926 cm$^{-1}$ correspond to the asymmetric stretching of CH$_{3}$ and CH$_{2}$, respectively. These peaks are almost always present in the IR spectra of both the DISM and meteoritic materials. By constructing a linear continuum across the range from about 3000 cm$^{-1}$ to 2800 cm$^{-1}$, as it was done by @sandford1991, we can derive the band depths of these two peaks and then calculate their ratios. This technique has been used extensively in the past for comparison of the DISM to different types of organic materials, whether extraterrestrial [@sandford1991; @ehrenfreund1991; @devries1993; @flynn2003; @matrajt2004; @matrajt2005; @keller2006; @munozcaro2008] or terrestrial analogs [@sandford1991; @ehrenfreund1991; @pendleton1994; @pendleton2002; @duley1998]. We calculated the ratio for the four samples we analyzed and compared them with the published data of other samples, including CCs, the DISM, comet Hartley 2 and asteroid 24 Themis (Table \[table2\]). Given that the carrier of the 3.4 $\mu$m interstellar absorption band appears to be widespread throughout the Galaxy and is present in several others [@pendleton1997; @wright1996; @imanishi2000; @dartois2004; @dartois2011; @godard2012], we used the interstellar CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratio measured in the past by @sandford1991, @pendleton1994 and @pendleton2002 for the comparison. Another tool that we used for the comparison is the presence of O and N in the organic materials. The organic material of the diffuse interstellar medium is mostly hydrocarbon in nature, having little N or O, with carbon distributed between aromatic and aliphatic molecules and no bands in the 1000-2000 cm$^{-1}$ region [@pendleton2002], while the organic refractory material in CCs contains O and N [@devries1993; @matrajt2004].
### The 3.4 $\mu$m feature of Wild 2 particles
Wild 2 particle Febo has carbonaceous morphologies that slightly differ from Wild 2 particle Ada. Although both particles have smooth and globular morphologies [@matrajt2008], Febo has also dirty and vesicular morphologies which are absent in Ada. Both particles have several similarities in their IR spectra. For example, both particles have the CH$_{3}$ symmetric stretch ($\sim$2955 cm$^{-1}$), the CH$_{2}$ stretch (2918 and 2847 cm$^{-1}$) and the C=O stretch ($\sim$1710 cm$^{-1}$). They also have C=C aromatic stretching although at different positions (1418 and 1650 cm$^{-1}$). The main difference is that the CH$_{3}$ peaks are slightly more pronounced in Febo than in Ada and the CH$_{2}$ peaks are narrower and stronger in Ada. This indicates that CH$_{2}$ groups are more dominant in Ada than in Febo and so the aliphatic chains are shorter and/or more branched in particle Febo. These morphological and spectroscopic differences suggest that comet Wild 2 has a heterogeneous composition. The organic carbonaceous materials vary at the track scale (few microns). Similar conclusions were found in past studies related to isotopic compositions of Wild 2 particles where it was found that Wild 2 particles may contain carbonaceous materials with isotopic anomalies adjacent to carbonaceous materials with normal isotopic compositions [@matrajt2008; @degregorio2010; @degregorio2011; @nakamura-messenger2011; @matrajt2013]. The ratio of the band depth of the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ peaks was calculated for particle Febo (Table \[table2\]), and it is 1.96. This ratio is within the range found for IDPs [@flynn2003; @matrajt2005], and the ratios measured in other Wild 2 particles [@keller2006; @sandford2006; @munozcaro2008 Table \[table2\]]. The CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratio of Febo and other Wild 2 samples is slightly larger than the ratios (1-1.5) measured in organic materials from the IOM of CCs (Table \[table2\]) and the ratios (0.96-1.25) measured in several lines of sight of the diffuse interstellar medium of our galaxy [@sandford1991; @pendleton1994; @chiar2000]. This indicates that the aliphatic molecules responsible of the 3.4 $\mu$m band are longer and/or less branched in Wild 2 than in the IOM of CCs and the DISM and suggests that the origin of the organic carbonaceous materials in Wild 2 is not the same as in CCs, believed to be interstellar processes such as UV photoirradiation of ices [@munozcaro2008]. The ratio of the band depth of the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ peaks was also calculated for particle Ada (Table \[table2\]) and it is 4.3. This ratio is within the range found for IDPs [@flynn2003] but considerably larger than the ratios measured in other Wild 2 particles [@keller2006; @sandford2006; @munozcaro2008]. This difference is most likely related to the heterogeneity of the organic materials of comet Wild 2. The molecules responsible for the 3.4 $\mu$m band in particle Ada are clearly different from the molecules making up the 3.4 $\mu$m band in the IOM of CCs and DISM as the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratio is 3-4 times larger, indicating that the chains are longer and less ramified in Ada and, as stated above, that their origin is not interstellar. As it was suggested in previous studies [@sandford2006], most likely the Wild 2 organics are the result of protosolar nebular processes.
### The 3.4 $\mu$m feature of interplanetary dust particles
Particles GS and Chocha have similar carbonaceous morphologies and these account for the same surface area in both particles ($\sim$90$\%$). However, they are quite different between themselves with respect to their IR spectra (Figures \[GS-absorbance\] and \[Chocha-absorbance\]). While GS has small CH peaks, Chocha has stronger and narrower peaks. The positions of the peaks have some similarities between the two IDPs. For example, both particles have CH$_{2}$ stretching ($\sim$2920, 2847 cm$^{-1}$), both samples have a OH stretching ($\sim$3260 cm$^{-1}$) indicating the presence of water in their structure. This water might be bonded to carbonates, carboxylic acids or alcohols. Carbonates were observed by TEM in particle GS. Particle Chocha does not have carbonates, therefore water might be part of the structure of its organics inventory ($\textit{i.e.}$ alcohols, esters, etc). There are also several differences in the positions of the peaks. First, particle Chocha has a very small asymmetric CH$_{3}$ stretching ($\sim$2955 cm$^{-1}$) and the symmetric CH$_{3}$ stretching ($\sim$2865 cm$^{-1}$) is absent. The asymmetric CH$_{2}$ stretching ($\sim$2847 cm$^{-1}$) is present in both particles but in Chocha this is a much narrower and stronger peak. Additional peaks corresponding to CH$_{2}$ bending and symmetric stretching ($\sim$1448, 1220 and 1160 cm$^{-1}$) and to C=O and C=C stretching (1740 and 1654 cm$^{-1}$) are absent in particle GS but are present in particle Chocha (Table \[table1\]). The ratio of the band depth of the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ peaks was calculated for both IDPs (Table \[table2\]). The value found for GS is 1.01, within the IDP range (1.0-5.6) found in past studies [@flynn2003; @matrajt2005]. The value found for Chocha was 4.6, also within the IDP range (Table \[table2\]). The aliphatic molecules making the 3.4 $\mu$m band of Chocha are dominated by CH$_{2}$ groups, and there is also evidence of OH and C=O groups, indicating that the molecules are made of long chains with OH and C=O groups branched to them. The profile of the IR spectrum of these organics looks quite different from the IOM of CCs and the DISM, suggesting that they did not originate from interstellar processes.
Both IDPs and Wild 2 particles seem to have several similarities in their carbonaceous materials. Morphologically, all 4 samples studied here have globular and smooth morphologies. Although all four particles have CH$_{2}$ stretching peaks and few CH$_{3}$ stretching peaks, in general CH$_{2}$ dominates over CH$_{3}$. All but GS have C=O carbonyl stretching and C=C aromatic peaks (Table \[table1\]). Only the IDP samples show bonded water (broad band at $\sim$3250 cm$^{-1}$). These observations indicate that the organic materials in the parent bodies of IDPs are similar to Wild 2, with a propensity to have long, less ramified aliphatic chains (CH$_{2}$ dominance), with some carbonyl and aromatic groups attached to them. However, the cometary particles have less hydrated phases (absence of hydrated minerals like carbonates and absence of OH stretching, Table \[table1\]) than the IDPs, which might be related to the way they were collected (hypervelocity impact in aerogel).
### The meteorite 3.4 $\mu$m feature
The 3.4 $\mu$m feature has been studied in several carbonaceous chondrites. Murchison and Orgueil were among the first to be investigated [@ehrenfreund1991; @flynn2003; @flynn2010]. The Tagish lake meteorite was also investigated [@matrajt2004]. The 3.4 $\mu$m feature in the IOM of both Murchison and Orgueil are very similar and are also quite similar to the DISM [@ehrenfreund1991]. In these objects and astrophysical environments the CH$_{2}$ and CH$_{3}$ peaks are comparable in both their positions, shapes and relative depths, whereas the 3.4 $\mu$m feature in Tagish lake is dominated by CH$_{2}$ groups [@matrajt2004]. Also, in Tagish Lake the CH$_{2}$ peaks are narrower than in the IOM of the other two meteorites and the DISM. The position of the peaks in these three meteorites are similar to the ones found in our samples (Table \[table3\]). However, the shape of the peaks in Murchison and Orgueil IOM differ from our samples given that in our samples, specially in Chocha and Ada, the CH$_{2}$ peaks are much narrower and stronger relative to the CH$_{3}$ peaks. The 3.4 $\mu$m band of Tagish Lake has a similar profile than the 3.4 $\mu$m band in our samples, where CH$_{2}$ groups dominate over CH$_{3}$ groups. The ratio CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ of the IOM in Murchison has been measured independently by several groups [@ehrenfreund1991; @flynn2003]. The value measured varies between 1.09 and 1.51. This range is probably related to the heterogeneity in the distribution of organic matter in Murchison [@pizzarello2004]. In general the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratios in Wild 2 and IDPs are higher than in the IOM of Murchison and Orgueil (except for particle GS), suggesting that the carrier in these two CCs has more ramifications than the carriers in Wild 2 and IDPs. The 3.4 $\mu$m band in both Orgueil and Murchison IOM is very similar. However, it is quite different from the Tagish Lake band. This difference might be attributed to the fact that Tagish Lake is an unclassified meteorite [@brown2000] with 5.8 wt${\%}$ of carbon [@grady2002], two-three times as much as it is found in Murchison and Orgueil ($\sim$2 and 3 wt${\%}$, respectively) [@oro1971; @kerridge1985]. However, we favor the idea from @flynn2010 that the acid extraction treatment alters the organic materials and thus this alteration might be the explanation for the differences seen and described above in the 3.4 $\mu$m band between Tagish Lake and the IOM of Murchison and Orgueil.
### The 3.4 $\mu$m feature in asteroids and comets
Organics have been detected in asteroid 24 Themis, an object with cometary characteristics [@hsieh2006] that belongs to the same dynamical family as three of the five known Main Belt Comets (MBCs) [@campins2010; @rivkin2010]. The infrared spectrum obtained from these observations has been reproduced with permission from the respective authors in Figure \[themis-IR\]. The general shape of the band extending from 2500 to 3500 cm$^{-1}$ and centered at 3000 cm$^{-1}$ is quite different from the 3.4 $\mu$m band of the DISM, IOM of Murchison, Tagish Lake and our samples. The authors attributed this band to fine-grained water ice as a frost deposited on regolith grains. However, the spectral structure between 2700 and 3000 cm$^{-1}$ cannot be explained by the presence of ice. Therefore, the authors performed simulations by including organics in their models [@campins2010; @rivkin2010]. The spectrum we reproduced in Figure \[themis-IR\] is in fact the 24 Themis spectrum ratioed to the water-ice model of @rivkin2010. Although the band is quite saturated, many individual peaks can be distinguished (see zoom in Figure \[themis-IR\]). They have positions at 2856, 2876, 2915, 2926, 2946, 2958 and 2994 cm$^{-1}$. Many of these peaks are also found in the DISM and our samples (Table \[table3\]) but the overall profile of this spectrum is quite different from meteoritic materials (including our samples) and DISM. The presence of these peaks suggests that aliphatic chains containing CH$_{3}$ and CH$_{2}$ groups are present in the 3.4 $\mu$m band of all these astrophysical environments, but the depth and general shape of these peaks is quite different from the DISM and meteoritic materials indicating that the compounds that make the 3.4 $\mu$m band in 24 Themis are different from the ones in meteoritic materials and the DISM. For example, the weakness of the peak at 2856 cm$^{-1}$ (CH$_{2}$) relative to the peak at 2958 cm$^{-1}$ (CH$_{3}$) in the spectra of 24 Themis when compared to similar peaks in the spectra of Ada (Figure \[Ada-absorbance\]) or Febo (Figure \[Febo-absorbance\]), suggests that Wild 2 is richer in -CH$_{2}$ groups than 24 Themis. The same comparison between the spectrum of 24 Themis and the IDPs Chocha (Figure \[Chocha-absorbance\]) and GS (Figure \[GS-absorbance\]) also shows that IDPs are richer in CH$_{2}$ groups than 24 Themis. Due to over-saturation of peaks in the spectrum of 24 Themis we did not calculate the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratio. However, from the general profile of the band in 24 Themis we conclude that the organics in our samples are very different from the organics that make the 3.4 $\mu$m band in 24 Themis.
Organics were also detected in comet Hartley 2 [@ahearn2011; @wooden2011]. In Figure \[hartley-IR\] we have plotted, with permission from the authors, the spectrum obtained with the EPOXI space mission of the coma of comet 103P/Hartley 2 [@ahearn2011]. This is an ice-rich spectrum obtained from a CO$_{2}$ jet region of the coma [see Fig. 5 of @ahearn2011]. From this spectrum we can see 3 major peaks in the 3.4 $\mu$m region at 3.336 $\mu$m (2997 cm$^{-1}$), 3.40 $\mu$m (2941 cm$^{-1}$) and 3.44 $\mu$m (2907 cm$^{-1}$). The relative depths and shapes of the peaks remain uncertain at this point, because the authors of this spectrum are still optimizing the calibration of the instrument, which will affect the continuum fit and therefore the absolute and relative flux level and shape of all of the features across all wavelengths (L. Feaga, personal communication). Therefore, our discussion will be limited to the peak positions only and no CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratios will be calculated. @wooden2011 observed the coma of the comet and also obtained a spectrum, which is currently being processed for molecular methanol deconvolution and subtraction. The general profile of the 3.4 $\mu$m band with peak positions was communicated to us (Wooden, personal communication) but the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratio is not available yet because the optical depths are uncertain until they can properly subtract off the methanol molecular bands from the entire 3.4 $\mu$m feature. The spectrum they obtained (not shown) contains a broad band centered at 2938 cm$^{-1}$ and peaks at 2875, 2865, 2847 and 2829 cm$^{-1}$. The profile of the 3.4 $\mu$m band of both spectra of comet Hartley 2 looks very different from the 3.4 $\mu$m band in the DISM, 24 Themis, CCs and our samples, particularly the Wild 2 ones. From the spectrum shown in Figure \[hartley-IR\], we can see 3 main peaks at positions that are not found in any of our samples, the DISM and CCs. Only two of those peaks, at 2941 and 2997 cm$^{-1}$ (Table \[table3\]) are also found in another object, asteroid 24 Themis. The third peak at 2906 cm$^{-1}$ is not found in any of the other objects and astrophysical environments we are comparing to. Comet Hartley 2 seems to be dominated by compounds that absorb at 2940 cm$^{-1}$ and 2990 cm$^{-1}$ and whose nature is at present unknown. Similar compounds seem to be present in asteroid 24 Themis (Table \[table3\]) but these compounds are absent in meteoritic materials and the DISM (Table \[table3\]). As stated above, this comparison is purely qualitative given that the Hartley 2 spectra still need further processing and it may change once the deconvolution of the spectra is fully completed. Nevertheless, if the spectral features between the cometary spectra and our samples are indeed dissimilar, these differences suggest that the carrier of the 3.4 $\mu$m band in Hartley 2 is very different from the carrier of the 3.4 $\mu$m band in Wild 2, CCs, and DISM. Of particular interest is to note that two comets have such a different 3.4 $\mu$m band. While comet Wild 2 is dominated by CH$_{2}$ groups, comet Hartley 2 has only small CH$_{2}$ peaks and is dominated by an unknown compound. The non resemblance of the organics in these two comets suggest that there is either more than one way to manufacture organics in cometary regions or that the organics have been subsequently modified in their respective parent bodies. In any case more observations of comets are required to better constraint the nature and origin of the cometary organics responsible of the 3.4 $\mu$m band.
### The 3.4 $\mu$m feature in the Interstellar Medium
The spectrum of the source IRS 7 of the DISM (Figure \[ISM-absorbance\]) was obtained from the Infrared Space Observatory Data Center and was reproduced from @matrajt2004. This spectrum has several peaks in the 3000 cm$^{-1}$ region: 3012 cm$^{-1}$; 2959 cm$^{-1}$ (CH$_{3}$ asymmetric stretching); 2928 cm$^{-1}$ (CH$_{2}$ asymmetric stretching); 2890 cm$^{-1}$ (CH$_{3}$ symmetric stretching); 2872 cm$^{-1}$ (CH$_{3}$ symmetric stretching); 2848 cm$^{-1}$ (CH$_{2}$ symmetric stretching). The band depth CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratio was calculated to be between 1.1-1.4 [@sandford1991; @pendleton1994; @matrajt2005]. Comparisons of IR spectra obtained from other lines of sight, including some extragalactic ones, have shown that the 3.4 $\mu$m band has similar profiles [@pendleton1995; @dartois2004; @godard2012]. As discussed previously, the general shape of this band is quite different from the 3.4 $\mu$m band we observe in our samples. Nevertheless, many of these peaks are also found in other objects (Table \[table3\]). As stated above for the spectrum of 24 Themis, the presence of all these peaks indicates that aliphatic chains are present as part of the compounds that make up for this band. The dissimilarity in the positions and relative strengths of the various peaks are probably due to differences in the relative abundances of -CH$_{2}$ and -CH$_{3}$ groups in the organic molecules of the various objects and astrophysical environments we are comparing. For example, in the interstellar band the peaks corresponding to CH$_{3}$ symmetric stretching (2890 and 2872 cm$^{-1}$) are quite distinct whereas in the Wild 2 and IDP samples these are blended together in one unique peak at $\sim$2850 cm$^{-1}$ (Table \[table3\]). The strength of the peak at 2959 cm$^{-1}$ relative to the 2928 cm$^{-1}$ peak in the interstellar band when compared to the same peaks in our samples suggests that the interstellar carrier is richer in CH$_{3}$ groups than Wild 2 and IDPs. The CH$_{2}$ peaks in our samples are stronger and narrower than in the interstellar band. All these observations indicate that the aliphatic carriers in Wild 2 and IDPs are dominated by CH$_{2}$ groups (so they are mainly linear chains) whereas the carriers in the DISM are dominated by CH$_{3}$ groups (so they are ramified chains).
### The 1700 cm$^{-1}$ (C=O) band in the DISM, IDPs and Wild 2 samples
The DISM of our galaxy is mainly composed of C and H with very little O given that no strong bands arising from other strong infrared active groups (like the C=O at 1700 cm$^{-1}$) are seen in the mid-infrared spectra [@dartois2004]. Only the extragalactic (Seyfert 2) NGC 1068 mid-infrared spectrum displays a carbonyl absorption at 1703 cm$^{-1}$ [@dartois2004]. Most of our samples show a carbonyl peak (Table \[table3\]). For example, particles Chocha and Febo have a prominent peak at 1738 and 1727 cm$^{-1}$, respectively (Figures \[Chocha-carboxyl\] and \[Febo-carboxyl\]). Sample Ada has a small peak at 1715 cm$^{-1}$ (Figure \[Ada-carboxyl\]). Particle GS does not have a C=O peak. A carbonyl peak has been detected in other IDPs in previous IR studies [@flynn2003; @matrajt2005]. Furthermore, studies with other analytical techniques, for example X-ray microscopy, have shown that IDPs [@flynn2003] and Wild 2 samples [@matrajt2008; @degregorio2010; @degregorio2011] have a C=O peak associated with the organic materials. The presence of a carbonyl group on most IDPs and Wild 2 and its absence in the DISM of the Galaxy is a further indication that the organic materials in IDPs and Wild 2 are quite different from the interstellar organics, strongly suggesting that they did not originate in the DISM (see next section).
Comparison of the samples spectra to modeled spectra
----------------------------------------------------
@jones2012I modified the eRCN and DG models to better constraint and determine the infrared spectral properties of amorphous hydrocarbon grains (also known as hydrogenated amorphous carbons HAC) found in the ISM, as a function of their content in hydrogen atoms (noted X$_{H}$). In this model, it was found that when the molecules suffer from structural annealing, they lose H atoms and transform from an aliphatic-rich structure to an aromatic-rich structure. This annealing would be UV photon-driven from the radiation field in the ISM environment. However, this annealing would highly depend on the size of the particles being exposed to the radiation and thermal effects [@jones2012III]. In particular, for carbonaceous grains $>$ 3 nm in radius the radiation effects are negligible [@jones2012III] and so their IR spectra remain invariant. It is very interesting to compare our spectra to the spectra predicted by this model, because although our grains are typically $>$ 50 nm, the particles suffered from heating effects either during atmospheric entry or during deceleration into aerogel. In addition, the model predicts how the spectra should look as a function of the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratios calculated for the carbonaceous materials, because these ratios determine the atomic content of hydrogen (X$_{H}$) in the molecules.
Using the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratios calculated for each of our 4 samples (Table \[table2\]) and using the graph of figure 3 from @jones2012I, we determined the X$_{H}$ for each of our samples. Then, with the corresponding X$_{H}$ we searched for the corresponding spectrum predicted by the model (figures 8-10 from @jones2012I) and compared them. Particles Chocha and Ada have a CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ equivalent to a X$_{H}$ of $\sim$ 0.53 (meaning the carbonaceous material has a hydrogen atom fraction of 53 $\%$). The predicted spectrum obtained with such hydrogen fraction looks quite similar to our spectra. First, the intensity of the CH$_{3}$ peak is very small relative to the intensity of the CH$_{2}$ peak. Second, the spectrum does not seem to have peaks in the 6-6.67 $\mu$m range (1600-1500 cm$^{-1}$), typically of CH aromatic moieties. Our spectra do not have peaks in that region either. Third, the predicted spectrum does not have peaks in the 3.28 $\mu$m region (3050 cm$^{-1}$) typically of aromatics. Instead the spectrum has a nice little peak at 3.25 $\mu$m and a nice sharp peak at 3.32 $\mu$m (3078 and 3010 cm$^{-1}$, respectively) corresponding to alkene (olefin C=C) groups. Our spectra do not have any type of aromatic or olefin peaks in this region, which makes the biggest difference between the predicted spectrum and our observed spectra. But the overall profile of the 3.4 $\mu$m band matches up quite well between the predicted spectrum and our observed spectra. We think that the small discrepancies are related to differences in the composition of the carbonaceous materials of our samples. For example, we have determined previously that these carbonaceous materials all contain bonded O and N heteroatoms [@matrajt2008; @matrajt2012]. The eRCN and DG models of @jones2012I do not take into account the presence of heteroatoms. In addition, the model predicts that aromatics tend to increase as aliphatics decrease under thermal effects but only for particles $<$ 10 nm, and as we previously stated, all of our materials are $>$ 50 nm. Finally, it is worth noting that this model presents discrepancies even with the ISM spectra, where the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratios range between 2-3 (equivalent to 53-55 $\%$ of H atoms), corresponding to a predicted spectrum with much smaller CH$_{3}$ than the one observed [@jones2012I]. To obtain a perfect match, one would need to increase the intensity of the CH$_{3}$ band in order to obtain a good match to the observational data. We also noticed that all our spectra show an overall decrease in the intensity of the CH$_{3}$ peak relative to the ISM spectra, and we think that this is a fundamental difference between the carbonaceous material of the ISM and our samples.
Regarding the other two samples, Febo and GS, the comparison is actually quite different. The CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratios of these two particles correspond, respectively, to a X$_{H}$ of 0.55 and 0.58. The predicted spectra obtained with these hydrogen atomic fractions do not match our spectra. They seem to have much more CH$_{2}$ than our spectra. In addition, the relative intensities of the CH$_{3}$ and the CH$_{2}$ peaks are quite different than the ones we observe in our spectra. Finally, the predicted spectrum shows some olefinic peaks that are absent in our spectra. As stated above, we think that some of the discrepancies encountered while doing this comparison are related to the presence of heteroatoms in our samples and the size of the carbonaceous grains.
This model predicts that sp$^{3}$ C atoms (aliphatics) are transformed into sp$^{2}$ C atoms (aromatics) as annealing proceeds. This could in principle tells us something about the effects of heating during atmospheric entry and impact into aerogel. However, as discussed above, what we observe is the exact opposite: we do not observe aromatics or olefinic material. Instead, the carbonaceous materials of our samples are dominated by aliphatics. Therefore, we think that, as stated by the model, the annealing effects are valid for a certain size, but because the carbonaceous materials of our samples are $> 50$nm, we do not observe those effects.
Is the Origin of the 3.4 $\mu$m band in IDPs and Wild 2 interstellar?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
### IDPs
We compared the 3.4 $\mu$m band in the two IDPs we studied with the 3.4 $\mu$m band found in IDPs of previous studies [@flynn2003; @matrajt2005]. We found that our IDPs have a similar profile to most of the IDPs we studied previously in which there is clear dominance of CH$_{2}$ over CH$_{3}$, sometimes with CH$_{3}$ almost nonexistent (for example Chocha in this study and samples L2011-F2, L2036-E19, W7116B-N and W7116B-U2 from @matrajt2005). However, this profile is quite different from the 3.4 $\mu$m band of the DISM, where there is not a marked dominance of CH$_{2}$ groups over CH$_{3}$ groups as seen in IDPs. Instead, in the 3.4 $\mu$m band of the DISM the CH$_{2}$ and CH$_{3}$ features are comparable, whereas in all the spectra of the IDPs we studied previously, the CH$_{2}$ tends to dominate [@flynn2003; @matrajt2005]. In addition, the band depth ratios CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ found for IDPs previously studied ranges from 1.88-3.69 with an average of 2.47 [@matrajt2005] and from 1.0-5.6 with an average of 2.4 [@flynn2003]. The band depth CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratio 1.01 found for particle GS (Table \[table2\]) is in good agreement with the ratios found previously and it is also within the range of values found for the DISM and for the IOM of CCs (Table \[table2\]). However, the profile of the 3.4 $\mu$m band is quite different from the DISM and the IOM of CCs. Therefore, even if the ratios are similar the profiles are not, which suggests that the organic compounds that make up the 3.4 $\mu$m band are not related to the DISM and the parent body of GS is not a carbonaceous chondrite parent body. The band depth ratio CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ of sample Chocha is 4.6 (Table \[table2\]), still in the range previously found for IDPs but about 4 times bigger than the band depth CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratio found for the DISM (1.1-1.25, @sandford1991). Both the ratio and the profile of particle Chocha are considerably different from the DISM and the carbonaceous chondrites IOM, suggesting that the parent body of Chocha is not a CC. The organic material of Chocha has isotopic anomalies indicative of an origin in a cold environment which could be either the ISM or the edges of the protoplanetary disk [@matrajt2012]. Given that the 3.4 $\mu$m band seems quite different from the DISM as discussed above, we suggest that the origin of the carbonaceous materials in Chocha is not interstellar but in the edges of the protoplanetary disk. The other IDPs we studied here and in the past also show a 3.4 $\mu$m band with a different profile, although for some of them the CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratios are similar to the DISM. The average is, however, twice as big as the ratio found for the DISM and IOM of CCs (Table \[table2\]). This indicates, as previously observed [@sandford2006; @munozcaro2008], that the aliphatic molecules in most IDPs are longer (or less branched) than those in the DISM and suggest that they are not similar to the organic materials responsible for the 3.4 $\mu$m feature in the DISM, which looks more similar to the insoluble organic matter found in Orgueil and Murchison (Table \[table2\]). These conclusions are further supported by the presence of O (detected by XANES, @flynn2003), the presence of N (detected by XANES, @keller2004 and by NanoSIMS, @matrajt2012) and the presence of the C=O (Table \[table3\], Figure \[Chocha-absorbance\]) in many of these IDPs. We conclude that the origin of the 3.4 $\mu$m band in IDPs is not related to interstellar material. We also conclude that the organic materials making up this band are not related to the parent bodies of CCs. Based on all our observations discussed above we conclude that the origin of the 3.4 $\mu$m band in IDPs is most likely in the outer parts of the solar nebula. These results are in agreement with recent models of the dynamics and evolution of icy grains exposed to UV irradiation and the production of complex organics, which have shown that organic compounds are natural byproducts during the evolution of the protoplanetary disk [@ciesla2012].
### Wild 2
We compared the 3.4 $\mu$m band of our two Wild 2 samples with the 3.4 $\mu$m band of Wild 2 samples studied in the past [@sandford2006; @keller2006; @munozcaro2008] and with the DISM. The profile of the 3.4 $\mu$m band of both of our Wild 2 samples is quite similar, with little to no CH$_{3}$ features and a clear dominance of CH$_{2}$ features with strong, narrow peaks. This profile resembles the profiles of other Wild 2 samples studied in the past [@sandford2006; @keller2006; @munozcaro2008]. The band depth ratio CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ of particle Febo is 1.96. This value is twice as big as the ratio in DISM and IOM of CCs. The band is dominated by CH$_{2}$ groups. Similarly, the band depth CH$_{2}$/CH$_{3}$ ratio of particle Ada (4.3) is much bigger than the ratio found in the DISM and IOM of CCs. The profile of the band is also dominated by CH$_{2}$ groups. This indicates that the aliphatic organic materials responsible of this band have longer or less branched chains than those in IOM of CCs and the DISM. In addition, we found the presence of the carbonyl group (C=O, Table \[table3\], Figures \[Febo-carboxyl\] and \[Ada-carboxyl\]) and previous studies have established that the organic materials in Wild 2 contain O and N [@sandford2006; @matrajt2008; @degregorio2010; @matrajt2013]. @munozcaro2008 compared the 3.4 $\mu$m feature of several Wild 2 samples to ice residues obtained by UV-photoprocessing of interstellar ice analogs and showed that the 3.4 $\mu$m band in Wild 2 samples is spectroscopically different from the analog organic residues. This indicates that the aliphatic organics that produced the 3.4 $\mu$m band are not a direct product of interstellar ice photoprocessing. Isotopic compositions obtained from the two Wild 2 particles analyzed in our study [@matrajt2008] and from other Wild 2 particles [@degregorio2010; @degregorio2011] showed $^{15}$N anomalies indicative of an origin in a cold environment. All these observations and the discussions presented above indicate that the DISM is not a good candidate for the synthesis of the aliphatics that make up the 3.4 $\mu$m band in Wild 2 samples. Therefore we conclude that, similar to IDPs, the origin of the 3.4 $\mu$m band in Wild 2 particles is most likely in the outer parts of the solar nebula. Our conclusions are in agreement with previous statements that the Wild 2 organic materials are not the direct result of diffuse ISM processes but rather result from protosolar nebular processes [@sandford2006].
Conclusions
===========
This study showed that both IDPs and Wild 2 samples have a 3.4 $\mu$m band dominated by CH$_{2}$ groups, indicating that the organic compounds are predominantly long aliphatic chains with little ramifications. Previous studies showed that all these samples have O and N bonded to their organic materials, suggesting that these ramifications are O and N-rich groups. Most of our samples have the C=O carbonyl features between 1000-2000 cm$^{-1}$. The comparison of all our samples to the 3.4 $\mu$m band of the DISM and IOM of carbonaceous chondrites showed that the profile of the bands in Wild 2 and IDPs is quite different from the DISM and CCs because the band is mainly dominated by CH$_{2}$ groups. In some of our samples the CH$_{3}$ groups are absent while in the DISM and IOM of CCs the CH$_{3}$ groups are of comparable abundance with the CH$_{2}$ groups. This indicates that our samples are richer in CH$_{2}$ than the DISM. All these observations suggest that the organic component in Wild 2 and IDPs does not have an interstellar origin. We conclude that the organic compounds in both IDPs and Wild 2 were formed at the edges of the protoplanetary disk through nebular processes. It is possible, however, that a pristine interstellar component lies underneath a more complex organic material that formed during solar nebula processing or later in the parent body of Wild 2 and IDPs. We favor, however, the scenario in which the organic materials in both Wild 2 samples and IDPs originated at the edges of the protoplanetary disk.
Acknowledgments
===============
We are grateful to H. Campins and colleagues and to A. Rivkin and collaborators for having shared with us their 24 Themis spectra. We are also grateful to M. A$\textquoteright$Hearn and collaborators and to D. Wooden for having shared their spectra of comet Hartley 2. We also thank H. Bechtel for his assistance. We would like to thank Anthony Jones, whose review and comments very much improved this article. This work is dedicated to the memory of Carl Sagan (1934-1996) who greatly inspired G.M throughout her career. G. M was funded by NASA grants NNX10AI89GS01 and NNG06GG00GS05.
[*Facilities:*]{} , , .
[cccc]{}
3255, 3270 & OH & water & GS, Chocha\
2990 & C=C-H & - & acrylic\
2951,2954,2950,2949,2958 & CH$_{3}$ asymmetric stretching & aliphatic hydrocarbons & GS, Chocha, Febo, Ada, Acryic, DISM\
2920, 2918, 2929, 2925, 2922 & CH$_{2}$ asymmetric stretching & aliphatic hydrocarbons & GS, Chocha, Febo, Ada, DISM\
2896, 2870, 2860, 2874 & CH$_{3}$ symmetric stretching & aliphatic hydrocarbons & GS, Febo, DISM\
2845, 2847, 2855 & CH$_{2}$ symmetric stretching & aliphatic hydrocarbons & GS, Chocha, Febo, Ada, DISM\
2160 & C=C stretching & - & Ada\
1740 & C=O carbonyl & esters & Chocha\
1730, 1717, 1700, 1714, 1727 & C=O carbonyl & ketone, carboxylic acid & Febo, Ada, acrylic\
1685 & H-O-H & water & Febo\
1654, 1650 & C=C stretching & aromatics & Chocha, Febo, Ada, acrylic\
1545-1455 & CO$^{3-}$ & carbonates & GS\
1480 & CH$_{3}$ asymmetric bending & aliphatic hydrocarbons & Chocha, acrylic\
1447-1448 & CH$_{2}$ asymmetric bending & aliphatic hydrocarbons & Chocha, acrylic\
1418, 1435 & C=C stretching & aromatics & Chocha, Febo, Ada, acrylic\
1350, 1386 & CH$_{3}$ symmetric bending & aliphatic hydrocarbons & acrylic\
1240, 1270 & C-O-C & esters & acrylic\
1220 & CH$_{2}$ symmetric bending & aliphatic hydrocarbons & Chocha\
1147, 1190 & unknown & - & -\
1160 & CH$_{2}$ twisting & aliphatic hydrocarbons & Chocha\
1065 & C-OH & secondary cyclic alcohols & acrylic\
987, 970, 910 & CH=CH bending & - & acrylic\
1070, 1060, 952 & Si-O & pyroxene & GS, Febo\
1216, 1136, 1106, 1010, 930 & Si-O & silicates & Febo, Ada\
880 & Si-O & olivine & Febo\
[ccc]{}
DISM (GC IRS7) & 0.96-1.25 & [@sandford1991]\
DISM (GC IRS7) & 0.92-1.2 average 1.06 & [@pendleton1994]\
Extragalactic ISM (Seyfert 2) & 2.0 & [@dartois2004]\
Tagish Lake & 4.36 & [@matrajt2004]\
IDPs & 1.0-5.6 average 2.4 & [@flynn2003]\
IDPs & 1.88-3.69 average 2.47 & [@matrajt2005]\
Wild 2 samples & 1.7-2.8 average 2.15 aerogel 2.15 & [@munozcaro2008]\
Wild 2 samples & 2.5 & [@keller2006; @sandford2006]\
IOM Murchison & 1.5 & [@ehrenfreund1991]\
IOM Murchsion & 1.09 & [@flynn2003]\
IOM Orgueil & 1-1.51 & [@ehrenfreund1991]\
ultracarbonaceous IDP Chocha & 4.6 & this study\
ultracarbonaceous IDP GS & 1.01 & this study\
Wild 2 Febo & 1.96 & this study\
Wild 2 Ada & 4.3 & this study\
Comet 103P/Hartley 2 (coma) & no CH$_{3}$ or CH$_{2}$ bands so no ratio calculated & [@ahearn2011; @wooden2011]\
Asteroid 24 Themis & not calculated & [@campins2010; @rivkin2010]\
[cccccccccccc]{}
3250-2670 (OH) & yes & yes & no & no & no & - & yes & yes & yes & yes & -\
2950-2955 (CH$_{3}$) & yes & yes & yes & yes & yes & yes & yes & yes & yes & yes & yes\
2918-2925 (CH$_{2}$) & yes & yes & yes & yes & yes & yes & yes & yes & yes & yes & no\
2865-2896 (CH$_{3}$) & yes & no & no & no & blended& yes & yes& yes & yes & yes & yes\
2845-2855 (CH$_{2}$) & yes & yes & yes & yes & blended& no & no & no & yes & yes & yes\
1700 (C=O) & no & yes & yes & yes & no & yes & yes & - & no & - & -\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We follow our general model in Ref. [@gpw1] and analyze the formation of retinotopic projections for the biologically relevant situation of [*spherical*]{} geometries. To this end we elaborate both a linear and a nonlinear synergetic analysis which results in order parameter equations for the dynamics of connection weights between two spherical cell sheets. We show that these equations of evolution provide stable stationary solutions which correspond to retinotopic modes. A further analysis of higher modes furnishes proof that our model describes the emergence of a perfect one-to-one retinotopy between two spheres.'
author:
- 'M. G[ü]{}[ß]{}mann'
- 'A. Pelster'
- 'G. Wunner'
title: 'Self-Organized Formation of Retinotopic Projections Between Manifolds of Different Geometries – Part 3: Spherical Geometries'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
An essential precondition for a correct operation of the nervous system consists in well-ordered neural connections between different cell sheets. An example, which has been explored both experimentally and theoretically in detail, is the formation of ordered projections between retina and tectum, a part of the brain which plays an important role in processing optical information [@goodhill]. At an initial stage of ontogenesis, retinal ganglion cells have random synaptic contacts with the tectum. In the adult animal, however, a so-called [*retinotopic*]{} projection is realized: Neighboring cells of the retina project onto neighboring cells of the tectum. A detailed analytical treatment of H[ä]{}ussler and von der Malsburg described these ontogenetic processes in terms of self-organization [@Malsburg]. In that work retina and tectum were treated as one-dimensional discrete cell arrays. The dynamics of the connection weights between retina and tectum were assumed to be governed by the so-called H[ä]{}ussler equations. In Ref. [@gpw1] we generalized these equations of evolution to [*continuous*]{} manifolds of [*arbitrary geometry*]{} and [*dimension*]{}. Furthermore, we performed an extensive synergetic analysis [@Haken1; @Haken2] near the instability of stationary uniform connection weights between retina and tectum. The resulting generic order parameter equations served as a starting point for analyzing retinotopic projections between Euclidean manifolds in Ref. [@gpw2]. Our results for strings turned out to be analogous to those for discrete linear chains, i.e. our model included the special case of H[ä]{}ussler and von der Malsburg [@Malsburg]. Additionally, we could show in the case of planar geometries that superimposing two modes under suitable conditions provides a state with a pronounced retinotopic character.\
In this paper we apply our general model [@gpw1] again to projections between two-dimensional manifolds. Now, however, we consider manifolds with [*constant positive curvature*]{}. Typically, the retina represents approximately a hemisphere, whereas the tectum has an oval form [@goodhill]. Thus, it is biologically reasonable to model both cell sheets by spherical manifolds. Without loss of generality we assume that the two cell sheets for retina and tectum are represented by the surfaces of two unit spheres, respectively. Thus, in our model, the corresponding continuously distributed cells are represented by unit vectors $\hat r$ and $\hat t$. Every ordered pair $(\hat t,\hat r)$ is connected by a positive connection weight $w(\hat t,\hat r)$ as is illustrated in Figure \[kugel\]. The generalized H[ä]{}ussler equations of Ref. [@gpw1; @thesis] for these connection weights are specified as follows $$\label{hslerkugel}
\dot w(\hat t,\hat r)=f(\hat t,\hat r,w)-\frac{w(\hat t,\hat r)}{8\pi}
\hspace*{2mm} \int \! d\Omega_{t'}\,f(\hat t\,',\hat r,w)
-\frac{w(\hat t,\hat r)}{8\pi}\hspace*{2mm}
\int \! d\Omega_{r'}\,f(\hat t,\hat r\,',w)\,.$$ The first term on the right-hand side describes cooperative synaptic growth processes, and the other terms stand for corresponding competitive growth processes. The total growth rate is defined by $$\label{GRO}
f(\hat t,\hat r,w)=\alpha+w(\hat t,\hat r) \int \! d\Omega_{t'}
\int \! d\Omega_{r'} c_T(\hat t \cdot \hat t\,')\,
c_R(\hat r \cdot \hat r\,')\,w(\hat t\,',\hat r\,')\,,$$ where $\alpha$ denotes the global growth rate of new synapses onto the tectum, and is the control parameter of our system. The cooperativity functions $c_T(\hat t \cdot \hat t\,')$, $c_R(\hat r \cdot \hat r\,')$ represent the neural connectivity within each manifold. They are assumed to be positive, symmetric with respect to their arguments, and normalized. The integrations in (\[hslerkugel\]) and (\[GRO\]) are performed over all points $\hat t, \hat r$ on the manifolds, where $d\Omega_t,d\Omega_r$ represent the differential solid angles of the corresponding unit spheres. Note that the factors $8\pi$ in Eq. (\[hslerkugel\]) are twice the measure $M$ of the unit sphere, which is given by $$\label{kumass}
M=\int\!\! d\Omega_t=\int\!\! d\Omega_r=\int\limits_0^{2\pi}\!\!d\varphi\int\limits_0^{\pi}\!\!\sin \vartheta d\vartheta=4\pi\,.$$ If the global growth rate of new synapses onto the tectum $\alpha$ is large enough, the long-time dynamics is determined by a uniform connection weight. However, we shall see within a linear analysis in Section \[linanalys\] that this stationary solution becomes unstable at a critical value of the global growth rate. Therefore, we have to perform a nonlinear synergetic analysis, in Section \[nonlinanalys\], which yields the underlying order parameter equations in the vicinity of this bifurcation. As in the case of Euclidean manifolds, we show that they have no quadratic terms, represent a potential dynamics, and allow for retinotopic modes. In Section \[11retino\] we include the influence of higher modes upon the connection weights, which leads to recursion relations for the corresponding amplitudes. If we restrict ourselves to special cooperativity functions, the resulting recursion relations can be solved analytically by using the method of generating functions. As a result of our analysis we obtain a perfect one-to-one retinotopy if the global growth rate $\alpha$ is decreased to zero.
Linear Analysis {#linanalys}
===============
![\[kugel\] The cells of retina and tectum, which are assumed to be continuously distributed on unit spheres, are represented by their unit vectors $\hat r$ and $\hat t$, respectively. The two cell sheets are connected by positive connection weights $w(\hat t,\hat r)$.](fig1.eps)
According to the general reasoning in Ref. [@gpw1] we start with fixing the metric on the manifolds and determine the eigenfunctions of the corresponding Laplace-Beltrami operator. Afterwards, we expand the cooperativity functions with respect to these eigenfunctions and perform a linear analysis of the stationary uniform state.
Laplace-Beltrami Operator
-------------------------
For the time being we neglect the distinction between retina and tectum, because the following considerations are valid for both manifolds. Using spherical coordinates, we write the unit vector on the sphere as $\hat x=(\sin\vartheta \cos\varphi,\sin\vartheta \sin\varphi,\cos\vartheta)$. The Laplace-Beltrami operator on a manifold reads quite generally [@klein] $$\label{LBO}
\Delta=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}} \, \partial_{\lambda} \left( g^{\lambda\mu} \sqrt{g} \,\partial_{\mu}\right)\,.$$ For the sphere the components of the covariant tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$ are $$\label{kulinel}
g_{11}=\left(\frac{\partial\hat x}{\partial \vartheta}\right)^2=1\,,\quad
g_{12}=g_{21}=\frac{\partial \hat x}{\partial \vartheta}\,\frac{\partial \hat x}{\partial \varphi}=0\,,\quad g_{22}=
\left(\frac{\partial \hat x}{\partial \varphi}\right)^2=\sin^2\vartheta\,.$$ With this the determinant of the covariant metric tensor reads $g=\sin^2\vartheta$ and the components of the contravariant metric are given by $$g^{11}=1\,,\quad g^{12}=g^{21}=0\,,\quad g^{22}=\frac{1}{\sin^2\vartheta}\,,$$ whence the Laplace-Beltrami operator for the sphere takes the well-known form $$\label{einbettwinkel}
\Delta_{\vartheta,\varphi}=\frac{1}{\sin\vartheta}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\vartheta}\left(\sin\vartheta \frac{\partial}{\partial\vartheta}\right)+
\frac{1}{\sin^2\vartheta}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\varphi^2}\,.$$ Its eigenfunctions are known to be given by spherical harmonics $Y_{lm}(\hat x)$: $$\Delta_{\vartheta,\varphi}\,Y_{lm}(\hat x)=-l(l+1)Y_{lm}(\hat x)\,.$$ With $l=0,1,2,\ldots$ and $m=-l,-l+1,\ldots,l-1,l$ they are $(2l+1)$-fold degenerate and form a complete orthonormal system on the unit sphere: $$\begin{aligned}
\int\!\! d\Omega_x\,Y_{lm}(\hat x\,)Y_{l'm'}^*(\hat x\,)&=&\delta_{l^{ }l'}\delta_{m^{ }m'}\,, \label{KUOR1}\\
\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-l}^l Y_{lm}(\hat x\,)Y_{lm}^*(\hat x'\,)&=&\delta(\hat x-\hat x')\,.\end{aligned}$$
Cooperativity Functions
-----------------------
The argument of the cooperativity functions $c(\hat x \cdot \hat x')$ is the scalar product $\hat x\cdot \hat x'$ which takes values between $-1$ and $+1$. Therefore the cooperativity functions can be expanded in terms of Legendre functions $P_l(\hat x\cdot \hat x')$, which form a complete orthogonal system on this interval [@grad 7.221.1]: $$\begin{aligned}
\int\limits_{-1}^{1}P_l(\sigma)P_{l'}(\sigma)\,d\sigma&=&\frac{2}{2l+1}\,\delta_{ll'}\,,\label{wagnerportho}\\
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(2l+1)P_l(\sigma')P_l(\sigma)&=&\delta(\sigma-\sigma')\,.\label{wagnerpvollst}\end{aligned}$$ Then the expansion of the cooperativity functions read $$c(\hat x \cdot \hat x')=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}f_l\,P_l(\hat x \cdot \hat x')\,,\label{kuct}$$ where $f_l$ denote the respective expansion coefficients. Using the Legendre addition theorem [@arf] $$\label{kuaddtheorem}
P_l(\hat x \cdot \hat x')=\frac{4\pi}{2l+1}\sum_{m=-l}^l Y_{lm}(\hat x\,)Y_{lm}^*(\hat x')\,,$$ we arrive, for each manifold, at the expansion $$\label{KU1}
c_T(\hat t \cdot \hat t')=\sum_{L=0}^{\infty}\sum_{M=-L}^L f_L^T Y_{LM}^T(\hat t\,) Y_{LM}^{T*}(\hat t'\,)\,,
\quad c_R(\hat r \cdot \hat r')=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-l}^l f_l^R Y_{lm}^R(\hat r) Y_{lm}^{R*}(\hat r'\,)\,.$$ Note that the normalization of the cooperativity functions and the orthonormality relations (\[KUOR1\]) lead to the constraints $f_0^T=f_0^R=1$.
Eigenvalues
-----------
The initial state of ontogenesis with randomly distributed synaptic contacts is described by the stationary uniform solution of the generalized H[ä]{}ussler equations, $w_0(\hat t,\hat r)=1$. Its stability is analyzed by linearizing the H[ä]{}ussler equations (\[hslerkugel\]) with respect to the deviation $v(\hat t,\hat r)=w(\hat t,\hat r)-w_0(\hat t,\hat r)$. The resulting linearized equations read $$\label{gen43}
\dot v(\hat t,\hat r)=\hat{L}(\hat t,\hat r,v)$$ with the linear operator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Loperator}
&&\hspace*{0.5cm}\hat{L}(\hat t,\hat r,v)=-\alpha v (\hat t,\hat r)
-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int\! d\Omega_{t'} \left[v(\hat t',\hat r) +
\int\! d\Omega_{t''}\int\! d\Omega_{r''}\, c_T(\hat t'\cdot\hat t'') \, c_R(\hat r\cdot\hat r'')\, v(\hat t'',\hat r'')
\right]
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int\! d\Omega_{r'} \left[v(\hat t,\hat r') +
\int\! d\Omega_{t''}\!\int\! d\Omega_{r''}\, c_T(\hat t\cdot\hat t'') \, c_R(\hat r' \cdot\hat r'')\, v(\hat t'',\hat r'')
\right]+\int\! d\Omega_{t'}\!\int\! d\Omega_{r'}\, c_T(\hat t\cdot \hat t') \, c_R(\hat r\cdot \hat r')\,
v(\hat t',\hat r')
\,.\end{aligned}$$ To solve Eq. (\[gen43\]), we have to consider the eigenvalue problem of the linear operator (\[Loperator\]). It has the eigenfunctions $$\label{efsphere}
v_{L l}^{M m}(\hat t,\hat r)=Y_{LM}^T(\hat t\,) Y_{lm}^R(\hat r)$$ and the spectrum of eigenvalues reads [@gpw1]: $$\label{kuew1042}
\Lambda_{Ll}^{Mm}=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
-\alpha-1&L=M=l=m=0\\
-\alpha+(f_L^T f_l^R-1)/2&L=M=0,\,(l,m)\not=(0,0)\\
&l=m=0,\,(L,M)\not=(0,0)\\
-\alpha+f_L^T f_l^R& \mbox{ otherwise }.
\end{array} \right.$$ By changing the uniform growth rate $\alpha$ in a suitable way, the real parts of some eigenvalues (\[kuew1042\]) become positive and the system can be driven to the neighborhood of an instability. Which eigenvalues (\[kuew1042\]) become unstable in general depends on the respective values of the given expansion coefficients $f_L^T$, $f_l^R$. If we assume monotonically decreasing expansion coefficients $f_L^T$, $f_l^R$, $$1=f_0^T\geq f_1^T\geq f_2^T\geq \cdots \geq 0\,,\qquad 1=f_0^R\geq f_1^R\geq f_2^R\geq \cdots \geq 0\,,$$ the maximum eigenvalue in (\[kuew1042\]) is given by $\Lambda_{\rm max}=\Lambda_{11}^{M m}=-\alpha+f_1^T f_1^R$. Thus, the instability occurs when the global growth rate reaches its critical value $\alpha_c=f_1^T f_1^R$. At this instability point all nine modes with $(L^u,l^u)=(1,1)$ and $M^u=0,\pm 1$, $m^u=0,\pm 1$ become unstable, where we have introduced the index $u$ for the unstable modes.
Nonlinear Analysis {#nonlinanalys}
==================
In this section we specialize the generic order parameter equations of Ref. [@gpw1] to unit spheres. We observe that the quadratic term vanishes and derive selection rules for the appearance of cubic terms. Furthermore, we essentially simplify the calculation of the order parameter equations by taking into account the symmetry properties of the cubic terms. We show that the order parameter equations represent a potential dynamics, and determine the underlying potential.
General Structure of Order Parameter Equations
----------------------------------------------
The linear stability analysis motivates treating the nonlinear H[ä]{}ussler equations (\[hslerkugel\]) near the instability by decomposing the deviation $v(\hat t,\hat r)=w(\hat t,\hat r)-
w_0(\hat t,\hat r)$ in unstable and stable contributions, $$\label{US}
v(\hat t,\hat r) = U(\hat t,\hat r)+S(\hat t,\hat r)\,.$$ Using Einstein’s sum convention the expansion of the unstable modes reads $$\label{UEXP}
U(\hat t,\hat r)=
U_{11}^{M^u m^u} Y_{1 M^u}^T (\hat t\,) Y_{1 m^u}^R (\hat r\,) \, ,$$ and, correspondingly, the contribution of the stable modes is given by $$\label{SEXP}
S(\hat t,\hat r)=
S_{L l}^{M m} Y_{L M}^T (\hat t\,) Y_{l m}^R (\hat r\,) \,.$$ Note that the summation in (\[SEXP\]) is performed over all parameters $(L,l)$ except for $(L^u,l^u)=(1,1)$, i.e. from now on the parameters $(L,l)$ stand for the stable modes alone. With the help of the slaving principle of synergetics [@Haken1; @Haken2] the original high-dimensional system can be reduced to a low-dimensional one which only contains the unstable amplitudes. The resulting order parameter equations read [@gpw1] $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.6cm}\dot U^{M^u m^u} &=&\Lambda \,
U^{M^u m^u} +
A_{M^u, M^u{}' M^u{}''}^{m^u, m^u{}' m^u{}''}
\,U^{M^u{}' m^u{}'} \, U^{M^u{}'' m^u{}''}
+ B_{M^u, M^u{}' M^u{}'' M^u{}'''}^{m^u{},
m^u{}' m^u{}'' m^u{}'''} U^{M^u{}' m^u{}'}
\, U^{M^u{}'' m^u{}''}\, U^{M^u{}''' m^u{}'''} \,.
\label{OPE}\end{aligned}$$ They contain, as usual, a linear, a quadratic, and a cubic term of the order parameters. The corresponding coefficients can be expressed in terms of the expansion coefficients $f_L^T$, $f_l^R$ of the cooperativity functions (\[KU1\]) and integrals over products of the eigenfunctions $Y_{l m}(\hat x)$: $$\begin{aligned}
I_{l,l^{(1)} l^{(2)} \ldots l^{(n)}}^{m,m^{(1)} m^{(2)} \dots m^{(n)}}
&=&\hspace*{1mm}\int\! d\Omega_x\,
Y_{lm}^*(\hat x)\,Y_{l^{(1)}\,m^{(1)}}(\hat x)\,Y_{l^{(2)}\,m^{(2)}}(\hat x)\,\cdots\,
Y_{l^{(n)}\,m^{(n)}}(\hat x)\,,\label{abkurzI}\\
J_{l^{(1)} l^{(2)} \ldots l^{(n)}}^{m^{(1)} m^{(2)} \ldots m^{(n)}}
&=&\hspace*{1mm}\int\!d\Omega_x\,
Y_{l^{(1)}\,m^{(1)}}(\hat x)\, Y_{l^{(2)}\,m^{(2)}}(\hat x)\,\cdots\,
Y_{l^{(n)}\,m^{(n)}} (\hat x)\,. \label{abkurzJ}\end{aligned}$$ The quadratic coefficients read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AA}
A_{M^u, M^u{}' M^u{}''}^{m^u, m^u{}' m^u{}''} = f_1^T \,
f_1^R \, I_{1,1\,1}^{M^u,M^u{}' M^u{}''}
\, I_{1,1\,1}^{m^u,m^u{}' m^u{}''} \,,\end{aligned}$$ whereas the cubic coefficients are $$\begin{aligned}
B_{M^u, M^u{}' M^u{}'' M^u{}'''}^{m^u{}, m^u{}' m^u{}'' m^u{}'''}
&=& - \frac{1}{8\pi}\,f_1^T \, f_1^R
\left(I_{1,1\,1\,1}^{M^u,M^u{}' M^u{}'' M^u{}'''}
\,\delta_{m^u m^u{}'} \,J_{1\,1}^{m^u{}'' m^u{}'''}
+ I_{1,1\,1\,1}^{m^u,m^u{}' m^u{}'' m^u{}'''} \delta_{M^u M^u{}'} \,
J_{1\,1}^{M^u{}'' M^u{}'''} \right)
\nonumber \\&&
+\left\{ \left[ f_L^T \, f_l^R +f_1^T \, f_1^R \, \right]
I_{1,1\,L}^{M^u,M^u{}' M} \,
I_{1,1\,l}^{m^u,m^u{}' m}
- \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \,
\left[\delta_{L0}\,\delta_{M0} \delta_{M^u M^u{}'} \,
\left( 1+ f_l^R \right)
I_{1,1\,l}^{m^u,m^u{}' m}
\right.\right. \nonumber \\ && \left. \left.
+\delta_{l0}\,\delta_{m0}\delta_{m^u m^u{}'}
\, \left( 1+f_L^T\right)
\, I_{1,1\,L}^{M^u,M^u{}' M}
\right] \right\} H_{Ll}^{Mm,M^u{}'' m^u{}'' M^u{}''' m^u{}'''} \,
\,.
\label{BB}\end{aligned}$$ Note that Eq. (\[BB\]) involves a summation over all stable modes $(L,M;l,m)$. As is common in synergetics, the cubic coefficients (\[BB\]) consist in general of two parts, one stemming from the order parameters themselves and the other representing the influence of the center manifold $H$ on the order parameter dynamics according to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HN}
S_{L l}^{M m} =
H_{Ll}^{Mm,M^u m^u M^u{}' m^u{}'} \,
U^{M^u m^u} U^{M^u{}' m^u{}'} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Here the center manifold coefficients $H_{Ll}^{Mm,M^u m^u M^u{}' m^u{}'}$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HNN}
H_{Ll}^{Mm,M^u m^u M^u{}' m^u{}'} &=&
\frac{f_1^T f_1^R}{2\Lambda-\Lambda_{Ll} }
\Bigg[ I_{L,1\,1}^{M,M^u M^u{}'} \,
I_{l,1\,1}^{m,m^u m^u{}'}
- \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \, \left(J_{1\,1}^{M^u M^u{}'}
\,I_{l,1\,1}^{m,m^u{}' m^u{}''} \,\delta_{L0} \right.\nonumber\\
& &\left.+J_{1\,1}^{m^u m^u{}'} \,I_{L,1\,1}^{M,M^u M^u{}'}
\,\delta_{l0} \right) \Bigg] \,.
\label{QRES}\end{aligned}$$
Integrals
---------
The order parameter equations contain the following integrals: $J_{11}^{m' m''},
I_{1,11}^{m,m' m''},I_{l,11}^{m,m' m''},I_{1,1 l}^{m,m' m''},I_{1,111}^{m,m' m'' m'''}$. The first integral is obtained by the orthonormality relation (\[KUOR1\]) and $$\label{kuyminusm}
Y_{l-m}(\hat x)=(-1)^m Y_{lm}^*(\hat x)\,,$$ yielding $J_{1 1}^{m' m''}=(-1)^{m'}\delta_{m',-m''}$. Integrals over three and four spherical harmonics can be calculated with the help of the following relation [@cohen]: $$Y_{l_1,m_1}(\hat x)Y_{l_2,m_2}(\hat x)=\sum_{l_3=|l_1-l_2|}^{l_1+l_2}
\sum_{m_3=-l_3}^{l_3}\sqrt{\frac{(2l_1+1)(2l_2+1)}{4\pi(2l_3+1)}}\,C(l_1,0,l_2,0|l_3,0)\,C(l_1,m_1,l_2,m_2|l_3,m_3)\,Y_{l_3,m_3}(\hat x)\,,\label{kuYprod}$$ where $C(l_1,m_1,l_2,m_2|l_3,m_3)$ represent the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients [@heine]. Applying (\[kuYprod\]) to integrals over three spherical harmonics leads to $$\label{3fachint}
I_{l,l' l''}^{m,m' m''}=\sqrt{\frac{(2l'+1)(2l''+1)}{4\pi(2l+1)}}\,C(l',0,l'',0|l,0)\,
C(l',m',l'',m''|l,m)\,.$$ For $l'=l''=1$ it follows $$\label{1046}
I_{l,1 1}^{m,m' m''}=\frac{3}{\sqrt{4\pi(2l+1)}}\,C(1,0,1,0|l,0)\,C(1,m',1,m''|l,m)\,.$$ As the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients $C(l_1,0,l_2,0|l_3,0)$ vanish if the sum $l_1+l_2+l_3$ is odd [@heine], we obtain $I_{1,11}^{m,m' m''}=0$. Thus, the quadratic contribution (\[AA\]) to the order parameter equations (\[OPE\]) vanishes, by analogy with Euclidean manifolds [@gpw2]. Furthermore, non-vanishing integrals (\[1046\]) can only occur for $l=0$ and $l=2$. For $l=0$ we obtain from the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients [@heine] the result $$I_{0,1 1}^{0,m' m''}=\frac{(-1)^{m'}}{\sqrt{4\pi}}\,\delta_{m',m''}\,.$$ For $l=2$ we find, correspondingly, the nonvanishing integrals $$I_{0,11}^{0,00}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}}\,,\quad I_{2,11}^{0,00}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5\pi}}\,,
\quad I_{0,11}^{0,1-1}=I_{0,11}^{0,-11}=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}}\,,\quad I_{2,11}^{0,1-1}=
I_{2,11}^{0,-11}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{20\pi}}\,,$$ $$I_{2,11}^{1,10}=I_{2,11}^{1,01}=I_{2,11}^{-1,-10}=I_{2,11}^{-1,0-1}=\frac{3}{2\sqrt{15\pi}}
\,,\quad I_{2,11}^{2,11}=\frac{3}{\sqrt{30\pi}}\,,\quad I_{2,11}^{-2,-1 -1}=-\frac{3}{\sqrt{30\pi}}\,.$$ Furthermore, the integrals $I_{1,1 l}^{m,m' m''}$ follow from $$\label{ku1064}
I_{1,1 l}^{m,m' m''}=(-1)^{m'+m''}I_{l,1 1}^{-m'',-m\,m'}\,.$$ Integrals over four spherical harmonics can also be calculated with the help of (\[kuYprod\]), and the result is $$\label{sphere38}
I_{l,l' l'' l'''}^{m,m' m'' m'''}=\sum_{l_3=|l''-l'''|}^{l''+l'''}\sum_{m_3=-l_3}^{l_3}
\sqrt{\frac{(2l''+1)(2l'''+1)}{4\pi(2l_3+1)}}\,C(l'',0,l''',0|l_3,0)
C(l'',m'',l''',m'''|l_3,m_3) I_{l,l' l_3}^{m,m' m_3}\,.$$ Specialyzing (\[sphere38\]) to $l=l'=l''=l'''=1$ and taking into account (\[3fachint\]) leads to $I_{1,1\,1\,1}^{m,m' m'' m'''}\propto\delta_{m'+m''+m''',m}$. Thus, we obtain the selection rule that the nonvanishing integrals $I_{1,1\,1\,1}^{m,m' m'' m'''}$ fulfill the condition $m'+m''+m'''=m$. The detailed evaluation yields for those the respective values $$\begin{aligned}
I_{1,111}^{0,000}&=&\frac{9}{20\pi}\,,\nonumber\\
\hspace{-0.5cm}I_{1,111}^{0,1-10}=I_{1,111}^{0,-110}=I_{1,111}^{0,10-1}=I_{1,111}^{0,-101}
=I_{1,111}^{0,01-1}=I_{1,111}^{0,0-11}&=&-\frac{3}{20\pi}\,,\nonumber\\
\hspace{-0.5cm}I_{1,111}^{1,100}=I_{1,111}^{1,010}=I_{1,111}^{1,001}=I_{1,111}^{-1,-100}
=I_{1,111}^{-1,0-10}=I_{1,111}^{-1,00-1}&=&\frac{3}{20\pi}\,,\nonumber\\
I_{1,111}^{1,11-1}=I_{1,111}^{1,1-11}=I_{1,111}^{1,-111}=I_{1,111}^{-1,1-1-1}
=I_{1,111}^{-1,-11-1}=I_{1,111}^{-1,-1-11}&=&-\frac{3}{10\pi}\,.\label{kui4b}\end{aligned}$$
Order Parameter Equations
-------------------------
To simplify the calculation of the cubic coefficients (\[BB\]) in the order parameter equations (\[OPE\]), we perform some basic considerations which lead to helpful symmetry properties. To this end we start with replacing $m^u$ by $-m^u$. Using Eq. (\[kuyminusm\]) we obtain $I_{1,1\,1\,1}^{m^u,m^{u'} m^{u''} m^{u'''}}=I_{1,1\,1\,1}^{-m^u,-m^{u'}-m^{u''}-m^{u'''}}$. Corresponding symmetry relations can also be derived for the other terms in (\[BB\]). Therefore, we conclude that the order parameter equation for $U^{-M^u -m^u}$ is obtained from that of $U^{M^u m^u}$ by negating all indices $M^u$ and $m^u$ with unchanged factors. Thus, instead of explicitly calculating nine order parameter equations, it is sufficient to restrict oneself determining the order parameter equations for $U^{00}$, $U^{10}$, $U^{01}$, and $U^{11}$. The remaining five order parameter equations follow instantaneously from those by applying the symmetry relations. With this the order parameter equations result in $$\begin{aligned}
\dot U^{00}&=&\Lambda U^{00}+\beta_1(U^{00})^3-2\beta_2 U^{00}U^{-10}U^{10}-2\bar\beta_2
U^{00}U^{0-1}U^{01}+2\beta_3 U^{00}U^{1-1}U^{-11}+2\beta_3 U^{00}U^{-1-1}U^{11}\nonumber\\
& &+\beta_4U^{01}U^{10}U^{-1-1}+\beta_4U^{0-1}U^{-10}U^{11}+\beta_4U^{0-1}U^{10}U^{-11}+
\beta_4U^{01}U^{-10}U^{1-1}\,,\nonumber\\
\dot U^{11}&=&\Lambda U^{11}+\beta_4 U^{00}U^{01}U^{10}+\beta_5(U^{01})^2U^{1-1}+\beta_6U^{01}U^{0-1}U^{11}
+\beta_3(U^{00})^2U^{11}\nonumber\\
& &+\beta_5(U^{10})^2U^{-11}+\bar \beta_6 U^{10}U^{-10}U^{11}+\beta_7U^{11}U^{1-1}U^{-11}+\beta_8(U^{11})^2
U^{-1-1}\,,\nonumber\\
\dot U^{-1-1}&=&\Lambda U^{-1-1}+\beta_4 U^{00}U^{0-1}U^{-10}+\beta_5(U^{0-1})^2U^{-11}+\beta_6U^{0-1}U^{01}
U^{-1-1}+\beta_3(U^{00})^2U^{-1-1}\nonumber\\
& &+\beta_5(U^{-10})^2U^{1-1}+\bar \beta_6 U^{-10}U^{10}U^{-1-1}+\beta_7U^{-1-1}U^{-11}U^{1-1}
+\beta_8(U^{-1-1})^2U^{11}\,,\nonumber\\
\dot U^{1-1}&=&\Lambda U^{1-1}+\beta_4 U^{00}U^{0-1}U^{10}+\beta_5(U^{0-1})^2U^{11}+\beta_6U^{0-1}U^{01}U^{1-1}
+\beta_3(U^{00})^2U^{1-1}\nonumber\\
& &+\beta_5(U^{10})^2U^{-1-1}+\bar \beta_6 U^{10}U^{-10}U^{1-1}+\beta_7U^{1-1}U^{11}U^{-1-1}
+\beta_8(U^{1-1})^2U^{-11}\,,\nonumber\\
\dot U^{-11}&=&\Lambda U^{-11}+\beta_4 U^{00}U^{01}U^{-10}+\beta_5(U^{01})^2U^{-1-1}+\beta_6U^{01}U^{0-1}U^{-11}
+\beta_3(U^{00})^2U^{-11}\nonumber\\
& &+\beta_5(U^{-10})^2U^{11}+\bar \beta_6 U^{-10}U^{10}U^{-11}+\beta_7U^{-11}U^{-1-1}U^{11}
+\beta_8(U^{-11})^2U^{1-1}\,,\nonumber\\
\dot U^{01}&=&\Lambda U^{01}+\bar\beta_2U^{01}(U^{00})^2+\beta_9(U^{01})^2U^{0-1}-2\beta_3 U^{01}U^{10}U^{-10}
-\beta_4U^{00}U^{11}U^{-10}\nonumber\\
& &-\beta_4U^{00}U^{10}U^{-11}-\beta_6 U^{01}U^{11}U^{-1-1}-\beta_6U^{01}U^{1-1}U^{-11}
-2\beta_5 U^{0-1}U^{11}U^{-11}\,,\nonumber\\
\dot U^{0-1}&=&\Lambda U^{0-1}+\bar\beta_2U^{0-1}(U^{00})^2+\beta_9(U^{0-1})^2U^{01}-2\beta_3 U^{0-1}U^{-10}
U^{10}-\beta_4U^{00}U^{-1-1}U^{10}\nonumber\\
& &-\beta_4U^{00}U^{-10}U^{1-1}-\beta_6U^{0-1}U^{-1-1}U^{11}-\beta_6U^{0-1}U^{-11}U^{1-1}-2\beta_5 U^{01}
U^{-1-1}U^{1-1}\,,\nonumber\\
\dot U^{10}&=&\Lambda U^{10}+\beta_2U^{10}(U^{00})^2+\bar \beta_9(U^{10})^2U^{-10}-2\beta_3 U^{10}U^{01}U^{0-1}
-\beta_4U^{00}U^{11}U^{0-1}\nonumber\\
& &-\beta_4U^{00}U^{01}U^{1-1}-\bar \beta_6U^{10}U^{11}U^{-1-1}-\bar \beta_6U^{10}U^{-11}U^{1-1}-2\beta_5
U^{-10}U^{11}U^{1-1}\,,\nonumber\\
\dot U^{-10}&=&\Lambda U^{-10}+\beta_2U^{-10}(U^{00})^2+\bar \beta_9(U^{-10})^2U^{10}-2\beta_3 U^{-10}U^{0-1}
U^{01}-\beta_4U^{00}U^{-1-1}U^{01}\nonumber\\
& &-\beta_4U^{00}U^{0-1}U^{-11}-\bar \beta_6U^{-10}U^{-1-1}U^{11}-\bar \beta_6U^{-10}U^{1-1}U^{-11}-
2\beta_5 U^{10}U^{-1-1}U^{-11}\,.\label{Uequ}\end{aligned}$$ With the abbreviations $\tilde\gamma=\gamma/\pi^2$, $\gamma=f_1^T f_1^R$ and $\gamma^{L,l}=f_L^T f_l^R$ the respective coefficients in (\[Uequ\]) read $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_1&=&-\frac{9}{80}\tilde\gamma
+\frac{\tilde\gamma}{80}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{2,0}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{2,0}-1)/2}
+\frac{\tilde\gamma}{80}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{0,2}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{0,2}-1)/2}
+\frac{\tilde\gamma}{25}\frac{\gamma+\gamma^{2,2}}{2\gamma-\alpha-\gamma^{2,2}}\,,
\nonumber\\
\beta_2&=&-\frac{9}{80}\tilde\gamma
-\frac{\tilde\gamma}{40}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{2,0}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{2,0}-1)/2}
+\frac{\tilde\gamma}{80}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{0,2}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{0,2}-1)/2}
-\frac{2\tilde\gamma}{25}\frac{\gamma+\gamma^{2,2}}{2\gamma-\alpha-\gamma^{2,2}}\,,\nonumber\\
\bar\beta_2&=&-\frac{9}{80}\tilde\gamma
+\frac{\tilde\gamma}{80}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{2,0}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{2,0}-1)/2}
-\frac{\tilde\gamma}{40}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{0,2}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{0,2}-1)/2}
-\frac{2\tilde\gamma}{25}\frac{\gamma+\gamma^{2,2}}{2\gamma-\alpha-\gamma^{2,2}}\,,\nonumber\\
\beta_3&=&-\frac{3}{80}\tilde\gamma
-\frac{\tilde\gamma}{160}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{2,0}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{2,0}-1)/2}
-\frac{\tilde\gamma}{160}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{0,2}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{0,2}-1)/2}
+\frac{11\tilde\gamma}{200}\frac{\gamma+\gamma^{2,2}}{2\gamma-\alpha-\gamma^{2,2}}\,, \nonumber\\
\beta_4&=&-\frac{3}{40}\tilde\gamma
-\frac{3\tilde\gamma}{160}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{2,0}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{2,0}-1)/2}
-\frac{3\tilde\gamma}{160}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{0,2}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{0,2}-1)/2}
+\frac{21\tilde\gamma}{200}\frac{\gamma+\gamma^{2,2}}{2\gamma-\alpha-\gamma^{2,2}}\,, \nonumber\\
\beta_5&=&\frac{3}{40}\tilde\gamma
+\frac{3\tilde\gamma}{160}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{2,0}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{2,0}-1)/2}
+\frac{3\tilde\gamma}{160}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{0,2}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{0,2}-1)/2}
-\frac{3\tilde\gamma}{200}\frac{\gamma+\gamma^{2,2}}{2\gamma-\alpha-\gamma^{2,2}}\,, \nonumber\\
\beta_6&=&\frac{3}{20}\tilde\gamma
+\frac{\tilde\gamma}{32}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{2,0}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{2,0}-1)/2}
-\frac{\tilde\gamma}{160}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{0,2}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{0,2}-1)/2}
-\frac{13\tilde\gamma}{200}\frac{\gamma+\gamma^{2,2}}{2\gamma-\alpha-\gamma^{2,2}}\,, \nonumber\\
\bar\beta_6&=&\frac{3}{20}\tilde\gamma
-\frac{\tilde\gamma}{160}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{2,0}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{2,0}-1)/2}
+\frac{\tilde\gamma}{32}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{0,2}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{0,2}-1)/2}
-\frac{13\tilde\gamma}{200}\frac{\gamma+\gamma^{2,2}}{2\gamma-\alpha-\gamma^{2,2}}\,, \nonumber\\
\beta_7&=&-\frac{3}{10}\tilde\gamma
-\frac{\tilde\gamma}{32}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{2,0}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{2,0}-1)/2}
-\frac{\tilde\gamma}{32}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{0,2}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{0,2}-1)/2}
-\frac{11\tilde\gamma}{200}\frac{\gamma+\gamma^{2,2}}{2\gamma-\alpha-\gamma^{2,2}}\,, \nonumber\\
\beta_8&=&-\frac{3}{20}\tilde\gamma
+\frac{\tilde\gamma}{160}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{2,0}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{2,0}-1)/2}
+\frac{\tilde\gamma}{160}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{0,2}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{0,2}-1)/2}
+\frac{19\tilde\gamma}{200}\frac{\gamma+\gamma^{2,2}}{2\gamma-\alpha-\gamma^{2,2}}\,,\nonumber\\
\beta_9&=&\frac{9}{40}\tilde\gamma
-\frac{\tilde\gamma}{40}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{2,0}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{2,0}-1)/2}
+\frac{\tilde\gamma}{80}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{0,2}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{0,2}-1)/2}
+\frac{\tilde\gamma}{25}\frac{\gamma+\gamma^{2,2}}{2\gamma-\alpha-\gamma^{2,2}}\,,\nonumber\\
\bar\beta_9&=&\frac{9}{40}\tilde\gamma
+\frac{\tilde\gamma}{80}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{2,0}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{2,0}-1)/2}
-\frac{\tilde\gamma}{40}\frac{2\gamma+\gamma^{0,2}-1}{2\gamma-\alpha-(\gamma^{0,2}-1)/2}
+\frac{\tilde\gamma}{25}\frac{\gamma+\gamma^{2,2}}{2\gamma-\alpha-\gamma^{2,2}}\,. \label{sphere41}\end{aligned}$$ The first term proportional to $\tilde\gamma$ describes the influence of the order parameters themselves, while the other terms stand for the contributions of the center manifold.
Real Variables
--------------
To investigate how the complex order parameter equations contribute to the one-to-one retinotopy, we transform them to real variables according to $$\begin{array}{rclcrclcrcl}
\vspace{0.2cm}
u_0&=&U^{00}/\sqrt{2}&,&u_1&=&(U^{11}+U^{-1-1})/2&,&u_2&=&i(U^{11}-U^{-1-1})/2\\\vspace{0.2cm}
u_3&=&(U^{1-1}+U^{-11})/2&,&u_4&=&i(U^{1-1}-U^{-11})/2&,&u_5&=&(U^{01}-U^{0-1})/2\\
u_6&=&i(U^{01}+U^{0-1})/2&,&u_7&=&(U^{10}-U^{-10})/2&,&u_8&=&i(U^{10}+U^{-10})/2\,.
\end{array}$$ Then the equations of evolution for the real variables $u_i$ read $$\begin{aligned}
\dot u_0&=&\Lambda u_0+2 \beta_1 u_0^3+2\bar\beta_2 u_0(u_5^2+u_6^2)+2\beta_2 u_0(u_7^2+u_8^2)
+2\beta_3 u_0(u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2+u_4^2)\nonumber\\
& &+\sqrt{2}\,\beta_4(u_1u_5u_7+u_2u_5u_8+u_2u_6u_7+u_4u_6u_7-u_1u_6u_8-u_3u_5u_7-u_4u_5u_8
-u_3u_6u_8)\,,\label{kureellopgu0}\\
\dot u_1&=&\Lambda u_1+\sqrt{2}\,\beta_4 u_0(u_5u_7-u_6u_8)+\beta_5(u_3u_5^2-u_3u_6^2-2u_4u_5u_6)
-\beta_6u_1(u_5^2+u_6^2)-\bar\beta_6 u_1(u_7^2+u_8^2)\nonumber\\
& &+2\beta_3u_0^2 u_1+\beta_5(u_3u_7^2-u_3u_8^2+2u_4u_7u_8)+\beta_7u_1(u_3^2+u_4^2)+\beta_8u_1(u_1^2+u_2^2)\,,\\
\dot u_2&=&\Lambda u_2+\sqrt{2}\,\beta_4 u_0(u_5u_8+u_6u_7)+\beta_5(u_5^2u_4-u_4u_6^2+2u_3u_5u_6)
-\beta_6u_2(u_5^2+u_6^2)-\bar\beta_6 u_2(u_7^2+u_8^2)\nonumber\\
& &+2\beta_3u_0^2u_2-\beta_5(u_4u_7^2-u_4u_8^2-2u_3u_7u_8)+\beta_7u_2(u_3^2+u_4^2)+\beta_8u_2(u_1^2+u_2^2)\,,\\
\dot u_3&=&\Lambda u_3-\sqrt{2}\,\beta_4 u_0(u_5u_7+u_6u_8)+\beta_5(u_1u_5^2-u_1u_6^2+2u_2u_5u_6)
-\beta_6u_3(u_5^2+u_6^2)-\bar\beta_6 u_3(u_7^2+u_8^2)\nonumber\\
& &+2\beta_3u_0^2u_3+\beta_5(u_1u_7^2-u_1u_8^2+2u_2u_7u_8)+\beta_7u_3(u_1^2+u_2^2)+\beta_8u_3(u_3^2+u_4^2)
\,,\label{kureellopgu3}\\
\dot u_4&=&\Lambda u_4+\sqrt{2}\,\beta_4 u_0(u_6u_7-u_5u_8)+\beta_5(u_2u_5^2-u_2u_6^2-2u_1u_5u_6)-\beta_6u_4(u_5^2
+u_6^2)-\bar\beta_6 u_4(u_7^2+u_8^2)\nonumber\\
& &+2\beta_3u_0^2u_4+\beta_5(u_2u_8^2-u_2u_7^2+2u_1u_7u_8)+\beta_7u_4(u_1^2+u_2^2)+\beta_8u_4(u_3^2+u_4^2)\,,
\label{kureellopgu4}\\
\dot u_5&=&\Lambda u_5+2\bar\beta_2u_0^2u_5-\beta_9u_5(u_5^2+u_6^2)+2\beta_3 u_5(u_7^2+u_8^2)+\sqrt{2}
\,\beta_4u_0(u_1u_7-u_3u_7+u_2u_8-u_4u_8)\nonumber\\
& &-\beta_6u_5(u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2+u_4^2)-2\beta_5(u_1u_4u_6-u_1u_3u_5-u_2u_4u_5-u_2u_3u_6)\,,\\
\dot u_6&=&\Lambda u_6+2\bar\beta_2u_0^2u_6-\beta_9u_6(u_5^2+u_6^2)+2\beta_3 u_6(u_7^2+u_8^2)+\sqrt{2}
\,\beta_4u_0(u_2u_7+u_4u_7-u_1u_8-u_3u_8)\nonumber\\
& &-\beta_6u_6(u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2+u_4^2)-2\beta_5(u_1u_4u_5+u_1u_3u_6+u_2u_4u_6-u_2u_3u_5)\,,\\
\dot u_7&=&\Lambda u_7+2\beta_2u_0^2u_7-\bar\beta_9u_7(u_7^2+u_8^2)+2\beta_3 u_7(u_5^2+u_6^2)+\sqrt{2}
\,\beta_4u_0(u_1u_5-u_3u_5+u_2u_6+u_4u_6)\nonumber\\
& &-\bar\beta_6 u_7(u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2+u_4^2)-2\beta_5(u_2u_4u_7-u_1u_3u_7-u_2u_3u_8-u_1u_4u_8)\,,\\
\dot u_8&=&\Lambda u_8+2\beta_2u_0^2u_8-\bar\beta_9u_8(u_7^2+u_8^2)+2\beta_3 u_8(u_5^2+u_6^2)-\sqrt{2}
\,\beta_4u_0(u_1u_6+u_3u_6-u_2u_5+u_4u_5)\nonumber\\
& &-\bar\beta_6u_8(u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2+u_4^2)-2\beta_5(u_1u_3u_8-u_2u_3u_7-u_1u_4u_7-u_2u_4u_8)
\,.\label{kureellopgu8}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the real order parameter equations (\[kureellopgu0\])–(\[kureellopgu8\]) follow according to $$\dot u_i=-\frac{\partial V(\{u_j\})}{\partial u_i}$$ from the potential $$\begin{aligned}
V(\{u_j\})&=&-\frac{\Lambda}{2}\sum_{j=0}^8u_j^2-\frac{\beta_1}{2}u_0^4-\bar\beta_2 u_0^2(u_5^2+u_6^2)
-\beta_2 u_0^2(u_7^2+u_8^2)-\beta_3 u_0^2(u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2+u_4^2)\nonumber\\
& &\hspace{-1.1cm}-\sqrt{2}\beta_4u_0(u_1u_5u_7+u_2u_5u_8+u_2u_6u_7+u_4u_6u_7-u_1u_6u_8
-u_3u_5u_7-u_4u_5u_8-u_3u_6u_8)\nonumber\\
& &\hspace{-1.1cm}-\beta_5(u_5^2-u_6^2)(u_1u_3+u_2u_4)-\beta_5(u_7^2-u_8^2)(u_1u_3-u_2u_4)
-2\beta_5u_7u_8(u_1u_4+u_2u_3)\nonumber\\
& &\hspace{-1.1cm}-2\beta_5u_5u_6(u_2u_3-u_1u_4)+\frac{1}{2}[\beta_6(u_5^2+u_6^2)
+\bar\beta_6(u_7^2+u_8^2)](u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2+u_4^2)-\frac{\beta_7}{2}(u_1^2+u_2^2)(u_3^2+u_4^2)\nonumber\\
& &\hspace{-1.1cm}-\beta_3 (u_5^2+u_6^2)(u_7^2+u_8^2)-\frac{\beta_8}{4}\left[(u_1^2
+u_2^2)^2+(u_3^2+u_4^2)^2\right]+\frac{\beta_9}{4}(u_5^2+u_6^2)^2+\frac{\bar\beta_9}{4}(u_7^2+u_8^2)^2
\,. \label{kupot}\end{aligned}$$ Naturally, a complete analytical determination of all stationary states of the real order parameter equations (\[kureellopgu0\])–(\[kureellopgu8\]) is impossible. However, we are able to demonstrate that certain stationary states admit for retinotopic modes.
Special Case
------------
To this end we consider the special case $u_1,u_2,u_5,u_6,u_7,u_8=0$. Then the equations (\[kureellopgu0\]), (\[kureellopgu3\]), and (\[kureellopgu4\]) for the non-vanishing amplitudes $u_0$, $u_3$, $u_4$ reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
\dot u_0&=&\Lambda u_0+2 \beta_1 u_0^3+2\beta_3 (u_3^2+u_4^2)u_0\,,\nonumber\\
\dot u_3&=&\Lambda u_3+2\beta_3 u_0^2 u_3+\beta_8 (u_3^2+u_4^2)u_3\,,\nonumber\\
\dot u_4&=&\Lambda u_4+2\beta_3 u_0^2 u_4+\beta_8 (u_3^2+u_4^2)u_4\,.\end{aligned}$$ Due to the relation $$\frac{\dot u_3}{u_3}=\frac{\dot u_4}{u_4}$$ one obtains constant phase-shift angles, i.e. it holds $u_3\propto u_4$. Therefore, the system of three coupled differential equations can be reduced to two variables. To this end we introduce the new variable $$\label{kuneuvariab}
\xi=\sqrt{u_3^2+u_4^2}\,,$$ which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\dot u_0&=&\Lambda u_0+2 \beta_1 u_0^3+2\beta_3 \xi^2 u_0\,,\label{kuu0glg}\nonumber\\
\dot \xi&=&\Lambda \xi+2\beta_3 u_0^2 \xi +\beta_8 \xi^3\,.\end{aligned}$$ The stationary solution, which corresponds to a coexistence of the two modes, is given by $$\label{kuu0xilsg}
u_0^2=-\frac{\Lambda}{2(\beta_3+\beta_8)}\,,\quad\xi^2=-\frac{\Lambda}{\beta_3+\beta_8}\,,$$ where we used the relation $\beta_8=\beta_1+\beta_3$ following from (\[sphere41\]). Demanding real amplitudes $u_0$, $\xi$ leads to the coexistence condition $$\label{kukoexungl1}
\beta_3+\beta_8<0\,.$$ Furthermore, we require stability for this state. Therefore we consider the corresponding potential $V(u_0,\xi)$, which can be read off from (\[kupot\]) and (\[kuneuvariab\]): $$V(u_0,\xi)=-\frac{\Lambda}{2}(u_0^2+\xi^2)-\frac{\beta_1}{2}u_0^4-\beta_3 u_0^2\xi^2-\frac{\beta_4}{4}\xi^4\,.$$ Stable states correspond to a minimum of $V$, which leads to the conditions $$\label{kukoexungl2}
2\beta_3-\beta_8>0\,,\quad \beta_3-\beta_8>0\,.$$ The inequalities (\[kukoexungl1\]), (\[kukoexungl2\]) can be summarized according to $$\beta_8<0\,,\quad \beta_3<-\beta_8\,,\quad 2\beta_3>\beta_8\,.$$ If they are valid, both the $u_0$- and the $\xi$-mode coexist. If we set $u_4=0$, without loss of generality, the solution reads in complex variables according to (\[kuneuvariab\]) $$U^{00}=\sqrt{-\frac{\Lambda}{\beta_3+\beta_8}}\,,\qquad U^{1-1}=U^{-11}=-\sqrt{-\frac{\Lambda}{\beta_3+\beta_8}}\,.$$ Thus, the unstable part (\[UEXP\]) is given by $$\label{sphere66}
U(\hat t,\hat r)=\sqrt{-\frac{\Lambda}{\beta_3+\beta_8}}\,\Big[Y_{10}^T(\hat t\,) Y_{10}^R(\hat r)
-Y_{11}^T(\hat t\,)Y_{1-1}^R(\hat r)-Y_{1-1}^T(\hat t\,)Y_{11}^R(\hat r)\Big]\,.$$ Using the Legendre addition theorem (\[kuaddtheorem\]) reduces (\[sphere66\]) to $$\label{kupl1}
U(\hat t,\hat r)=\sqrt{-\frac{\Lambda}{\beta_3+\beta_8}}\,P_1(\hat t\cdot\hat r)$$ with $P_1(\hat t\cdot \hat r)=\hat t \cdot \hat r$. Thus, the unstable part is minimal, if $\hat t$ and $\hat r$ are antiparallel, i.e. the distance of the corresponding points on the unit sphere is maximum. Decreasing of the angle between $\hat t$ and $\hat r$ leads to increasing values of $U(\hat t,\hat r)$, and the maximum occurs for parallel unit vectors. This justifies calling the mode (\[kupl1\]) retinotopic.
One-to-One Retinotopy {#11retino}
=====================
Now we investigate whether the generalized H[ä]{}ussler equations (\[hslerkugel\]) describe the emergence of a perfect one-to-one retinotopy between two spheres. To this end we follow the unpublished suggestions of Ref. [@Malsburg4] and treat systematically the contribution of higher modes. Because the Legendre functions form a complete orthogonal system (\[wagnerportho\]), (\[wagnerpvollst\]) for functions defined on the interval $[-1,+1]$, their products can always be written as linear combinations of Legendre functions. This motivates that the influence of higher modes upon the connection weights, which obey the generalized H[ä]{}ussler equations (\[hslerkugel\]), can be included by the ansatz $$\label{wagneransatz}
w(\sigma)=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(2l+1)Z_l P_l(\sigma)\,,$$ where the amplitudes $Z_l$ are time dependent.
Recursion Relations
-------------------
Inserting (\[wagneransatz\]) into the generalized H[ä]{}ussler equations (\[hslerkugel\]) and performing the integrals over the respective unit spheres leads to $$\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(2l+1)\dot Z_l P_l(\sigma)=\alpha\left[1-\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(2l+1)Z_l P_l(\sigma)\right]
+\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(2l+1)Z_l P_l(\sigma)\sum_{l'=0}^{\infty}(2l'+1)Z_{l'}f_{l'}^T f_{l'}^R [P_{l'}(\sigma)-Z_{l'}]
\,.\label{wagnerstern}$$ The products of Legendre functions occuring in (\[wagnerstern\]) can be reduced to linear combinations of single Legendre functions according to the standard decomposition [@grad 8.915] $$P_l(\sigma)P_{l'}(\sigma)=\sum_{k=0}^{l}A_{l,l',k}P_{l+l'-2k}(\sigma)\,,\quad l\leq l'$$ with the coefficients $$\label{wagnerA}
A_{l,l',k}=
\frac{(2l'+2l-4k+1)\,a_{l'-k}a_k a_{l-k}}
{(2l'+2l-2k+1)\,a_{l+l'-k}}\,,
\quad a_k=\frac{(2k-1)!!}{k!}\,.$$ Thus, contributions to the polynomial $P_{\tilde l}(\sigma)$ only occur iff the relation $k=(l+l'-\tilde l)/2$ is fulfilled. Furthermore, using the orthonormality relation (\[wagnerportho\]) yields the following recursion relation for the amplitudes $Z_l$: $$\begin{aligned}
(2l+1)\dot Z_l&=&\alpha[\delta_{l,0}-(2l+1)Z_l]-(2l+1)Z_l(Z_0^2+3f_1^T f_1^R Z_1^2)
+\sum_{l'=0}^{\infty}(2l'+1)Z_{l'}\left[\sum_{l''=0}^l (2l''+1)Z_{l''}f_{l''}^T f_{l''}^R \right.\nonumber\\
& &\left.\times\sum_{k=0}^{l''}A_{l',l'',k}\delta_{k,(l'+l''-l)/2}+\sum_{l''=l'+1}^{\infty}(2l''+1)
Z_{l''}f_{l''}^T f_{l''}^R \sum_{k=0}^{l'}A_{l',l'',k}\delta_{k,(l'+l''-l)/2} \right]\,. \label{128}\end{aligned}$$ Note that Eq. (\[128\]) cannot be solved analytically for arbitrary expansion coefficients $f_l^T$, $f_l^R$ of the cooperativity functions. Therefore, we restrict ourselves from now on to a special case.
Special Cooperativity Functions
-------------------------------
For simplicity we assume that the expansion of the cooperativity functions (\[kuct\]) breaks down after the first order: $$\label{129}
c_T(\hat t\cdot\hat t')=\frac{1}{4\pi}[1+3 f_1^T P_1(\hat t\cdot\hat t')]\,,\qquad c_R(\hat r\cdot\hat r')
=\frac{1}{4\pi}[1+3 f_1^R P_1(\hat r\cdot\hat r')]\,.$$ With this choice the recursion relation (\[128\]) for $l=0$ reduces to $$\label{wagnerz0}
\dot Z_0=-(\alpha+Z_0^2+3\gamma Z_1^2)(Z_0-1)\,,$$ where we have used again the abbreviation $\gamma=f_1^T f_1^R$. For $l\not=0$, by taking into account (\[wagnerA\]), we obtain $$\label{wagner3stern}
\dot Z_l=-(\alpha+Z_0^2+3\gamma Z_1^2)Z_l+Z_0 Z_l+3\gamma Z_1\,\frac{lZ_{l-1}+(l+1)Z_{l+1}}{2l+1}\,.$$ The long-time behavior of the system corresponds to its stationary states. They are determined by $Z_0=1$ from (\[wagnerz0\]), whereas (\[wagner3stern\]) leads to a nonlinear recursion relation for the amplitudes $Z_l$ with $l\not=0$. However, by introducing the variable $$\label{wagnerualpha}
u=\frac{\alpha+3\gamma Z_1(u)^2}{3\gamma Z_1(u)}\,,$$ this nonlinear recursion relation can be formally transformed into the linear one $$\label{wagnerrek}
(l+1)Z_{l+1}(u)=(2l+1)uZ_l(u)+lZ_{l-1}(u)\,,\quad l\geq 1\,.$$ Thus, solving the nonlinear recursion relation (\[wagner3stern\]) amounts to solving the linear recursion relation (\[wagnerrek\]) for $Z_l(u)$ in such a way that the self-consistency condition (\[wagnerualpha\]) is fulfilled.
Generating Function
-------------------
To determine the amplitudes $Z_l(u)$ we calculate their generating function $$\label{wagnererz}
E(x,u)=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}Z_l(u)x^l\,,$$ where we have the normalization $$\label{wagnerex0}
E(0,u)=Z_0(u)=1\,.$$ Multiplying both sides of (\[wagnerrek\]) with $x^l$ and summing over $l\geq 1$ leads to an inhomogeneous nonlinear partial differential equation of first order for the generating function: $$\label{wagnerinh}
(x^2-2ux+1)\,\frac{\partial E(x,u)}{\partial x}=(u-x)E(x,u)+Z_1(u)-u\,.$$ At first, we consider the homogeneous equation corresponding to (\[wagnerinh\]): $$(x^2-2ux+1)\,\frac{\partial E_{\rm hom}(x,u)}{\partial x}=(u-x)E_{\rm hom}(x,u)\,.$$ It is solved by the method of separating variables, yielding $$E_{\rm hom}(x,u)=\frac{K(u)}{\sqrt{x^2-2ux+1}}\,,$$ where $K(u)$ is an integration constant. Afterwards, we determine a particular solution of the inhomogeneous equation (\[wagnerinh\]) by using the method of varying constants. Using the ansatz $$E_{\rm part}(x,u)=\frac{K(x,u)}{\sqrt{x^2-2ux+1}}$$ leads to the differential equation $$\frac{\partial K(x,u)}{\partial x}=\frac{Z_1(u)-u}{\sqrt{x^2-2ux+1}}\,,$$ which is solved by using [@grad 2.261]: $$K(x,u)=\frac{[Z_1(u)-u]\ln[2\sqrt{x^2-2ux+1}+2(x-u)]}{\sqrt{x^2-2ux+1}}\,.$$ Thus, the complete solution $E(x,u)=E_{\rm hom}(x,u)+E_{\rm part}(x,u)$ of Eq. (\[wagnerinh\]) reads as follows: $$E(x,u)=\frac{K(u)+[Z_1(u)-u]\ln[2\sqrt{x^2-2ux+1}+2(x-u)]}{\sqrt{x^2-2ux+1}}\,.$$ Furthermore, using the normalization condition (\[wagnerex0\]) fixes the integration constant to $K(u)=1-[Z_1(u)-u]\ln(2-2u)$. Thus, the generating function is finally given by $$\label{wagnererzeugende}
E(x,u)=\frac{1+[Z_1(u)-u]\ln\displaystyle{\frac{\sqrt{x^2-2ux+1}+x-u}{1-u}}}{\sqrt{x^2-2ux+1}}\,.$$
Decomposition
-------------
We now determine the unknown amplitudes $Z_l(u)$. From the mathematical literature it is well-known that the recursion relation (\[wagnerrek\]) holds both for the Legendre functions of first kind $P_l(u)$ and second kind $Q_l(u)$, respectively [@grad]. Thus, we expect that the generating function (\[wagnererzeugende\]) can be represented as a linear combination of the generating functions of the Legendre functions of both first and second kind, which are given by [@grad 8.921] and [@grad 8.791.2]: $$\begin{aligned}
E_P(x,u)&=&\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}P_l(u)x^l=\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^2-2ux+1}}\,,\label{Pgen}\\
E_Q(x,u)&=&\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}Q_l(u)x^l=
\frac{\ln\displaystyle{\frac{\sqrt{x^2-2ux+1}+u-x}{\sqrt{u^2-1}}}}{\sqrt{x^2-2ux+1}}
\,.\label{Qgen}\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, taking into account the explicit form of the Legendre function of second kind for $l=0$ [@arf] $$\label{wagnerq0}
Q_0(u)=\frac{1}{2}\ln \frac{u+1}{u-1}\,,$$ the generating function (\[wagnererzeugende\]) decomposes according to $$E(x,u)=\{1+[Z_1(u)-u]Q_0(u)\}E_P(x,u)-[Z_1(u)-u]E_Q(x,u)\,.$$ Inserting (\[Pgen\]), (\[Qgen\]) and performing a comparison with (\[wagnererz\]) then yields the result $$\label{wagnerzl}
Z_l(u)=\{1+[Z_1(u)-u]Q_0(u)\}P_l(u)-[Z_1(u)-u]Q_l(u)\,.$$ Thus, the amplitudes $Z_l(u)$ turn out to be linear combinations of $P_l(u)$ and $Q_l(u)$. To fix the yet undetermined amplitude $Z_1(u)$ in the expansion coefficients of (\[wagnerzl\]), we have to take into account the boundary condition that the sum in the ansatz (\[wagneransatz\]) has to converge.
Boundary Condition
------------------
![\[pqlegendre\] The Legendre functions of first and second kind $P_l(u)$ and $Q_l(u)$ for $u>1$. We have $P_l(1)=1$, whereas $Q_l(u)$ diverges for $u\downarrow 1$. Important for the boundary condition of $Z_l(u)$ is the different behavior for increasing values of $l$: $P_l(u)$ diverges according to (\[wagnerpldiv\]), whereas $Q_l(u)$ converges to zero.](fig2.eps)
Because the Legendre functions $P_l(\sigma)$ do not vanish with increasing $l$, we must require $$\lim_{l\to \infty}Z_l(u)=0\,.$$ The series of Legendre functions of first kind $P_l(u)$ with fixed $u>1$ diverges for $l\to \infty$ according to [@grad 8.917] $$\label{wagnerpldiv}
P_0(u)<P_1(u)<P_2(u)<\ldots<P_n(u)<\ldots\,,\quad u>1\,.$$ The Legendre functions of second kind $Q_l(u)$, however, converge to zero (see Figure \[pqlegendre\]). Thus, performing the limit $l\to \infty$ in Eq. (\[wagnerzl\]), we obtain $$1+[Z_1(u)-u]Q_0(u)=0\,.$$ From the explicit form [@arf] $Q_1(u)=uQ_0(u)-1$ it follows that $Z_1(u)$ is fixed according to $$\label{wagnerz1}
Z_1(u)=\frac{Q_1(u)}{Q_0(u)}\,.$$ With this we obtain that the result (\[wagnerzl\]) finally reads $$\label{wagnerzlq}
Z_l(u)=\frac{Q_l(u)}{Q_0(u)}\,,$$ which is not valid only for $l\not=0$ but also for $l=0$ due to (\[wagnerex0\]).
Connection Weight
-----------------
Inserting (\[wagnerzlq\]) into (\[wagneransatz\]) yields the following solution for the connection weight: $$w(\sigma)=\frac{1}{Q_0(u)}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(2l+1)Q_l(u)P_l(\sigma)\,.$$ Using the identity [@grad 8.791.1] $$\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(2l+1)Q_l(u)P_l(\sigma)=\frac{1}{u-\sigma}$$ and (\[wagnerq0\]), we obtain for the connection weight $$\label{117}
w(\sigma)=\frac{2}{u-\sigma}\left(\ln\frac{u+1}{u-1}\right)^{-1}\,.$$ Note that integrating (\[117\]) over the unit sphere leads to $$\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}\!\!d\varphi\int\limits_{-1}^{+1}\!\!d\sigma\,w(\sigma)=4\pi\,,$$ i.e. the total connection weight coincides with the measure (\[kumass\]).\
On the other hand we have to take into account that the self-consistency condition (\[wagnerualpha\]) yields an explicit relation between the variable $u$ and the control parameter $\alpha$. Indeed, we infer from (\[wagnerualpha\]) and (\[wagnerz1\]) the following transcendental relation between $\alpha$ and $u$ $$\label{wagnera2g}
\frac{\alpha}{\gamma}=-\frac{2}{3}\left(\ln\frac{u+1}{u-1}\right)^{-1}
\left[2\left(\ln\frac{u+1}{u-1}\right)^{-1}-u\right]\,,$$ which is depicted in Figure \[alphavonu\]a.
Limiting Cases
--------------
a\) ![\[alphavonu\] a) Relation (\[wagnera2g\]) between the control parameter $\alpha$ and the variable $u$. b) The connection weight for different values of the control parameter $\alpha$. For decreasing values of $\alpha$ the connection weight around $\sigma=+1$ is growing. In the limiting case $\alpha\to 0$ the connection weight $w(\sigma)$ becomes Dirac’s delta function (\[kudeltafkt\]).](fig3.eps "fig:") b) ![\[alphavonu\] a) Relation (\[wagnera2g\]) between the control parameter $\alpha$ and the variable $u$. b) The connection weight for different values of the control parameter $\alpha$. For decreasing values of $\alpha$ the connection weight around $\sigma=+1$ is growing. In the limiting case $\alpha\to 0$ the connection weight $w(\sigma)$ becomes Dirac’s delta function (\[kudeltafkt\]).](fig4.eps "fig:")
The limiting value of (\[wagnera2g\]) for $u\to \infty$ is determined with the help of the expansion [@grad 1.513] $$\ln\frac{1+x}{1-x}=2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{2k-1}\,x^{2k-1}\,,\quad x^2<1\,,$$ and reads $$\label{uinft}
\lim_{u\to\,\infty}\alpha=\gamma\,.$$ Thus, we conclude that the case $u\to\,\infty$ corresponds to the instability point $\alpha_c=f_1^T f_1^R$, which was obtained from the linear stability analysis in Section \[linanalys\]. Correspondingly, using again (\[wagnera2g\]), we observe that the connection weight (\[117\]) coincides in the limit $u\to \infty$ with a uniform distribution: $$\lim_{\alpha\uparrow \alpha_c} w(\sigma)=1\,.$$ Another biological important special case is $u\downarrow 1$, where we obtain from (\[wagnera2g\]) $$\label{u1}
\lim_{u\downarrow 1}\alpha=0\,.$$ Furthermore, considering the limit $u\downarrow 1$ in (\[117\]) for $\sigma\not=u$, we obtain $$\lim_{u\downarrow 1}\frac{2}{u-\sigma}\left(\ln\frac{u+1}{u-1}\right)^{-1}=0\,.$$ On the other hand, integrating (\[117\]) for $u\downarrow 1$ over $\sigma$ yields $$\lim_{u\downarrow 1}\int\limits_{-1}^1 \frac{2}{u-\sigma}\left(\ln\frac{u+1}{u-1}\right)^{-1} d\sigma=2\,.$$ Therefore, we conclude that the connection weight $(\ref{117})$ becomes in this limit Dirac’s delta function: $$\label{kudeltafkt}
\lim_{\alpha\downarrow 0} w(\sigma)=4\delta(\sigma-1)\,.$$ Thus, decreasing the control parameter $\alpha$ means that the projection between two spheres becomes sharper and sharper (see Figure \[alphavonu\]b). A perfect one-to-one retinotopy is achieved for $\alpha=0$ when the uniform and undifferentiated formation of new synapses onto the tectum is completely terminated.
Summary
=======
In this series of three papers we have analyzed in detail the self-organized formation of retinotopic projections between manifolds of different geometries. Applying our generalized H[ä]{}ussler equations [@gpw1] to Euclidean manifolds [@gpw2], and to spheres in the present paper, led to remarkably analogous results. Both for one-dimensional strings and for spheres we have furnished proof that our generalized H[ä]{}ussler equations describe, indeed, the emergence of a perfect one-to-one retinotopy. Furthermore, we have shown in both cases that the underlying order parameter equations follow from a potential dynamics and do not contain quadratic terms. However, in contrast to strings, spherical manifolds represent a more adequate description for retina and tectum. Therefore, the present paper represents an essential progress in the understanding of the ontogenetic development of neural connections between retina and tectum.
[99]{} G.J. Goodhill and L.J. Richards, Trends Neurosci. [**22**]{}, 529 (1999) A.F. H[ä]{}ussler and C. von der Malsburg, J. Theoret. Neurobiol. [**2**]{}, 47 (1983) M. G[ü]{}[ß]{}mann, A. Pelster, and G. Wunner, [*Self-Organized Formation of Retinotopic Projections Between Manifolds of Different Geometries – Part 1: The General Model;*]{} eprint: [physics/0607253]{} H. Haken, [*Synergetics, An Introduction*]{}, Third Edition, Springer, Berlin (1983) H. Haken, [*Advanced Synergetics*]{}, Springer, Berlin (1983) M. G[ü]{}[ß]{}mann, A. Pelster, and G. Wunner, [*Self-Organized Formation of Retinotopic Projections Between Manifolds of Different Geometries – Part 2: Euclidean Manifolds;*]{} eprint: [physics/0607259]{} M. G[ü]{}[ß]{}mann, [*Self-Organization between Manifolds of Euclidean and non-Euclidean Geometry by Cooperation and Competition*]{}, Universit[ä]{}t Stuttgart, Ph.D. Thesis (2006);\
internet: [www.itp1.uni-stuttgart.de/publikationen/guessmann\_doktor\_2006.pdf]{} H. Kleinert, [*Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, Polymer Physics and Financial Markets*]{}, 4th ed. World Scientific, Singapore (2006) I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, [*Table of Integrals, Series, and Products*]{}, 4th ed. Academic Press, New York (1965) V. Heine, [*Group Theory in Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Dover, New York (1993) W. Wagner and C. von der Malsburg, private communication C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Lalo[ë]{}, [*Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Vol. 2, Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York (1977) G. B. Arfken and H. J. Weber, [*Mathematical Methods for Physicists*]{}, 5th ed. Academic Press, London (2001)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study non-selfadjoint operator algebras that can be entirely understood via their finite-dimensional representations. In contrast with the elementary matricial description of finite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras, in the non-selfadjoint setting we show that an additional level of flexibility must be allowed. Motivated by this peculiarity, we consider a natural non-selfadjoint notion of residual finite-dimensionality. We identify sufficient conditions for the tensor algebra of a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondence to enjoy this property. To clarify the connection with the usual self-adjoint notion, we investigate the residual finite-dimensionality of the minimal and maximal ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-covers associated to an operator algebra.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2'
author:
- Raphaël Clouâtre
- Christopher Ramsey
bibliography:
- '/Users/raphaelclouatre/Dropbox/Research/Shared/Chris-Raphael/RFDenvelope/biblio\_main\_RFD.bib'
title: 'Residually finite-dimensional operator algebras'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#S:intro}
============
Finite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras are easily understood as direct sums of matrix algebras. In trying to understand arbitrary ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras, it is therefore natural to approximate them, whenever possible, with finite-dimensional ones. This general strategy has led to the introduction of various important properties of ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras, such as nuclearity and quasidiagonality (see [@BO2008] for a detailed account). In view of the spectacular recent progress in the structure theory of ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras based on the idea of finite-dimensional approximations (see for instance [@TWW2017]), one may want to proceed along similar lines to clarify the structure of *non-selfadjoint* operator algebras, and such is the motivation for this paper.
Perhaps the most basic finite-dimensional approximation property that a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra can enjoy is that of residual finite-dimensionality. The class of residually finite-dimensional (RFD) ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras consists of those that can be embedded in a product of matrix algebras. In other words, RFD ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras admit block-diagonal decompositions with finite-dimensional blocks. This class contains the familiar commutative ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras, but also some more complicated objects; a classical example is the full ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra of the free group on two generators [@choi1980]. Furthermore, any ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra is a quotient of an RFD ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra [@GM1990]. Throughout the years, several characterizations of RFD ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras have emerged [@EL1992],[@archbold1995],[@hadwin2014],[@courtney2017]. Studying this property in the setting of non-selfadjoint operator algebras is the driving force of this paper. Similar investigations can be found scattered in the literature (see for instance [@mittal2010] and [@CM2017rfd]), but we adopt here a somehow more systematic approach.
Already, the mere definition of what it should mean for a general operator algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ to be RFD raises interesting questions. Assume for instance that ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ can be approximated, in some sense, by finite-dimensional operator algebras. It is not obvious at first glance whether the finite-dimensional approximating algebras can be taken to be comprised of matrices. The point here is that the structure of finite-dimensional operator algebras is not as transparent as that of their self-adjoint counterparts. Clarifying this issue is one our objectives.
The second main goal of the paper is to relate and contrast residual finite dimensionality in the self-adjoint world with the corresponding property in the non-selfadjoint world. We approach this question by starting with an RFD operator algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}$, and investigating whether the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras that various copies of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ generate (the so-called *${\mathrm{C}}^*$-covers* of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$) are also RFD. In fact, we will focus on two particularly important ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-covers: the maximal ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-cover ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$, and the minimal one ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})$, which is typically called the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope. We now describe the organization of the paper, and state our main results.
Section \[S:prelim\] introduces some necessary background material.
In Section \[S:structure\], we perform a careful analysis of finite-dimensional operator algebras. As opposed to the self-adjoint setting, finite-dimensional non-selfadjoint operator algebras may not be classified up to completely isometric isomorphism using matrix algebras. Such a simple description is available if one is willing to settle for a classification up to completely bounded isomorphisms (Proposition \[P:fdimoacb\] and Corollary \[C:fdoastructure\]). The main results of the section (Theorems \[T:fdimRFDnorm\] and \[T:RFDbimodule\]) show that finite-dimensional operator algebras can be well-approximated by matrix algebras.
The information about finite-dimensional operator algebras obtained in Section \[S:structure\] is leveraged in Section \[S:RFD\], where we turn to the study of residually finite-dimensional non-selfadjoint operator algebras. The main result of the section is the following (Theorem \[T:fdimvsfdim\]), which shows that despite the lack of a completely isometric classification of finite-dimensional operator algebras using matrix algebras, the two classes can be used interchangeably in the definition of an RFD operator algebra. This is consistent with the self-adjoint setting.
\[T:mainA\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ be an operator algebra. Consider the following statements.
1. There is a collection $\{{{\mathcal{B}}}_i\}_{i\in \Omega}$ of finite-dimensional operator algebras and a completely isometric homomorphism $\Phi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to \prod_{i\in \Omega}{{\mathcal{B}}}_i$.
2. There is a collection $\{{{\mathfrak{B}}}_i\}_{i\in \Omega}$ of finite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras and a completely isometric homomorphism $\Phi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to \prod_{i\in \Omega}{{\mathfrak{B}}}_i$.
3. For every $d\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$ and every $A\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$, there is a finite-dimensional operator algebra ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ and a completely contractive homomorphism $\pi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to{{\mathcal{B}}}$ such that $\|\pi^{(d)}(A)\|=\|A\|$.
4. For every $d\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$ and every $A\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$, there is a finite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra ${{\mathfrak{B}}}$ and a completely contractive homomorphism $\pi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to{{\mathfrak{B}}}$ such that $\|\pi^{(d)}(A)\|=\|A\|$.
Then, *(i)* and *(ii)* are equivalent, and *(iii)* and *(iv)* are equivalent.
We pay close attention to a very important class of operator algebras, namely the tensor algebras of ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondences. We study them carefully through the lens of residual finite-dimensionality. For instance, we obtain the following (Theorems \[T:fdcorrespondence\] and \[T:graph\]).
\[T:mainE\] The following statements hold.
1. Let ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ be a finite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra and let $X$ be a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondence over ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$. Then, the tensor algebra ${{\mathcal{T}}}_{X}^+$ is RFD.
2. Let $G$ be a directed graph and let $X_G$ be the associated graph correspondence. Then, the tensor algebra ${{\mathcal{T}}}^+_{X_G}$ is RFD.
For the remaining two sections, our focus shifts from residual finite-dimensionality of non-selfadjoint operator algebras to that of some of their ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-covers. First, in Section \[S:C\*max\], we consider the maximal ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-cover. The situation is particularly transparent for finite-dimensional operator algebras (Theorem \[T:C\*maxfdimA\]).
\[T:mainB\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ be a finite-dimensional operator algebra. Then, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is RFD.
We then ask whether ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ being RFD is equivalent to ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ being RFD, and exhibit supporting examples and sufficient conditions for that equivalence to hold (Corollary \[C:RFDdirectsum\] and Theorem \[T:idealRFD\]).
Finally, in Section \[S:C\*env\] we replace the maximal ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-cover in the previous considerations by the minimal one, also known as the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope. We exhibit an example of an RFD operator algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ for which ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is not RFD. The main results of the section identify conditions on an RFD operator algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ that are sufficient for the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})$ to be RFD (Theorems \[T:quotientRFD\] and \[T:epssurj\]). To state these results, we need the following notation. Let $(r_n)_n$ be a sequence of positive integers. For each $m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ we let $\gamma_m:\prod_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}\to {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_m}$ denote the natural projection. Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset \prod_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ be a unital operator algebra and let ${{\mathfrak{K}}}$ denote the ideal of compact operators in ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})$.
\[T:mainD\] The following statements hold.
1. Assume that every ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra which is a quotient of ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})/{{\mathfrak{K}}}$ is RFD. Then, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is RFD. In particular, this holds if ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})/{{\mathfrak{K}}}$ is commutative or finite-dimensional.
2. Assume that there is $N\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ with the property that $\gamma_n|_{{{\mathfrak{K}}}\cap {{\mathcal{A}}}}$ is a complete quotient map onto ${{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ for every $n\geq N$. Then, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is RFD.
**Acknowledgements.** The first author wishes to thank Matt Kennedy for a stimulating discussion which brought [@pestov1994] to his attention and sparked his interest in the residual finite-dimensionality of ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-covers.
Preliminaries {#S:prelim}
=============
Operator algebras and ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-covers
---------------------------------------------
Throughout the paper, ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$ will denote a complex Hilbert space and $B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ will denote the space of bounded linear operators on it. An *operator algebra* is simply a norm closed subalgebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$. It will be said to be unital if it contains the identity on ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$. Given a positive integer $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, we denote by ${{\mathbb{M}}}_n({{\mathcal{A}}})$ the space of $n\times n$ matrices with entries in ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. When ${{\mathcal{A}}}={{\mathbb{C}}}$, we simply write ${{\mathbb{M}}}_n$ instead of ${{\mathbb{M}}}_n({{\mathbb{C}}})$. The norm on ${{\mathbb{M}}}_n({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is that inherited from $B({{\mathfrak{H}}}^{(n)})$, where ${{\mathfrak{H}}}^{(n)}={{\mathfrak{H}}}\oplus {{\mathfrak{H}}}\oplus \ldots \oplus {{\mathfrak{H}}}$. Given a linear map ${\varphi}:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{\varphi})$, we denote by ${\varphi}^{(n)}$ the natural ampliation to ${{\mathbb{M}}}_n({{\mathcal{A}}})$. Recall that ${\varphi}$ is said to be *completely contractive* (respectively, *completely isometric*) if ${\varphi}^{(n)}$ is contractive (respectively, isometric) for every $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$. More generally, ${\varphi}$ is *completely bounded* if the quantity $$\|{\varphi}\|_{cb}=\sup_{n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\|{\varphi}^{(n)}\|$$ is finite. The reader may consult [@paulsen2002] for details.
Typically, we consider an operator algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ to be determined only up to completely isometric isomorphism. In particular, there are many different ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras that a copy of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ can generate, and the following notion formalizes this idea. A *${\mathrm{C}}^*$-cover* of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is a pair $({{\mathfrak{A}}}, \iota)$ consisting of a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ and a complete isometric homomorphism $\iota : {{\mathcal{A}}}\rightarrow {{\mathfrak{A}}}$ such that ${\mathrm{C}}^*(\iota({{\mathcal{A}}})) = {{\mathfrak{A}}}$. For our purposes, we will be focusing on two particular ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-covers, which we now describe.
The *maximal* ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-cover $({\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}}),\mu)$ of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is the essentially unique ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-cover with the property that whenever ${\varphi}:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{\varphi})$ is a completely contractive homomorphism, there is a $*$-homomorphism $\pi_{\varphi}:{\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{\varphi})$ with the property that $\pi_{\varphi}\circ \mu={\varphi}$ on ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. The algebra ${\mathrm{C}}_{\max}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})$ can be realized as the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra generated by the image of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ under an appropriate direct sum of completely contractive homomorphisms [@blecher1999].
There is a purely linear version of this construction which we will require as well. Let ${{\mathcal{M}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be a subspace. We can associate to it a “free" ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra ${\mathrm{C}}^*\langle {{\mathcal{M}}}\rangle$ and a completely isometric linear map $\mu:{{\mathcal{M}}}\to {\mathrm{C}}^*\langle {{\mathcal{M}}}\rangle $ such that ${\mathrm{C}}^*\langle {{\mathcal{M}}}\rangle={\mathrm{C}}^*(\mu({{\mathcal{M}}}))$, and whenever ${\varphi}:{{\mathcal{M}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{\varphi})$ is a completely contractive linear map, there is a unital $*$-homomorphism $\pi_{\varphi}:{\mathrm{C}}^*\langle {{\mathcal{M}}}\rangle\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{\varphi})$ with the property that $\pi_{\varphi}\circ \mu={\varphi}$ on ${{\mathcal{M}}}$. Once again, ${\mathrm{C}}^*\langle {{\mathcal{M}}}\rangle$ can be realized more concretely as the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra generated by the image of ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ under an appropriate direct sum of completely contractive linear maps [@pestov1994 Theorem 3.2].
We now turn to the “minimal" ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-cover, which is the so-called ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope of a unital operator algebra. In fact, it will be convenient for us to give the definition for general unital subspaces ${{\mathcal{S}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ rather than operator algebras. Let ${\varepsilon}$ be a unital completely isometric linear map on ${{\mathcal{S}}}$. Then, ${\mathrm{C}}^*({\varepsilon}({{\mathcal{S}}}))$ is the *${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope* of ${{\mathcal{S}}}$, denoted by ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{S}}})$, if whenever ${\varphi}:{{\mathcal{S}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{\varphi})$ is a unital completely isometric linear map, there is a $*$-homomorphism $\pi:{\mathrm{C}}^*({\varphi}({{\mathcal{S}}}))\to {\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{S}}})$ with the property that $\pi \circ {\varphi}={\varepsilon}$ on ${{\mathcal{S}}}$. The uniqueness of such an object is easily verified, but the existence of the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope is non-trivial, and it was first established in [@hamana1979]. Practically speaking, an approach pioneered by Arveson [@arveson1969] is often more useful to identify the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope. This approach is based on a rather deep analogy with the classical theory of uniform algebras and the Shilov and Choquet boundaries. We recall the details that will be relevant for us.
Assume that ${{\mathcal{S}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ is a unital subspace. A unital completely contractive linear map ${\varphi}:{{\mathcal{S}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_{\varphi})$ always admits a unital completely contractive extension to ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ by Arveson’s extension theorem. Accordingly, we say that a unital $*$-homomorphism $\pi:{\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_\pi)$ has the *unique extension property* with respect to ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ if it is the only unital completely contractive extension to ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})$ of $\pi|_{{{\mathcal{S}}}}$. It is known [@arveson1969] that if a unital $*$-homomorphism has the unique extension property with respect to ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ and $\pi|_{{{\mathcal{S}}}}$ is completely isometric, then we can choose ${\varepsilon}=\pi|_{{\mathcal{S}}}$ and thus ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{S}}})\cong \pi({\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}}))$. In this case, $\ker \pi$ is called the *Shilov ideal* of ${{\mathcal{S}}}$. We note that ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{S}}})\cong {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})/\ker \pi$, and the defining property of the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope implies that the Shilov ideal is the largest closed two-sided ideal ${{\mathcal{J}}}$ of ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})$ with the property that the quotient map ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})\to {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})/{{\mathcal{J}}}$ is completely isometric on ${{\mathcal{S}}}$. Finally, we emphasize there are known mechanisms to produce such $*$-homomorphisms with the unique extension property with respect to ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ which are completely isometric on ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ [@dritschel2005],[@arveson2008],[@davidsonkennedy2015].
Residual finite dimensionality
------------------------------
Let ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ be a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra. Then, ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ is said to be *residually finite-dimensional* (henceforth abbreviated to RFD) if it admits a separating family of finite-dimensional $*$-representations. In other words, ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ is RFD if there is a set of positive integers $\{r_\lambda:\lambda\in \Lambda\}$ and an injective $*$-homomorphism $$\pi:{{\mathfrak{A}}}\to \prod_{\lambda\in \Lambda}{{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_\lambda}.$$ Equivalently, the map $\pi$ must be completely isometric.
As done in [@CM2017rfd], we can extend this definition to general operator algebras. An operator algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is RFD if there is a set of positive integers $\{r_\lambda:\lambda\in \Lambda\}$ and a completely isometric homomorphism $$\rho:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to \prod_{\lambda\in \Lambda}{{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_\lambda}.$$ Upon recalling that a completely contractive homomorphism on a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra is necessarily positive, we see that this definition agrees with the previous one whenever ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ happens to be self-adjoint.
Structure of finite-dimensional operator algebras {#S:structure}
=================================================
Completely bounded embeddings in matrix algebras
------------------------------------------------
Before proceeding with our investigation of RFD operator algebras, we first need to understand finite-dimensional ones. By analogy with finite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras, one may naively conjecture that finite-dimensional operator algebras are exactly those which are completely isometrically isomorphic to subalgebras of direct sums of matrix algebras. In the unital case, this is equivalent to admitting a finite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope. This conjecture is supported by [@meyer2001 Theorem 4.2] in the case of unital two-dimensional operator algebras. However, typically things are not so straightforward. Before illustrating this fact with an example, we record a useful calculation that will be used several times throughout.
\[L:M2C\*env\] Let ${{\mathcal{S}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be a unital subspace and let ${{\mathcal{A}}}_{{{\mathcal{S}}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}}^{(2)})$ be the unital operator algebra consisting of elements of the form $
\begin{bmatrix}
\lambda I & s\\
0 & \mu I
\end{bmatrix}
$ for some $s\in {{\mathcal{S}}}$ and $\lambda,\mu\in {{\mathbb{C}}}$. Then, we have that $${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}}_{{{\mathcal{S}}}})\cong{{\mathbb{M}}}_2({\mathrm{C}}_e^*({{\mathcal{S}}})).$$
A straightforward calculation shows that $${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}}_{{{\mathcal{S}}}})={{\mathbb{M}}}_2({\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})).$$ Moreover, a routine argument using matrix units reveals that ${{\mathcal{J}}}\subset{{\mathbb{M}}}_2({\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}}))$ is a closed two-sided ideal if and only if there is a closed two-sided ideal ${{\mathcal{I}}}\subset {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})$ with the property that ${{\mathcal{J}}}={{\mathbb{M}}}_2({{\mathcal{I}}})$. Therefore, if we let $\Sigma\subset {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})$ denote the Shilov ideal of ${{\mathcal{S}}}$, then we find that ${{\mathbb{M}}}_2(\Sigma)$ is the Shilov ideal of ${{\mathcal{A}}}_{{{\mathcal{S}}}}$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}}_{{{\mathcal{S}}}})&\cong {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}}_{{{\mathcal{S}}}})/{{\mathbb{M}}}_2(\Sigma)={{\mathbb{M}}}_2({\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}}))/{{\mathbb{M}}}_2(\Sigma)\\
&\cong {{\mathbb{M}}}_2({\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})/\Sigma)\cong {{\mathbb{M}}}_2({\mathrm{C}}_e^*({{\mathcal{S}}})).\end{aligned}$$
Using this fact, we can give an example of a finite-dimensional unital operator algebra with infinite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope. The following is [@paulsen2002 Exercise 15.12].
\[E:fdoa\] Let ${\mathrm{C}}({{\mathbb{T}}})$ denote the unital ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra of continuous functions on the unit circle ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ and consider the unital subspace ${{\mathcal{S}}}={\operatorname{span}}\{1,z\}\subset {\mathrm{C}}({{\mathbb{T}}})$. For each $\zeta\in {{\mathbb{T}}}$, we define the function ${\varphi}_\zeta\in {{\mathcal{S}}}$ as $${\varphi}_\zeta(z)=\frac{1}{2}(1+{\overline}{\zeta}z), \quad z\in {{\mathbb{T}}}.$$ Then, ${\varphi}_\zeta$ peaks at $\zeta$, which forces $\zeta$ to belong to the Shilov boundary of ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ (see [@phelps2001] for details). Thus, the Shilov boundary of ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ is ${{\mathbb{T}}}$ and thus ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{S}}})\cong {\mathrm{C}}({{\mathbb{T}}})$.
Now, let ${{\mathcal{A}}}_{{\mathcal{S}}}\subset {{\mathbb{M}}}_2({\mathrm{C}}({{\mathbb{T}}}))$ be the unital operator algebra defined in Lemma \[L:M2C\*env\]. Then, we see that ${{\mathcal{A}}}_{{\mathcal{S}}}$ is finite-dimensional and $${\mathrm{C}}_e^*({{\mathcal{A}}}_{{\mathcal{S}}})\cong {{\mathbb{M}}}_2({\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{S}}}))\cong {{\mathbb{M}}}_2({\mathrm{C}}({{\mathbb{T}}}))$$ is infinite-dimensional.
To reiterate, the operator algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}_{{{\mathcal{S}}}}$ in the example above cannot be embedded completely isometrically isomorphically in a matrix algebra, for then ${\mathrm{C}}_e^*({{\mathcal{A}}}_{{\mathcal{S}}})$ would be finite-dimensional. Hence, finite-dimensional operator algebras exhibit more varied behaviour than their self-adjoint counterparts. Nevertheless, we note that the classical Artin-Wedderburn theorem can be used to show that semisimple finite-dimensional operator algebras are *similar* to direct sums of matrix algebras. It thus appears that if we are willing to settle for a softer classification of finite-dimensional operator algebras, replacing completely isometric isomorphisms by merely completely bounded ones, then we can recover the familiar description available for ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras. This is indeed the case, and establishing this fact is the first goal of this section. One of the basic ingredients is the following.
\[P:fdimoacb\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be an operator algebra with dimension $d$. Then, there is a positive integer $r\geq 1$, a subalgebra ${{\mathcal{B}}}\subset {{\mathbb{M}}}_r$ and a completely contractive algebra isomorphism $\Phi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to {{\mathcal{B}}}$ with $\|\Phi^{-1}\|_{cb} \leq 2d.$ If ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is unital, then $\Phi$ can be chosen to be unital.
By [@CM2017rfd Proposition 5.3], there is a positive integer $r\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, a unital subalgebra ${{\mathcal{B}}}\subset {{\mathbb{M}}}_r$ and a unital completely contractive isomorphism $\Phi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to {{\mathcal{B}}}$ with the property that $\|\Phi^{-1}\|\leq 2$. Thus, [@paulsen1992 Proposition 2.8] implies that $\|\Phi^{-1}\|_{cb}\leq 2d.$ In the unital case, inspection of the proof of [@CM2017rfd Proposition 5.3] reveals that $\Phi$ can be chosen to be unital.
We now describe the other ingredient that we require. Given two operator algebras ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_1)$ and ${{\mathcal{B}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_2)$, an isomorphism $\Phi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to{{\mathcal{B}}}$ will be called a *completely bounded isomorphism* if $\Phi$ and $\Phi^{-1}$ are completely bounded. A classical theorem of Paulsen [@paulsen1984], [@paulsen1984PAMS] says that completely bounded homomorphisms on operator algebras are necessarily similar to completely contractive ones. In [@clouatre2015CB], the possibility of obtaining a “two-sided" version of Paulsen’s theorem for completely bounded isomorphisms was investigated. More precisely, the question is this: given a completely bounded isomorphism $\Phi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to{{\mathcal{B}}}$, do there exist two invertible operators $X\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_1)$ and $Y\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_2)$ such that the map $$XaX^{-1}\mapsto Y\Phi(a)Y^{-1}, \quad a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$$ is a complete isometry? It was shown in [@clouatre2015CB] that in general the answer is no. We show next that a weaker statement always hold.
\[T:rigidity\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_1),{{\mathcal{B}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_2)$ be unital operator algebras and let $\Phi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to {{\mathcal{B}}}$ be a unital completely bounded isomorphism. Then, there are two unital completely isometric homomorphisms $$\lambda:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_1)\oplus B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_2), \quad \rho:{{\mathcal{B}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_1)\oplus B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_2)$$ along with an invertible operator $Z\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_1)\oplus B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_2)$ with the property that $$\Phi(a)=\rho^{-1}(Z\lambda(a)Z^{-1}), \quad a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}.$$
By [@paulsen1984 Theorem 3.1], there exist invertible operators $X\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_1)$ and $Y\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_2)$ such that the maps $$a\mapsto Y\Phi(a)Y^{-1}, \quad a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$$ $$b\mapsto X\Phi^{-1}(b)X^{-1}, \quad b\in {{\mathcal{B}}}$$ are completely contractive. Define $$\lambda:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_1)\oplus B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_2)$$ as $$\lambda(a)=a\oplus Y\Phi(a)Y^{-1}, \quad a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$$ and $$\rho:{{\mathcal{B}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_1)\oplus B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_2)$$ as $$\rho(b)=X\Phi^{-1}(b)X^{-1}\oplus b, \quad b\in {{\mathcal{B}}}.$$ Then, $\lambda$ and $\rho$ are completely isometric. Put $Z=X\oplus Y^{-1}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
Z\lambda(a)Z^{-1}&=XaX^{-1}\oplus \Phi(a)=\rho(\Phi(a))\end{aligned}$$ for every $a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$.
Next, we use the previous result to achieve our first goal and further elucidate the structure of finite-dimensional operator algebras. Roughly speaking, we show that up to a similarity, finite-dimensional unital operator algebras admit finite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelopes.
\[C:fdoastructure\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be a unital operator algebra. Then, ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is finite-dimensional if and only if there is another unital operator algebra ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ that is completely isometrically isomorphic to ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and that is similar to an operator algebra whose ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope is finite-dimensional.
It is clear that ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is finite-dimensional if there exists an algebra ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ with the announced properties. Conversely, assume that ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is finite-dimensional. By Proposition \[P:fdimoacb\], there is a positive integer $r\geq 1$, a unital subalgebra ${{\mathcal{B}}}\subset {{\mathbb{M}}}_r$ and a unital completely bounded isomorphism $\Phi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to {{\mathcal{B}}}$. Next, apply Theorem \[T:rigidity\] to the map $\Phi$ and find two unital completely isometric homomorphisms $$\lambda:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}})\oplus {{\mathbb{M}}}_r, \quad \rho:{{\mathcal{B}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}})\oplus{{\mathbb{M}}}_r$$ along with an invertible operator $Z\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}})\oplus {{\mathbb{M}}}_r$ with the property that $$\Phi(a)=\rho^{-1}(Z\lambda(a)Z^{-1}), \quad a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}.$$ We note that ${{\mathcal{B}}}\subset {{\mathbb{M}}}_r$, so that ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{B}}})$ is finite-dimensional. Since $\rho$ is a unital completely isometric homomorphism, we see that ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e(\rho({{\mathcal{B}}}))\cong {\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{B}}})$ is finite-dimensional as well. Finally, we put ${{\mathcal{F}}}=Z^{-1}\rho({{\mathcal{B}}})Z$ and note that $${{\mathcal{F}}}=Z^{-1}\rho({{\mathcal{B}}})Z=Z^{-1}\rho(\Phi({{\mathcal{A}}}))Z=\lambda({{\mathcal{A}}})$$ so that indeed ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ is completely isometrically isomorphic to ${{\mathcal{A}}}$.
Residual finite dimensionality
------------------------------
Next, we proceed to show that finite-\
dimensional operator algebras are RFD. Notice that in view of Example \[E:fdoa\], this is not immediate unlike in the self-adjoint setting. In fact, we obtain more precise information.
\[T:fdimRFDnorm\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be a finite-dimensional operator algebra, let $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and let $A\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$. Then, there is a finite-dimensional Hilbert space ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ and a completely contractive homomorphism $\pi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ with the property that $\|\pi^{(d)}(A)\|=\|A\|$.
Let ${{\mathfrak{A}}}={\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})+{{\mathbb{C}}}I_{{\mathfrak{H}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$. There is a state $\psi$ of ${{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathfrak{A}}})$ with the property that $\psi(A^*A)=\|A\|^2$. Let $\sigma_\psi:{{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathfrak{A}}})\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_\psi)$ be the associated GNS representation, with unit cyclic vector $\xi_\psi$. Then $$\|\sigma_\psi(A)\xi_\psi\|^2=\langle \sigma_\psi(A^*A)\xi_\psi,\xi_\psi \rangle=\psi(A^*A)=\|A\|^2.$$ Now, it is well known (see for instance [@hopenwasser1973]) that there is a Hilbert space ${{\mathfrak{H}}}'$, a unitary operator $U:{{\mathfrak{H}}}_\psi\to {{\mathfrak{H}}}'^{(d)}$ and a unital $*$-homomorphism $\tau: {{\mathfrak{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}')$ such that $$U\sigma_\psi(B)U^*=\tau^{(d)}(B), \quad B\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathfrak{A}}}).$$ Write $U\xi_\psi=\xi_1\oplus \ldots\oplus \xi_d$ for some $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_d\in {{\mathfrak{H}}}'$. Let ${{\mathfrak{F}}}\subset {{\mathfrak{H}}}'$ be the subspace spanned by $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_d$ and $\tau({{\mathcal{A}}})\xi_1,\ldots, \tau({{\mathcal{A}}})\xi_d$. Then, ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ is clearly invariant for $\tau({{\mathcal{A}}})$ and finite-dimensional. The associated restriction $\pi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ defined as $$\pi(b)=\tau(b)|_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}, \quad b\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$$ is a completely contractive homomorphism that satisfies $$\|\pi^{(d)}(A)\|\geq \|\tau^{(d)}(A)U\xi_\psi\|=\|U\sigma_\psi(A)\xi_\psi\|=\|A\|.$$
We now obtain the announced residual finite-dimensionality result.
\[C:fdimRFD\] Finite-dimensional operator algebras are RFD.
This follows immediately from Theorem \[T:fdimRFDnorm\].
In [@courtney2017], the authors explore the connection between the residual finite-dimensionality of a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra and the abundance of elements in it that attain their norms in finite-dimensional representations. Beyond Theorem \[T:fdimRFDnorm\], we do not know whether analogous results hold in the non-selfadjoint context.
We close this section by refining Corollary \[C:fdimRFD\].
\[T:RFDbimodule\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be a finite-dimensional operator algebra. Then, there is a set of positive integers $\{r_\lambda:\lambda\in \Lambda\}$ and a unital completely isometric map $$\Psi:B({{\mathfrak{H}}})\to \prod_{\lambda\in \Lambda}{{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_\lambda}$$ such that $$\Psi(a^* t b)=\Psi(a)^* \Psi(t) \Psi(b)$$ for every $a,b\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$ and $t\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$. Moreover, $\Psi$ restricts to a homomorphism on ${{\mathcal{A}}}$.
Let $\Xi\subset {{\mathfrak{H}}}$ be a finite set of vectors. Let ${{\mathcal{X}}}_\Xi\subset {{\mathfrak{H}}}$ be the subspace spanned by $\xi$ and ${{\mathcal{A}}}\xi$ for every $\xi\in \Xi$. Then, ${{\mathcal{X}}}_\Xi$ is finite-dimensional and we put $n_\Xi=\dim {{\mathcal{X}}}_\xi$. Upon identifying $B({{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi})$ with ${{\mathbb{M}}}_{n_{\Xi}}$, we may define a map $$\rho_{\Xi}:B({{\mathfrak{H}}})\to {{\mathbb{M}}}_{n_{\Xi}}$$ as $$\rho_{\Xi}(t)=P_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}}t|_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}}, \quad t\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}}).$$ It is immediate that $\rho_{\Xi}$ is unital and completely contractive, and in particular it is self-adjoint. Furthermore, it is clear from its definition that the subspace ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}$ is invariant for ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. Thus, we have that $\rho_\Xi$ restricts to a homomorphism on ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\Xi}(a^* tb)&=P_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}}a^*tb|_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}}=P_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}}a^*P_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}}tP_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}}b|_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}}\\
&=\rho_{\Xi}(a)^*\rho_{\Xi}(t)\rho_{\Xi}(b)\end{aligned}$$ for every $a,b\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$ and $t\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$. Define now $\Psi=\oplus_{\Xi}\: \rho_{\Xi}$, where the direct sum extends over all finite subsets of vectors $\Xi\subset {{\mathfrak{H}}}$. Clearly, $\Psi$ is a unital completely contractive (and thus self-adjoint) map that restricts to a homomorphism on ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. Moreover $$\Psi(a^* t b)=\Psi(a)^* \Psi(t) \Psi(b)$$ for every $a,b\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$ and $t\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$. It remains to show that it is completely isometric. To see this, fix $T=[t_{ij}]_{i,j}\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d(B({{\mathfrak{H}}}))$. Let $\zeta=\zeta_1\oplus \ldots\oplus \zeta_d\in {{\mathfrak{H}}}^{(d)}$ be a unit vector and let $$\Xi=\{\zeta_j:1\leq j\leq d\}\cup \{t_{ij}\zeta_j:1\leq i,j\leq d\}\subset {{\mathfrak{H}}}.$$ We have $\zeta\in{{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}^{(d)}$ and $$T \zeta=\left( \sum_{j=1}^d t_{1,j}\zeta_j\right)\oplus \ldots\oplus\left( \sum_{j=1}^d t_{d,j}\zeta_j\right)\in {{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}^{(d)}.$$ Now, we observe that $$\rho_{\Xi}^{(d)}(T)=P_{ {{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}^{(d)}}T|_{ {{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}^{(d)}}$$ whence $$\|\Psi^{(d)}(T)\|\geq \|P_{ {{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}^{(d)}}T|_{ {{\mathcal{X}}}_{\Xi}^{(d)}}\|\geq \|T\zeta\|.$$ Since $\zeta\in {{\mathfrak{H}}}^{(d)}$ is an arbitrary unit vector, we obtain that $\|\Psi^{(d)}(T)\|\geq \|T\|$ so that indeed $\Psi$ is completely isometric.
We obtain a curious consequence, which is likely known. It is reminiscent of [@choi1980 Corollary 8]. Recall that an operator $t\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ is said to be *hyponormal* if $tt^*\leq t^*t$.
\[C:hyponormal\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be a finite-dimensional operator algebra. Then, every hyponormal element of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is normal.
Let $a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$ be hyponormal, so that $aa^*\leq a^*a$. By Theorem \[T:RFDbimodule\] there is a set of positive integers $\{r_\lambda:\lambda\in \Lambda\}$ and a unital completely isometric map $$\Psi:B({{\mathfrak{H}}})\to \prod_{\lambda\in \Lambda}{{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_\lambda}$$ such that $$\Psi(a^* t b)=\Psi(a)^* \Psi(t) \Psi(b)$$ for every $a,b\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$ and $t\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$. It suffices to show that $\Psi(a^*a)=\Psi(aa^*)$. Since $\Psi$ must necessarily be completely positive, we may invoke the Schwarz inequality to find $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(a)\Psi(a)^*\leq \Psi(aa^*)\leq \Psi(a^*a)=\Psi(a)^*\Psi(a).\end{aligned}$$ Write $\Psi(a)=(b_\lambda)_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ where $b_\lambda\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_\lambda}$ for each $\lambda\in \Lambda$. Note then that $$b_\lambda b_\lambda^*\leq b_\lambda^* b_\lambda, \quad \lambda\in \Lambda.$$ This implies that $b_\lambda^*b_\lambda - b_\lambda b_\lambda^*$ is a non-negative matrix with zero trace, whence $b_\lambda^*b_\lambda= b_\lambda b_\lambda^*$ for every $\lambda\in \Lambda$. In turn, this means that $\Psi(a)\Psi(a)^*= \Psi(a)^*\Psi(a).$ Thus $$\Psi(a)\Psi(a)^*\leq\Psi(aa^*)\leq \Psi(a^*a)=\Psi(a)^*\Psi(a)=\Psi(a)\Psi(a)^*.$$ These inequalities force $\Psi(aa^*)= \Psi(a^*a)$ and the proof is complete.
Residually finite-dimensional operator algebras {#S:RFD}
===============================================
In the previous section, we investigated finite-dimensional operator algebras, and showed among other things that they are RFD (Corollary \[C:fdimRFD\]). In this section, we study general RFD operator algebras. The first order of business is to obtain a more flexible characterization of residual finite-dimensionality. We emphasize one more time that, as seen in Example \[E:fdoa\], finite-dimensional operator algebras are not necessarily completely isometrically embeddable in a finite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra, so the next fact is not obvious at first glance.
\[T:fdimvsfdim\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ be an operator algebra. Consider the following statements.
1. There is a collection $\{{{\mathcal{B}}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ of finite-dimensional operator algebras and a completely isometric homomorphism $\rho:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to \prod_{\lambda\in \Lambda}{{\mathcal{B}}}_\lambda$.
2. There is a collection $\{{{\mathfrak{B}}}_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ of finite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras and a completely isometric homomorphism $\rho:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to \prod_{\lambda\in \Lambda}{{\mathfrak{B}}}_\lambda$.
3. For every $d\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$ and every $A\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$, there is a finite-dimensional operator algebra ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ and a completely contractive homomorphism $\pi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to{{\mathcal{B}}}$ such that $\|\pi^{(d)}(A)\|=\|A\|$.
4. For every $d\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$ and every $A\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$, there is a finite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra ${{\mathfrak{B}}}$ and a completely contractive homomorphism $\pi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to{{\mathfrak{B}}}$ such that $\|\pi^{(d)}(A)\|=\|A\|$.
Then, *(i)* and *(ii)* are equivalent, and *(iii)* and *(iv)* are equivalent.
It is trivial that (ii) implies (i) and that (iv) implies (iii).
Assume that (i) holds. For each $\lambda \in \Lambda$, we may apply Corollary \[C:fdimRFD\] to find a set of positive integers $\{r_\mu:\mu\in \Omega_\lambda\}$ and a completely isometric homomorphism $$\pi_\lambda:{{\mathcal{B}}}_\lambda\to \prod_{\mu\in \Omega_\lambda}{{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_\mu}.$$ The map $$(\oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda}\pi_\lambda)\circ \rho:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to \prod_{\lambda\in\Lambda}\prod_{\mu\in \Omega_\lambda}{{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_\mu}$$ is a completely isometric homomorphism, and thus (ii) follows.
Finally, assume that (iii) holds. Let $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and $A\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$. Choose a finite-dimensional operator algebra ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ and a completely contractive homomorphism $\pi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to{{\mathcal{B}}}$ such that $\|\pi^{(d)}(A)\|=\|A\|$. Apply now Theorem \[T:fdimRFDnorm\] to find a finite-dimensional Hilbert space ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ and a completely contractive homomorphism $\sigma:{{\mathcal{B}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ such that $\|\sigma^{(d)}(\pi^{(d)}(A))\|=\|\pi^{(d)}(A)\|$. Thus, $\sigma\circ\pi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ is a completely contractive homomorphism with $\|(\sigma\circ\pi)^{(d)}(A)\|=\|A\|$, and $B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ is a finite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra. We conclude that (iv) holds.
The next development is inspired by [@courtney2017]. We aim to identify elements in an RFD operator algebra, the norm of which can be attained in a finite-dimensional representation. For simplicity, we restrict our attention to the separable case. Thus, we fix a sequence $(r_n)_n$ of positive integers, and for each $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ we let $$\gamma_n:\prod_{m=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_m}\to {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$$ denote the natural projection. Put $${{\mathfrak{L}}}=\oplus_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}=\left\{t\in \prod_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}:\lim_{n\to\infty}\|\gamma_n(t)\|=0\right\}.$$ Before stating the result, we record a standard calculation.
\[L:limsup\] Let ${{\mathfrak{A}}}\subset \prod_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ be a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra and let $$\kappa:{{\mathfrak{A}}}\to {{\mathfrak{A}}}/({{\mathfrak{A}}}\cap {{\mathfrak{L}}})$$ be the quotient map. Then, we have that $$\|\kappa^{(d)}(A)\|=\limsup_{n\to\infty}\|\gamma_n^{(d)}(A)\|$$ for every $A\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathfrak{A}}})$ and every $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$.
For convenience, we put ${{\mathfrak{K}}}={{\mathfrak{A}}}\cap {{\mathfrak{L}}}$. Fix $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and $A\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathfrak{A}}})$. Let $T=[t_{jk}]_{j,k=1}^d\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathfrak{K}}})$ and let $\delta>0$. Then, there is an $N\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ such that $$\|\gamma_n(t_{jk})\|<\delta/d^2, \quad 1\leq j,k\leq d$$ if $n\geq N$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\|A+T\|&=\sup_{n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A+T)\|\\
&\geq \sup_{n\geq N}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A+T)\|\\
&\geq \sup_{n\geq N}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A)\|-\delta.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we find $$\|A+T\|\geq \inf_{m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\sup_{n\geq m}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A)\|-\delta$$ and since $T\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathfrak{K}}})$ is arbitrary, this means that $$\|\kappa^{(d)}(A)\|\geq \inf_{m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\sup_{n\geq m}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A)\|-\delta.$$ Next, we observe that the map $$({{\mathfrak{A}}}+{{\mathfrak{L}}})/{{\mathfrak{L}}}\to {{\mathfrak{A}}}/{{\mathfrak{K}}}$$ defined as $$(a+t)+{{\mathfrak{L}}}\mapsto a+{{\mathfrak{K}}}, \quad a\in {{\mathfrak{A}}}, t\in {{\mathfrak{L}}}$$ is a $*$-isomorphism [@blackadar2006 Corollary II.5.1.3], so that $$\|\kappa^{(d)}(A)\|=\inf\{\|A+L\|:L\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathfrak{L}}})\}.$$ There is $M\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ with the property that $$\sup_{n\geq M}\|\gamma_n^{(d)}(A)\|\leq \inf_{m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\sup_{n\geq m}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A)\|+\delta.$$ For each $1\leq j,k\leq d$, let $t_{jk}\in {{\mathfrak{L}}}$ be defined as $$\gamma_n(t_{jk})=\begin{cases}
-\gamma_n(a_{jk}) & \text{ if } n<M,\\
0 & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Put $T=[t_{jk}]_{j,k}\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathfrak{L}}})$ and note that $$\begin{aligned}
\|A+T\|&=\sup_{n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\|\gamma_n^{(d)}(A+T)\|\\
&=\sup_{n\geq M}\|\gamma_n^{(d)}(A)\|\\
& \leq \inf_{m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\sup_{n\geq m}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A)\|+\delta.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\|\kappa^{(d)}(A)\|=\inf\{\|A+L\|:L\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathfrak{L}}})\}\leq \inf_{m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\sup_{n\geq m}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A)\|+\delta.$$ We conclude that $$\inf_{m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\sup_{n\geq m}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A)\|-\delta\leq \|\kappa^{(d)}(A)\|\leq \inf_{m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\sup_{n\geq m}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A)\|+\delta.$$ Since $\delta>0$ is arbitrary, the proof is complete.
We can now identify a sufficient condition for the norm of an element to be attained in a finite-dimensional representation. Roughly speaking, the condition says that the element must be small at infinity.
\[T:RFDnorm\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset \prod_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ be an operator algebra and let $$\kappa:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to {{\mathcal{A}}}/({{\mathfrak{L}}}\cap {{\mathcal{A}}})$$ denote the quotient map. Let $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and let $A\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$ be an element with the property that $\|\kappa^{(d)}(A)\|<\|A\|$. Then, there is a finite-dimensional Hilbert space ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ and a completely contractive homomorphism $\pi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ such that $\|\pi^{(d)}(A)\|=\|A\|$.
By virtue of Lemma \[L:limsup\], we find that $$\inf_{m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\sup_{n\geq m}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A)\|<\|A\|.$$ On the other hand, we know that $$\|A\|=\sup_{n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A)\|.$$ Thus, there is $m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ with the property that $$\max_{1\leq n\leq m}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A)\|=\|A\|$$ which clearly implies the desired statement.
If the sizes of the matrix algebras are bounded, more can be said.
\[C:RFDnorm\] Assume that the sequence $(r_n)_n$ is bounded and let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset \prod_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ be an operator algebra. For every $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and every $A\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$, there is a finite-dimensional Hilbert space ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ and a completely contractive homomorphism $\pi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ such that $\|\pi^{(d)}(A)\|=\|A\|$.
Fix $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and $A\in{{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$. If $$\inf_{m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\sup_{n\geq m}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A)\|<\|A\|$$ then the conclusion follows from Theorem \[T:RFDnorm\]. If, on the other hand, $$\inf_{m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}}\sup_{n\geq m}\|\gamma^{(d)}_n(A)\|=\|A\|$$ then the conclusion follows as in the proof of [@CM2017rfd Proposition 3.5].
We note that there are examples of RFD ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras containing elements that do not attain their norms in a finite-dimensional representation [@courtney2017 Theorem 4.4]. The full ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra of the free group on two generators is such an example.
Examples of RFD operator algebras {#SS:Examples}
---------------------------------
The remainder of this section is devoted to studying residual finite-dimensionality in various concrete examples. First, we mention that the property of an operator algebra being RFD isn’t preserved by crossed products with groups. This is an immediate consequence of the so-called *Takai duality* [@KRmem Theorem 4.4]. We refer the interested reader to [@KRmem] for details on these topics. For now, we turn to a widely studied class of operator algebras: the tensor algebras of ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondences [@pimsner1997],[@MS1998]. We are interested in determining when these are RFD.
We briefly recall the relevant definitions; more details can be found in [@MS1998] or [@BO2008 Section 4.6] for instance. Let ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ be a C$^*$-algebra and let $X$ be a right Hilbert ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$-module. Denote by ${{\mathcal{L}}}(X)$ the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra of adjointable operators on $X$. If in addition there is a non-degenerate $*$-homomorphism $\varphi_X : {{\mathfrak{A}}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}(X)$ (which we think of as a left action of ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ on $X$), then $X$ is called a [*${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondence over ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$*]{}. When there is no danger of confusion, ${\varphi}_X$ is not mentioned explicitly.
It is possible to form direct sums and tensor products of ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondences. Given a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondence $X$, we can then define the *Fock correspondence over $X$* as $${{\mathcal{F}}}_X := {{\mathfrak{A}}}\oplus \bigoplus_{n=1}^\infty X^{\otimes n}.$$ The [*tensor algebra*]{} of $X$ is the norm closed operator algebra ${{\mathcal{T}}}_{X}^+\subset {{\mathcal{L}}}({{\mathcal{F}}}_X)$ generated by the image of the creation map $t_\infty :X \rightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}({{\mathcal{F}}}_X)$ and the non-degenerate $*$-homomorphism $\rho_\infty : {{\mathfrak{A}}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}({{\mathcal{F}}}_X)$ that gives rise to the natural left module action. The *Toeplitz algebra* is defined as ${{\mathcal{T}}}_X={\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{T}}}^+_X)$. In our analysis of the residual finite-dimensionality of ${{\mathcal{T}}}^+_X$, we will not require the precise definitions of the maps $t_\infty$ and $\rho_\infty$, but we will require the following important properties. First we have that $$\rho_\infty(a)t_\infty(x)=t_\infty({\varphi}_X(a) x) , \quad t_\infty(x)\rho_\infty(a)=t_\infty( xa)$$ for every $a\in {{\mathfrak{A}}},x\in X$, and $$t_\infty(x_1)^* t_\infty(x_2)=\rho_\infty(\langle x_1,x_2\rangle)$$ for every $x_1,x_2\in X$. In fact, this says that the pair $(\rho_\infty,t_\infty)$ is an *isometric representation* of the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondence $X$. One consequence of this is that ${{\mathcal{T}}}^+_X$ is the closure of the subspace ${{\mathcal{T}}}^0_X\subset {{\mathcal{L}}}({{\mathcal{F}}}_X)$ spanned by $\rho_\infty({{\mathfrak{A}}})$ and elements of the form $$t_\infty(x_1)t_\infty(x_2)\cdots t_\infty(x_n)$$ for some $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and $x_1,\ldots,x_n\in X$.
The following elementary observation, inspired by the argument given in [@pestov1994 Theorem 4.1], will be very useful for us throughout the paper.
\[L:fdiminvsub\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be a finite-dimensional operator algebra and let $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$. For each $1\leq \nu\leq d$, let $r_\nu\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and let $x^{(\nu)}_{j,1},\ldots, x^{(\nu)}_{j,N_j}\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be arbitrary elements for every $1\leq j\leq r_\nu$. For each $1\leq \nu\leq d$, put $$s_\nu=\sum_{j=1}^{r_\nu} x^{(\nu)}_{j,1}\cdots x^{(\nu)}_{j,N_j}.$$ Let $\Xi\subset {{\mathcal{H}}}$ be a finite subset. Then, there is a finite-dimensional subspace ${{\mathfrak{F}}}\subset {{\mathfrak{H}}}$ containing $\Xi$ that is invariant for ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and such that $$s_\nu\xi=\sum_{j=1}^{r_\nu} P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}x^{(\nu)}_{j,1}P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}} x^{(\nu)}_{j,2}P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}x^{(\nu)}_{j,N_j}\xi$$ for every $1\leq \nu\leq d$ and every $\xi\in \Xi$.
Define ${{\mathfrak{F}}}_0 \subset {{\mathfrak{H}}}$ to be the finite-dimensional subspace spanned by $\Xi$ and by $x^{(\nu)}_{j,k}x^{(\nu)}_{j,k+1}\cdots x^{(\nu)}_{j,N_j}\Xi$ for $1\leq \nu\leq d,1\leq j\leq r_\nu, 1\leq k\leq N_j.$ Put ${{\mathfrak{F}}}={\overline}{{{\mathfrak{F}}}_0+{\operatorname{span}}{{\mathcal{A}}}{{\mathfrak{F}}}_0}$. By construction, we see that ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ is invariant for ${{\mathcal{A}}}$, and it is finite-dimensional since ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{F}}}_0$ are. For each $1\leq \nu\leq d$ and $\xi\in \Xi$, we observe now that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^{r_\nu} P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}x^{(\nu)}_{j,1}P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}} x^{(\nu)}_{j,2}P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}x^{(\nu)}_{j,N_j}\xi&=\sum_{j=1}^{r_\nu}P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}x^{(\nu)}_{j,1}P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}} x^{(\nu)}_{j,2}P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}x^{(\nu)}_{j,N_j-1}x^{(\nu)}_{j,N_j}\xi\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^{r_\nu}P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}x^{(\nu)}_{j,1}P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}} x^{(\nu)}_{j,2}P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}x^{(\nu)}_{j,N_j-2}x^{(\nu)}_{j,N_j-1}x^{(\nu)}_{j,N_j}\xi\end{aligned}$$ and proceeding inductively we find $$\sum_{j=1}^{r_\nu} P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}x^{(\nu)}_{j,1}P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}} x^{(\nu)}_{j,2}P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}x^{(\nu)}_{j,N_j}\xi=s_\nu\xi.$$
We can now show that the tensor algebra of a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondence is RFD whenever the underlying ${\mathrm{C}}^*$ algebra is finite-dimensional. In fact, we can say something a bit finer.
\[T:fdcorrespondence\] Let ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ be a finite-dimensional ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra and let $X$ be a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondence over ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$. Then, for every $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and every $S\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{T}}}^0_X)$ there is a finite-dimensional Hilbert space ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ and a completely contractive homomorphism $\pi:{{\mathcal{T}}}^+_X\to B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ with the property that $\|\pi^{(d)}(S)\|=\|S\|$. In particular, the tensor algebra ${{\mathcal{T}}}_{X}^+$ is RFD.
Fix $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and $S=[s_{\mu,\nu}]_{\mu,\nu}\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{T}}}^0_X)$. For each $1\leq \mu,\nu\leq d$, there is a positive integer $r_{\mu,\nu}$, an element $a_{\mu,\nu}\in {{\mathfrak{A}}}$ and elements $x^{(\mu,\nu)}_{j,1},\ldots, x^{(\mu,\nu)}_{j,N_j}\in X$ for every $1\leq j\leq r_{\mu,\nu}$ such that $$s_{\mu,\nu}=\rho_\infty(a_{\mu,\nu})+\sum_{j=1}^{r_{\mu,\nu}} t_\infty(x^{(\mu,\nu)}_{j,1})\cdots t_\infty( x^{(\mu,\nu)}_{j,N_j}).$$ Note now that ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ is unital, and since $\rho_\infty$ is non-degenerate, it must also be unital. In particular, the Toeplitz algebra ${{\mathcal{T}}}_X$ is unital. We may choose a state $\psi$ on ${{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{T}}}_X)$ such that $\psi(S^*S)=\|S\|^2$. Let $\sigma:{{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{T}}}_X)\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be the associated GNS representation with cyclic unit vector $\xi\in {{\mathfrak{H}}}$. Then, we see that $$\|\sigma(S)\xi\|^2=\psi(S^*S)=\|S\|^2.$$ There is a Hilbert space ${{\mathfrak{H}}}'$, a unitary operator $U:{{\mathfrak{H}}}\to {{\mathfrak{H}}}'^{(d)}$ and a unital $*$-homomorphism $\tau: {{\mathcal{T}}}_X\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}')$ such that $$U\sigma(R)U^*=\tau^{(d)}(R), \quad R\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{T}}}_X).$$ Write $$U\xi=\xi_1\oplus \xi_2\oplus \ldots \oplus \xi_d\in {{\mathfrak{H}}}'^{(d)}$$ and set $\Xi=\{\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_d\}\subset {{\mathfrak{H}}}'$. By Lemma \[L:fdiminvsub\], there a finite-dimensional subspace ${{\mathfrak{F}}}\subset {{\mathfrak{H}}}'$ containing $\Xi$ that is invariant for $\tau(\rho_\infty({{\mathfrak{A}}}))$ and such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\tau(s_{\mu,\nu})\xi_m\\
&=P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\tau(\rho_\infty(a_{\mu,\nu}))\xi_m+\sum_{j=1}^{r_{\mu,\nu}} P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\tau(t_\infty(x^{(\mu,\nu)}_{j,1}))P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\tau(t_\infty(x^{(\mu,\nu)}_{j,2}))P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}} \tau(t_\infty(x^{(\mu,\nu)}_{j,N_j}))\xi_m\end{aligned}$$ for every $1\leq \mu,\nu\leq d$ and every $1\leq m\leq d$. Define now maps $t:X\to B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ and $\rho:{{\mathfrak{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ as $$t(x)=P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\tau(t_\infty(x))|_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}, \quad \rho(a)=P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\tau(\rho_\infty(a))|_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}$$ for every $a\in {{\mathfrak{A}}}$ and every $x\in X$. We see that $$\tau(s_{\mu,\nu})\xi_m=\rho(a_{\mu,\nu})\xi_m+\sum_{j=1}^{r_{\mu,\nu}} t(x^{(\mu,\nu)}_{j,1}) t(x^{(\mu,\nu)}_{j,2})\cdots t(x^{(\mu,\nu)}_{j,N_j})\xi_m$$ for every $1\leq \mu,\nu\leq d$ and every $1\leq m\leq d$. Since ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ is invariant for $\tau(\rho_\infty({{\mathfrak{A}}}))$, we obtain that $\rho$ is a unital $*$-homomorphism, and that $$\begin{aligned}
t(x)\rho(a)&=P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\tau(t_\infty(x))P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\tau(\rho_\infty(a))|_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}=P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\tau(t_\infty(x)\rho_\infty(a))|_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\\
&=P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\tau(t_\infty (xa))|_{{{\mathfrak{H}}}}=t(xa)\end{aligned}$$ while $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(a)t(x)&=P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\tau(\rho_\infty(a))P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\tau(t_\infty(x))|_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}=P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\tau(\rho_\infty(a)t_\infty(x))|_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\\
&=P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\tau(t_\infty ({\varphi}_X(a)x))|_{{{\mathfrak{H}}}}=t({\varphi}_X(a)x)\end{aligned}$$ for every $a\in {{\mathfrak{A}}}$ and every $x\in X$. By [@MS1998 Theorem 3.10], we conclude that there is a completely contractive homomorphism $\pi:{{\mathcal{T}}}^+_X\to B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ such that $$\pi(\rho_\infty(a))=\rho(a), \quad \pi(t_\infty(x))=t(x)$$ for every $a\in {{\mathfrak{A}}}$ and every $x\in X$. In particular, we see that $$\pi(s_{\mu,\nu})\xi_m=\rho(a_{\mu,\nu})\xi_m+\sum_{j=1}^{r_{\mu,\nu}} t(x^{(\mu,\nu)}_{j,1}) t(x^{(\mu,\nu)}_{j,2})\cdots t(x^{(\mu,\nu)}_{j,N_j})\xi_m=\tau(s_{\mu,\nu})\xi_m$$ for every $1\leq \mu,\nu\leq d$ and every $1\leq m\leq d$. This means that $$\pi^{(d)}(S)U\xi=\tau^{(d)}(S)U\xi$$ hence $$\|\pi^{(d)}(S)\|\geq \|\tau^{(d)}(S) U\xi\|=\|U\sigma(S)\xi\|=\|S\|$$ and $\|\pi^{(d)}(S)\|=\|S\|$, which establishes the first statement. The second follows immediately, since ${{\mathcal{T}}}^0_X$ is dense in ${{\mathcal{T}}}^+_X$.
Given a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondence $X$ over ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$, it is known that ${{\mathcal{T}}}_{X}^+ \cap ({{\mathcal{T}}}_{X}^+)^* = {{\mathfrak{A}}}$ [@KRmem page 10]. In view of Theorem \[T:fdcorrespondence\], one may wonder whether, for a general operator algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}$, the fact that the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}\cap {{\mathcal{A}}}^*$ is finite-dimensional implies that ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is necessarily RFD. We show that this is not the case.
\[E:diagonal\] Let ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$ be an infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space. Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}}^{(3)})$ be the operator algebra consisting of elements of the form $$\begin{bmatrix}0 &r&s\\0&0&t\\0&0&0 \end{bmatrix}, \quad r,s,t\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}}).$$ Then, ${{\mathcal{A}}}\cap {{\mathcal{A}}}^*=\{0\}$ yet we claim that ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is not RFD.
To see this, let $\theta:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ be a completely contractive homomorphism such that $$\theta\left(\begin{bmatrix}0 &0&I\\0&0&0\\0&0&0 \end{bmatrix} \right)\neq 0.$$ There are completely contractive linear maps $$\theta_{12},\theta_{13},\theta_{23} : B({{\mathfrak{H}}}) \rightarrow B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$$ such that $$\theta_{12}(t)=\theta\left(\begin{bmatrix}0 &t&0\\0&0&0\\0&0&0 \end{bmatrix} \right),
\theta_{13}(t)=\theta\left(\begin{bmatrix}0 &0&t\\0&0&0\\0&0&0 \end{bmatrix} \right),
\theta_{23}(t)=\theta\left(\begin{bmatrix}0 &0&0\\0&0&t\\0&0&0 \end{bmatrix} \right)$$ for every $t\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$. Since $\theta$ is multiplicative, we find $$\theta_{ij}(r)\theta_{ij}(s) = 0, \quad r,s\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$$ for every $i,j$, while $$\theta_{12}(r)\theta_{23}(s) = \theta_{13}(rs), \quad r,s\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}}).$$ By choice of $\theta$, we know that $\theta_{13}(I)\neq 0$. Choose a sequence of partial isometries $(v_n)_n$ in $B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ with the property that $v_n v_n^*=I$ and $v_n v_k^*=0$ for every $k\neq n$ and for every $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$. Let $c_1,\ldots,c_m\in {{\mathbb{C}}}$ such that $$\sum_{n=1}^m c_n \theta_{12}(v_n)=0.$$ Thus, for each $1\leq k \leq m$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
c_k \theta_{13}(I)&=c_k \theta_{13}( v_k v_k^*)=\sum_{n=1}^m c_n \theta_{13}(v_nv_k^*)\\
& =\left(\sum_{n=1}^m c_n \theta_{12}(v_n)\right)\theta_{23}(v_k^*) =0\end{aligned}$$ which forces $c_k=0$. Hence, $\{\theta_{12}(v_n):n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}\}$ is a linearly independent set in $B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$, so that ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ is infinite-dimensional.
As an application, we next consider a noteworthy special class of ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondences. Let $G = (E,V,s,r)$ be a countable directed graph. Let $c_{00}(E)$ denote the algebra of finitely supported functions on $E$. Let $c_0(V)$ denote the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra obtained by taking the uniform closure of $c_{00}(V)$. We may define a $c_0(V)$-bimodule structure on $c_{00}(E)$ by setting $$(a\cdot x \cdot b)(e)=a(r(e))x(e)b(s(e)), \quad e\in E$$ for every $a,b\in c_0(V)$ and every $x\in c_{00}(E)$. We may also define a $c_0(V)$-valued inner product on $c_{00}(E)$ by setting $$\langle x,y \rangle(v)=\sum_{e\in s^{-1}(v)}{\overline}{x(e)}y(e), \quad v\in V$$ for every $x,y\in c_{00}(E)$. Upon applying a standard completion procedure, we obtain a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondence $X_G$ over $c_0(V)$, called the *graph correspondence of $G$*. See [@BO2008 Example 4.6.13] for more detail.
For our purposes, we will require the following observations. Fix a finite subset $F\subset V$. Extending functions by $0$ outside of $F$ and $V\setminus F$ respectively, we view $c_{0}(F)$ and $c_0(V\setminus F)$ as closed two-sided ideals of $c_{0}(V)$ such that $$c_0(V)=c_0(F)\oplus c_0(V\setminus F).$$ A similar decomposition holds for the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondence $X_G$. Indeed, let $$E_F = \{e\in E : s(e), r(e) \in F\}.$$ Extending functions by $0$ outside of $E_F$ and $E\setminus E_F$ respectively, we see that $c_{00}(E_F)$ and $c_{00}(E\setminus E_F)$ are submodules of $c_{00}(E)$. Furthermore, for $x,y\in c_{00}(E)$ we note that $$\langle x,y\rangle=\langle x|_{E_F},y|_{E_F}\rangle+\langle x|_{E\setminus E_F},y|_{E\setminus E_F}\rangle.$$ Let $H=(E_F,F,s,r)$ and let $Y\subset X_G$ denote the closure of $c_{00}(E\setminus E_F)$. Then, $X_{H}$ and $Y$ are submodules of $X_G$ with $$X_G=X_{H}\oplus Y.$$ With these preliminaries out of the way, we can prove the following.
\[T:graph\] Let $G = (E,V,s,r)$ be a directed graph and let $X_G$ be the associated graph correspondence. Then, ${{\mathcal{T}}}^+_{X_G}$ is RFD.
We use the same notation as in the discussion preceding the theorem. Fix a finite subset $F\subset V$ and let $$\rho_\infty^F:c_0(F)\to {{\mathcal{L}}}({{\mathcal{F}}}_{X_{H}}) {\quad\text{and}\quad}t_\infty^F:X_{H}\to {{\mathcal{L}}}({{\mathcal{F}}}_{X_{H}})$$ denote the usual maps giving rise to the tensor algebra of $X_H$. Let $\gamma_F :c_0(V)\to c_0(F)$ and $\delta_F:X_G\to X_H$ be the projections onto the appropriate submodule obtained via restriction, as above. It is easily seen that $$\gamma_F(a)\delta_F(x)=\delta_F(a\cdot x), \quad \delta_F(x)\gamma_F(a)=\delta_F(x\cdot a)$$ for every $a\in c_0(V)$ and $x\in X_G$. By [@MS1998 Theorem 3.10], we find a completely contractive homomorphism $\pi_F:{{\mathcal{T}}}^+_{X_G}\to {{\mathcal{T}}}^+_{X_F}$ such that $$\pi_F(\rho_\infty(a)) =\rho^F_\infty(\gamma_F(a)), \quad \pi_F(t_\infty(x))=t^F_\infty( \delta_F(x) )$$ for every $a\in c_0(V)$ and $x\in X_G$.
Next, let ${{\mathcal{D}}}={\overline}{\rho_\infty(c_0(F)){{\mathcal{F}}}_{X_G}}$. Since $c_0(F)$ is an ideal in $c_0(V)$, we infer that ${{\mathcal{D}}}$ is invariant for $\rho_\infty(c_0(V))$, and that the map $$b\mapsto b|_{{\mathcal{D}}}, \quad b\in c_0(F)$$ is a non-degenerate $*$-homomorphism. We claim now that ${{\mathcal{D}}}$ is invariant for $t_\infty(X_F)$ and $t_\infty(X_F)^*$. To see this, first note that if $x\in X_F$ and $a\in c_0(V)$, then $$a\cdot x=\gamma_F(a) \cdot x, \quad x\cdot a=x\cdot \gamma_F(a)$$ by definition of $E_F$. Let $(e_\lambda)_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ be a contractive approximate identity for $c_0(V)$ and recall that $\rho_\infty$ is non-degenerate so $\rho_\infty(c_0(V)){{\mathcal{F}}}_{X_G}$ is dense in ${{\mathcal{F}}}_{X_G}$. In particular, this means that $$\lim_{\lambda\in \Lambda}\rho_\infty(e_\lambda) h=h$$ for every $h\in {{\mathcal{F}}}_{X_G}$. Thus, for $y\in X_F$ and $h\in{{\mathcal{F}}}_{X_G}$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
t_\infty(y)h&=\lim_{\lambda\in \Lambda} \rho_\infty(e_\lambda)t_\infty(y)h=\lim_{\lambda\in \Lambda} t_\infty(e_\lambda \cdot y)h\\
&=\lim_{\lambda\in \Lambda} t_\infty(\gamma_F(e_\lambda) \cdot y)h=\lim_{\lambda\in \Lambda}\rho_\infty(\gamma_F(e_\lambda)) t_\infty(y)h\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
t_\infty(y)^*h&=\lim_{\lambda\in \Lambda} \rho_\infty(e_\lambda)t_\infty(y)^*h=\lim_{\lambda\in \Lambda}( t_\infty(y)\rho_\infty(e_\lambda^*))^*h\\
&=\lim_{\lambda\in \Lambda}t_\infty(y\cdot e_\lambda^*)^* h=\lim_{\lambda\in \Lambda}t_\infty(y\cdot \gamma_F(e_\lambda^*))^*h\\
&=\lim_{\lambda\in \Lambda}(t_\infty(y)\rho_\infty(\gamma_F(e_\lambda^*)))^*h\\
&=\lim_{\lambda\in \Lambda}\rho_\infty(\gamma_F(e_\lambda)) t_\infty(y)^*h\end{aligned}$$ whence $t_\infty(y)h,t_\infty(y)^*h\in {{\mathcal{D}}}$. We conclude that $$t_\infty(X_F){{\mathcal{F}}}_{X_G}\subset {{\mathcal{D}}}{\quad\text{and}\quad}t_\infty(X_F)^*{{\mathcal{F}}}_{X_G}\subset {{\mathcal{D}}}$$ so in particular ${{\mathcal{D}}}$ is invariant for $t_\infty(X_F)$ and $t_\infty(X_F)^*$, and the claim is established. Invoking [@MS1998 Theorem 3.10] again, we find a completely contractive homomorphism $\sigma_F: {{\mathcal{T}}}^+_{X_F}\to {{\mathcal{L}}}({{\mathcal{D}}})$ such that $$\sigma_F(\rho^F_\infty(b)) =\rho_\infty(b)|_{{\mathcal{D}}}, \quad \sigma_F(t^F_\infty(y))=t_\infty(y)|_{{\mathcal{D}}}$$ for every $b\in c_0(F)$ and $y\in X_F$. Denote by ${{\mathcal{T}}}_F\subset {{\mathcal{T}}}^+_{X_G}$ the algebra generated by $\rho_\infty(c_0(F))$ and $t_\infty(X_F)$. Then, we find that $$\sigma_F\circ \pi_F(s)=s|_{{\mathcal{D}}}$$ for every $s\in {{\mathcal{T}}}_F$. Moreover, for $s\in {{\mathcal{T}}}_F$ we find $$s\rho_\infty(e_\lambda)=s\rho_\infty(\gamma_F(e_\lambda))$$ for every $\lambda\in \Lambda$. Since $\rho_\infty(c_0(V)){{\mathcal{F}}}_{X_G}$ is dense in ${{\mathcal{F}}}_{X_G}$, we conclude that the map $$s\mapsto s|_{{\mathcal{D}}}, \quad s\in {{\mathcal{T}}}_F$$ is completely isometric, and thus $\sigma_F\circ \pi_F$ is completely isometric on ${{\mathcal{T}}}_F$. In turn, this forces $\pi_F$ to be completely isometric on ${{\mathcal{T}}}_F$.
Finally, define $$\pi:{{\mathcal{T}}}^+_{X_G}\to \prod_{F\subset V \textrm{finite}}{{\mathcal{T}}}^+_{X_F}$$ as $$\pi(s)=\bigoplus_{F\subset V \textrm{finite}} \pi_F(s), \quad s\in {{\mathcal{T}}}^+_{X_G}.$$ Clearly, $\pi$ is a completely contractive homomorphism. For each finite subset $F\subset V$, the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra $c_0(F)$ is finite-dimensional, whence ${{\mathcal{T}}}^+_{X_F}$ is RFD by Theorem \[T:fdcorrespondence\]. Thus, to complete the proof it suffices to show that $\pi$ is completely isometric. To see this, fix $S\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{T}}}^+_{X_G})$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$. Note now that $$c_0(V)={\overline}{\bigcup_{F\subset V \textrm{finite}}c_0(F)}, \quad X_G={\overline}{\bigcup_{F\subset V \textrm{finite}}X_F}.$$ Thus, we may find a finite subset $F\subset V$ and an element $S'\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{T}}}_F)$ such that $\|S-S'\|<{\varepsilon}$. Using that $\pi$ is completely isometric on ${{\mathcal{T}}}_F$, we obtain $$\|\pi_F^{(d)}(S)\|\geq \|\pi^{(d)}(S')\|-{\varepsilon}=\|S'\|-{\varepsilon}\geq \|S\|-2{\varepsilon}.$$ This shows that $\pi$ is completely isometric.
We have demonstrated that there is a large class of tensor algebras of C$^*$-correspondences that are RFD. Ultimately, one would wish to determine whether it is enough for the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ to be RFD in order for the tensor algebra of a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondence over ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ to be RFD. We end this section with one more positive step towards answering this question.
\[T:X=C\] Let ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ be a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra which we view as a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondence over itself. Then, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\mathfrak{A}}}}^+)$ is RFD if and only if ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ is RFD.
Assume first that ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\mathfrak{A}}}}^+)$ is RFD. Therefore, ${{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\mathfrak{A}}}}^+$ is also RFD. It is easily verified that $\rho_\infty$ is injective in this situation, so that ${{\mathfrak{A}}}\cong \rho_\infty({{\mathfrak{A}}})$. Since $\rho_\infty({{\mathfrak{A}}})$ is a subalgebra of ${{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\mathfrak{A}}}}^+$, we infer that ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ is RFD. Conversely, assume that ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ is RFD. In [@MS1998 Example 2.6] it is pointed out that ${{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\mathfrak{A}}}}^+$ is completely isometrically isomorphic to ${{\mathfrak{A}}}\times_{{\operatorname{id}}} \mathbb Z^+$. In turn, by [@MS1998 Corollary 6.9] (see also [@DFK2017survey Theorem 4.1]), we obtain $${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\mathfrak{A}}}}^+)\cong {{\mathfrak{A}}}\otimes_{\max} {\mathrm{C}}({{\mathbb{T}}}).$$ Using that ${\mathrm{C}}({{\mathbb{T}}})$ is a nuclear ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra and invoking [@paulsen2002 Proposition 12.5], we infer $${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\mathfrak{A}}}}^+)\cong {\mathrm{C}}({{\mathbb{T}}}; {{\mathfrak{A}}}).$$ Now, ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ is assumed to be RFD, and thus so is ${\mathrm{C}}({{\mathbb{T}}}; {{\mathfrak{A}}})$. We conclude that ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\mathfrak{A}}}}^+)$ is RFD.
Residual finite-dimensionality of the maximal ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-cover {#S:C*max}
====================================================================
In this section, we explore the residual finite-dimensionality of the maximal ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-cover of an operator algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. Since the embedding $\mu:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is a completely isometric homomorphism, ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ being RFD is a necessary condition for ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ to be RFD. In light of [@pestov1994 Theorem 4.1], this shows that residual finite-dimensionality of the maximal ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-cover is more nuanced than that of the free ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra of an operator space. We begin our analysis by considering the case where ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is finite-dimensional. For convenience, we let ${{\mathbb{C}}}\langle {{\mathcal{A}}},{{\mathcal{A}}}^*\rangle\subset {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ denote the linear span of words in the elements of $\mu({{\mathcal{A}}})\cup \mu({{\mathcal{A}}})^*$. Recall that ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})={\mathrm{C}}^*(\mu({{\mathcal{A}}}))$, so that ${{\mathbb{C}}}\langle {{\mathcal{A}}},{{\mathcal{A}}}^*\rangle$ is dense in ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$. The following argument is very similar to that used in the proof of Theorem \[T:fdcorrespondence\].
\[T:C\*maxfdimA\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ be a finite-dimensional operator algebra. Then, for every $s\in {{\mathbb{C}}}\langle {{\mathcal{A}}},{{\mathcal{A}}}^*\rangle$ there is a finite-dimensional Hilbert space ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ and a $*$-homomorphism $\pi:{\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})\to B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ with the property that $\|\pi(s)\|=\|s\|$. In particular, the algebra ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is RFD.
Upon identifying ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ with $\mu({{\mathcal{A}}})$, we may assume that ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$. Assume further that ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is concretely represented on some Hilbert space ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$. Fix $s\in{{\mathbb{C}}}\langle {{\mathcal{A}}},{{\mathcal{A}}}^*\rangle$. We may write $$s=\sum_{j=1}^r c^{(j)}_1 c^{(j)}_2\cdots c^{(j)}_{N_j}$$ where $c^{(j)}_k\in {{\mathcal{A}}}\cup {{\mathcal{A}}}^*$ for $1\leq k\leq N_j, 1\leq j\leq r$. Let $\psi$ be a state on ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})+{{\mathbb{C}}}I_{{{\mathfrak{H}}}}$ such that $\psi(s^*s)=\|s\|^2$. Let $\sigma:{\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})+{{\mathbb{C}}}I_{{{\mathfrak{H}}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}}_\psi)$ be the associated GNS representation with cyclic unit vector $\xi\in {{\mathfrak{H}}}_\psi$. Then, we see that $$\|\sigma(s)\xi\|^2=\psi(s^*s)=\|s\|^2.$$ By Lemma \[L:fdiminvsub\], there is a finite-dimensional subspace ${{\mathfrak{F}}}\subset {{\mathfrak{H}}}_\psi$ containing $\xi$ that is invariant for $\sigma({{\mathcal{A}}})$ and such that $$\sigma(s)\xi=\sum_{j=1}^r P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\sigma(c^{(j)}_1)P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}} \sigma(c^{(j)}_2)P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\sigma(c^{(j)}_{N_j})\xi.$$ Since ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ is invariant for $\sigma({{\mathcal{A}}})$, the map $$a\mapsto P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\sigma(a)|_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}, \quad a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$$ is a completely contractive homomorphism, whence there is a $*$-homomorphism $\pi:{\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})\to B({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ such that $$\pi(a)=P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\sigma(a)|_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}, \quad a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}.$$ In particular, we see that $$\pi(a^*)=P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\sigma(a)^*|_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}, \quad a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$$ and since each element $c^{(j)}_k$ belongs to ${{\mathcal{A}}}\cup {{\mathcal{A}}}^*$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(s)\xi&=\sum_{j=1}^r \pi(c^{(j)}_1)\pi(c^{(j)}_2)\cdots \pi(c^{(j)}_{N_j})\xi\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^r P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\sigma(c^{(j)}_1)P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}} \sigma( c^{(j)}_2)P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{F}}}}\sigma(c^{(j)}_{N_j})\xi\\
&=\sigma(s)\xi.\end{aligned}$$ This means that $$\|\pi(s)\|\geq \|\sigma(s) \xi\|=\|s\|$$ whence $\|\pi(s)\|=\|s\|$, which establishes the first statement. The second follows immediately, since ${{\mathbb{C}}}\langle {{\mathcal{A}}},{{\mathcal{A}}}^*\rangle$ is dense in ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$.
The following fact, which is most likely known to experts, provides motivation for what is to come.
\[T:C\*maxdirectsum\] For each $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, let ${{\mathcal{A}}}_n$ be a unital operator algebra and let ${{\mathcal{A}}}=\oplus_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathcal{A}}}_n$. Then, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})\cong \oplus_{n=1}^\infty {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}}_n)$.
For each $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, the algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}_n$ is naturally embedded in ${{\mathcal{A}}}$, and accordingly we let $E_n\in A$ denote the unit of ${{\mathcal{A}}}_n$. Given $a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$, we then have that $E_n a E_n\in {{\mathcal{A}}}_n$ for each $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and $$a=\oplus_{n=1}^\infty E_n a E_n=\lim_{N\to\infty}\oplus_{n=1}^N E_n a E_n$$ where the limit exists in the norm topology. Let $$\mu:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}}) {\quad\text{and}\quad}\mu_n:{{\mathcal{A}}}_n\to {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}}_n)$$ denote the canonical embeddings. The map $${\varphi}:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to \oplus_{n=1}^\infty {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}}_n)$$ defined as $${\varphi}(a)=\oplus_{n=1}^\infty \mu_n(E_n a E_n), \quad a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$$ is a completely contractive homomorphism. Thus, there is a $*$-homomorphism $$\pi:{\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})\to \oplus_{n=1}^\infty {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}}_n)$$ with the property that $\pi\circ \mu={\varphi}$. On the other hand, for each $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ we define a completely contractive homomorphism $$\psi_n:{{\mathcal{A}}}_n\to {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$$ as $$\psi_n(a)=\mu(a), \quad a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}_n.$$ Thus, there is a $*$-homomorphism $$\sigma_n:{\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}}_n)\to {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$$ such that $\sigma_n\circ \mu_n =\psi_n$. For each $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, put $P_n=\mu(E_n)$ which is a contractive idempotent, and thus a self-adjoint projection. Then, $\{P_n:n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}\}$ is a collection of pairwise orthogonal projections in ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$. We obtain a $*$-homomorphism $$\sigma:\oplus_{n=1}^\infty {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}}_n)\to {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max} ({{\mathcal{A}}})$$ by setting $$\sigma(\oplus_{n=1}^\infty t_n)=\oplus_{n=1}^\infty P_n \sigma_n(t_n)P_n$$ for every $\oplus_{n=1}^\infty t_n\in \oplus_{n=1}^\infty {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}}_n)$. For $a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$ we compute $$\begin{aligned}
(\sigma \circ\pi )(\mu(a))&=\sigma({\varphi}(a))=\sigma(\oplus_{n=1}^\infty \mu_n(E_na E_n))\\
&=\oplus_{n=1}^\infty P_n \sigma_n ( \mu_n(E_na E_n))P_n=\oplus_{n=1}^\infty P_n \psi_n(E_na E_n)P_n\\
&=\oplus_{n=1}^\infty P_n \mu(E_na E_n)P_n=\oplus_{n=1}^\infty \mu(E_na E_n)\\
&=\lim_{N\to\infty} \mu\left( \oplus_{n=1}^N E_n a E_n\right)\\
&=\mu(a)\end{aligned}$$ where the limit exists in the norm topology. Next, for $\oplus_{n=1}^\infty \mu_n(a_n)\in \oplus_{n=1}^\infty \mu_n({{\mathcal{A}}}_n)$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
(\pi\circ \sigma)(\oplus_{n=1}^\infty \mu_n(a_n))&=\pi\left( \oplus_{n=1}^\infty P_n\psi_n(a_n)P_n\right)\\
&=\pi\left( \oplus_{n=1}^\infty P_n \mu(a_n)P_n\right)=\pi\left( \oplus_{n=1}^\infty \mu(E_n a_nE_n)\right)\\
&=\pi\left( \oplus_{n=1}^\infty \mu( a_n)\right)=\lim_{N\to\infty} (\pi\circ \mu)(\oplus_{n=1}^N a_n)\\
&=\lim_{N\to\infty} {\varphi}(\oplus_{n=1}^N a_n)={\varphi}(\oplus_{n=1}^\infty a_n)\\
&=\oplus_{n=1}^\infty \mu_n(a_n)\end{aligned}$$ where once again the limit exists in the norm topology. Thus, we conclude that $\pi$ is a $*$-isomorphism.
One easy consequence goes as follows.
\[C:RFDdirectsum\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ be an operator algebra which can be written as ${{\mathcal{A}}}=\oplus_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathcal{A}}}_n$, where ${{\mathcal{A}}}_n$ is a unital finite-dimensional operator algebra for each $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$. Then, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is RFD.
By Theorem \[T:C\*maxfdimA\], we see that ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}}_n)$ is RFD for every $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, whence ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is RFD by Theorem \[T:C\*maxdirectsum\].
This corollary says that for special RFD operator algebras ${{\mathcal{A}}}$, we can guarantee that ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is RFD. The following example, inspired by multivariate operator theoretic considerations, supports the possibility that this may be a manifestation of a general phenomenon.
\[E:ncdiscalg\] Let $d\geq 1$ be an integer and let ${{\mathbb{F}}}_d^+$ denote the free semigroup on the generators $\{1,\ldots,d\}$. For each word $w\in {{\mathbb{F}}}_d^+$, we let $\delta_w\in \ell^2({{\mathbb{F}}}_d^+)$ denote the characteristic function of $\{w\}$. Thus, $\{\delta_w:w\in {{\mathbb{F}}}_d^+\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\ell^2({{\mathbb{F}}}_d^+)$. For each $1\leq k\leq d$, we define an isometry $L_k\in B(\ell^2({{\mathbb{F}}}_d^+))$ such that $L_k \delta_w=\delta_{kw}$ for every $w\in {{\mathbb{F}}}_d^+$. We note that $$\sum_{k=1}^d L_k L_k^*\leq I.$$ Then, *Popescu’s disc algebra* ${{\mathfrak{A}}}_d\subset B(\ell^2({{\mathbb{F}}}_d^+))$ is the norm closed unital operator algebra generated by $L_1,\ldots,L_d$ [@popescu1991]. When $d=1$, the algebra ${{\mathfrak{A}}}_1$ can be identified with the classical disc algebra, consisting of those continuous functions on the closed complex unit disc that are holomorphic in the interior.
We claim first that ${{\mathfrak{A}}}_d$ is RFD. To see this, note that ${{\mathfrak{A}}}_d$ can be identified with the tensor algebra of the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-correspondence ${{\mathbb{C}}}^d$ over ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ [@MS1998 Example 2.7]. Thus, ${{\mathfrak{A}}}_d$ is RFD by virtue of Theorem \[T:fdcorrespondence\]. Next, we proceed to verify that ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathfrak{A}}}_d)$ is RFD. For that purpose, we will need the following important universality property of ${{\mathfrak{A}}}_d$. Let ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$ be a Hilbert space and let $T_1,\ldots,T_d\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be operators such that $$\sum_{k=1}^d T_kT_k^*\leq I.$$ In other words, the row operator $T=(T_1,\ldots,T_d):{{\mathfrak{H}}}^{(d)}\to {{\mathfrak{H}}}$ is contractive. Then, there is a unital completely contractive homomorphism $\Phi_T:{{\mathfrak{A}}}_d\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ with the property that $\Phi_T(L_k)=T_k$ for every $1\leq k\leq d$ [@popescu1996 Theorem 2.1]. Using that $(L_1,\ldots,L_d)$ is contractive, it is now straightforward to verify that ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathfrak{A}}}_d)$ is $*$-isomorphic to the free ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra of the operator algebra ${{\mathfrak{A}}}_d$. Thus, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathfrak{A}}}_d)$ is RFD by [@pestov1994 Theorem 4.1].
Unfortunately, the general situation is more complicated and we briefly indicate why by discussing two related settings.
When $d>1$, Popescu’s disc algebra ${{\mathfrak{A}}}_d$ can be checked to be non-commutative. Notably, there is commutative version of it that acts on the symmetric Fock space over ${{\mathbb{C}}}^d$ instead of the full one [@arveson1998],[@davidson1998]. It is typically denoted by ${{\mathcal{A}}}_d$, and it is easily checked to be RFD; more generally one could also invoke [@mittal2010 Example 5.2]. Much as ${{\mathfrak{A}}}_d$ is universal for the so-called row contractions, the algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}_d$ is universal for *commuting* row contractions [@arveson1998 Theorem 6.2]. This commutativity requirement prevents a direct adaptation of the previous argument, and in particular we do not know whether ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}}_d)$ is RFD when $d>1$.
Another example is that of the bidisc algebra $A({{\mathbb{D}}}^2)$. As a uniform algebra, $A({{\mathbb{D}}}^2)$ is clearly RFD as its characters completely norm it. Furthermore, a classical inequality due to Ando [@ando1963] shows that $A({{\mathbb{D}}}^2)$ is universal for pairs of commuting contractions. Once again, this commutativity requirement complicates things and it does not appear to be known whether ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}(A({{\mathbb{D}}}^2))$ is RFD.
In view of these difficulties, we close this section by identifying a condition under which an RFD operator algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ has the property that ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is also RFD. We start by recording an elementary fact.
\[L:projconv\] Let ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$ be a Hilbert space and let $(x_\lambda)_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ be a net of contractions in $B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$. Let ${{\mathfrak{M}}}\subset {{\mathfrak{H}}}$ be a closed subspace which is invariant for $\{x_\lambda:\lambda\in \Lambda\}$ and such that ${{\mathfrak{M}}}^\perp\subset \cap_{\lambda\in \Lambda}\ker x^*_\lambda$. Assume that $(x_\lambda P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}})_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ converges to $P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}$ in the weak operator topology. Then, $(x_\lambda)_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ converges to $P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}$ in the weak operator topology.
By compactness of the closed unit ball in the weak operator topology, it suffices to show that $P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}$ is the only cluster point of $(x_\lambda)_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ in the weak operator topology. Let $x\in B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be such a cluster point. We know that $P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}x_{\lambda}P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}=x_{\lambda}P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}$ for every $\lambda\in\Lambda$. Using that $(x_\lambda P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}})_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ converges to $P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}$ in the weak operator topology, we conclude that $P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}xP_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}=P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}$. Moreover, ${{\mathfrak{M}}}^\perp\subset \ker x^*_\lambda$ so that $x^*_\lambda (I-P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}})=0$ for every $\lambda\in \Lambda$, and thus $(I-P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}})x=0$. Thus, we infer that $$x=P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}x=P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}xP_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}+P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}} x (I-P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}})=P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}+P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}} x (I-P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}})$$ and consequently $$xx^*=P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}+P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}} x (I-P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}) x^*P_{{\mathfrak{M}}}.$$ On the other hand, since each $x_\lambda$ is a contraction we must have that $xx^*\leq I$ and therefore $$P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}+P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}} x (I-P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}) x^*P_{{\mathfrak{M}}}\leq P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}$$ which forces $P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}} x (I-P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}})=0$. Consequently, we have $x=P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}}$.
Recall now that an operator algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is said to admit a *contractive approximate identity* if there is a net of contractions $(e_\lambda)_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ in ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ such that for every $a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$, the nets $(e_\lambda a)_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ and $(ae_\lambda)_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ converge to $a$ in norm.
\[T:idealRFD\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ be an operator algebra. For every $n\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$, let ${{\mathcal{J}}}_n\subset {{\mathcal{A}}}$ be a closed two-sided ideal of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ with a contractive approximate identity $(e^{(n)}_{\lambda})_{\lambda\in \Lambda_n}$. Assume that for every $a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$ we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\liminf_{\lambda\in \Lambda_n} \|ae^{(n)}_{\lambda}\|=0 {\quad\text{and}\quad}\lim_{n\to\infty}\liminf_{\lambda\in \Lambda_n} \|e^{(n)}_{\lambda}a\|=0.$$ Assume also that ${{\mathcal{A}}}/{{\mathcal{J}}}_n$ is finite-dimensional for every $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$. Then, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is RFD.
The assumptions on ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ are invariant under completely isometric isomorphisms, so we may assume that ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset {\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})\subset B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ for some Hilbert space ${{\mathfrak{H}}}$. Since ${{\mathbb{C}}}\langle {{\mathcal{A}}},{{\mathcal{A}}}^*\rangle$ is dense in ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})$, it suffices to fix $s\in {{\mathbb{C}}}\langle {{\mathcal{A}}},{{\mathcal{A}}}^*\rangle$ with $\|s\|=1$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$, and to find a finite-dimensional Hilbert space ${{\mathfrak{N}}}$ and a $*$-homomorphism $\pi:{\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})\to B({{\mathfrak{N}}})$ such that $\|\pi(s)\|\geq 1-{\varepsilon}$. Write $$s=\sum_{j=1}^r c^{(j)}_1 c^{(j)}_2\cdots c^{(j)}_{N_j}$$ where $c^{(j)}_k\in {{\mathcal{A}}}\cup {{\mathcal{A}}}^*$ for $1\leq k\leq N_j, 1\leq j\leq r$. Choose a unit vectors $\xi\in {{\mathfrak{H}}}$ with the property that $\|s\xi\|\geq 1-{\varepsilon}/2$. For each $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, we put ${{\mathfrak{M}}}_n={\overline}{{\operatorname{span}}{{\mathcal{J}}}_n^*{{\mathfrak{H}}}}$. It is readily verified that that $(e^{(n)*}_\lambda P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_n})_{\lambda\in \Lambda_n}$ converges in the strong operator topology to $P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_n}$. Furthermore, we see that $${{\mathfrak{M}}}_n^\perp=\cap_{a\in {{\mathcal{J}}}_n}\ker a$$ so by Lemma \[L:projconv\] we see that $(e^{(n)*}_\lambda)_{\lambda\in \Lambda_n}$ converges in the weak operator topology to $P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_n}$. This implies that $(e^{(n)}_\lambda)_{\lambda\in \Lambda_n}$ converges in the weak operator topology to $P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_n}$ as well. Thus, for every $a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$ we find $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \|aP_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_n}\|\leq \lim_{n\to\infty} \liminf_{\lambda\in\Lambda_n}\|ae^{(n)}_\lambda\|=0$$ and $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\|P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_n}a\|\leq\lim_{n\to\infty} \liminf_{\lambda\in\Lambda_n}\|e^{(n)}_\lambda a\|=0$$ by assumption. We may thus choose a positive integer $m$ large enough so that $$\left\|s- \sum_{j=1}^rP_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp}c^{(j)}_1P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp} c^{(j)}_2P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp }\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp}c^{(j)}_{N_j}P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp} \right\|< {\varepsilon}/2$$ whence $$\left\| \sum_{j=1}^rP_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp}c^{(j)}_1P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp} c^{(j)}_2P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp }\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp}c^{(j)}_{N_j}P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp}\xi \right\|\geq 1-{\varepsilon}.$$ The map $\rho:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{M}}}_m^\perp)$ defined as $$\rho(a)=a|_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_m^\perp}, \quad a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$$ is a completely contractive homomorphism with ${{\mathcal{J}}}_m\subset \ker \rho.$ By assumption we know that ${{\mathcal{A}}}/{{\mathcal{J}}}_m$ is finite-dimensional and thus so is $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$. Thus, by virtue of Lemma \[L:fdiminvsub\], there is a finite-dimensional subspace ${{\mathfrak{N}}}\subset {{\mathfrak{M}}}_m^\perp$ containing $P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}^\perp_m}\xi$ that is invariant for $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$ and such that $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{j=1}^rP_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp}c^{(j)}_1P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp} c^{(j)}_2P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp }\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp}c^{(j)}_{N_j}P_{{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{m}^\perp}\xi\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^r P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}c^{(j)}_1P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}} c^{(j)}_2P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}c^{(j)}_{N_j}P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}\xi.\end{aligned}$$ We infer that $$\left\| \sum_{j=1}^r P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}c^{(j)}_1P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}} c^{(j)}_2P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}c^{(j)}_{N_j}P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}\xi\right\|\geq 1-{\varepsilon}.$$ The map $$a\mapsto a|_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}, \quad a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$$ is a completely contractive homomorphism, so there is a $*$-homomorphism $\pi:{\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}})\to B({{\mathfrak{N}}})$ such that $\pi(a)=a|_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}$ for every $a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$. We thus find $$\pi(s)= \sum_{j=1}^r P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}c^{(j)}_1P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}} c^{(j)}_2P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}\cdots P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}c^{(j)}_{N_j}|_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}$$ so $\|\pi(s)P_{{{\mathfrak{N}}}}\xi\|\geq 1-{\varepsilon}$. We conclude that $\|\pi(s)\|\geq 1-{\varepsilon}$ and the proof is complete.
It is a standard fact that every ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra admits a contractive approximate identity, but for general operator algebras the picture is more complicated (see [@effrosruan1990],[@BR2011],[@BR2013] for instance). At present we do not know if there are operator algebras satisfying the conditions of the previous theorem that are not of the form considered in Corollary \[C:RFDdirectsum\].
Residual finite dimensionality of the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope {#S:C*env}
===============================================================
In this section, we study the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelopes of RFD operator algebras. In some sense, our focus here is dual to that of the previous section. Indeed, in Section \[S:C\*max\] we considered the maximal ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-cover of RFD operator algebras, whereas here we will study the minimal one.
As in previous sections, we first analyze finite-dimensional operator algebras. In view of Corollary \[C:fdimRFD\], and Theorem \[T:C\*maxfdimA\], a natural guess would be that these must necessarily have RFD ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelopes. This is not the case as the next example shows.
\[E:Paulsentrick\] Fix a positive integer $d\geq 2$ and let $H^2_d$ denote the Drury-Arveson space of holomorphic functions on the open unit ball ${{\mathbb{B}}}_d\subset {{\mathbb{C}}}^d$. Let ${{\mathcal{S}}}_d\subset B(H^2_d)$ denote the unital subspace generated by the operators $M_{z_1},\ldots,M_{z_d}$ of multiplication by the variables (the reader may consult [@agler2002] for more detail about these objects). The ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra ${{\mathfrak{T}}}_d$ generated by ${{\mathcal{S}}}_d$ is called the *Toeplitz algebra*, and we have ${{\mathfrak{T}}}_d\cong {\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{S}}}_d)$ [@arveson1998 Lemma 7.13 and Theorem 8.15]. Next, let ${{\mathcal{A}}}_{{{\mathcal{S}}}_d}$ be the unital operator algebra constructed from ${{\mathcal{S}}}_d$ as in Lemma \[L:M2C\*env\]. Since ${{\mathcal{S}}}_d$ is finite-dimensional, so is ${{\mathcal{A}}}_{{{\mathcal{S}}}_d}$. Moreover, it follows from Lemma \[L:M2C\*env\] that $${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}}_{{{\mathcal{S}}}_d})\cong {{\mathbb{M}}}_2({\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{S}}}_d))\cong{{\mathbb{M}}}_2({{\mathfrak{T}}}_d).$$ But since ${{\mathfrak{T}}}_d$ contains the ideal of compact operators [@arveson1998 Theorem 5.7], we infer that ${{\mathfrak{T}}}_d$ is not RFD, and thus ${{\mathbb{M}}}_2({{\mathfrak{T}}}_d)$ cannot be either.
Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ be a unital operator algebra. The embedding ${\varepsilon}:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to {\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is a unital completely isometric homomorphism, so that a necessary condition for ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})$ to be RFD is that ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ be such. Our basic goal in this section is to identify sufficient conditions for the converse to hold. For simplicity, we restrict our attention to the separable setting, but the interested reader will easily adapt the arguments to more general situations.
Let us now set some notation that we will use throughout. For each $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, let $r_n$ be some positive integer. The object of interest will be a unital operator algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset \prod_{n=1}^\infty{{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$. This unital completely isometric embedding will be fixed and part of the given data in our results. For each $m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, we let $\gamma_m:\prod_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}\to {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_m}$ denote the natural projection, and we let ${{\mathfrak{K}}}$ denote the ideal of compact operators in ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})$. Thus, $${{\mathfrak{K}}}=\{t\in {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}}):\lim_{n\to\infty}\|\gamma_n(a)\|=0\}.$$ We let $\kappa:{\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})\to {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})/{{\mathfrak{K}}}$ denote the quotient map. An analysis of the representations of ${{\mathfrak{K}}}$ will provide insight into our problem. We first record an elementary fact.
\[L:redK\] Let ${{\mathfrak{A}}}\subset \prod_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ be a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra of compact operators. Let $E\subset \oplus_{n=1}^\infty{{\mathbb{C}}}^{r_n}$ be a reducing subspace for ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$. If ${{\mathfrak{A}}}|_{E}$ is irreducible, then $E$ must be finite-dimensional.
Assume that $E$ is infinite-dimensional. For each $m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, we let $P_m$ denote the orthogonal projection of $ \oplus_{n=1}^\infty{{\mathbb{C}}}^{r_n}$ onto ${{\mathbb{C}}}^{r_m}$. We claim that there is a vector $\xi\in E$ and a strictly increasing sequence of natural numbers $(N_j)_j$ with the property that $P_{N_j}\xi\neq 0$ for every $j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$.
Choose $N_1\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and a unit vector $\xi_1\in E$ such that $P_{N_1}\xi_1\neq 0$. Define $c_1=1$. Assume that for $m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ we have constructed unit vector $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_m\in E$, natural numbers $N_1<N_2<\ldots<N_m$ and positive numbers $c_1,\ldots,c_m$ such that
1. $P_{N_j}\xi_j\neq 0$ for every $1\leq j\leq m$,
2. $P_{N_k}\xi_j=0$ for every $1\leq j,k\leq m$ such that $k>j$,
3. $0<c_j<2^{-j}$ for every $1\leq j\leq m$ and $$c_j \|P_{N_k}\xi_j\|<\frac{1}{2^j}|c_k| \|P_{N_k}\xi_k\|$$ for every $1\leq j,k\leq m$ such that $k<j$.
Note that if $\{n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}:P_n \xi_k\neq 0\}$ is infinite for some $1\leq k\leq m$, then $\xi_k$ has the desired property and we are done. Without loss of generality, we may thus assume that the set $\{n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}:P_n \xi_k\neq 0\}$ is finite for every $1\leq k\leq m$. By assumption, $E$ is infinite-dimensional so there is $N_{m+1}>N_m$ such that $P_{N_{m+1}}\xi_k=0$ for every $1\leq k\leq m$ and $P_{N_{m+1}}E\neq \{0\}$. Choose a unit vector $\xi_{m+1}\in E$ such that $P_{N_{m+1}}\xi_{m+1}\neq 0$. Choose also a real number $0<c_{m+1}<2^{-(m+1)}$ such that $$c_{m+1}\|P_{N_k}\xi_{m+1}\|<\frac{1}{2^{m+1}}|c_k| \|P_{N_k}\xi_k\|$$ for every $1\leq k\leq m$. By induction, we obtain a sequence $(\xi_j)_j$ of unit vectors in $E$, a strictly increasing sequence of natural numbers $(N_j)_j$ and a sequence of positive numbers $(c_j)_j$ with the property that
1. $P_{N_j}\xi_j\neq 0$ for every $j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$,
2. $P_{N_k}\xi_j=0$ for every $j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and every $k>j$,
3. $0<c_j<2^{-j}$ for every $j\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$ and $$c_j \|P_{N_k}\xi_j\|<\frac{1}{2^j}|c_k| \|P_{N_k}\xi_k\|$$ for every $j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and every $k<j$.
Put $\xi=\sum_{j=1}^\infty c_j \xi_j$. Then, using (c’) we see that $$\|\xi\|\leq \sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{ \|\xi_j\|}{2^j}=1$$ and $\xi\in E$. For $k\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, we compute using (a’),(b’) and (c’) that $$\begin{aligned}
\|P_{N_k}\xi\|&\geq \left\|P_{N_k}\left(\sum_{j=1}^k c_j\xi_j\right) \right\|-\left \|P_{N_k}\left(\sum_{j=k+1}^\infty c_j\xi_j\right) \right\|\\
&\geq c_k \|P_{N_k}\xi_k\|-\sum_{j=k+1}^\infty c_j \|P_{N_k}\xi_j\|\\
&\geq c_k \|P_{N_k}\xi_k\|\left(1-\sum_{j=k+1}^\infty \frac{1}{2^j}\right)\geq \frac{c_k}{2} \|P_{N_k}\xi_k\|>0.\end{aligned}$$ The claim is established.
Now, we know that ${{\mathfrak{A}}}|_E$ is an irreducible ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra of compact operators, and thus it must consist of all compact operators on $E$. In particular, there is $\Xi\in {{\mathfrak{A}}}$ with the property that $\Xi|_E=\xi\otimes \xi$. On the other hand, we have $\Xi\in {{\mathfrak{A}}}$ so we can write $\Xi=\oplus_{n=1}^\infty \Xi_n$ where $\Xi_n:{{\mathbb{C}}}^{r_n}\to{{\mathbb{C}}}^{r_n}$ for every $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$. Note that $\Xi \xi=\xi$, so that $\Xi_n P_{n}\xi=P_n \xi$ for every $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$. Using that $P_{N_j}\xi\neq 0$ for every $j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, we see that $\|\Xi_{N_j}\|\geq 1$ for every $j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, which contradicts the fact that $\Xi$ is compact.
Next, we leverage this fact to identify certain representations that preserve the residual finite-dimensionality of a ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra.
\[L:repfK\] Let ${{\mathfrak{A}}}\subset \prod_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ be a unital ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra and let ${{\mathfrak{L}}}$ denote the ideal of compact operators in ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$. Let $\pi:{{\mathfrak{A}}}\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be a unital $*$-homomorphism with the property that $\pi({{\mathfrak{L}}})$ is non-degenerate. Then, there is a collection $\{E_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ of finite-dimensional reducing subspaces for ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ with the property that ${{\mathfrak{A}}}|_{E_\lambda}$ is irreducible for every $\lambda\in \Lambda$, and such that there is a unitary $U:{{\mathfrak{H}}}\to \oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda}E_\lambda$ satisfying $$U\pi(s)U^*=\oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda}(s|_{E_\lambda}), \quad s\in {{\mathfrak{A}}}.$$
By Theorem [@arveson1976inv Theorem 1.4.4], we see that there is a collection $\{E_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ of reducing subspaces for ${{\mathfrak{L}}}$ with the property that $\{x|_{E_\lambda}:x\in{{\mathfrak{L}}}\}$ is irreducible for every $\lambda\in \Lambda$, along with a unitary $U:{{\mathfrak{H}}}\to \oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda}E_\lambda$ such that $$U\pi(x)U^*=\oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda} (x|_{E_\lambda}), \quad x\in {{\mathfrak{L}}}.$$ By virtue of Lemma \[L:redK\], we see that $E_\lambda$ is finite-dimensional for every $\lambda\in \Lambda$. Now, we note that $E_\lambda={\operatorname{span}}{{\mathfrak{L}}}E_\lambda$, whence $E_\lambda$ is reducing for ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ for every $\lambda\in \Lambda$ and a standard verification reveals that $$U\pi(s)U^*=\oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda} (s|_{E_\lambda}), \quad s\in {{\mathfrak{A}}}.$$
We can now exhibit a sufficient condition for the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope of an RFD operator algebra to be RFD as well.
\[T:quotientRFD\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset \prod_{n=1}^\infty{{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ be a unital operator algebra. Assume that every ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra which is a quotient of ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})/{{\mathfrak{K}}}$ is RFD. Then, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is RFD.
Let $\pi:{\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be a unital $*$-homomorphism that is completely isometric on ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and that has the unique extension property with respect to ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ (such things exist by [@dritschel2005]). Then, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})\cong \pi({\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}}))$. Basic representation theory for ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebras (see the discussion preceding [@arveson1976inv Theorem I.3.4]) dictate that we may decompose $\pi$ as $\pi=\pi_{{\mathfrak{K}}}\oplus \sigma$, where $\pi_{{\mathfrak{K}}}({{\mathfrak{K}}})$ is non-degenerate and ${{\mathfrak{K}}}\subset \ker\sigma$. We know that $\sigma({\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}}))$ is $*$-isomorphic to a quotient of ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})/{{\mathfrak{K}}}$, and hence is RFD by assumption. But so is $\pi_{{\mathfrak{K}}}({\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}}))$ by Lemma \[L:repfK\]. Hence, $${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})\cong \pi({\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}}))\subset \pi_{{\mathfrak{K}}}({\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}}))\oplus \sigma({\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}}))$$ is RFD.
The following consequence is noteworthy.
\[C:quotientRFD\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset \prod_{n=1}^\infty{{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ be a unital operator algebra. Then, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is RFD if one of the following conditions holds:
1. ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})/{{\mathfrak{K}}}$ is commutative,
2. ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})/{{\mathfrak{K}}}$ is finite-dimensional.
Both assumptions are readily seen to imply that every ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-algebra which is a quotient of ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})/{{\mathfrak{K}}}$ is RFD, so the result follows at once from Theorem \[T:quotientRFD\].
We now identify another context where the ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-envelope can be shown to be RFD. The next result is reminiscent of Arveson’s boundary theorem [@arveson1972 Theorem 2.1.1].
\[T:smallkappa\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset \prod_{n=1}^\infty{{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ be a unital operator algebra. Assume that for every $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, there is a dense subset ${{\mathcal{D}}}_d\subset {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$ with the property that $\|\kappa^{(d)}(A)\|<\|A\|$ for every $A\in {{\mathcal{D}}}_d$. Then, there is a collection $\{E_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ of finite-dimensional reducing subspaces for ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})$ such that the unital $*$-homomorphism $$s\mapsto \oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda}(s|_{E_\lambda}), \quad s\in {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})$$ is completely isometric on ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and has the unique extension property with respect to ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. Moreover, ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})|_{E_{\lambda}}$ is irreducible for every $\lambda\in \Lambda.$ In particular ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is $*$-isomorphic to $$\{\oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda}(s|_{E_\lambda}):s\in {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})\}$$ and it is RFD.
Let $\pi:{\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})\to B({{\mathfrak{H}}})$ be a unital $*$-homomorphism that is completely isometric on ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and that has the unique extension property with respect to ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. As before, we may decompose $\pi$ as $\pi_{{\mathfrak{K}}}\oplus \sigma$, where $\pi_{{\mathfrak{K}}}({{\mathfrak{K}}})$ is non-degenerate and ${{\mathfrak{K}}}\subset \ker \sigma$. In particular, we see that $$\|\sigma^{(d)}(A)\|\leq \|\kappa^{(d)}(A)\|<\|A\|$$ for every $A\in {{\mathcal{D}}}_d$ and every $d\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$. The fact that $\pi$ is completely isometric on ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ implies $$\|\pi_{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}^{(d)}(A)\|=\|A\|$$ for every $A\in {{\mathcal{D}}}_d$ and every $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$. Since ${{\mathcal{D}}}_d$ is dense in ${{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$ for every $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, we infer that $\pi_{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}$ is completely isometric on ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. Moreover, it is easily verified that $\pi_{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}$ inherits from $\pi$ the unique extension property with respect to ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. The conclusion now follows from Lemma \[L:repfK\] applied to $\pi_{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}$.
Next, we show that if the algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ contains many compact operators, then the condition of Theorem \[T:smallkappa\] is automatically satisfied. Recall that if ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ are operator algebras, then a completely contractive surjective homomorphism $\pi:{{\mathcal{A}}}\to{{\mathcal{B}}}$ is a *complete quotient map* if the induced map $\widehat \pi:{{\mathcal{A}}}/\ker \pi\to {{\mathcal{B}}}$ is a complete isometry.
\[T:epssurj\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset \prod_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ be a unital operator algebra. Assume that there is $N\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ with the property that $\gamma_n|_{{{\mathfrak{K}}}\cap {{\mathcal{A}}}}$ is a complete quotient map onto ${{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ for every $n\geq N$. Then, there is a collection $\{E_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ of finite-dimensional reducing subspaces for ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})$ such that the unital $*$-homomorphism $$s\mapsto \oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda}(s|_{E_\lambda}), \quad s\in {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})$$ is completely isometric on ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and has the unique extension property with respect to ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. Moreover, ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})|_{E_{\lambda}}$ is irreducible for every $\lambda\in \Lambda.$ In particular ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is $*$-isomorphic to $$\{\oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda}(s|_{E_\lambda}):s\in {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})\}$$ and it is RFD.
Let $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and let $A\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$ be such that $\|\kappa^{(d)}(A)\|=\|A\|=1$. By virtue of Lemma \[L:limsup\], we conclude that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\|\gamma_n^{(d)}(A)\|=\|A\|.$$ Hence, we have that $\|A\|=\sup_{n\geq N}\|\gamma_n^{(d)}(A)\|$. Let $0<\delta<1$ and choose $n\geq N$ such that $$(1-\delta/2)\|A\|\leq \|\gamma_n^{(d)}(A)\|.$$ Next, we note that $\gamma_n^{(d)}(A)\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n})$ so there is a unit vector $\xi\in ({{\mathbb{C}}}^{r_n})^{(d)}$ with the property that $$\|\gamma_n^{(d)}(A)\xi\|=\|\gamma_n^{(d)}(A)\|.$$ Let $R\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n})$ denote the rank-one contraction such that $R\xi=\gamma_n^{(d)}(A)\xi$. Since $\gamma_n|_{{{\mathfrak{K}}}\cap {{\mathcal{A}}}}$ is a complete quotient map, we may find $K\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathfrak{K}}}\cap {{\mathcal{A}}})$ with $\|K\|\leq 2$ and such that $\gamma_n^{(d)}(K)=R.$ Now, we calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\|A+\delta K\|&\geq \|\gamma_n^{(d)}(A+\delta K) \|=\| \gamma_n^{(d)}(A)+\delta R\|\\
&\geq \|\gamma_n^{(d)}(A)\xi+\delta R\xi\|=(1+\delta)\|\gamma_n^{(d)}(A)\xi\|\\
&=(1+\delta)\|\gamma_n^{(d)}(A)\|\geq (1+\delta)(1-\delta/2)\|A\|\\
&>\|A\|.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we find $$\|\kappa^{(d)}(A+\delta K)\|=\|\kappa^{(d)}(A)\|=\|A\|<\|A+\delta K\|.$$ Noting that $\|A-(A+\delta K)\|\leq 2\delta$, we may invoke Theorem \[T:smallkappa\] to obtain the desired conclusions.
The reader will glean from the proof that the assumption on $\gamma_n|_{{{\mathfrak{K}}}\cap {{\mathcal{A}}}}$ being a complete quotient map for every $n\geq N$ can be weakened. It suffices to require that the sequence of inverses of the induced maps on the quotients $({{\mathcal{A}}}\cap {{\mathfrak{K}}})/\ker (\gamma_n|_{{{\mathcal{A}}}\cap {{\mathfrak{K}}}})$ be uniformly completely bounded.
As an application of Theorem \[T:epssurj\] we single out the following concrete consequence.
\[C:AcontainsK\] Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset \prod_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ be a unital operator algebra which contains $\oplus_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$. Then, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})\cong {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})$ and in particular ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is RFD.
The assumption that ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ contains $\oplus_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ is easily seen to imply that $\gamma_n|_{ {{\mathfrak{K}}}\cap {{\mathcal{A}}}}$ is a complete quotient map for every $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$. By Theorem \[T:epssurj\], we see that there is a collection $\{E_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ of finite-dimensional reducing subspaces for ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})$ such that the unital $*$-homomorphism $\pi:{\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})\to \prod_{\lambda\in \Lambda} B(E_\lambda)$ defined as $$\pi(s)= \oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda}(s|_{E_\lambda}), \quad s\in {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})$$ is completely isometric on ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and has the unique extension property with respect to ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. Moreover, ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})|_{E_{\lambda}}$ is irreducible for every $\lambda\in \Lambda.$ We may assume without loss of generality that the the subspaces $\{ E_\lambda :\lambda\in \Lambda\}$ are distinct. We claim that $\pi$ is a $*$-isomorphism.
To see thus, let $m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and let $p_m\in \oplus_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$ be the orthogonal projection onto ${{\mathbb{C}}}^{r_m}$. By assumption, we see that $p_m\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$ so that $$\oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda}(p_m|_{E_\lambda})=\pi(p_m)\neq 0.$$ Let $\lambda\in \Lambda$. The subspace $E_\lambda$ is reducing for ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})$, and in particular for $\oplus_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_{r_n}$. Using that ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})|_{E_{\lambda}}$ is irreducible, we see that $E_\lambda$ must coincide with one of the orthogonal summands ${{\mathbb{C}}}^{r_{n_\lambda}}\subset \oplus_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{C}}}^{r_n}$. The fact that $$\oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda}(p_m|_{E_\lambda})\neq 0$$ for every $m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ shows that $$\oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda}(s|_{E_\lambda}) {\quad\text{and}\quad}\oplus_{n=1}^\infty \gamma_n(s)$$ coincide for every $s\in {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})$, up to a fixed unitary permutation of the summands. Thus, $\pi$ is a $*$-isomorphism and we find $${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})\cong \pi({\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}}))\cong {\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}}).$$
We now exhibit an example of an operator algebra that satisfies the condition of Theorem \[T:smallkappa\] but does not satisfy those of Corollary \[C:quotientRFD\] or of Theorem \[T:epssurj\].
For $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and $1\leq i,j\leq n$, we let $E_{i,j}^{(n)}\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_n$ denote the standard matrix unit. Given $m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, we let $T_m\in \prod_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_n$ be the unique element satisfying $$\gamma_n(T_m)=\begin{cases}
E^{(n)}_{2m-1,2m} & \text{ if } n=2m,\\
\frac{1}{2}E^{(n)}_{2m-1,2m} & \text{ if } n>2m,\\
0 & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}\subset\prod_{n=1}^\infty {{\mathbb{M}}}_n$ be the unital operator algebra generated by $\{T_m:m\in {{\mathbb{N}}}\}$. For every $n>2$, we note that $$\gamma_n(T_1^*T_1-T_1T_1^*)=\frac{1}{4}(E_{22}^{(n)}-E_{11}^{(n)}).$$ By Lemma \[L:limsup\] we find $$\|\kappa(T_1^*T_1-T_1T_1^*)\|=\limsup_{n\to\infty}\|\gamma_n(T_1^*T_1-T_1T_1^*)\|=\frac{1}{4}$$ which shows that ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})/{{\mathfrak{K}}}$ is not commutative. Next, assume that there is $r\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ along with $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r\in {{\mathbb{C}}}$ such that $$\sum_{j=1}^r \alpha_j \kappa(T_j)=0.$$ Note now that for $n>2r$ we have $$\gamma_n\left( \sum_{j=1}^r \alpha_j T_j\right)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^r \alpha_j E^{(n)}_{2j-1,2j}$$ whence $$\left\|\gamma_n\left(\sum_{j=1}^r \alpha_j T_j \right)\right\|\geq \frac{1}{2}\max_{1\leq j\leq r}|\alpha_j|.$$ By virtue of Lemma \[L:limsup\] again, we see that $$\frac{1}{2}\max_{1\leq j\leq r}|\alpha_j|\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty}\left\|\gamma_n\left(\sum_{j=1}^r \alpha_j T_j \right)\right\|=\left\| \sum_{j=1}^r \alpha_j \kappa(T_j)\right\|=0$$ so that $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=\ldots=\alpha_r=0$. We conclude that the set $\{\kappa(T_j):j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}\}$ is linearly independent in ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})/{{\mathfrak{K}}}$, whence ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{A}}})/{{\mathfrak{K}}}$ is infinite-dimensional. This shows that ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ does not satisfy either condition in Corollary \[C:quotientRFD\].
Fix $d\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$. It is readily seen that $T_iT_j=0$ for every $i,j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, so that a generic element $A\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$ can be written as $$A=C_0 \otimes I+C_1\otimes T_1+\ldots+ C_r \otimes T_r$$ for some $r\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and some $C_0,\ldots,C_r\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d$. Here, given $C=[c_{ij}]_{i,j}\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d$ and $a\in {{\mathcal{A}}}$, we use the notation $$C\otimes a=[c_{ij}a]_{i,j}\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}}).$$ For convenience, for each $1\leq k\leq r$ we let $$\Gamma_k=\begin{bmatrix}
C_0 & C_k \\
0 & C_0
\end{bmatrix}
{\quad\text{and}\quad}\Gamma'_k=\begin{bmatrix}
C_0 & \frac{1}{2}C_k \\
0 &C_0
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Upon applying the canonical shuffle in ${{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathbb{M}}}_n)$, we find that if $n=2p$ for some $1\leq p\leq r$ then $$\gamma^{(d)}_{n}(A)=
\Gamma_1'\oplus \Gamma'_2\oplus \ldots \oplus \Gamma'_{p-1}\oplus \Gamma_p.$$ Likewise, if $n>2r$ we find $$\gamma^{(d)}_{n}(A)=
\Gamma_1'\oplus \Gamma'_2\oplus \ldots \oplus \Gamma'_r\oplus C_0 I_{n-2r}.$$ In particular, we see that $\kappa^{(d)}(A)\neq 0$ unless $A=0$, which implies that ${{\mathcal{A}}}\cap {{\mathfrak{K}}}=\{0\}$ and thus ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ does not satisfy the condition of Theorem \[T:epssurj\].
Finally, we show that ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ satisfies the condition of Theorem \[T:smallkappa\]. We let ${{\mathcal{D}}}_d\subset {{\mathbb{M}}}_n({{\mathcal{A}}})$ be the subset consisting of elements of the form $$A=C_0 \otimes I+C_1 \otimes T_1+\ldots+ C_r\otimes T_r$$ for some $r\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and some *invertible* matrices $C_0,\ldots,C_r\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d$. It is clear that ${{\mathcal{D}}}_d$ is dense in ${{\mathbb{M}}}_d({{\mathcal{A}}})$. We now claim that $\|\kappa^{(d)}(A)\|<\|A\|$ for every $A\in {{\mathcal{D}}}_d$. To see this, fix an element $A\in {{\mathcal{D}}}_d$ which we write as $$A=C_0 \otimes I+C_1 \otimes T_1+\ldots+ C_r\otimes T_r$$ for some $r\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ and some invertible matrices $C_0,\ldots,C_r\in {{\mathbb{M}}}_d$. By Lemma \[L:limsup\], we must show that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\|\gamma^{(d)}_{n}(A)\|<\|A\|.$$ Using the same notation as before, it is clear that we have that $\|\Gamma'_k\|\geq \|C_0\|$ for every $1\leq k\leq r$, so we have $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\|\gamma^{(d)}_{n}(A)\|=\max_{1\leq k\leq r}\|\Gamma'_k\|.$$ On the other hand, for each $1\leq k\leq r$, since $C_k$ is invertible there is $\delta_k>0$ such that $C_kC_k^*\geq \delta_k I$, whence $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\begin{bmatrix}
C_0 & C_k\\
0 & C_0
\end{bmatrix} \right\|^2&\geq \left\|\begin{bmatrix}
C_0 & C_k
\end{bmatrix} \right\|^2\\
&=\|C_0C_0^*+C_kC_k^*\|\\
&\geq \|C_0\|^2+\delta_k>\|C_0\|^2\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|\Gamma_k'\|=\left\|\begin{bmatrix}
C_0 & \frac{1}{2}C_k\\
0 & C_0
\end{bmatrix} \right\|&\leq \frac{1}{2}\left\|\begin{bmatrix}
C_0 & C_k\\
0 & C_0
\end{bmatrix} \right\|+\frac{1}{2}\left\|\begin{bmatrix}
C_0 &0\\
0 & C_0
\end{bmatrix} \right\|\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\left\|\begin{bmatrix}
C_0 & C_k\\
0 & C_0
\end{bmatrix} \right\|+\frac{1}{2}\|C_0\|\\
&<\left\|\begin{bmatrix}
C_0 & C_k\\
0 & C_0
\end{bmatrix} \right\|=\|\Gamma_k\|\end{aligned}$$ for every $1\leq k\leq r$. We conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\|\gamma^{(d)}_{n}(A)\|&=\max_{1\leq k\leq r}\|\Gamma'_k\|<\max_{1\leq k\leq r}\|\Gamma_k\|\\
&\leq \max_{1\leq p\leq r}\|\gamma_{2p}^{(d)}(A)\|\leq \|A\|.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is RFD.
Finally, we provide an example that shows that residual finite-dimensionality of both the minimal and maximal ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-cover of a unital operator algebra does not typically imply that the same property holds for arbitrary ${\mathrm{C}}^*$-covers.
\[E:RFDcovers\] Let $H^2({{\mathbb{D}}})$ denote the Hardy space on the open unit disc ${{\mathbb{D}}}\subset {{\mathbb{C}}}$ and let $S\in B(H^2({{\mathbb{D}}}))$ denote the usual isometric unilateral shift (see [@agler2002] for details). Let ${{\mathcal{S}}}={\operatorname{span}}\{I,S,\}\subset B(H^2({{\mathbb{D}}}))$. It is well known that ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})$ contains the ideal ${{\mathfrak{K}}}$ of compact operators on $H^2({{\mathbb{D}}})$, so in particular ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})$ is not RFD. Moreover, the quotient ${\mathrm{C}}^*({{\mathcal{S}}})/{{\mathfrak{K}}}$ is $*$-isomorphic to ${\mathrm{C}}({{\mathbb{T}}})$. In particular, this implies that ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{S}}})\cong {\mathrm{C}}(X)$ where $X\subset {{\mathbb{T}}}$ is the Shilov boundary of ${\operatorname{span}}\{1,z\}$. As seen in Example \[E:fdoa\], $X={{\mathbb{T}}}$ and thus ${\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{S}}})\cong {\mathrm{C}}({{\mathbb{T}}})$. Consider now the unital operator algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}_{{\mathcal{S}}}$ from Lemma \[L:M2C\*env\], which is finite-dimensional because ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ is. Thus, ${\mathrm{C}}^*_{\max}({{\mathcal{A}}}_{{\mathcal{S}}})$ is RFD by Theorem \[T:C\*maxfdimA\]. Furthermore, by Lemma \[L:M2C\*env\] we know that $${\mathrm{C}}_e^*({{\mathcal{A}}}_{{\mathcal{S}}})\cong {{\mathbb{M}}}_2({\mathrm{C}}^*_e({{\mathcal{S}}}))\cong {{\mathbb{M}}}_2({\mathrm{C}}({{\mathbb{T}}}))$$ which is also RFD.
[^1]: The first author was partially supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the proportional fair rate allocation in an 802.11 WLAN that supports multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO) transmission by one or more stations. We characterise, for the first time, the proportional fair allocation of MU-MIMO spatial streams and station transmission opportunities. While a number of features carry over from the case without MU-MIMO, in general neither flows nor stations need to be allocated equal airtime when MU-MIMO is available.'
author:
- |
V. Valls and D. J. Leith\
Hamilton Institute, NUI Maynooth
bibliography:
- 'valls\_WCL\_IEEEtran.bib'
title: 'Proportional Fair MU-MIMO in 802.11 WLANs'
---
[^1] [^2]
Introduction
============
The next generation of 802.11 WLANs are expected to support MU-MIMO transmission, whereby parallel transmissions can be simultaneously made to multiple stations. This significantly extends the MIMO support introduced by the 802.11n standard and is, for example, included as part of the current draft 802.11ac standard that aims to support wireless data rates in excess of 1 Gbps. MU-MIMO offers much greater flexibility in scheduling MIMO transmissions, but immediately raises the question of how best to allocate MIMO spatial streams amongst network flows so as to balance fairness and performance. In this paper we consider the proportional fair allocation in an 802.11 WLAN that supports MU-MIMO transmission by one or more stations. While proportional fairness [@Kelly:1998:0160-5682:237] in WLANs has been the subject of considerable interest in the literature, it has only recently been put on a rigorous basis in [@5910091] and consideration of MU-MIMO is new.
The main contribution of the paper is to rigorously characterise, for the first time, the proportional fair allocation of spatial streams and station transmission opportunities in WLANs where one or more stations support MU-MIMO. We demonstrate that this allocation can be found in a distributed manner, without the need for message passing. We show that a number of features carry over from the case without MU-MIMO, specifically that the rate region boundary is characterised by the station total airtimes summing to unity and that stations carring the same number of flows then stations are assigned equal total airtime. Importantly, however, we find that MU-MIMO generally leads to a qualitatively different allocation of airtime compared to the situation without MU-MIMO. Namely, in general flows are *not* allocated equal airtime. This is because it is the station total airtime that corresponds to the shared network resource being consumed and so to the “cost” of transmissions. When MU-MIMO transmission is available, flow transmissions occur in parallel and so multiple flows can share the same station airtime.
Related Work
============
In [@cai2008distributed] the authors propose a novel MAC design with opportunistic MU-MIMO scheduling based on channel sounding feedback, where packets are selected depending on their transmission duration and type of traffic. In [@5684351] is also proposed a novel MAC design for MU-MIMO that focusses on issues such as MAC ACKing of MU-MIMO transmissions. Packets are scheduled for transmission using a weighted queuing mechanism that considers both packets acknowledgements and type of traffic. However, in both [@cai2008distributed] [@5684351] fairness and allocation of MU-MIMO transmission patterns amongst flows is not considered. The work in [@6287486] focusses on packet aggregation in an IEEE 802.11ac AP, and considers a fixed MU-MIMO schedule where one flow is allocated per spatial stream. Regarding utility fairness in WLANs, in [@5910091] is presented the first rigorous analysis of proportional fairness in 802.11 WLANs where transmissions are to a single destination.
Network Model
=============
Preliminaries
-------------
We take as our starting point the network model in [@5910091]. Consider an 802.11 WLAN with $n$ stations, where each station $i$ attempts to transmit at each MAC slot with probability $\tau_i$. We will assume that stations are configured with $CW_{min} = CW_{max}$ (which is supported in 802.11 starting with 802.11e/WME in 2005, 802.11-2007 and subsequent standards), so that the attempt probability is independent of the success or failure of the last transmission. Moreover, it is also assumed that there are no hidden terminals, so all nodes in the network can sense any ongoing transmission. Because of this, a collision can only happen if two or more stations transmit in the same slot. We also assume that noise-induced losses are negligible, although this assumption could be relaxed.
The probability that a transmission by station $i$ is successful is the probability that only station $i$ transmits and is given by $P_{succ,i} = \tau_i \prod_{k=1,k \ne i}^n (1-\tau_k)$. The probability that a MAC slot is idle is given by the probability that none of the stations transmit, $P_{idle} = \prod_{k=1}^n (1- \tau_k)$. Finally, the probability that a transmission by station $i$ collides is $P_{coll,i} = 1- P_{succ,i} - P_{idle}$. The throughput of station $i$ is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:model}
S_i(\boldsymbol \tau) = & \frac{P_{succ,i}D_i}{\sigma P_{idle} + T_s (1-P_{idle})},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ is the duration of an idle slot, $T_s$ the duration of a busy slot (either successful or collision) and $D_i$ is the size in bits of the frame payload of station $i$. Throughput model (\[eq:model\]) is standard, see e.g. [@5910091; @6009216; @4100720] and references therein.
Let $x_i= \tau_i / (1-\tau_i)$, thus $x_i \in [0,\infty)$ as $\tau_i \in [0,1]$. With this change of variable we have that $P_{idle} = 1 / \prod_{k=1}^n (1+x_k) $, $P_{succ,i} = x_i P_{idle}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
S_i(\m{x}) = & \frac{x_i}{X(\m{x})}\frac{D_i}{T_s}, \label{eq:throughput}\end{aligned}$$ where $X(\m{x}) = a + \prod_{k=1}^n (1+x_k)-1$ with $a = \sigma / T_s$ and $\m{x} = \left[ x_1, \dots, x_n \right]$. Notice that $x_i / X(\m{x})$ is the successful airtime for station $i$, and $D_i / T_s $ the rate. Hence, the total airtime ($T_i$) of station $i$ is given by the airtime spent on successful transmissions and collisions $$\begin{aligned}
T_i = & \frac{x_i}{X(\m{x})}\left( 1+ \frac{P_{coll,i}}{1-P_{coll,i}} \right) \label{eq:airtime}.\end{aligned}$$
Extension to MU-MIMO {#sec:muextension}
--------------------
The throughput model (\[eq:model\]) can be extended as follows to encompass MU-MIMO, where stations can transmit multiple spatial streams simultaneously. Let $F_i$ be the set of flows carried by station $i$, and $F = \cup_{i=1}^n F_i$ the set of flows in the WLAN. We let vector $\m{v}_{ik}$ describe the $k^{th}$ MU-MIMO transmission pattern on station $i$, where $\m{v}_{ik}$ has $|F_i|$ elements, and element $v_{ikf}$ defines the number of spatial streams allocated to flow $f$ in this pattern. We collect the set of $K_i$ possible transmission patterns for station $i$ together to form matrix $\m{V}_i$, where the $k^{th}$ row of $\m{V}_i$ describes the $k^{th}$ pattern, $k=1,...,K_i$. See for example Figure \[fig:combinations\]. The set of allowable transmission patterns will be determined by the network characteristics, i.e. number of antennas of the stations, channel conditions and protocol constraints. For example, the draft 802.11ac restricts the use of MU-MIMO to the AP and allows at most 8 spatial streams with at most 4 streams for one client station. However, to keep our analysis as general as possible we will not make any assumptions about the structure of matrix $\m{V}$.
[127]{} & & &
\
[127]{} & & &
\
[127]{} & & &
\
[127]{} & & &
\
[127]{} & & &
Next, let $\pi_{ik}$ denote the fraction of transmission opportunities that pattern $k$ is selected by station $i$, with $\sum_{k=1}^{K_i}\pi_{ik}=1$. We collect the $\pi_{ik}$ for station $i$ together in vector $\boldsymbol \pi_i$. We can then express the throughput of flow $f$ on station $i$ as $$\begin{aligned}
s(f) = \frac{x_i}{X(\m{x})}\frac{D_f}{T_s} \sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \pi_{ik} v_{ikf} \label{eq:flownonconvex},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \pi_{ik} v_{ikf}$ is the average number of spatial streams used by flow $f$ in station $i$, $D_f \sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \pi_{ik} v_{ikf}$ is the average number of bits sent for a flow $f$ in a successful transmission and $D_f$ is the number of bits transmitted by flow $f$ on a single spatial stream in a successful transmission. Note that since spatial streams are transmitted in parallel, a MU-MIMO transmission occupies the same amount of airtime as a single spatial stream and so the total airtime $T_i$ used by station $i$ is still given by (\[eq:airtime\]).
In (\[eq:flownonconvex\]) the number of bits transmitted ($D_f$) by flow $f\in F_i, \ i=1,\dots,n$ does not depend on the selected transmission pattern. However, due to varying channel conditions (such as inter-user interference) it is likely that the number of bits transmitted by flow $f$ varies with the transmission pattern used. Our model can be easily extended to include this. Let matrix $\m{D}_i \in \mathbb R_+^{K_i \times |F_i|}, \ i=1,\dots,n$ denote the average number of bits of flow $f \in F_i$ in a transmission pattern $k=1,\dots,K_i$. Then, the throughput expression of a flow $f$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
s(f) = \frac{x_i}{X(\m{x})}\frac{1}{T_s} \sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \pi_{ik} v_{ikf} d_{ikf}, \label{eq:flownonconvex2}\end{aligned}$$ Nevertheless, as this generalisation is straightforward, we use (\[eq:flownonconvex\]) rather than (\[eq:flownonconvex2\]) for the rest of the analysis to streamline notation.
Proportional Fair Rate Allocation
=================================
Log-convexity
-------------
It can be readily verified that the flow throughput (\[eq:flownonconvex\]) is non-convex in $\m{x}$, and also in $\m{\tau}$. Fortunately, however, we have the following:
\[lem:convexity\] $$\begin{aligned}
-\tilde{x}_i - \log \left( \sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \pi_{ik} v_{ikf} \right) - \log \frac{D_f}{T_s} + \log X(e^{\tilde{\m{x}}}) \label{eq:convexity}\end{aligned}$$ is convex in $\tilde{\m{x}}$ and $\boldsymbol \pi$, where $\tilde{\m{x}}=[\tilde{x}_1,\dots,\tilde{x}_n]^T$, $\tilde{x_i} = \log x_i$.
Observe that the first term is linear in $\tilde{\m{x}}$ (and so convex), the second term is convex in $\boldsymbol \pi$ due to the convexity of the negative log function when composed with a linear map [@boyd2004convex]. The last term is convex in $\tilde{\m{x}}$ by Lemma 1 of [@5910091].
Utility-fair optimisation
-------------------------
The proportional fair rate allocation is the solution to the utility-fair optimisation problem $P$: $$\begin{aligned}
\underset{\tilde{\m{x}},\tilde{\m{s}},\boldsymbol \pi}\max {\hspace*{1.5em}}& \sum_{f \in F} \tilde{s}(f) \label{eq:objective} \\
\text{s.t.{\hspace*{1.5em}}} & {\tilde{s}(f)} \le \log \Bigg (\frac{e^{\tilde{x}_i}}{X(e^{\tilde{\m{x}}})}\frac{D_f}{T_s} \sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \pi_{ik} v_{ikf} \Bigg ),\ f\in F_i \label{eq:c1}\\
& \sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \pi_{ik} = 1, {\hspace*{1.5em}}\pi_{ik} \ge 0,\ i=1,\dots,n \label{eq:c3} \end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{s}(f) = \log s(f)$, $\tilde{x_i} = \log x_i$. It follows from Lemma \[lem:convexity\] that constraint (\[eq:c1\]) is convex. Since the objective and remaining constraints are linear in the transformed variables, the optimisation problem is convex and so a proportional fair allocation exists. The proportional fair rate allocation is almost completely characterised as follows:
\[lem:kkt\] The MU-MIMO proportional fair rate allocation is characterised by: (i) the airtime allocated to station $i$ is $T_i= \frac{ |F_i|}{ |F|}$ where $|F_i|$ is the number of flows carried by station $i$ and $|F|$ the total number of flows in the WLAN, (ii) the station total airtimes sum to unity $\sum_{i=1}^n T_i=1$, (iii) the allocation of MU-MIMO transmission patterns on station $j$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{f \in F_j} \lambda_f \frac{v_{jlf} }{\sum_{k=1}^{K_j} \pi_{jk} v_{jkf}} = \nu_j - \theta_{jl},\ l=1,\dots,K_j \label{eq:3kkt}\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu_j$, $\theta_{jl}$ $j=1,\dots,n$, $l=1,\dots,K_j$ are non-negative multipliers.
Optimisation problem $P$ is convex and satisfies the Slater condition, hence strong duality holds. The Lagrangian is $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{L}(\tilde{\m{x}},\tilde{\m{s}}, \boldsymbol \pi , \boldsymbol \lambda, \boldsymbol \nu, \boldsymbol \Theta) = \sum_{f \in F} {\tilde{s}(f)} \\
&+ \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{f \in F_i} {\lambda_f} \Bigg ( \log \frac{e^{\tilde{x}_i} \sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \pi_{ik} v_{ikf} }{X(e^{\tilde{\m{x}}})}\frac{D_f}{T_s} - \tilde{s}(f) \Bigg )\\
&+ \sum_{i=1}^n \nu_i \Bigg ( 1- \sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \pi_{ik} \Bigg ) + \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \theta_{ik} \pi_{ik} \notag\end{aligned}$$ where multipliers $\boldsymbol {\lambda} = [\lambda_{1},\dots,\lambda_{|F|}]^T$, $\boldsymbol {\Theta}= [\boldsymbol \theta_{1},\dots,\boldsymbol \theta_n]^T$ and $\boldsymbol \nu = [\nu_1,\dots,\nu_n]^T$ with $\boldsymbol \theta_i=[\theta_{i1},\dots,\theta_{i|K_i|}]^T$. The main KKT conditions are: $$\begin{aligned}
&\lambda_f = 1 \label{eq:fkkt1},\\
&\sum_{f \in F_j} \lambda_f - \sum_{i=1}^n \Bigg (\frac{x_j}{X(\m{x})} \prod_{k=1,k \ne j}^{n} (1+x_k) \sum_{f \in F_i} \lambda_f \Bigg )= 0 \label{eq:fkkt2}, \\
&\sum_{f \in F_j} \lambda_f \frac{v_{jlf} }{\sum_{k=1}^{K_j} {\pi_{jk}} v_{jkf} } = \nu_j - \theta_{jl} \label{eq:fkkt3}.\end{aligned}$$ Claim (i): From the second KKT condition (\[eq:fkkt2\]), substituting $\lambda_f=1$ and rearranging terms we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ |F_j| }{ {|F| }} = \frac{x_j }{X(\m{x})} \Bigg (1+ \frac{P_{coll,j}}{1-P_{coll,j}} \Bigg ) =: T_j \label{eq:secondkkt2}\end{aligned}$$ provided $|F| \ne 0$. Claim (ii) that $\sum_{i=1}^n T_i=1$ follows immediately from (\[eq:secondkkt2\]). Claim (iii) follows from the third KKT condition (\[eq:fkkt3\]).
Note that property (ii), that station airtimes sum to unity, in Theorem \[lem:kkt\] extends to MU-MIMO WLANs the result in [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1206-3120] that this airtime constraint characterises the WLAN rate region boundary.
Determining station transmission attempt probability
----------------------------------------------------
Determining the station transmission attempt rates $\m{x}$ requires meeting the constraint that the sum of airtimes sums to unity, and so requires knowledge of all station airtimes in the WLAN. However, as discussed in [@5910091], decentralised approximations can be found based on local observations of channel idle time.
Determining $\nu_j$, $\theta_{jl}$
----------------------------------
The proportional fair rate allocation depends on multipliers $\nu_j$, $\theta_{jl}$. These depend on the distribution of flows amongst the wireless stations, and on the available MU-MIMO transmission patterns at each station and so cannot be stated in closed-form. However, they can be readily determined using standard sub-gradient methods. Namely, by iterating on update $\nu_j(t+1) = \nu_j(t) + \alpha ( 1- \sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \pi_{ik} )$, $\theta_{jl}(t+1)=\theta_{jl}(t)+\alpha \pi_{ik}$, where $\alpha>0$ is a sufficiently small step-size parameter. Since these updates make use only of information which is locally available at station $j$ they can be implemented in a fully decentralised manner (with no need for message passing).
Determining the MU-MIMO transmission pattern {#sec:patterns}
--------------------------------------------
The proportional fair transmission pattern conditions (\[eq:3kkt\]) can be expressed in matrix form as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:matrix}
\m{V}_{j} (\m{V}_j^T\boldsymbol{\pi}_j)^{-*} = \nu_j \m{1}- \boldsymbol{\theta}_{j},\ j=1,\dots, n\end{aligned}$$ where $\m{x}^{-*}:=[\frac{1}{x_1},\dots,\frac{1}{x_n} ]^T$ for vector $\m{x}=[x_1,\dots,x_n]^T$ and $\m{1}$ denotes the all ones column vector.
When $\m{V}_{j}$ has full column rank $|F_j|$ (this is commonly satisfied e.g. when the set of possible transmit patterns admits the option to transmit each flow separately in which case $\m{V}_{j}$ contains the $|F_j|\times |F_j|$ identity matrix), then we can write $\m{V}_{j} := \left[\begin{array}{c} \m{X} \\ \m{Y}\end{array} \right]$ where $\m{X}$ is full rank and the rows of $\m{Y}$ are linear combinations of the rows of $\m{X}$. This partitioning can always be achieved simply by ordering the rows of $\m{V}_{j}$ appropriately. Condition (\[eq:matrix\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kkt0}
\left[\begin{array}{c} \m{X} \\ \m{Y}\end{array} \right] (\m{V}_{j}^T \boldsymbol {\pi}_j)^{-*} = \nu_j \m{1}- \boldsymbol{\theta}_{j}.\end{aligned}$$ Premultiplying both sides by $\left[\begin{array}{cc} \m{X}^{-1}& \m{0}\end{array} \right]$ and re-arranging, $$\begin{aligned}
\m{V}_{j}^T \boldsymbol {\pi}_j = & \left(\left[\begin{array}{cc} \m{X}^{-1}& \m{0}\end{array} \right]\left(\nu_j \m{1}- \boldsymbol{\theta}_{j}\right)\right)^{-*}. \label{eq:obtainprob}\end{aligned}$$ Given $\nu_j$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{j}$, vectors $\boldsymbol \pi_j$ satisfying (\[eq:obtainprob\]) can be found using gaussian elimination. When $\m{V}_{j}$ is non-singular, then the solution to (\[eq:obtainprob\]) is unique. However, in general more than one such vector will exist and any such vector is proportional fair. The RHS of (\[eq:obtainprob\]) depends only on the multipliers associated with wireless station $j$, which as already noted can be determined using information available locally at station $j$. Hence, (\[eq:obtainprob\]) can be solved to find the proportional fair MU-MIMO transmission patterm for each station $j$ in a fully decentralised manner.
Finite load
-----------
Optimisation problem $P$ can be extended to include flow finite offered loads by adding an additional constraint $\tilde{s}_f \le \bar{s}$ for each flow $f$, where $\bar{s}$ is the maximum offered load for flow $f$. Since these constraints are linear, the optimisation problem remains convex and the foregoing analysis can be directly extended.
Examples {#sec:examples}
========
Unequal airtimes with MU-MIMO {#ex:unequal}
-----------------------------
Consider a WLAN downlink with a MU-MIMO equipped AP that carries 4 flows ($f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4$) transmitted to four client stations. The offered load is unconstrained. The matrix of available MU-MIMO transmission patterns at the AP is $$\begin{aligned}
\small
\m{V} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 4 & 0 & 4\\
2 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
2 & 2 & 2 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 4 & 2
\end{bmatrix}.
\label{eq:patterns}\end{aligned}$$ Since the AP is the only transmitter, the optimal $P_{coll,AP}=0$, $\tau_{AP}=1$, and AP total airtime $T_{AP}=1$. Solving optimisation problem (P), the proportional fair allocation of MU-MIMO transmission patterns is $\boldsymbol \pi = \left[\frac{1}{3}, 0, \frac{1}{3}, \frac{1}{3} \right]^T$.
The proportional fair rate allocation often corresponds to an equal airtime allocation. The appropriate definition to use for flow airtime is not clear when MU-MIMO is used. One option is the total airtime that would be needed by flow $f$ in order to obtain the same throughput when using a single spatial stream, which is given by $T_{i} \sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \pi_{ik} v_{ikf}$ and is proportional to the average number of spatial streams allocated to the flow. In the present example, this is $1$ for flow 1 and $2$ for flows 2, 3 and 4. Another option is the fraction of station $i$ airtime $\sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \pi_{ik} v_{ikf}/\sum_{f\in F_i} \sum_{k=1}^{K_i} \pi_{ik} v_{ikf}$ used by flow $f$ spatial streams in this example is 0.1429 for flow 1 and 0.2857 for flows 2, 3 and 4. A third option is the fraction of station transmission opportunities at which a flow transmits, and in this example we have that each flow is scheduled in $2/3$ of the transmissions.
Importantly, observe that none of these flow airtimes are equal at the proportional fair allocation. This is because it is the *station* total airtime that corresponds to the shared network resource being consumed and so to the “cost” of transmissions. Indeed this is reflected in Theorem \[lem:kkt\]. When MU-MIMO transmission is available, flow transmissions occur in parallel and so multiple flows can share the same station airtime. For a given station airtime, the proportional fair allocation of spatial streams maximises the sum of log flow rates, and this need not correspond to allocating the same number of spatial streams or the same fraction of transmission opportunities to flows.
IEEE 802.11ac with Rayleigh fading {#sec:exampleac}
----------------------------------
We extend the previous example to make the proportional fair allocation of transmission patterns depend on the network characteristics. Consider the WLAN set up of Example \[ex:unequal\] with an IEEE 802.11ac AP, channel bandwidth of 20 MHz and guard interval of $800$ ns. For simplicity we assume that all spatial streams use BPSK $1/2$ modulation and coding scheme, and that the transmission power is equally divided amongst the spatial streams in a transmission pattern. We further assume for simplicity that the fading is independent for each antenna in the WLAN and that the AP has full knowledge of the channel. We consider two types of schedulers, proportional fair and uniform, i.e. transmission patterns are allocated the same fraction of transmission opportunities. Regarding the channel we use Rayleigh fading.
Notice that differently from Example \[ex:unequal\], now in optimisation problem $P$ we have to use the rate as in (\[eq:flownonconvex2\]) in order to take into account the network characteristics. That is, matrix $\m{D}$ in (\[eq:flownonconvex2\]) depends on the SNR because it contains the number of bits that can be transmitted for each flow in each transmission pattern. See in Figure \[fig:rate\] how the sum of log flow rates depends on the SNR, scheduler and fading. Next, observe in Figure \[fig:time\] how the proportional fair allocation of the transmission patterns, and so the flow’s airtimes, changes depending on the SNR and channel characteristics. Moreover, notice that the proportional fair allocation converges to the solution of Example \[ex:unequal\] when the SNR is large enough.
![Sum of log flow rates in Example \[sec:exampleac\] for the proportional fair and uniform schedulers with and without Rayleigh fading.[]{data-label="fig:rate"}](valls_WCL_fig1.eps){width=".85\textwidth"}
![Fraction of time that transmission patterns are selected in Example \[sec:exampleac\] for the proportional fair scheduler with and without Rayleigh fading. Transmission patterns correspond to the rows of matrix $\m{V}$. Transmission pattern 2 is never selected.[]{data-label="fig:time"}](valls_WCL_fig2.eps){width=".85\textwidth"}
Conclusions
===========
We consider the proportional fair rate allocation in an 802.11 WLAN that supports MU-MIMO transmission by one or more stations. We characterise, for the first time, the proportional fair allocation of MU-MIMO spatial streams and station transmission opportunities. While a number of features carry over from the case without MU-MIMO, in general neither flows nor stations need to be allocated equal airtime when MU-MIMO is available.
[^1]: This work appeared in *IEEE Wireless Communications Letters*, vol.3, no.2, pp.221-224, April 2014. doi: 10.1109/WCL.2014.020314.130884
[^2]: This material is based upon works supported by the Science Foundation Ireland under Grant No. 11/PI/1177.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
Physics Department, Ohio State University,\
174 W18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210, USA\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- Xuelei Chen
title: 'The Helium abundance problem and non-minimally coupled quintessence'
---
Recently, it has been discovered that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating[@SNIa]. This requires the existence of a dark energy component in the Universe with an equation of state $p = w \rho$, $w<0$. One example of such a component is a cosmological constant. However, it is difficult to understand in the present framework of particle physics why it is so small. A fine tuning of $10^{-120}$ is required if the cosmological constant arises from Planck scale physics.
Quintessence models[@quintessence] were suggested as an alternative to cosmological constant. In quintessence models, a scalar field provides the dark energy which drives the accelerated expansion of the Universe. The evolution of the scalar field is such that its equation of state mimics the dominant component of the Universe, thus explains why it is so small at present time.
In Non-minimally Coupled (NMC) quintessence models[@NMC] the scalar field couples to the gravitational constant. The action of NMC can be written as $$S=\int d^{4} x \sqrt{-g} \left[\frac{1}{2}F R-\frac{1}{2}\phi^{;\mu}
\phi_{;\mu} -V(\phi) + L_{\rm fluid}\right],\nonumber
\label{NMCeq}$$ where $$F(\phi)=1-\xi(\phi^2 - \phi_0^{2}),\quad
V(\phi)=V_{0} \phi^{-\alpha}.$$ Such coupling could arise if for example, the scalar field is a dilaton in superstring theory. One of the motivations for introducing such non-minimal coupling is to address the “coincidence problem”: why does the dark energy component happens to become dominant at the present epoch? Had this occurred at an earlier epoch, growth of structure due to gravitational instability would be inhibited, and any life form would be impossible to exist. By introducing a coupling between curvature and the quintessence field, it was hoped that the scalar field dominance could be triggered automatically shortly after the Universe becomes matter dominant. Unfortunately, for the NMC models discussed here, it was found that the trigger mechanism does not work[@NMC; @Liddle-Scherrer], nonetheless, the coupling to gravity could have other interesting consequences. Here, I show that NMC models provides a possible solution of the “helium problem” in the big bang nucleosynthesis.
The standard model of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) is an enormously successful theory. The predicted abundances of the light elements, which ranges ten orders of magnitude, were found to be consistent with observations[@OSW00]. In particular, the BBN prediction of $~^{4}\mathrm{He}$ abundance ($Y_p \approx 0.25$) provides the first evidence of a hot big bang beginning of the Universe.
The $~^{4}\mathrm{He}$ abundance were mostly influenced by two factors, the expansion rate of the Universe during BBN, and the baryon to photon ratio $\eta$ (see Fig. \[Y-eta\]). The helium abundance increases with the expansion rate for two reasons. First, BBN starts when the weak interaction which converts proton to neutron ceases to be effective. This occurs when $\Gamma \sim H$, where $\Gamma, H$ are the reaction rate and expansion rate, respectively. For a higher $H$ at a given scale factor $a=1/(1+z)$, BBN starts earlier, when the neutron fraction is higher. Second, this also meant a shorter interval for the neutrons to decay before it is combined in subsequent nuclear fusion. Both of these two effects enhance the neutron fraction. Since most of these neutrons ended up in $~^{4}\mathrm{He}$, a faster expanding universe would yield more helium. Thus, once $\eta$ is determined from either deuterium abundance or other methods such as cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy, the $~^{4}\mathrm{He}$ abundance could be used to constrain the expansion rate during BBN.
The helium abundance in extragalactic HII (ionized hydrogen) regions could be obtained by observation of the HeII $\to$ HeI recombination lines. Since $~^{4}\mathrm{He}$ is also produced in stars along with heavy elements such as Oxygen, it is expected that the primordial $~^{4}\mathrm{He}$ abundance could be obtained by extrapolation to zero Oxygen abundance. Using this technique, Oliver and Steigman obtained [@Oliver-Steigman] $$Y_p = 0.234 \pm 0.003 (stat.),$$ while Izotov and Thuan obtained a higher value[@Izotov-Thuan] $$Y_p = 0.244 \pm 0.002 (stat.).$$ Clearly these two data sets are statistically inconsistent with each, due to large systematic errors. Below, we adopt a midway value of $$Y_p = 0.239 \pm 0.005,
\label{midway}$$ or, $0.229< Y_p < 0.249$ at 95% C.L.
In order to compare theory with observation, we also need to determine $\eta$. $\eta$ could be determined from BBN. Burles and Tytler[@Burles-Tytler] obtained D/H=$(3.3 \pm 0.25) \times 10^{-5}$, corresponding to a lower bound on $\eta$ at $2\sigma$ level $$\eta_{10} \equiv 10^{10} \eta <6.3.$$ CMB anisotropy provides another way of measuring baryon density. Recently, an analysis of the combined data from Boomerang and Maxima yields a higher baryon density. The best fit model with a flat universe yields[@Jaffe] $$\Omega_b h^2 =0.030 \pm 0.004, \qquad \eta_{10} = 8.2\pm 1.0,$$
If we assume that there are three neutrino species, and adopt $\eta \approx 4.5$ as inferred from the deuterium abundance, then the standard BBN $~^{4}\mathrm{He}$ abundance is in disagreement with the results of Oliver and Steigman. It is in marginal agreement with the “midway” result of Eq. \[midway\], but still at high the end. If we adopt the $\eta$ inferred from CMB, then even the “midway” limit is exceed (see Fig. \[Y-eta\]).
Furthermore, in addition to the three standard model neutrinos, a sterile neutrino may be needed to explain the results from neutrino oscillation experiments[@neutrino]. If either or both of these were confirmed, or if there is any other light particle in the Universe, the breach between theory and observation on $~^{4}\mathrm{He}$ would become even wider.
How could we make a model which produce less helium? If the expansion of the Universe is slower at the time of BBN, then the helium abundance is reduced. In the standard BBN model, the expansion rate is given by $$H^2 = \frac{8\pi G}{3} \rho,$$ Thus, $\rho$ becomes greater with the introduction of each new particle species.
In quintessence models, $\rho_{tot} = \rho_f + \frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 +
V(\phi)$, is it possible to introduce a negative $V$ to reduce $\rho$? Unfortunately, this would not work. To see this, note that if a negative potential is introduced, the minima of the potential must have $V<0$, the Universe would fall to this potential well. Since $\rho_f$ is a decreasing function of $a$, sooner or later we would reach to the point that $\rho_{tot} = 0$, further expansion is not possible, and the Universe would begin to contract. Such a contraction of the Universe in the future is not ruled out, however, if we hope to use a negative potential to reduce helium production, the negative potential must become sub-dominant at BBN era, and then become dominant well before the current era, which is incompatible with observation.
With the NMC model introduced in Eq. \[NMCeq\], however, it is possible to obtain a lower helium abundance, because now we have $$H^2 = \frac{8\pi G}{3F} \left(\rho+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 +
V(\phi) -3 \dot{F} H \right).$$ For $F>1$ the value of $H$ could be lowered.
The Helium abundance in such a model could be estimated. To a first approximation, $$\begin{aligned}
Y=&&(0.2378+0.0073\ln\eta_{10})(1-0.058/\eta_{10})\\
&&+0.013(N_{\nu}-3)+2\times 10^{-4} (\tau_n - 887).\end{aligned}$$ The speed up factor $$\zeta \equiv H(a)/H_{\mathrm{sm}}(a)$$ is related to the neutrino number by $$\zeta^{2}=1+\frac{7}{43}(N_{\nu}-3).$$ So we have $$\Delta Y = 0.08(\zeta^2 -1).$$
The differential speed up factor $\zeta-1$ for a number of models is plotted in Fig. \[zeta\]. As an example, let us consider $\alpha=10$, $\xi=0.004$, and $Q_0 =5.5$ which satisfies the solar system limit $|\xi| <0.022 Q_{0}^{-1}$. The helium abundance could be reduced by as much as $0.096\%$. In Fig. \[Y-eta\], the helium abundance for this NMC model is plotted. It lies much more comfortably within the allowed range. Alternatively, the helium bound on neutrino number could be relaxed. If we apply this to the current cosmological limit on neutrino number [@PDG], which is $1.7<N_{\nu}<4.3$ at $95\%$ C.L., the upper limit of $N_{\nu}$ could be lifted to 5.
In summary, I have shown that in some NMC models, the BBN helium abundance could be reduced, thus alleviate the marginal disagreement between theory and observation, and make more room for new neutrinos or other new particles. Whether such a reduction is necessary depends on the result of future observations.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is supported by the US Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-91ER40690.
[99]{} A. G. Riess [*et al.*]{}, ; P. M. Garnavich [*et al.*]{}, ; S. Perlmutter [*et al.*]{}, .
See e.g., P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, ; B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, ; C. Wetterich, ; J. Frieman, C. Hill, A. Stebbins, I. Waga, ; R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave and P. J. Steinhardt, ; P. G. Ferreira and M. Joyce, ; I. Zlatev, L. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, .
J. P. Uzan, ; F. Perrotta, C. Baccigalupi, S. Matarrese, ; C. Baccigalupi, F. Perrotta, S. Matarrese, [*astro-ph*]{}/0005543.
A. Liddle and R. Scherrer, [*private communication*]{}.
R. E. Lopez and M. S. Turner, .
K. A. Oliver, G. Steigman, and T. P. Walker, .
K. A. Olive and G. Steigman, .
Y. I. Izotov and T. X. Thuan, .
S. Burles and D. Tytler, ; .
A. H. Jaffe [*et al.*]{}, [*astro-ph*]{}/0007333.
For a review, K. Nakamura, [*this volume*]{}.
D. E. Groom [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**Path integration in the field of a topological defect: the case of dispiration**]{}\
\
Akira Inomata\
Department of Physics, State University of New York at Albany\
Albany, NY 12222, USA\
Georg Junker\
European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere\
Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 2, D-85748 Garching, Germany\
James Raynolds\
College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering\
State University of New York at Albany\
Albany, NY 12203, USA
\
\
PACS: 61.72Lk - Quantum mechanics, linear defects: dislocations, disclinations.\
Keywords - Path integral\
Introduction
============
In recent years quantum effects on particle propagation in a field of topological defects have attracted considerable attention (see, e.g., [@RS; @BST; @A]; see also a recent review article [@KF]). Although the notion of “defects” in physics was originally associated with crystalline irregularities, it has been extended to more general topological structures such as entangled polymers, liquid crystals, vortices, anyons, global monopoles, cosmic strings, domain walls, etc. In 1950’s, from the structuralogical aspect, Kondo [*et al*]{}.[@Kon1] extensively studied unified geometrical treatments of various subjects including elastic and plastic media, relativity, network systems, and information theory. In particular, Kondo [@Kon2] related dislocations to Cartan’s torsion in the medium. Since then the relation between dislocation theory and non-Riemannian geometry has been well established. More recent approaches to defect problems are gauge theories similar to those in particle physics [@Kro; @KE; @Kl1; @PS]. In 1978, Kawamura [@Kawa] pointed out that a screw dislocation in a crystal produces an Aharonov-Bohm type effect in particle scattering. The Aharonov-Bohm effect [@AB] is usually understood as a topological effect [@SchT; @Schbook; @IS; @GI]. Since standard approaches to particle-defect interaction problems constitute of solving relevant (local) differential equations, the role of topology becomes often obscure.
In the present paper, we analyze the quantum behavior of a particle in the vicinity of a topological defect by the path integral method. Specifically we carry out path integration for a particle moving around a dispiration[^1]. The dispiration we consider is a composite structure of a screw dislocation and a wedge disclination with a common defect line. In Sec. 2, we study the geometrical and topological properties of the dispiration by using the $SO(2) \times T(1)$ gauge theory. For the medium ${\cal M}$ of the dispiration, we derive the squared line element, $$ds^{2}=dr^{2} + \sigma ^{2}r^{2}d\theta ^{2} + (dz + \beta d\theta
)^{2}, \label{metric}$$ where $\beta $ and $\sigma $ are the parameters directly related to the Burgers vector of dislocation and the Frank vector of disclination, respectively. The medium has a non-Euclidean structure with singular torsion and curvature along the dispiration line.
In Sec. 3, we calculate in detail the path integral to obtain the propagator (Feynman kernel) for a particle in the field of the dispiration characterized by the line element (\[metric\]) under the influence of a scalar potential and a vector potential. From the propagator so obtained, we extract the energy spectrum and the energy eigenfunctions. In Sec. 4, converting the propagator in the partial wave expansion into that in the winding number representation, we show that the effect due to the multiply connected structure of the medium is taken into account. The energy eigenfunctions and the energy spectrum are extracted from the propagator in Sec. 5. Sec.6 is devoted to interpretation of the energy spectrum. In particular, we discuss the difference between the results from the Schrödinger equation with no curvature term and those from the path integral for the case of the conical space. Our path integral calculation suggests that the standard Schrödinger equation may have to be modified by a curvature term in order for two approaches to be consistent.
Gauge formulation of dispiration
================================
The dispiration under consideration is a combined structure of a screw dislocation along the $z$-axis and a wedge disclination about the same $z$-axis. See Figs. 1-2. The gauge theoretical approach to dislocation and disclination has been extensively discussed in the literature [@Kro; @KE; @Kl1; @PS]. Here we wish to present a $SO(2) \times T(1)$ gauge approach to the dispiration developed along the line similar to the formulation by Puntigam and Soleng [@PS].\
[**The $SO(2) \times T(1)$ gauge transformation:–**]{} In the gauge theoretical treatment, a deformation of an elastic medium in three dimensions is described by a local coordinate transformation consisting of a rotation and a translation, $${\bf x}'=\mbox{\boldmath $\rho $}({\bf x})\cdot{\bf x} + \mbox{\boldmath
$\tau $}({\bf x}), \label{deform}$$ where $\mbox{\boldmath $\rho $}\in SO(2)$, $\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal
\tau}$}\in T(1)$, and ${\bf x}=\{ x, y, z\}$ is the position vector of the undeformed three-dimensional medium.
As is well-known, an axial wedge disclination can be created by the so-called Volterra process: That is, by (a) removing a wedge shaped portion of an angle $\gamma \in [0, 2\pi )$ from the medium and pasting the open walls together, or (b) inserting an extra wedge-shaped portion with $\gamma \in [-2\pi, 0)$ into the medium. Note that the deficit angle $\gamma $ is chosen to be positive for the case (a) and negative for the case (b). See Fig. 1 for the case (a). The wedge disclination about the $z$-axis is a rotational deformation obtained by gauging $SO(2)$: $${\bf x}'=\mbox{\boldmath $\rho $}(\theta)\cdot{\bf x} \label{rot}$$ with the rotation matrix, $$\mbox{\boldmath $\rho $}(\theta )=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}~\cos (\gamma \theta /2\pi ) &
-\sin (\gamma \theta /2\pi ) & 0 \\
\sin (\gamma \theta /2\pi ) & \cos (\gamma \theta /2\pi ) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right). \label{rho}$$ Here $\theta = \tan^{-1}(y/x) \in [0, 2\pi )$.
A screw dislocation lying along the $z$-axis (i.e., having a constant Burgers vector pointing the $z$-direction) as shown in Fig. 2 is a translational deformation obtained by gauging the $z$-translational group $T(1)$: $${\bf x}'={\bf x} + \mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}(\theta )$$ with the angle-dependent $z$-translation vector $$\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}(\theta )=-\frac{b\theta }{2\pi }{\bf e}_{z}
\label{trans}$$ where $b$ is a translation parameter and $\theta =\tan^{-1}(y/x)$ as before.
The dispiration comprised of such a wedge disclination and a screw dislocation is described by the combined coordinate transformation, $${\bf x}'=\mbox{\boldmath $\rho $}(\theta )\cdot{\bf x} + \mbox{\boldmath
$\tau $}(\theta ) \label{com}$$ where $\mbox{\boldmath $\rho $}(\theta )$ and $\mbox{\boldmath
$\tau $}(\theta )$ are given by (\[rho\]) and (\[trans\]), respectively.\
[**Gauge connections:–**]{} The standard Yang-Mills theory localizes with respect to the external space the gauge group which acts homogeneously in the internal space and introduces the gauge potential or the connection ${\bf\Gamma} $ that transforms under the group action ${\cal G}$ as $${\bf \Gamma }' = {\cal G}{\bf \Gamma }{\cal G}^{-1} - d{\cal G}\,{\cal
G}^{-1}.$$ What we wish to formulate for the dispiration is a $SO(2)\times T(1)$ gauge approach which differs in character from the Yang-Mills theory; the gauge group acts inhomogeneously on the (internal) coordinates ${\bf x}$ that is soldered locally to the (external) coordinates of the medium of dispiration. It is more appropriate for us to follow the procedures used in constructing a Poincaré gauge theory [@PS; @T82] or an affine gauge theory [@H95] for gravity.
First we write the group action (\[com\]) in the matrix form, $${\cal G}\bar{\bf x}=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}} & {\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}} \\
0 & 1 \end{array}
\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}{\bf x}\\ 1 \end{array} \right) =
\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}\cdot {\bf x} + {\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}} \\ 1 \end{array}
\right).$$ Then we define the connection ${\bf \Gamma }$ as $${\bf\Gamma} =\left(\begin{array}{cc} {\bf\Gamma}^{(R)} & {\bf\Gamma} ^{(T)} \\ 0 & 0
\end{array} \right)$$ where ${\bf\Gamma} ^{(R)}$ and ${\bf\Gamma}^{(T)}$ are the rotational connection and the translational connection, respectively. In order for ${\bf\Gamma} $ to behave like a connection in the Yang-Mills theory, ${\bf\Gamma} ^{(R)}$ and ${\bf\Gamma}^{(T)}$ must transform as $${\bf\Gamma} ^{(R)\prime}={\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}{\bf\Gamma} ^{(R)}{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}^{-1} -
(d{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}){\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}^{-1}$$ and $${\bf\Gamma}^{(T)\prime}={\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}{\bf\Gamma}^{(R)} - d{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}-
\left[{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}} {\bf\Gamma} ^{(R)} {\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}^{-1} -
(d{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}})\,{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}^{-1}\right]{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}} .$$ Evidently the rotational connection is a $SO(2)$-valued one-form, and the translational connection is a ${\bf R}$-valued connection one-form.
Now we construct the solder form that locally connects the global gauge coordinates ${\bf x}(0)$ to the coordinates ${\bf x(\theta )}$ of the dispiration medium as $$\mbox{\boldmath $\omega $} = d{\bf x} + \mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma
$}^{(R)}\cdot{\bf x} + \mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(T)} \label{omega}$$ which is a vector valued one-form.[^2] It transforms as $\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}' = \mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}
\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}$, leaving $g={\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}}^{T}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $\omega $}}$ invariant. Since we create the dispiration by a gauge transformation in flat space, we choose a connection that vanishes at $\theta =0$. Then the corresponding rotation and translation connections are given, respectively, by $$\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(R)} =\mbox{\boldmath $\rho $}
\,d\mbox{\boldmath $\rho $}^{-1}\label{rotconn}$$ and $$\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(T)} = -d\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}.\label{transconn}$$ The rotational connection (\[rotconn\]) and the translational connection (\[transconn\]) can be easily calculated by using the rotation matrix (\[rho\]) and the translation vector (\[trans\]). The differential of the rotation matrix (\[rho\]) is $$d\mbox{\boldmath $\rho $}^{-1}(\theta )=
d\mbox{\boldmath $\rho $}(-\theta )= -\frac{\gamma }{2\pi }\,d\theta
\,
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}~ \sin (\gamma \theta /2\pi ) &
-\cos (\gamma \theta /2\pi ) & 0 \\
\cos (\gamma \theta /2\pi ) & \sin (\gamma \theta /2\pi ) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right)$$ where $$d\theta = \frac{1}{r^{2}}(x\,dy - y \,dx) ~,~~~r^{2} = x^{2} + y^{2}.
\label{dtheta}$$ This and the rotation matrix (\[rho\]) together lead us to the rotational connection, $$\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(R)} =\mbox{\boldmath $\rho $}(\theta )\,
d\mbox{\boldmath $\rho $}^{-1}(\theta ) =\frac{\gamma }{2\pi }\,{\bf
m}\,d\theta \label{rconn}$$ where $${\bf m}=\left(\begin{array}{rcc}~ 0 & ~1 & ~0~ \\
~-1 & ~0 & ~0~ \\
~0 & ~0 & ~0~\end{array}\right).$$ The translational connection is found in a simple form by differentiating the translation vector (\[trans\]), $$\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(T)}= -d\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $} =
\frac{b}{2\pi }\,d\theta \,{\bf e}_{z}. \label{tconn}$$ Substitution of (\[rconn\]) and (\[tconn\]) into (\[omega\]) yields $$\mbox{\boldmath $\omega $}=d{\bf x} + \frac{\gamma }{2\pi }\,
d\theta \,{\bf m}\cdot {\bf x} + \frac{b}{2\pi }\,d\theta \,{\bf e}_{z}
= \left(\begin{array}{lll}dx &+ & (\gamma /2\pi )y\,d\theta \\
dy &- &(\gamma /2\pi )x\, d\theta \\
dz &+ & ~ (b/2\pi )\, d\theta \end{array}\right). \label{omega2}$$ Utilizing this solder form as the coframe we can determine the squared line element $ds^{2}=g_{ij}\,dx^{i}\otimes dx^{j}$ in the medium of the dispiration, $$ds^{2} = \delta _{\alpha \beta }\omega ^{\alpha }\otimes \omega ^{\beta }
=dr^{2} + \sigma ^{2}\,r^{2}\,d\theta ^{2} +
(dz + \beta d\theta )^{2}, \label{line2}$$ where $$\sigma = 1 - \frac{\gamma }{2\pi }, ~~~~~\beta = \frac{b}{2\pi }.
\label{si-be}$$ Evidently $\sigma \in (0, 1]$ when $\gamma \in [0, 2\pi )$, and $\sigma
\in (1, 2]$ when $\gamma \in [-2\pi , 0)$.
In the present paper, we consider the non-simply connected medium ${\cal M}={\bf R}^3\backslash \{x=y=0\}$ with metric (\[line2\]) as the field of dispiration. In the following, we briefly review some of the geometrical and topological properties that will be useful for later discussion.\
[**Curvature and Frank vector:–**]{} The curvature two-form ${\bf R}$ is defined in terms of the rotational connection $\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(R)}$, $${\bf R}=d\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(R)} + \mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(R)}
\wedge \mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(R)}. \label{curv}$$ For the case of dispiration with (\[rconn\]), since $ \mbox{\boldmath
$\Gamma $}^{(R)} \wedge \mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(R)}=0$, it integrates into $$\int_S{\bf R}=\int_Sd\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(R)}=\int_{\partial S} \mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(R)}=
\int_{\partial S}\frac{\gamma }{2\pi }\,{\bf m}\,d\theta=\gamma{\bf m} ,
\label{intcurv}$$ where $\partial S$ denotes the boundary of a surface $S$. Now we choose an orthogonal frame $(\xi^1,\xi^2,\xi^3)$ such that $ds^2=\delta_{kl}\xi^k\wedge\xi^l$ with $\xi^1=dr$, $\xi^2=\sigma rd\theta$, $\xi^3=dz +\beta d\theta$. Then we have ${\bf R}={\bf R}_{kl}\xi^k\wedge\xi^l$. The surface is chosen to be orthogonal to $\xi^3$. Eq. (\[intcurv\]) implies that $${\bf R}= \gamma \,{\bf m}\,\delta ^{(2)}(\xi^1,\xi^2)\,d\xi^1 \wedge d\xi^2 .$$ The corresponding scalar curvature is $$R=2\gamma \delta ^{(2)}(\xi^1,\xi^2). \label{s-curve}$$ or equivalently $$R=2\frac{\gamma}{\sigma} \delta ^{(2)}(x,y). \label{s-curve2}$$ Apparently the curvature of the medium ${\cal M}$ is zero everywhere except along the $z$-axis ($x=y=0$). Note that the curvature is created not by the dislocation but by the disclination.
The Frank vector ${\bf f}=\{\Phi ^{23}, \Phi ^{31}, \Phi ^{12}\}$ is defined to characterize a disclination with $$\mbox{\boldmath $\Phi $} = \int _{_{S}} {\bf R}=\gamma \,{\bf m}$$ where again the integral is over a surface $S$ which is delimited by a loop $\partial S$ enclosing the $z$-axis. Obviously the only non-vanishing components of the Frank vector for the dispiration is given by $\Phi ^{12}$. As a result, the Frank vector takes the form, $${\bf f}=\gamma \,{\bf e}_{z},$$ which, points the $z$-direction and its magnitude is identical to the deficit angle $\gamma $.
[**Torsion and Burgers vector:–**]{} The torsion two-form is defined by $${\bf T}=d\mbox{\boldmath $\omega $} + \mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(R)}
\wedge \mbox{\boldmath $\omega $} = {\bf R}\cdot{\bf x} +
d\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(T)} + \mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(R)}
\wedge \mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(T)}, \label{tors}$$ which, in general, depends not only on the translational connection but also on the rotational connection. For (\[rconn\]) and (\[tconn\]), $
\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma $}^{(R)} \wedge \mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma
$}^{(T)}=0$. Note also that the integration of ${\bf R}\cdot{\bf x}$ vanishes. Then the torsion two-form integrates into $$\int_{_{S}}{\bf T}
=\int_{_{S}}d{\bf \Gamma}^{(T)}
= \int_{\partial S}{\bf \Gamma}^{(T)}
=b{\bf e}_z.
\label{inttors}$$ from which follows $${\bf T}= b\,{\bf e}_{z}
\delta^{(2)}(\xi^1,\xi^2)d\xi^1\wedge d\xi^2 . \label{tors3}$$ We see that the only non-vanishing component of the torsion two-form is in the $z$-direction and is contributed only by the screw dislocation.
The Burgers vector ${\bf b}$ is defined by the surface integral of the torsion two-form $${\bf b}=\int_{_{S}}{\bf T}
\label{burg}$$ which has been evaluated in (\[inttors\]) $${\bf b}=b{\bf e}_z.
\label{burg2}$$ As is expected the translation parameter $b$ of (\[trans\]) is indeed the magnitude of the Burgers vector ${\bf b}$.\
[**Conical space:–**]{} Before closing this section, we consider a special case of the line element (\[metric\]) with constant $z$ and $\beta =0$. The two dimensional surface having the metric $$dl^{2}=dr^{2} + \sigma ^{2}r^{2}d\theta ^{2} \label{metl}$$ to which (\[metric\]) reduces may be realized as a conical surface ${\sl M}_{c}$ if the surface is imbedded into a three dimensional Euclidean space $E^{3}$. Let $${\bf X}=\left(\sigma r \cos \theta , \sigma r \sin \theta, \sqrt{1-
\sigma ^{2}}\,r\right).$$ Apparently, $$I: ~d{\bf X}\cdot d{\bf X}=dl^{2}$$ which is the first fundamental form of the imbedded surface $M_c$. Again, parameterizing the surface by $0< r < \infty $ and $0 \leq \theta
< 2\pi $, we have the metric tensor and its inverse, $$g_{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1 &0 \nonumber \\ 0 & \sigma
^{2}r^{2}\end{array}\right), ~~~~~~~~
g^{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1 &0 \nonumber \\ 0 & \sigma
^{-2}r^{-2}\end{array}\right),$$ which will be used later. With $${\bf X}_{r}=\left(\sigma \cos \theta , \sigma \sin \theta, \sqrt{1-
\sigma ^{2}}\right),$$ $${\bf X}_{\theta }=\left(-\sigma r \sin \theta , \sigma r \cos \theta, 0
\right),$$ the unit vector normal to ${\sl M}_{c}$ at a point $(r, \theta )$, $${\bf n}={\bf X}_{r}\times {\bf X}_{\theta }/|{\bf X}_{r}\times {\bf
X}_{\theta }|$$ is easily calculated to be $${\bf n}=\left(-\sqrt{1-\sigma ^{2}}\cos \theta , -\sqrt{1-\sigma
^{2}}\sin \theta , \sigma\right).$$ The second fundamental form, $$II: ~-d{\bf X}\cdot d{\bf n}=G_{ab}du^{a} \otimes du^{b},$$ is also immediately obtained for the conical surface ${\sl M}_{c}$ as $$-d{\bf X}\cdot d{\bf n} = \sqrt{1 - \sigma ^{2}}\,\sigma r\,d\theta^{2}.$$ Hence $${\bf G}=\left(\sum_{b}g^{ab}G_{bc}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0 &0
\nonumber \\ 0 & \sqrt{1-\sigma ^{2}}/(\sigma r )\end{array}\right)$$ whose two eigenvalues $k_{1}=0$ and $k_{2}=\sqrt{1-\sigma ^{2}}/(\sigma
r)$ are the principal curvatures of the conical surface for $r \neq 0$. The Gaussian curvature and the mean curvature of a two dimensional surface imbedded in $E^{3}$ are defined, respectively, by $$K= det {\bf G} = k_{1}k_{2}$$ $$H=\frac{1}{2} tr {\bf G} = \frac{1}{2}(k_{1} + k_{2}).$$ For the conical surface in question, $$K=0 ~~~~~\mbox{and} ~~~~~H=\sqrt{1-\sigma ^{2}}/(2\sigma r)
\label{K}$$ for $r \neq 0$. Of course the Gaussian curvature $K$ does not vanish at the apex of the cone. According to the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, $$\int_{S}K da + \int_{\partial S}k_{g} dl =
2\pi \chi (S)$$ where $S$ is a compact two-dimensional Riemann manifold with boundary $\partial S$, $K$ is the Gaussian curvature of $S$, $k_{g}$ is the geodesic curvature of $\partial S$, and $\chi (S)$ is the Euler characteristic of $S$. Now we let $S$ be the lateral surface of a frustum with slant height $r$. Then $k_{g} = 1/r$ and the line element $dl$ integrated along the boundary $\partial S$ with $dr=0$ result in $$\int_{\partial S}k_{g} dl=2\pi \sigma=2\pi - \gamma$$ where $\gamma $ is the deficit angle defined in (\[si-be\]). The Euler characteristic of a cone is unity. Hence we have $$\int_{S}K da = \gamma$$ where $da=\sigma rdr\,d\theta $. From this and (\[K\]) follows $$K = \frac{\gamma}{\sigma}\, \delta ^{2}(x, y)
\label{GaussCurv}$$ which includes the curvature at the apex $(r=0)$. As is well-known, the Ricci or scalar curvature of a two-dimensional manifold is twice the Gaussian curvature. Indeed, twice the Gaussian curvature (\[GaussCurv\]) coincides with the scalar curvature (\[s-curve2\]).
Path integration
================
The medium surrounding the dispiration considered in the preceding section is ${\cal M}={\bf R}^3\backslash\{x=y=0\}$, which is geometrically a non-Riemannian space and topologically a non-simply connected space. In this section, we carry out path integration for the propagator of a particle moving in the field of the dispiration. To confine the particle in the vicinity of the dispiration, we introduce a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator potential. Furthermore, we assume a repulsive inverse-square potential to prevent the particle from falling into the singularity at the defect line. For the purpose of comparison, we introduce also a vector potential due to a flux tube and a uniform magnetic field.
The standard approach deals with the Schrödinger equation in curved space. As will be discussed in Sec. 5, the Schrödinger equation is usually modified in curved space not only by the Laplace-Beltrami operator replacing the Laplacian but also the so-called curvature term added as an effective potential. The energy spectrum is sensitive to the type of curvature term; yet the controversy on the choice of the term is not fully settled. The path integral calculation we present suggests that the Gaussian curvature of the surface where the particle moves would dominate the curvature term.
The Lagrangian
--------------
Now that the dispiration field is characterized by the line element (\[line2\]), the Lagrangian for a charged point particle of mass $M$ moving in the vicinity of the dispiration under the influence of a scalar potential $V({\bf x})$ and a vector potential ${\bf A}({\bf x})$ is written as $$L=\frac{1}{2}M \left(\frac{ds}{dt}\right)^{2} -
\frac{e}{c}\dot{\bf x}\cdot {\bf A}({\bf x}) - V({\bf x}). \label{Lag1}$$ As has been mentioned before, we choose the vector potential ${\bf A}({\bf
x})$ consisting of two parts; one due to an ideally thin flux tube that contains constant magnetic flux $\Phi $ along the dispiration line, and another due to a uniform constant magnetic field ${\bf B}=B\,{\bf
e}_{z}$ pointing the $z$-direction. Then the vector potential term of the Lagrangian (\[Lag1\]) is expressed in cylindrical coordinates $(r, \theta , z)$ as $$\frac{e}{c}\dot{\bf x}\cdot {\bf A}=\alpha \hbar \dot{\theta } + M\omega
_{_{L}}r^{2}\dot{\theta}$$ where $$\alpha = \frac{e\Phi }{2\pi \hbar c}, ~~~~~~\omega
_{_{L}}=\frac{eB}{2Mc}.$$ Here $\alpha $ is the ratio of the magnetic flux to the fundamental fluxon $\Phi _{0}=2\pi \hbar c/e$, which is identical to the statistical parameter in Wilczek’s anyon model [@Wilc], and $\omega _{_{L}}$ is the Lamor frequency. The flux tube is included in our calculation in order to observe the similarity between the Aharonov-Bohm effect and the effect of a screw dislocation. In the scalar potential $V({\bf x})$, we include a two-dimensional short range repulsive potential (the inverse square potential with $\kappa>0$ sufficiently large) to emphasize the impenetrable feature of the central singularity, and a two-dimensional long range attractive potential (the harmonic oscillator potential) to confine the particle in the vicinity of the dispiration. Namely, $V({\bf x})$ is specified to be a two-dimensional central force potential, $$V(r)=\frac{\kappa \hbar^{2}}{8M\sigma ^{2}r^{2}} +
\frac{1}{2} M\omega_{0}^{2}r^{2} ~,~~~~r^{2}=x^{2}+y^{2}.$$ Thus the Lagrangian we consider is $$L=\frac{1}{2}M\left\{\dot{r}^{2}+ \sigma ^{2}r^{2}\dot{\theta }^{2}
+\left(\dot{z}+\beta \dot{\theta }\right) ^{2}\right\} - \alpha \hbar
\dot{\theta } - M\omega _{_{L}}\,r^{2}\dot{\theta } - V(r).
\label{Lag2}$$
The propagator
--------------
The transition amplitude (propagator) for the three-dimensional motion of the charged particle from point ${\bf x}^{\prime }= (r',\theta ',
z')$ to point ${\bf x}^{\prime \prime }=(r'', \theta '', z'')$ can be calculated by the path integral [@Feyn] $$K\left( \mathbf{x}^{\prime \prime }, \mathbf{x}^{\prime }; \tau \right)
=\int\nolimits_{{\bf x}^{\prime }={\bf x}(t^{\prime })}^{{\bf x}^
{\prime \prime }={\bf x}(t^{\prime
\prime })}\,
\exp \left[\frac{i}{\hbar }\int\nolimits_{t^{\prime}}^{t^{\prime \prime }}
\,L\,dt \right] {\cal D}^{3}{\bf x}$$ where $\tau =t^{\prime \prime }-t^{\prime } > 0$. The integral measure must be so chosen that the propagator satisfies the properties, $$\lim_{t''\rightarrow t'}K\left( {\bf x}^{\prime \prime
},{\bf x}^{\prime };t''-t'\right)=\delta (\mathbf{x}^{\prime \prime
} - \mathbf{x}^{\prime }),$$ $$\int K\left( {\bf x}^{\prime \prime
},{\bf x};t''-t\right)\,K\left( {\bf x}
,{\bf x}^{\prime };t-t^\prime\right)\,d^{3}{\bf x}
=K\left( {\bf x}^{\prime \prime
},{\bf x}^{\prime };t''-t'\right).$$ The path integral we calculate with the Lagrangian (\[Lag2\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{K\left({\bf r}'', z'' ; {\bf r}', z'; \tau \right)} \nonumber
\\
&&=\int \, \exp \left[ \frac{i}{\hbar }\int\nolimits_{t'}^{t''}\left\{
\frac{M}{2}\left(\dot{r}^{2} + \sigma ^{2}r^{2}\dot{\theta }^{2}\right)
+ \frac{M}{2}\left(\dot{z} + \beta \dot{\theta }\right)^{2} - \alpha
\hbar \dot {\theta } - M \omega _{_{L}}r^{2}\dot{\theta } -
V(r) \right\}
dt\right]\,{\cal D}^{2}{\bf r}\,{\cal D}z. ~~~~~~ \label{3prop}\end{aligned}$$ In (\[3prop\]) ${\bf r}$ signifies two variables $(r, \theta
)$ symbolically, and the two dimensional integral measure $d^{2}{\bf
r}$ will be specified later. After path integration, from the propagator, we should be able to extract the energy spectrum and the wave functions for the system.
The $z$-integration
-------------------
First we perform the $z$-integration by letting $\zeta =z+\beta
\theta $. The $z$-path integral is nothing but the Gaussian path integral for a one dimensional free particle, which yields the standard result, $$\int\nolimits_{\zeta ^{\prime }=\zeta \left( t^{\prime }\right) }^{\zeta
^{\prime \prime }=\zeta \left( t^{\prime \prime }\right) }\exp \left[
\frac{ i}{\hbar }\int\nolimits_{t^{\prime }}^{t^{\prime \prime }}
\frac{M}{2}\dot{ \zeta }^{2}dt\right] {\cal D}\zeta =\sqrt{\frac{M}{2\pi
i\hbar \tau }}\exp \left[ \frac{iM\left( \zeta ^{\prime \prime }-\zeta
^{\prime }\right) ^{2}}{2\hbar \tau }\right]. \label{z-int}$$ Now we rewrite the right hand side of (\[z-int\]) as $$\sqrt{\frac{M}{2\pi i\hbar \tau }}\exp \left[ \frac{iM\left( \zeta ^{\prime
\prime }-\zeta ^{\prime }\right) ^{2}}{2\hbar \tau }\right] =\frac{1}{2\pi }%
\int\nolimits_{-\infty }^{\infty }e^{-i\tau\hbar k^{2}/2M}e^{i\left( \zeta
^{\prime \prime }-\zeta ^{\prime }\right) k}dk \label{Edecomp}$$where $\hbar k$ is the $z$-component of momentum of the particle. We also notice that $$\zeta ^{\prime \prime }-\zeta ^{\prime }=z^{\prime \prime }-z^{\prime
}+\beta ^{\prime }\left( \theta ^{\prime \prime }-\theta ^{\prime }\right)
=z^{\prime \prime }-z^{\prime }+\beta \int\nolimits_{t^{\prime
}}^{t^{\prime \prime }}\dot{\theta }dt .$$ Incorporating these results into the path integral (\[3prop\]), we decompose the propagator as $$K\left( \mathbf{x}^{\prime \prime },\mathbf{x}^{\prime };\tau \right)
=\frac{ 1}{2\pi }\int\nolimits_{-\infty }^{\infty }dke^{ik\left(
z^{\prime \prime }-z^{\prime }\right) }e^{-i\tau \hbar
k^{2}/2M}K^{\left( k\right) }\left( \mathbf{r}^{\prime \prime
},\mathbf{r}^{\prime };\tau \right) \label{3pro2}$$ with the two-dimensional propagator for a fixed $k$ value, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{K^{\left( k\right) }\left( {\bf r}^{\prime \prime }, {\bf r}^{\prime
};\tau \right)}\nonumber \\
&&=\int^{{\bf r}''={\bf r}(t'')}_{{\bf r}'={\bf r}(t')} \exp \left\{ \frac{i}{\hbar }
\int\nolimits_{t^{\prime }}^{t^{\prime \prime }}\left[ \frac{M}{2}
\left(\dot{r}^{2} + \sigma ^{2}r^{2}\dot{\theta }^{2}\right) - M\omega
_{_{L}}r^{2}\dot{\theta } - \xi \hbar
\dot{\theta } -V(r)\right] dt\right\} {\cal D}^{2}{\bf r}.~~ \label{2K}\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi = \alpha - \beta k$. The integral on the right hand side of (\[Edecomp\]) is the spectral decomposition of the $z$-motion with the continuous spectrum, $$E_{k}= \frac{\hbar^{2}k^{2}}{2M}. \label{zspec}$$ Next we make a change of the angular variable from $\theta $ to $\vartheta $ by letting $$\dot{\vartheta}=\dot{\theta } - \bar{\omega}$$ where $\bar{\omega }= \omega _{_{L}}/\sigma ^{2}$. Accordingly the $k$-propagator (\[2K\]) is transformed into $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{K^{\left( k\right) }\left( {\bf r}^{\prime \prime }, {\bf r}^{\prime
};\tau \right)}\nonumber \\
&&=\int^{{\bf r}''={\bf r}(t'')}_{{\bf r}'={\bf r}(t')} \exp \left\{
\frac{i}{\hbar } \int\nolimits_{t^{\prime }}^{t^{\prime \prime }}\left[
\frac{M}{2} \left(\dot{r}^{2} + \sigma ^{2}r^{2}\dot{\vartheta
}^{2}\right) - \xi \hbar \dot{\vartheta } -
U(r)\right] dt\right\}{\cal D}^{2}{\bf r}(r, \vartheta ) \label{2K2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$U(r)= V(r) + \frac{1}{2}M\bar{\omega }^{2}r^{2} - \xi \hbar
\bar{\omega},$$ or $$U(r) =\frac{\kappa \hbar^{2}}{8M\sigma ^{2}r^{2}} +
\frac{1}{2} M\omega^{2}r^{2} + V_{0}$$ where $$\omega ^{2} = \omega _{0}^{2} + \bar{\omega }^{2}, ~~~~~V_{0}=-\xi
\hbar \bar{\omega }.$$ Note that $\vartheta $ is the angular variable in a rotating frame with angular velocity $ -\bar{\omega}$. For simplicity the constant $V_{0}$ in the potential will be ignored in the calculation below.
The short time action
---------------------
To calculate the two-dimensional path integral (\[2K2\]) in polar coordinates [@EG; @PI; @BJ], we first express it in discretized form, $$K^{\left( k\right) }\left({\bf r}^{\prime \prime }, {\bf r}
^{\prime };\tau \right) =\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }
\int\nolimits_{{\bf r}^{\prime
}={\bf r}(t^{\prime })}^{{\bf r}^{\prime \prime }={\bf r}(t^{\prime \prime })}
\prod\limits_{j=1}^{N}K^{(k)}\left( {\bf r}_{j},{\bf r}
_{j-1};\epsilon \right) \prod\limits_{j=1}^{N-1}d^{2}\mathbf{r}_{j}
\label{disK}$$ where the propagator for a short time interval $\epsilon =t_{j}-t_{j-1}=\tau
/N $ is given by $$K^{(k)}\left( {\bf r}_{j},{\bf r}_{j-1};\epsilon \right)
=A_{j}\exp \left( \frac{i}{\hbar }S_{j}\right). \label{spro}$$ Now we select a relevant approximation of the short time action $S_{j}$ in cylindrical coordinates, and determine the amplitude $A_{j}$ so as to meet the normalization condition $$\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}K^{(k)}\left(
{\bf r}_{j},{\bf r}_{j-1};\epsilon \right) = \delta ^{(2)}(
{\bf r}_{j} - {\bf r}_{j-1}) \label{norm2}$$ where the two-dimensional delta function satisfies $$\int \delta ^{(2)}({\bf r}_{j} - {\bf r}_{j-1})\,d^{2}{\bf r}_{j}=1.
\label{delta}$$ The short time action is $$S_{j}=\int\nolimits_{t_{j-1}}^{t_{j}}\left[ \frac{M}{2}(\dot{
r}^{2} + \sigma ^{2}r^{2}\dot{\vartheta }^{2}) - \xi \hbar
\dot{\vartheta}-U(r)\right] dt$$ which we approximate by $$S_{j}=\frac{M}{2\epsilon }
\left\{(\Delta r_{j})^{2} + 2\sigma ^{2}r_{j}r_{j-1}
\left[1 - \cos(\Delta \vartheta_{j})\right]\right\} - \xi \hbar
\Delta \vartheta_{j} - U_{j}\epsilon~,$$ where $\Delta r_{j}=r_{j} - r_{j-1}$, $\Delta \vartheta_{j} = \vartheta_{j}
-\vartheta_{j-1}$, and $U_{j}=U(r_{j})$. It is tempting to approximate $(d \vartheta)^{2}$ by $(\Delta
\vartheta)^{2}$. In path integration, however, $(\Delta
\vartheta)^{4}/\epsilon $ cannot be ignored because $(\Delta
\vartheta)^{2} \sim \epsilon $. Hence it is appropriate to replace $(d\vartheta)^{2}$ by $1 - \cos(\Delta \vartheta)$ even though unimportant higher order terms are included (see [@IKG]). Since it is sufficient for a short time action to consider the contributions up to first order in $\epsilon $, we further employ the approximate relation for small $\epsilon $ [@IS], $$\cos \left( \Delta \vartheta\right) + a\epsilon \Delta \vartheta \sim
\cos \left( \Delta \vartheta - a\epsilon \right)
+\frac{1}{2}a^{2}\epsilon ^{2}$$ to write the short time action multiplied by $(i/\hbar)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{i}{\hbar}S_{j}&=&\frac{iM}{2\hbar\epsilon }\left(r_{j}^{2} + r_{j-1}^{2}\right)
+(\sigma ^{-2} - 1)\frac{M\sigma ^{2}r_{j}r_{j-1}}{i\hbar \epsilon }
\nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{M\sigma ^{2}r_{j}r_{j-1}}{i\hbar \epsilon } \cos \left( \Delta
\vartheta_{j}-\frac{\xi \hbar \epsilon }{M\sigma ^{2}r_{j}r_{j-
1}}\right) + \frac{(4\xi ^{2} + \kappa )\hbar \epsilon}{8Mi\sigma
^{2}r_{j}r_{j-1}}-\frac{iM\omega ^{2}\epsilon }{4\hbar}(r_{j}^{2} +
r_{j-1}^{2}). \label{sact}\end{aligned}$$ We use this short time action (multiplied by $i/\hbar$) for evaluating the angular path integral. However, before starting the angular integration, let us determine the amplitude $A_{j}$ by considering the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ of the short time action (\[sact\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}A_{j}e^{iS_{j}/\hbar} &= &
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}A_{j}\exp\left\{\frac{iM}{2\hbar\epsilon }
\left(\Delta r_{j}\right)^{2}\right\}\,
\exp\left\{\frac{iM\sigma ^{2}r_{j}^{2}}{2\hbar \epsilon }
\left(\Delta \vartheta_{j}\right)^{2}\right\} \nonumber \\
& = & A_{j}\frac{2\pi i\hbar \epsilon }{M\sigma r_{j}}
\delta (\Delta r_{j})\,\delta (\Delta \vartheta_{j}).\end{aligned}$$ Now let the areal element be given by $$d^{2}{\bf r}_{j}=r_{j}\,dr_{j}\,d\vartheta _{j}. \label{area1}$$ Then the amplitude meeting the condition (\[norm2\]) must be of the form, $$A_{j}= \frac{M\sigma }{2\pi i\hbar\epsilon}.
\label{amp1}$$ Alternatively, if $$d^{2}{\bf r}_{j} = \sigma r_{j}\,dr_{j}\,d\vartheta_{j}, \label{area2}$$ then the corresponding amplitude is $$A_{j}= \frac{M}{2\pi i\hbar\epsilon}. \label{amp2}$$ Since path integration with either combination yields the same result, we employ the first choice (\[area1\]) with (\[amp1\]) for our calculation.
Asymptotic recombination
------------------------
For path integration in polar coordinates, separation of variables is not straightforward. To separate the angular variable from the radial function, we employ the asymptotic recombination technique (see [@IKG]). The asymptotic form of the modified Bessel function $I_{\nu }(z)$ for large $|z|$ (GR:8.451.5 in [@GR]) is $$I_{\nu }(z) \sim \frac{e^{z}}{\sqrt{2\pi z}} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty }(-
1)^{n}\frac{(\nu , n)}{(2z)^{n}} + \frac{e^{-z-(\nu + (1/2))\pi
i}}{\sqrt{2\pi z}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\frac{(\nu ,n)}{(2z)^{n}}$$ where $-3\pi /2 < \,\arg \,z \,< \pi /2$, and $$(\nu , n)= \frac{\Gamma (\nu +n+\frac{1}{2})}{n!\,\Gamma (\nu -n
+ \frac{1}{2})}, ~~~~~~~~(\nu , 0)=1.$$ The asymptotic recombination technique is based on the conjecture that the one-term asymptotic form, $$I_{\nu }\left( z\right) \sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi z}}\exp \left[ z -
\frac{1}{2z}\left(\nu ^{2}-\frac{1}{4}\right) \right], \label{EG}$$ is valid for sufficiently large $|z|$ and for $-\pi /2 < \arg
\,z\, <\pi /2$ as relevant in path integration [@EG; @LI]. With the help of the one-term form which we refer to as the Edwards-Gulyaev asymptotic formula, we can derive the following asymptotic relation for large $|z|$ [@IKG], $$I_{\nu }(az)\,e^{bz}\,e^{-c/z} \sim
\sqrt{\frac{a+b}{a}}\,I_{\mu }\left[(a+b)z\right], \label{asy1}$$ where $a > 0$, $b \geq 0$, $8a(a+b)c> b - 4(a+b)\nu ^{2}$ and $$\mu = \left[\frac{a+b}{a}\nu ^{2} - \frac{b}{4a} + 2(a+b)c \right]^{1/2}.$$ Making use of this asymptotic relation together with the Jacobi-Anger expansion formula $$e^{z\cos \vartheta} =\sum\limits_{m=-\infty }^{\infty
}e^{im\vartheta}I_{m}(z)~,$$ we obtain another asymptotic relation for large $z$, $$\exp \left\{bz + z\cos \left[\Delta \vartheta + i\frac{d}{z}\right] -
\frac{(d^{2}+2f)}{2z}\right\} \sim \sqrt{1+b}\sum\limits_{m=-\infty
}^{\infty }e^{im\,\Delta \vartheta}\, I_{\mu }\left[(1+b)z\right]
\label{asy2}$$ with $$\mu =\left[(1+b)\{(m + d)^{2} +2f\}- b/4\right]^{1/2}.$$ In the above we have let $a=1$ and $c=(d^{2} + 2f + 2md)/2$.
Angular integration
-------------------
Utilizing (\[asy2\]) with $b=\sigma ^{-2} -1$, $z=M\sigma
^{2}r_{j}r_{j-1}/(i\hbar \epsilon )$, $d=\xi =\alpha - \beta k$ and $f=\kappa /2$, we separate variables of the short time propagator (\[spro\]) as $$K^{(k)}\left( {\bf r}_{j},{\bf r}_{j-1};\epsilon \right)
=A_{j}\exp\left(\frac{i}{\hbar}S_{j}\right)=
\frac{1}{2\pi }\sum\limits_{m_{j}=-\infty }^{\infty }e^{im_{j}\left(
\vartheta_{j}-\vartheta_{j-1}\right) }R_{m_{j}}\left( r_{j},r_{j-
1};\epsilon \right) \label{expS}$$ with the short time radial propagator, $$R_{m_{j}}\left( r_{j},r_{j-1};\epsilon \right) = \frac{M}{i\hbar
\epsilon} \exp \left[ \frac{iM}{2\hbar \epsilon }\left( r_{j}^{2}+r_{j-
1}^{2}\right) -\frac{iM\omega ^{2}\epsilon }{4\hbar }(r_{j}^{2}+r_{j-
1}^{2})\right] I_{\mu (m_{j})}\left( \frac{Mr_{j}r_{j-1}}{i\hbar
\epsilon }\right) \label{shtR}$$ where $$\mu (m_{j})=\frac{1}{2\sigma }
\left[4(m_{j} + \xi )^{2} + \sigma^{2}-1 + \kappa \right]^{1/2}. \label{mu}$$ The prefactor $\sqrt{1+b}$ appeared on the right hand side of the formula (\[asy2\]) results in a multiple factor $\sigma ^{-1}$ before the summation of (\[expS\]), which will cancel out the factor $\sigma
$ appearing in the amplitude (\[amp1\]). Thus the two-dimensional path integral (\[disK\]) is reduced to the form, $$K^{(k)}\left({\bf r}^{\prime \prime }, {\bf r} ^{\prime };\tau \right)
=\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty } \int
\prod\limits_{j=1}^{N}\left[\frac{1}{2\pi
}\sum_{m_{j}}\,e^{im_{j}(\vartheta_{j} - \vartheta _{j-
1})}\,R_{m_{j}}(r_{j}, r_{j-1}; \epsilon )\right]\,
\prod\limits_{j=1}^{N-1} r_{j}dr_{j}\,d\vartheta_{j}.
\label{2pi2}$$ The angular integration can be done straightforwardly by using the orthogonality relation, $$\int_{0}^{2\pi }e^{i(m'-m)\vartheta}\,d\vartheta
=2\pi \delta _{m', m}.$$ Namely, $$\int\,\prod_{j=1}e^{im_{j}\Delta \vartheta_{j}}\,\prod_{j=1}^{N-1}d\vartheta
_{j}=(2\pi )^{N-1} \prod_{j=1}^{N -1}\delta _{m, m_{j}}\,
e^{im(\vartheta''-\vartheta')}.$$ where $m=m_{N}$. After angular integration, we have $m_{j}=m$ for all $j$, and arrive at the expression for the full propagator with a fixed wave number $k$, $$K^{(k)}\left({\bf r}^{\prime \prime }, {\bf r}^{\prime }; \tau \right)
= \frac{1}{2\pi }\sum_{m=-\infty }^{\infty }\exp
\left[ im\left( \vartheta^{\prime \prime }-\vartheta^{\prime }\right)\right]
R_{m}(r'', r'; \tau ) \label{part}$$ where $$R_{m}(r'', r'; \tau )=\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }
\int \prod\limits_{j=1}^{N}R_{m}\left( r_{j},r_{j-1};\epsilon \right)
\prod_{j=1}^{N-1} r_{j}dr_{j}. \label{rad}$$ The left hand side of (\[part\]) is nothing but the partial wave expansion in two dimensions, and the radial propagator (\[rad\]) corresponds to the $m$-th partial wave propagator. However, the last radial path integration (\[rad\]) remains to be carried out.
Radial path integration
-----------------------
To perform the radial path integration explicitly, we first notice that the short time radial propagator (\[shtR\]) with $m=m_{j}$ for all $j$ is similar in form as that of the radial harmonic oscillator. Then we rewrite (\[rad\]) as $$R_{m}(r_{j},r_{j-1};\epsilon )=\frac{M}{i\hbar \epsilon }\exp
\left[\frac{iM\omega }{2\hbar} (r_{j}^{2}+r_{j-1}^{2})\frac{1}{\omega
\epsilon }\left(1-\frac{1}{2}\omega ^{2}\epsilon ^{2}\right)\right] \,
I_{\mu(m)}\left( \frac{Mr_{j}r_{j-1}}{i\hbar \epsilon }\right).
\label{shtR3}$$ We further simplify (\[shtR3\]) by letting $\eta _{j}=(M\omega
/2\hbar )r_{j}^{2}$ and $\varphi =\arcsin (\omega \epsilon )$ as $$R_{m}(r_{j},r_{j-1};\epsilon )= \frac{M\omega }{i\hbar \sin \varphi }
\exp \left[i(\eta _{j} + \eta _{j-1}) \cot \varphi \right] \,I_{\mu
}\left(-2i\sqrt{\eta _{j}\eta _{j-1}}\,\csc \varphi \right).
\label{shtR4}$$ Here we have used the approximation, $$\cos \varphi _{j} = \cos[\arcsin (\omega \epsilon)] \sim 1 -
\frac{1}{2}\omega ^{2}\epsilon ^{2}.$$ At this point, for convenience, we introduce a two point function, referred to as the $\upsilon $-function [@IKG; @IJ], by $$\upsilon _{\mu }\left( \eta ,\eta ^{\prime };\varphi \right) =-i\csc
\varphi \exp \left[ i\left( \eta +\eta ^{\prime }\right) \cot \varphi
\right] I_{\mu }\left( -2i\sqrt{\eta \eta ^{\prime }}\csc \varphi
\right)$$ satisfying the convolution relation $$\int\nolimits_{0}^{\infty }\upsilon _{\mu }\left( \eta ^{\prime \prime
},\eta ;\varphi \right) \upsilon _{\mu }\left( \eta ,\eta ^{\prime };\varphi
\right) d\eta =\upsilon _{\mu }\left( \eta ^{\prime \prime },\eta ^{\prime
};2\varphi \right) \label{conv}$$ which can be derived from Weber’s formula (GR: 6.633.2 in [@GR]) as modified in [@PI], $$\int_{0}^{\infty }\,\exp(i\alpha r^{2})\,I_{\mu }(-iar)\,I_{\mu }(-
ibr)\,r\, dr=\frac{i}{2\alpha }\,\exp\left[-\frac{i}{4\alpha }(a^{2} +
b^{2}) \right] \,I_{\mu }\left(-\frac{ab}{2\alpha }\right)$$ valid for Re $\alpha > 0$ and Re $\mu > -1$. Then the short time radial function can be expressed in terms of the $\upsilon $-function as $$R_{m}(r_{j},r_{j-1};\epsilon )=\frac{M\omega }{\hbar }\upsilon _{\mu
(m)}\left( \eta _{j},\eta _{j-1};\varphi \right).$$ Now we are ready to perform the radial path integration. Substitution of this into (\[rad\]) gives $$R_{m}\left( r^{\prime \prime },r^{\prime };\tau \right) =\frac{M\omega
}{\hbar}\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }\int
\prod\limits_{j=1}^{N}\upsilon _{\mu (m)}\left( \eta _{j},\eta _{j-
1};\varphi \right) \prod\limits_{j=1}^{N-1}d\eta _{j}.$$ The convolution property (\[conv\]) of the $\upsilon$-function enables us to reach $$R_{m}\left( r^{\prime \prime },r^{\prime };\tau \right)
=\frac{M\omega }{\hbar }
\upsilon _{\mu(m)}\left( \eta ^{\prime \prime },\eta ^{\prime };
\omega \tau \right).$$ In the above we have also used the property, $$\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty } (N\varphi )= \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty }
(N\,\sin \varphi)= \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty } (\omega N\epsilon) =
\omega \tau .$$ In terms of the modified Bessel function it is written as $$R_{m}\left( r^{\prime \prime },r^{\prime };\tau \right) =\frac{M\omega }{
i\hbar \sin \omega \tau }\exp \left[ \frac{iM\omega }{2\hbar }\left( r^{\prime
2}+r^{\prime \prime 2}\right) \cot \omega \tau \right] I_{\mu (m)}\left(
\frac{M\omega r^{\prime }r^{\prime \prime }}{i\hbar \sin \omega \tau }\right)
\label{rad3}$$ with $$\mu (m)=\frac{1}{2\sigma }\sqrt{4(m + \alpha - \beta k)^{2} + \sigma ^{2} - 1 +
\kappa}. \label{ind}$$ Notice that $\mu (m)$ is a real positive number if $1- \sigma ^{2} <
\kappa $. In this manner we have completed the radial path integration for the partial propagator with $k$ fixed. It turns out that the radial propagator we have obtained above is identical in form with that of the radial harmonic oscillator. The characteristics of the dispiration, the flux tube, the uniform magnetic field and the assumed potential, which make the present system different from the simple harmonic oscillator, are all taken into the index $\mu (m)$ of the modified Bessel function.
With the radial propagator (\[rad3\]), the full propagator with $k$ fixed is obtained by $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{K^{(k)}\left(r'', \vartheta ''; r', \vartheta '; \tau \right)}
\nonumber \\
&&=\frac{M\omega }{ 2\pi i\hbar \sin \omega \tau }\exp \left[
\frac{iM\omega }{2\hbar }\left( r^{\prime 2}+r^{\prime \prime 2}\right)
\cot \omega \tau \right] \,\sum_{m=-\infty }^{\infty }\,e^{im(\vartheta
''-\vartheta ')}\,I_{\mu (m)}\left( \frac{M\omega r^{\prime }r^{\prime
\prime }}{i\hbar \sin \omega \tau }\right) \label{Kfin}\end{aligned}$$ or by converting $\vartheta $ into $\theta = \vartheta + \bar{\omega} t$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{K^{(k)}\left(r'', \theta ''; r', \theta '; \tau \right)}
\nonumber \\
&&=\frac{M\omega }{
2\pi i\hbar \sin \omega \tau }\exp \left[\frac{iM\omega }{2\hbar }\,
\left( r^{\prime 2}+r^{\prime \prime 2}\right) \cot \omega \tau \right]
\,\sum_{m=-\infty }^{\infty }\,e^{im(\theta ''-\theta ' - \bar{\omega} \tau
)}\,I_{\mu (m)}\left( \frac{M\omega r^{\prime }r^{\prime \prime
}}{i\hbar \sin \omega \tau }\right). \label{Kfin2}\end{aligned}$$
Winding number expansion
========================
In the angular path integration performed above, we have not explicitly taken account of the topological structure of the background medium ${\cal M}$. Since ${\cal M}={\bf R}^3\backslash\{x=y=0\}\cong {\bf R}\times {\bf R}^+\times S^1$, the paths connecting two points, say $a$ and $b$, in ${\cal M}$ can wind around the $z$-axis many times, and may be classified (into homotopy classes) by the fundamental group $\pi_1 ({\cal M})=\pi_1 (S^1)\cong {\bf Z}$ of ${\cal M}$. A set of all homotopically equivalent paths in ${\cal M}$ is now characterized by a single winding number $n\in{\bf Z}$. Therefore the propagator $K(b,a)$ may be given as a sum of subpropagators $\tilde{K}_{n}(b,a)$ for the paths with different winding numbers $n$, $$K(b,a)=\sum_{n\in {\bf Z}}C_{n}\,\tilde{K}_{n}(b,a).\label{111}$$ The paths in a same class may be deformed into one another, so that the transition amplitudes corresponding to these paths must share the same phase factor, On the other hand, the paths belonging to different classes may have different phases. Laidlaw and deWitt [@LdW], and Schulman [@SchT] argue that the coefficients $C_{n}$ are the one-dimensional unitary representations of the fundamental group $\pi_1 ({\cal M})\cong {\bf Z}$. From eq. (\[111\]) it is apparent that $C_{n+m}=C_{m}C_{n}$. If no degeneracies and no internal degrees of freedom are assumed, $C_{n+1}=e^{i\delta}C_{n}$. Then the coefficients are given by the one-dimensional representations of the fundamental group $\pi_1 ({\cal M})$ or the additive group ${\bf Z}$, namely $C_n=e^{in\delta}$.
It has also been pointed out [@AI] that the angular momentum representation and the winding number representation are complementary to each other via Poisson’s sum formula, $$\sum_{n\in {\bf Z}}e^{2\pi in \xi }=
\sum_{m\in {\bf Z}}\delta (\xi - m). \label{Pois}$$ This means that the propagator $K^{(k)}({\bf r}'', {\bf r}'; \tau )$ we have obtained in the preceding sections, as is given in the angular momentum representation, cannot be regarded as a subpropagator carrying a single winding number. Similarly, any partial propagator with a fixed angular momentum quantum number cannot be decomposed to a full set of subpropagators with winding numbers. The propagator obtained for the dispiration field must be understood as a full bound state propagator that contains contributions from all homotopically possible paths (see [@IS; @GI] for detail). Thus we look for a winding number representation of $K^{(k)}({\bf r}'', {\bf r}'; \tau )$ in (\[Kfin\]) via Poisson’s formula (\[Pois\]).
Let us rewrite (\[part\]) as $$K^{(k)}({\bf r}'', {\bf r}'; \tau )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\int \sum_{m\in {\bf
Z}} \delta (\alpha ' + \lambda - m)\,e^{i(\alpha'+\lambda) (\vartheta''-
\vartheta')}\,R_{\alpha '+ \lambda }(r'',r';\tau ) \,d\lambda \label{Kfin3}$$ with the radial propagator $R_{m}(r'',r';\tau )$ given by (\[rad3\]). Then we utilize Poisson’s formula (\[Pois\]) to convert (\[Kfin3\]) into the winding number representation $$K^{(k)}({\bf r}'', {\bf r}'; \tau )=\sum_{n\in {\bf Z}}
C_{n}\tilde{K}_{n}({\bf r}'',{\bf r}';\tau ).$$ where $$C_{n}= e^{i 2\pi n\alpha '} \label{coeff}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\tilde{K}_{n}({\bf r}'',{\bf r}';\tau )} \nonumber \\
&& = \frac{M\omega e^{i\alpha '(\vartheta''-\vartheta')}}{2\pi
i\hbar\,\sin \omega \tau}\,
\exp \left[ \frac{iM\omega }{2\hbar }\left( r^{\prime
2}+r^{\prime \prime 2}\right) \cot \omega \tau \right]
\int_{-\infty
}^{\infty }\,e^{i\lambda (\vartheta''-\vartheta' - 2\pi n)}\,I_{\mu (\alpha '
+\lambda )}\left(
\frac{M\omega r^{\prime }r^{\prime \prime }}{i\hbar \sin \omega \tau
}\right) d\lambda.
\label{Kn}\end{aligned}$$ In the coefficients $C_{n}$ of (\[coeff\]) $\alpha '$ can chosen to be an arbitrary real number. In particular, choosing $\alpha' =-\alpha$ one observes that the magnetic flux only appears as a pure phase factor $\exp\{-i\alpha(\vartheta'' - \vartheta '+2\pi n)\}$ in (\[Kn\]). The choice $\alpha'=\beta k -\alpha$ furthermore shows that the screw dislocation has a similar effect, that is, it only appears as a phase $\exp\{-i(\alpha-k\beta)(\vartheta'' - \vartheta '+2\pi n)\}$ in (\[Kn\]). Evidently both belong to $U(1)$, the one-dimensional unitary representation of $\pi _{1}({\cal M})$. The result is consistent with the Laidlaw-deWitt-Schulman theorem albeit the unitary factor is not unique.
Energy spectrum and wave functions
==================================
All the information concerning the energy spectrum and associated radial wave functions for the bound states in two dimensions is contained in the radial propagator (\[rad3\]). In order to extract such information out of (\[rad3\]), we make use of the Hille-Hardy formula (GR: 8.976.1 in [@GR]), $$I_{\mu }\left(\frac{2\sqrt{xyz}}{1-z}\right)\frac{(xyz)^{-\mu /2}}{1-
z}\,\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}(x+y)\frac{1+z}{1-z}\right]=
\exp\left[-\frac{x+y}{2}\right]\sum_{n=0}^{\infty
}\frac{n!\,z^{n}}{\Gamma (n + \mu +1)}\,L^{(\mu )}_{n}(x) \,L^{(\mu )}_{n}(y)
\label{iden2}$$ where $L^{(\mu )}_{n}(x) $ is the Laguerre polynomial related to the confluent hypergeometric function as $$L^{(\mu )}_{n}(x) = \frac{\Gamma (n + \mu + 1)}{\Gamma (\mu +1)\,n!}
\,F(-n, \mu +1 ; x).$$ Notice that the confluent hypergeometric function is in general an infinite series, $$F(a, b; x)=\frac{\Gamma (b)}{\Gamma (a)}\,\sum_{s=0}^{\infty }
\frac{\Gamma (a + s )}{\Gamma (b + n)\,s!}\,x^{s}$$ which converges only for $|x|< 1$ and becomes a polynomial for any $x$ when $a=0, -1, -2, ...$. Letting $x=(M\omega /\hbar)r'\,^{2}$, $y=(M\omega /\hbar)r''\,^{2}$, and $z=e^{-2i\omega \tau }$ in (\[iden2\]), we write (\[rad3\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
R_{m}\left( r'', r'; \tau \right) &=&\frac{2M\omega }{
\hbar}\left(\frac{M\omega }{\hbar}r'r''\right)^{\mu}
\exp \left[-\frac{M\omega }{2\hbar }\left( r'\,^{2} +
r''\,^{2}\right)\right]\, \nonumber \\
& & \times \sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\frac{n!\,e^{-
i\tau \omega (2n + \mu +1)}}{\Gamma (n+\mu +1)}
\,L^{(\mu )}_{n}\left(\frac{M\omega }{\hbar}r'\,^{2}\right)
\,L^{(\mu )}_{n}\left(\frac{M\omega }{\hbar}r''\,^{2}\right). \label{rad4}\end{aligned}$$ With this radial propagator the $k$-propagator (\[Kfin2\]) can be cast into the form $$K^{(k)}(r'',\theta '';r',\theta '; \tau )=\sum_{m=-\infty }^{\infty
}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\psi _{mn}(r'', \theta '')\psi^{\ast}
_{mn}(r', \theta ')\,e^{-i\tau \tilde{E}_{mn}/\hbar}, \label{k-pro}$$ where $$\tilde{E}_{mn}=\hbar \omega (2n + \mu (m) + 1) + m\hbar \bar{\omega }
\label{spec4}$$ and $$\psi _{mn}(r, \theta )=\sqrt{\frac{M\omega }{\pi\hbar}}
\sqrt{\frac{n!}{\Gamma (n+\mu +1)}}\left(\frac{M\omega }{\hbar}
r^{2}\right)^{\mu /2 }e^{-(M\omega/2\hbar ) r^{2}}\,L_{n}^{(\mu
)}\left(\frac{M\omega }{\hbar}\,r^{2}\right) e^{im\theta}. \label{psi1}$$
Substitution of (\[mu\]) into (\[spec4\]) results in the energy spectrum for the particle bound in two dimensions $$\tilde{E}_{mn}=\hbar \omega \left\{2n + 1 + \frac{1}{2\sigma }\sqrt{4(m
+\alpha -\beta k)^{2} + \sigma ^{2} - 1 + \kappa} \right\}+m\hbar\bar{\omega}
\label{spec5}$$ where $n=0, 1, 2, \dots$, $m = 0, \pm 1, \pm 2, \dots$. Adding the continuous spectrum (\[zspec\]) as well as the ignored $V_0$ yields the full spectrum of the system, $$E_{mnk} = \tilde{E}_{mn} + \frac{\hbar^{2}k^{2}}{2M}+(\beta k - \alpha)\hbar\bar{\omega}.$$
Concluding Remarks
==================
In concluding the present paper, we would like to make some remarks on the discrete energy spectrum (\[spec5\]) for the two-dimensional motion around the dispiration. First we examine special cases.
\(i) [*The Landau levels*]{}: The presence of the uniform magnetic field is unimportant for the study on the dispiration. However, if there are no dislocation, no disclination, no magnetic tube, no external short-ranged repulsive and long-ranged attractive potential but the uniform magnetic field, that is, if $\alpha = \beta = \kappa =0$, $\sigma =1$ and $\omega _{0}=0$, then, as is expected, we have the Landau levels, $$E_{\bar{n},k} = 2\hbar \omega _{_{L}}\left(\bar{n} + \frac{1}{2}\right)
+ \frac{\hbar^{2}k^{2}}{2M}$$ where $\omega _{_{L}}= eB/(2M)$ and $\bar{n} = n + (|m|+m)/2 = 0, 1, 2, \cdots$.
\(ii) [*The screw dislocation spectrum*]{}: In the absence of the uniform magnetic field, the disclination and the inverse-square potential, i.e., in the case of $\bar{\omega }=0$, $\sigma =1$ (i.e. $\kappa =0$), the discrete energy spectrum for the two-dimensional motion (with fixed $k$) becomes $$\tilde{E}_{mn} = \hbar \omega_{0} \left(2n + 1 +
|m + \alpha - \beta k|\right), \label{specii}$$ which shows that the effect of the Burgers vector $b=2\pi \beta $ is practically identical to that of the magnetic tube (the Aharonov-Bohm effect) as pointed out in ref. [@Kawa]. In comparison with Wilczek’s anyon model [@Arov], the screw dislocation plays a similar role of an anyon by generating a fractional spin. From the geometrical point of view, as we have seen earlier, the line dislocation causes torsion. This spectrum explicitly shows that a source of torsion generates a spin effect [@Heh; @Ino]. In the limiting case of the vanishing flux tube and the diminishing Burgers vector, we have simply the harmonic oscillator spectrum, $$E_{\bar{n}} = \hbar \omega_{0} (\bar{n} + 1),$$ where $\bar{n}= 2n + |m| = 0, 1, 2, \cdots$. The harmonic oscillator potential is important in the present dislocation spectrum, without which two-dimensional bound states cannot be formed in the vicinity of the defect. In the calculation of the partition function for an anyon gas, the oscillator potential has played a role of the regulator for taming divergences [@Arov; @IZ].
\(iii) [*The wedge disclination spectrum*]{}: If $\alpha =0$, $\beta =0$, and $\bar{\omega }=0$, then the two-dimensional discrete spectrum takes the form, $$\tilde{E}_{mn}= \hbar \omega_{0} \left\{2n + 1 +
\frac{1}{2\sigma }\sqrt{4m^{2} + \sigma ^{2} -1 +
\kappa } \right\}, \label{speciii}$$ which belongs to a particle bound near the disclination by the harmonic oscillator potential plus a repulsive inverse-square potential. From (\[si-be\]) it is clear that $\sigma =1$ implies the vanishing deficit angle $\gamma =0$. This corresponds to the absence of disclination. If $0 < \sigma < 1$, then $2\pi > \gamma >0 $, that is, the medium carries a positive curvature at the center of disclination. In comparison with the assumed square inverse repulsive potential term with $\kappa $ inside the square root of the spectrum, we see that the negative term with $\sigma ^{2} -1$ represents the effect of an attractive force; we may argue that the disclination effectively generates a short-ranged attractive force around it. If $\sigma > 1$, the medium is negatively curved, and a repulsive force is created around the center of disclination (the saddle point).
The Schrödinger equations for the harmonic oscillator interacting separately with dislocation and disclination have been solved by Furtado and Moraes [@FM]. In the absence of the flux tube $\alpha =0$, our dislocation spectrum (\[specii\]) coincides with their result obtain for the dislocation. However, our disclination spectrum (\[speciii\]) with $\kappa =0$ is not in agreement with theirs.
Finally, we examine for the case of disclination the difference between the result from the Schrödinger equation and that of path integration. Since some errors are involved in [@FM], we present our own solution of the Schrödinger equation which is slightly different from that in [@FM]. The line element (\[metric\]), if $\beta =0$, reads $$ds^{2}=dr^{2} + \sigma ^{2}\,r^{2}\,d\theta ^{2} + dz^{2}. \label{elem0}$$ Although the Laplace-Beltrami operator can be used to write down the Schrödinger equation as in [@FM], we choose to let $\phi = \sigma
\theta $, and express (\[elem0\]) as $$ds^{2}=dr^{2} + r^{2}\,d\phi ^{2} + dz^{2}, \label{elem1}$$ which is identical with the flat space line element except for $0 \leq
\phi < 2\pi \sigma.$ Then it is rather trivial to write down the Schrödinger equation in terms of coordinates $(r, \phi , z)$; namely $$-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2M}\left\{\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial }{\partial
r}\left(r \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^{2}}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial \phi ^{2}} +
\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial z^{2}}\right\}\psi + V(r)\psi =E\psi$$ which can be easily solved for a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator potential $V(r)=\frac{1}{2}M\omega ^{2}r^{2}$ with the periodic condition $\psi (r, 2\pi \sigma +\phi, z)=\psi (r, \phi , z)$. The normalizable solution is obtained in the form, $$\psi (r, \phi , z)=N\,e^{ikz}e^{im\phi/\sigma }e^{-M\omega
r^{2}/2\hbar}\,r^{|m|/\sigma }\,F(-n_{r}, 1 + |m|/\sigma ; (M\omega
/\hbar)r^{2}), \label{S-psi}$$ with the condition $$\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{|m|}{\sigma } - \frac{E}{\hbar\omega } +
\frac{k^{2}\hbar^{2}}{2M}\right)=-n_{r} ~~~~(n_{r}\in {\bf N}_{0}),$$ which yields the energy spectrum, $$E_{n_r m k}=\hbar\omega \left\{2n_{r} + 1 + \frac{|m|}{\sigma }\right\}+
\frac{k^{2}\hbar^{2}}{2M}.
\label{S-speciii}$$ Here $m \in {\bf Z}$ as follows from the periodic condition. It is apparent that the above spectrum differs from the path integral result (\[speciii\]). The term $\sigma ^{2}-1$ inside the square root of (\[speciii\]) lacks in (\[S-speciii\]). Furthermore, the wave functions are different. The wave functions (\[S-psi\]) with $m\neq 0$ vanish at $r=0$, but the function with $m=0$ remains to be non-zero. This is in contrast with the fact that the radial wave function (\[psi1\]) obtained by path integration vanishes at $r=0$ for all values of $m$. In this treatment the nonvanishing singular curvature at the disclination center $r=0$ plays no role. The Schrödinger equation may have to be modified so as to accommodate the curvature effect.
In general, the Schrödinger equation in curved space is written in the form, $$\left\{-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2M}\Delta + V_{c}({\bf r}) + V({\bf r})
\right\}\psi ({\bf r}, t)=i\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\psi ({\bf
r}, t) \label{Sch}$$ where $\Delta $ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator, $V_{c}({\bf r})$ is the potential due to the curvature effect and $V({\bf r})$ is any external potential. Historically, Podolsky [@Pod] defined the Schrödinger equation in curved space without the curvature term, i.e., $V_{c}({\bf r})=0$, but, as Schulman [@Schbook] puts it, there is no reason, other than the prejudice for simplicity, to ignore the curvature term. Comparing with Feynman’s path integral, DeWitt [@BdW] has proposed that the scalar curvature term is needed, that is, $V_{c}({\bf
r})=g\hbar^{2}R({\bf r})$ where $g$ is a constant. More recently, however, Kleinert [@Kl3] has argued by using a quantum equivalence principle that there is no need of the curvature term. On the other hand, viewing that the motion in a two-dimensional curved space as a constrained motion on the curved surface imbedded in a three-dimensional Euclidean space, Jensen and Koppe [@JK], da Costa [@daC] and others have argued that the Schrödinger equation on a curved surface carries in it an effect potential due to the Gaussian curvature $K({\bf
r})$ and the mean curvature $H({\bf r})$.
Our path integral calculation necessitates an effective potential of the inverse square form which is due to neither the scalar curvature nor the Gaussian curvature. In a forth coming paper [@next] it will be shown that the path integration in a conical space with $K=0$ and $H=\sqrt{1-\sigma ^{2}}/(2\sigma r)$ for $r\neq 0$ is compatible with the Schrödinger equation modified with the mean curvature $H$ of the conical surface as suggested in [@JK].
[99]{}
T.Y. Rebane and J.W. Steeds Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} 3716 (1995). R. Bausch, R. Schmitz and L.A. Turski, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{} 13491 (1999). S. Azevedo, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**34**]{} 6081 (2001). M. Kleman and J. Friedel, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**80**]{} 61 (2008). K. Kondo, [*RAAG Memoirs of the Unifying Study of the Basic Problems in Engineering and Physical Sciences by Means of Geometry*]{}, vol 1 (Gakujutsu Bunken Fukyu-kai, Tokyo, 1952) and vol 2 (Gakujutsu Bunken Fukyu-kai, Tokyo, 1955). K. Kondo, in [*Proceedings of the 2nd Japan National Congress for Applied Mechanics*]{}, (Tokyo, 1952) p. 41; see also B.A. Bilby, R. Bullough and E. Smith, Proc. Roy. Soc. A [**231**]{} 263 (1955). E. Kröner, in [*Physics of Defects*]{}, Les Houches Lectures, eds. B. Balian [*et al*]{}. (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1981). A. Kadić and D.G.B. Edelen, [*A Gauge Theory of Dislocations and Disclinations*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics 174 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983). H. Kleinert, [*Gauge Fields in Condenced Matter*]{} vol. II (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989). R.A. Puntigam and H.H. Soleng, Class. Quantum Grav. [**14**]{} 1129 (1997), see also arXiv:gr-qc/9604057. K. Kawamura, Z. Phys. B [**29**]{} 101 (1978). Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. [**115**]{} 485 (1959). L.S. Schulman, J. Math. Phys. [**12**]{} 304 (1971). L.S. Schulman, [*Techniques and Applications of Path Integration*]{}, (Wiley, New York, 1981). A. Inomata and V.A. Singh, J. Math. Phys. [**19**]{} 2318 (1978). C.C. Gerry and A. Inomata, in [*Fundamental Questions in Quantum Mechanics*]{}, eds. L. Roth and A. Inomata (Gordon-Breach, New York, 1986) p. 199. W.F. Harris, Philos. Mag. [**22**]{} 949 (1970). A.A. Tseytlin, Phys. Rev. D, [**26**]{}, 3327 (1982). F.W. Hehl, J.D. McCrea, E.W. Mielke and Y. Ne’emann, Phys. Rep. [**258**]{}, 1 (1995). A. Inomata and M. Trinkala, Phys. Rev. D, [**19**]{}, 1665 (1979). R.P. Feynman and A.R. Hibbs, [*Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals*]{} (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965). S.F. Edwards and Y.V. Gulyaev, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A [**279**]{} 229 (1964). D. Peak and A. Inomata, J. Math. Phys. [**10**]{} 1422 (1969). M. Böhm and G. Junker, J. Math. Phys. [**28**]{} 1978 (1987). A. Inomata, H. Kuratsuji and C.C. Gerry, [*Path Intgrals and Coherent States of SU(2) and SU(1,1)*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992). I.S. Gradshteyn and I.W. Ryzhik, [*Table of Integrals, Series and Products*]{} (Academic Press, New York, 1965). W. Langguth and A. Inomata, J. Math. Phys. [**20**]{} 499 (1979). A. Inomata and G. Junker, in [*Noncompact Lie Groups and Some of their Applications*]{}, eds. E.A. Tanner and R. Wilson (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1994) p. 199. M.G.G Laidlaw and C. Morette-DeWitt, Phys. Rev. D [**3**]{} 1375 (1971). A. Inomata, in [*New Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory*]{}, ed. D.M. Greenburger (Ann. New York Acad. Sci. [**480**]{}, (The New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1986) p.217 F.W. Hehl and B.K. Data, J. Math. Phys., [**12**]{} 1334 (1971). A. Inomata, Phys. Rev. D [**18**]{} 3552 (1978). D. Arovas, in [*Geometric Phases in Phys*]{}, eds. A. Schapere and F. Wilczek (Scientific, Singapore, 1989) p. 284. A. Inomata and P.C. Zhu, in [*Path Integrals from meV to MeV: Tutzing ’92*]{}, eds. H. Grabert, A. Inomata, L.Schulman and U. Weiss (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993) p.136. F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{} 1144 (1982); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**49**]{} 957 (1982). See also F. Wilczek, [*Fractional Statistics and Anyon Superconductivity*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990). C. Furtado and F. Moraes, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**33**]{} 5513 (2000). B. Podolsky, Phys. Rev. [**32**]{} 812 (1928). B.S. DeWitt, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**29**]{} 337 (1957). H. Kleinert, [*Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics and Polymer Physics*]{}, 2nd edn. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995). H. Jensen and H. Koppe, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**63**]{} 589 (1971). R.C.T. da Costa, Phys. Rev. A [**23**]{} 1982 (1981). A. Inomata and G. Junker, Phys. Lett. A [**376**]{} 305 (2012) and arXiv:1110.2279.
\
![Close the open lips in such a way that a screw dislocation is created along the center line. The resulting medium is what we call the field of a dispiration.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Figure1.eps "fig:"){width="200pt"}\
\
![Close the open lips in such a way that a screw dislocation is created along the center line. The resulting medium is what we call the field of a dispiration.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Figure2b.eps "fig:"){width="140pt"}\
[^1]: The Volterra process of forming a dislocation and a disclination involves a translation and a rotation, respectively. A [*dispiration*]{} is a defect formed by a translation and a rotation at the same time [@Har]. See Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.
[^2]: It is possible to derive this solder form by starting with the homogeneous group $SO(4)$ and by applying the group contraction to reduce it to $SO(3)\times T(1)$. The solder form may be obtained as a limiting form of a component of the connection. For instance, the de Sitter gauge theory can be contracted to the Poincaré gauge theory, so that the solder form is obtained from the gauge potential as the vierbeine [@I79]. This contraction scheme does not work for the affine gauge theory [@H95].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider hypotheses testing problems for three parameters in high-dimensional linear models with minimal sparsity assumptions of their type but without any compatibility conditions. Under this framework, we construct the first $\sqrt{n}$-consistent estimators for low-dimensional coefficients, the signal strength, and the noise level. We support our results using numerical simulations and provide comparisons with other estimators.'
author:
- Michael Law
- 'Ya’acov Ritov [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'NoDataSplittingref.bib'
date: ' University of Michigan\'
title: Inference Without Compatibility
---
Introduction {#sectionintroduction}
============
In the past decade, there has been much interest in high-dimensional linear models, particularly following the work of . However, it was not until the past few years that there have been methods to construct confidence intervals and p-values for particular covariates in the model. Consider a high-dimensional partially linear model $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equationplmy}
Y = X \beta + \mu + \epsilon,
\end{aligned}$$ with $X\in \R^{n\times q}$, and $Y,\mu,\epsilon \in \R^n$. In addition, we also observe covariates $Z\in\R^{n\times p}$ such that $\mu \approx Z\gamma$ for some sparse vector $\gamma \in \R^{p}$ (see Section \[sectionnotation\] for details). Regarding the size of each matrix, we assume that $q < n$ is fixed but $p > n$ is high-dimensional. Our goal is to construct a confidence region for the entire vector $\beta$.
In recent years, there have been mainly two approaches to constructing confidence intervals in high-dimensional linear models. There have been approaches such as , which construct conditional confidence intervals for $\beta$ given that $\beta$ was selected by a procedure, such as the lasso. Simultaneously, there has been work to construct unconditional confidence intervals for $\beta$, where $X$ is the a priori selected covariate of interest, such as , , and ; the latter is also our focus. To avoid digressions, we will not elaborate on the former. A review of many of the current methods is available in . Much of the existing literature relies on using a version of the de-sparsified lasso introduced simultaneously by , , and . The idea behind the existing approaches is to invert the KKT conditions of the lasso and perform nodewise lasso to approximate the inverse covariance matrix of the design, which attempts to correct the bias introduced by the lasso.
Since the lasso forms the basis for the procedure, certain assumptions must be made in order to ensure that the lasso enjoys the nice theoretical properties that have been developed over the past two decades. The paper by provides an overview of various assumptions that have been used to prove oracle inequalities for the lasso. These assumptions are a consequence of the fact the lasso is used rather than being needed for the statistical problem. In particular, for confidence intervals, assume that the compatibility condition holds for the Gram matrix, which is the weakest assumption from , and is essentially a necessary assumption for the lasso to enjoy the fast rate (cf ). To quote the popular book by , “In fact, a compatibility condition is nothing else than simply an assumption that makes our proof go through.” However, this raises an important question on necessity: Is the compatibility condition necessary for constructing confidence intervals in high-dimensions?
The main contribution of this paper is proving that the compatibility condition or any of its variants is indeed not necessary for the statistical problem. To this end, we provide an estimator which does not require the compatibility condition but still attains the semi-parametric efficiency bound. Our assumption regarding sparsity is slightly stronger than the minimax rate required by since we allow a broader class of designs. In particular, we show that, in the absence of compatibility, the rate established by is not attainable and a stronger sparsity assumption is required.
There is also the recent work of , who consider the general problem of conducting inference on low-dimensional parameters with high-dimensional nuisance parameters. One application of their general theory is for high-dimensional partially linear models, which is also our problem of interest. A further discussion of their procedure is given in Remark \[remarkchernozhukov\] below.
As a consequence of our estimation procedure for $\beta$, we are able to construct a $\sqrt{n}$-consistent estimator of the signal strength and the noise variance, which we denote by $\sigmamu$ and $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ respectively, also without the compatibility condition. The paper by provides a nice overview of different proposals for estimation of $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ using the lasso. An early work in this direction is , who construct asymptotic confidence intervals for $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ under a sure screening property of the covariates; in the setting of the lasso, this requires a $\beta$-min condition. consider a similar problem of variance estimation using moment estimators that do not require sparsity of the underlying signal. However, they do not consider the ultra high-dimensional setting nor the problem of inference. Later, considered inference on the signal-to-noise ratio but the theory developed only applies to Gaussian designs. For the problem of inference for $\sigmamu$, the work most similar with ours is , who consider a more general problem in the semi-supervised setting, but their results for the supervised framework require minimal non-zero eigenvalues on the covariance matrix. To this end, we construct estimators that attain asymptotic variances equal to that of the efficient estimator in low-dimensions.
For both problems, our approach involves using exponential weighting to aggregate over all models of a particular size. Prima facie, this is a computationally hard problem but can be well approximated in practice. To this end, we propose an algorithm inspired by .
Organization of the Paper
-------------------------
We will end the current section with the notation that will be used throughout the paper. In Section \[sectionbeta\], we discuss the problem of conducting inference for low-dimensional $\beta$ in the presence of a high-dimensional nuisance vector $\mu$. The setting of univariate $\beta$ is considered separately in Section \[sectionq=1\] to motivate the general multivariate procedure of Section \[sectionq>1\]. We take a slight detour in Section \[sectionq=1correlated\] to consider inference when the errors are correlated. The section ends with a discussion on the necessity of the sparsity assumption in Section \[sectionsparsity\]. Then, in Section \[sectionsigmamu\] and Section \[sectionsigmaepsilon\], we consider the problems of inference for $\sigmamu$ and $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ respectively. In Section \[sectionnumerics\], we provide an overview of the computation of the estimators, which we apply in Section \[sectionsimulations\] for numerical simulations. The proofs for Sections \[sectionq=1\] and \[sectionsparsity\] are provided in Section \[sectionproofs\]. Additional simulation tables and the proofs for the remaining results are available in the Supplement.
General Notation and Definitions {#sectionnotation}
--------------------------------
Throughout, all of our variables have a dependence on $n$, but when it should not cause confusion, this dependence will be suppressed. For a general vector $a$ and a matrix $A$, $a_j$ will denote the $j$’th entry of $a$, $A_j$ the $j$’th column of $A$, and $A^{(j)}$ the $j$’th row of $A$. Then, $\left\Vert a \right\Vert$ will denote the standard Euclidean norm, with the dimension of the space being implicit from the vector, $\left\Vert a \right\Vert_1$ the $L_1$-norm, and $\left\Vert a \right\Vert_0$ the $L_0$-norm. Furthermore, $\left\Vert A \right\Vert$ will denote the operator norm and $\left\Vert A \right\Vert_\text{HS}$ the Hilbert-Schmidt norm.
Before defining weak sparsity, we will need to introduce some notation. For $u \in \N$, $\m_u$ will denote the collection of all models of $Z$ of size $u$. That is, $$\begin{aligned}
\m_u \defined \left\{ m \subseteq \left\{ 1,\dots,p \right\} : |m| = u \right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, for each $m\in\m_u$, $Z_m$ will denote the $n\times u$ sub-matrix of $Z$ corresponding to the columns indexed by $m$. Moreover, $P_m$ will denote the projection onto the column space of $Z_m$ and $\pp{m}$ the projection onto the orthogonal complement. We can now state the definition of weak sparsity.
\[definitionws\] A sequence of vectors $\mu$ is said to satisfy the *weak sparsity property relative to $Z$* with sparsity $s$ at rate $k$ if the set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_\mu \defined \left\{m\in\m_s : \left\Vert \pp{m}\mu \right\Vert^2 = o(k) \right\}
\end{aligned}$$ is non-empty. A set $S\in \mathcal{S}_\mu$ is said to be a *weakly sparse set* for the vector $\mu$.
If the sequence of vectors $\mu$ is random, then they satisfy the *weak sparsity property relative to $Z$ in probability* with sparsity $s$ at rate $k$ if the set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_\mu = \left\{ m\in\m_s : \left\Vert \pp{m}\mu \right\Vert^2 = \op(k) \right\}
\end{aligned}$$ is non-empty. A set $S\in \mathcal{S}_\mu$ is said to be a *weakly sparse set in probability* for the vector $\mu$.
Finally, similar to other works on de-biased inference, we will consider sub-Gaussian errors, which is defined below.
\[definitionsg\] A mean zero random vector $\xi \in \R^n$ is said to be *sub-Gaussian* with parameter $K$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\e \exp\left( \lambda^\T \xi \right) \leq \exp\left( \frac{ K^2 \left\Vert \lambda \right\Vert^2}{2} \right)
\end{aligned}$$ for all vectors $\lambda \in \R^n$.
Inference for $\beta$ {#sectionbeta}
=====================
In this section, we consider the main problem of constructing confidence regions for $\beta$. The model that we consider is given in equation , which we reproduce below for convenience, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equationplmy2}
Y = X\beta + \mu + \epsilon.
\end{aligned}$$ For this section, we will assume that $\mu$ satisfies the weak sparsity property relative to $Z$ at rate $\sqrt{n}$, but the results still hold if we assume the weak sparsity property in probability. In addition to this partially linear model, we also assume that there exists matrices $N,H\in\R^{n\times q}$ such that each column of $X$ satisfies a partially linear model, denoted by $$\begin{aligned}
X_j = N_j + H_j,
\end{aligned}$$ where $N_j$ satisfies the weak sparsity property relative to $Z$ at rate $\sqrt{n}$ for each $1\leq j \leq q$. The weakly sparse set for each $N_j$ may be different, but the sparsity rate is uniformly $\sqrt{n}$. In matrix form, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equationplmx}
X = N + H.
\end{aligned}$$ We will assume that $H$ is sub-Gaussian. This assumption is certainly valid when $(X,Z)$ is jointly Gaussian. It precludes the case where $X$ is finitely supported, but is reasonable whenever the unbiased estimator of the risk used below is a good enough approximation for the risk of any given sub-model. By direct substitution, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
Y = N\beta + \mu + H\beta + \epsilon.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, since $\mu$ and each $N_j$ satisfy the weak sparsity property relative to $Z$ at rate $\sqrt{n}$, the vector $N\beta + \mu$ also satisfies the weak sparsity property relative to $Z$ at rate $\sqrt{n}$.
In the case where $q=1$, we will write $\nu \defined N$ and $\eta \defined H$. Moreover, we will define $\sigma_\epsilon^2 \defined \var(\epsilon_1)$, $\sigma_\eta^2 \defined \var(\eta_1)$ when $q=1$, and $\Sigma_H \defined \var\left(H^{(1)}\right)$ when $q>1$.
The Special Case: $q=1$ {#sectionq=1}
-----------------------
Suppose that $q=1$ and let $S_\gamma$ and $S_\delta$ be weakly sparse sets for $\mu$ and $\nu$ respectively. To motivate our procedure, we will assume temporarily that the models are in fact low-dimensional linear models, the set $S \defined S_\gamma \cup S_\delta$ is known, and $\epsilon \sim \n_n \left( 0_n , \sigma_\epsilon^2 I_n \right)$. In particular, we are considering the low-dimensional linear models $$\begin{aligned}
Y &= X\beta + Z_{S_\gamma}\gamma + \epsilon = Z_S\theta + \eta\beta + \epsilon,\\
X &= Z_{S_\delta}\delta + \eta,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta = \delta\beta + \gamma$. Then, by the Gauss-Markov Theorem, it is known that the efficient estimator in this low-dimensional problem is given by least-squares, which may be framed as the following three stage procedure:
1. Regress $Y$ on $Z_S$ using least-squares to obtain the fitted values $\hat{Y}$.
2. Regress $X$ on $Z_S$ using least-squares to obtain the fitted values $\hat{X}$.
3. Regress the residuals $Y - \hat{Y}$ on the the residuals $X - \hat{X}$ using least-squares to obtain the least-squares estimator $\betahatls$.
In the high-dimensional setting, the first two stages can no longer be achieved using the classical least-squares approach. However, since we are only interested in the fitted values $\hat{Y}$ and $\hat{X}$, this suggests using a high-dimensional prediction procedure to obtain the fitted values, and then applying low-dimensional least-squares on the residuals in the third stage. The high-dimensional procedure that we will adopt is the exponential weights of , which has the salient feature of prediction consistency under very mild assumptions on the design.
Before defining our estimators, we will state all of our assumptions.
1. \[assumptionq=1boundednorms\] The means $\mu$ and $\nu$ have squared norms that are $\Op(n)$.
2. \[assumptionq=1errordist\] The entries of $\eta$ and $\epsilon$ are mutually independent and also independent of $Z$. Moreover, the entries of $\eta$ and $\epsilon$ are each identically distributed sub-Gaussians with parameters $K_\eta$ and $K_\epsilon$ respectively.
3. \[assumptionq=1sparsity\] The means $\mu$, $\nu$, and $\nu\beta + \mu$ are weakly sparse relative to $Z$ with sparsities $s_\gamma$, $s_\delta$, and $s_\theta$ respectively at rate $\sqrt{n}$. Furthermore, the chosen sequence of sparsities satisfy $u_\gamma\geq s_\gamma$, $u_\delta \geq s_\delta$, and $u_\theta \geq s_\theta$ for $n$ sufficiently large and $\max\left(u_\gamma,u_\delta,u_\theta\right) = o(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$.
Now, we may define two sets of exponential weights, $w_{m,Y}$ and $w_{m,X}$, to estimate $\hat{Y}$ and $\hat{X}$ respectively. Let $$\begin{aligned}
w_{m,Y} \defined \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{1}{\alpha_Y} \left\Vert \pp{m} Y \right\Vert^2\right)}{\sum_{k\in\m_{u_\theta}} \exp\left( -\frac{1}{\alpha_Y} \left\Vert \pp{k} Y \right\Vert^2 \right)}
\end{aligned}$$ with $\alpha_Y > 4K_\epsilon^2$.
The exponential weights defined above do not subtract off the rank of the projection in the exponent as in since we only consider models of size $u_\theta$; the rank will cancel from the numerator and the denominator.
Now, let $\thetahatm \defined \left( Z_m^\T Z_m \right)^{-1} Z_m^\T Y$ be the least-squares estimator for $\theta$ using the covariates $Z_m$. Here, the matrix inverse is to be interpreted in a generalized sense if $Z_m^\T Z_m$ is rank deficient. We will identify $\thetahatm$ with a vector in $\R^p$, with the support of $\thetahatm$ being indexed by $m$. Then, we may estimate $\theta$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\thetahatew \defined \sum_{m\in\m_{u_\theta}} w_{m,Y} \thetahatm,
\end{aligned}$$ with the prediction $\hat{Y}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{Y} = Z \thetahatew.
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we will define $$\begin{aligned}
w_{m,X} \defined \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{1}{\alpha_X} \left\Vert \pp{m} X \right\Vert^2\right)}{\sum_{k\in\m_{u_\delta}} \exp\left( -\frac{1}{\alpha_X} \left\Vert \pp{k} X \right\Vert^2 \right)},
\end{aligned}$$ with $\alpha_X > 4K_\eta^2$. Letting $\deltahatm$ denote the least-squares estimator of $\delta$ using the covariates $Z_m$ and identifying it with a vector in $\R^p$, we may define $$\begin{aligned}
\deltahatew \defined \sum_{m\in\m_{u_\delta}} w_{m,X} \deltahatm.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, the fitted values of $X$ will be $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{X} = Z\deltahatew.
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, for the last stage, the regression of $Y - Z\thetahatew$ on $X - Z\deltahatew$ will be given by $$\begin{aligned}
\betahatew \defined \frac{\left( X - Z\deltahatew \right)^\T \left( Y - Z\thetahatew \right)}{\left\Vert X - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert^2}.
\end{aligned}$$
Before stating our main result, we will state a proposition regarding exponential weighting with sub-Gaussian errors.
\[propositionsubgaussianoracle\] Consider a high-dimensional linear model given by $$\begin{aligned}
Y = \mu + \xi,
\end{aligned}$$ for $\xi$ sub-Gaussian with parameter $K$. Assume that $\mu$ is weakly sparse relative to $Z$ with sparsity $s$ and that $\limsup_{n\to\infty} \left\Vert \mu \right\Vert^2 = \mathcal{O}(n)$. Assume further that the chosen sequence of sparsities $u\geq s$ satisfy $u = o(n^\tau/\log(p))$. Letting $\hat{\gamma}_m$ denote the least-squares estimator for $\gamma$ using the covariates $Z_m$, define the exponential weights as $$\begin{aligned}
w_{m} \defined \frac{\exp\left( -\frac{1}{\alpha} \left\Vert \pp{m} Y \right\Vert^2 \right)}{\sum_{k\in\m_u} \exp\left( -\frac{1}{\alpha} \left\Vert \pp{k} Y \right\Vert^2 \right)},
\end{aligned}$$ with $\alpha > 4K_\xi^2$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\e \left\Vert \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m Z\hat{\gamma}_m - \mu \right\Vert^2 = o(n^\tau).
\end{aligned}$$
We would like to remark that the choice of $\alpha$ is consistent with . In particular, when $\xi \sim \n_n\left(0_n,\sigma_\xi^2 I_n\right)$, the sub-Gaussian parameter is $K^2 = \sigma_\xi^2$, which gives the requirement that $\alpha > 4\sigma_\xi^2$. In this setting, we would like to emphasize that the required value of $\alpha$ defies a Bayesian interpretation since the Bayes procedure requires a leading constant of $2$, as shown by .
The assumption that $\limsup_{n\to\infty} \left\Vert \mu \right\Vert^2 = \mathcal{O}(n)$ can be relaxed to hold in probability by weakening the conclusion to hold in probability rather than expectation (cf Corollary \[corollarybiasother\]).
For the remainder of the paper, we will only consider the setting where $\tau=1/2$. As an immediate corollary, we have the following.
\[corollarysubgaussianoracle\] Consider the models given in equations (\[equationplmy2\]) and (\[equationplmx\]) with $q=1$. Under assumptions \[assumptionq=1boundednorms\] – \[assumptionq=1sparsity\], $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\Vert \nu\beta + \mu - Z\thetahatew \right\Vert^2 = \op(\sqrt{n}),\\
&\left\Vert \nu - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert^2 = \op(\sqrt{n}).
\end{aligned}$$
Finally, we can state the main result for $\betahatew$.
\[theoremq=1asympdist\] Consider the models given in equations and with $q=1$. Under assumptions \[assumptionq=1boundednorms\] – \[assumptionq=1sparsity\], $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n}\left( \betahatew - \beta \right) \cond \n\left( 0 , \frac{\sigma_\epsilon^2}{\sigma_\eta^2} \right).
\end{aligned}$$
We would like to note that $\betahatew$ attains the information bound for estimating $\beta$ (cf Example 2.4.5 of and Section 2.3.3 of ).
\[remarkchernozhukov\] The estimator, $\betahatew$, at first glance seems similar to the double/de-biased estimator of by considering exponential weighting as the estimation procedure for the propensity function. However, the primary difference is that we do not rely on cross fitting to estimate the conditional mean of $X$ and $Y$ given the covariates $Z$. Therefore, $\betahatew$ does not fall within the general framework of since exponential weighting intrinsically solves the high-dimensional in-sample prediction problem as opposed to the out-of-sample prediction problem. That is, there is no guarantee that, after sample splitting, the out-of-sample predictions for the mean vector are necessarily consistent.
To construct confidence intervals, we will need to estimate both $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ and $\sigma_\eta^2$. We will defer explicitly defining estimators for the variance until Section \[sectionsigmaepsilon\] but let $\sigmaepsilonhat$ and $\sigmaetahat$ be any of the three estimators proposed by Theorem \[theoremsigmaepsilon\] for estimating variance. Then, an asymptotic $(1-\alpha)$ confidence interval for $\beta$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \betahatew - z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\frac{\sigmaepsilonhat}{\sigmaetahat n}} , \betahatew + z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\frac{\sigmaepsilonhat}{\sigmaetahat n}} \right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $z_{\alpha/2}$ denotes the $\alpha/2$ upper quantile of the standard Gaussian distribution.
Correlated Gaussian Errors {#sectionq=1correlated}
--------------------------
In this section, we take a slight detour away from classical high-dimensional partially linear models and consider the setting where the errors, $\epsilon$, are Gaussian but not necessarily independent and identically distributed. The goal is to conduct inference on $\beta$, but, for simplicity, we will only consider the setting where $q=1$. This model arises naturally if the model was a linear mixed model given by $$\begin{aligned}
Y = X\beta + \mu + W\zeta + \xi,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta$ are Gaussian random effects and $\xi$ is independent Gaussian noise. and consider more general problems of testing fixed effects in high-dimensional linear mixed models, whereas we simply view the problem as a linear model with correlated noise. Even when the errors are correlated, $\betahatew$ still has a Gaussian limit under proper rescaling. Before stating the theorem, we will slightly modify assumption \[assumptionq=1errordist\] to the setting where $\epsilon$ is correlated:
1. \[assumptionq=1errordistcorrelated\] The entries of $\eta \sim \n_n \left( 0 , \sigma_\eta^2 I_n \right)$ are independent of $Z$ and $\epsilon$. The vector $\epsilon \sim \n_n \left( 0 , \Sigma_\epsilon \right)$ is independent of $Z$ with $\left\Vert \Sigma_\epsilon \right\Vert = \mathcal{O}(1)$ and $\Tr(\Sigma_\epsilon)/n \to \bar{d} > 0$.
Now, we may state the main result for $\betahatew$ under correlation.
\[theoremq=1asympdistcorrelated\] Consider the models given in equations and with $q=1$. Under assumptions \[assumptionq=1boundednorms\], \[assumptionq=1errordistcorrelated\], and \[assumptionq=1sparsity\], $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n}\left( \betahatew - \beta \right) \cond \n\left( 0 , \frac{\bar{d}}{\sigma_\eta^2} \right).
\end{aligned}$$
Again, we will defer defining an estimator for $\bar{d}$ and $\sigma_\eta^2$ until Section \[sectionsigmaepsilon\], in particular Corollary \[corollarysigmaepsiloncorrelated\]. Similar to the previous section, we may now construct confidence intervals for $\beta$ under this setting of correlation.
The General Case: $q>1$ {#sectionq>1}
-----------------------
In the general setting where $q>1$, we may still rely on the perspective of high-dimensional prediction. In particular, for $1 \leq j \leq q$, we may let $\deltahatewj$ denote the analogue of $\deltahatew$ for regressing $X_j$ on $Z$ and estimate $X_j$ by $Z\deltahatewj$. Let $\Deltahatew \in \R^{p\times q}$ denote the matrix with columns given by $\deltahatewj$ for $1\leq j \leq q$. Then, the multidimensional analogue of $\betahatew$ from Section \[sectionq=1\] is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\betahatew \defined \left(\left( X - Z\Deltahatew \right)^\T \left( X - Z\Deltahatew \right)\right)^{-1} \left( X - Z\Deltahatew \right)^\T \left( Y - Z\thetahatew \right).
\end{aligned}$$ We would like to emphasize that the definition here is identical to that given in Section \[sectionq=1\] when $q=1$.
Then, we will make the following assumptions.
1. \[assumptionq>1boundednorms\] The mean vectors $\mu$ and $N_j$ for $1\leq j \leq q$ have squared norms that are uniformly $\Op(n)$.
2. \[assumptionq>1errordist\] The rows of $H$ and the entries of $\epsilon$ are independent and also independent of $Z$. Moreover, the entries of the rows of $H$ and the entries of $\epsilon$ are each identically distributed sub-Gaussian with parameters $K_{\eta,j}$ and $K_\epsilon$ respectively. Furthermore, $\Sigma_H$ is an invertible matrix.
3. \[assumptionq>1sparsity\] All the mean vectors $\mu$, $N_j$ for $1\leq j \leq q$, and $N\beta + \mu$ are weakly sparse relative to $Z$ with sparsities $s_\gamma$, $s_{\delta,j}$ for $1\leq j \leq q$, and $s_\theta$ respectively at rate $\sqrt{n}$. Furthermore, the chosen sequence of sparsities satisfy $u_\gamma\geq s_\gamma$, $u_{\delta,} \geq s_{\delta,j}$ for $1 \leq j \leq q$, and $u_\theta \geq s_\theta$ for $n$ sufficiently large and $\max\left(u_\gamma,\max_{1\leq j \leq q}\left(u_{\delta,j}\right),u_\theta\right) = o(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$.
We can now state the asymptotic distribution for $\betahatew$.
\[theoremq>1asympdist\] Consider the models given in equations and . Under assumptions \[assumptionq>1boundednorms\] – \[assumptionq>1sparsity\], $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n}\left( \betahatew - \beta \right) \cond \n_q\left( 0_q , \sigma_\epsilon^2 \Sigma_H^{-1} \right).
\end{aligned}$$
Similar to before, to construct confidence regions, we will need to estimate $\Sigma_H$. Therefore, we will consider $$\begin{aligned}
\SigmaHhat \defined \frac{1}{n}\left( X - Z\Deltahatew \right)^\T \left( X - Z\Deltahatew \right).
\end{aligned}$$ This leads to the following proposition.
\[propositionq>1varianceestimates\] Consider the models given in equations and . Under assumptions \[assumptionq>1boundednorms\], \[assumptionq>1errordist\], and \[assumptionq>1sparsity\], $$\begin{aligned}
\SigmaHhat \conp \Sigma_H.
\end{aligned}$$
Then, an asymptotic $(1 - \alpha)$ confidence region for $\beta$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ \beta \in \R^q : \frac{n}{\sigmaepsilonhat} \left( \betahatew - \beta \right)^\T \SigmaHhat \left( \betahatew - \beta \right) \leq \chi^2_{q,\alpha} \right\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi^2_{q,\alpha}$ denotes the $\alpha$ upper quantile of a $\chi^2_q$ random variable.
Necessity of Sparsity Assumption {#sectionsparsity}
--------------------------------
In Section \[sectionq=1\], it was assumed that both $\mu$ and $\nu$ are weakly sparse with sparsity $s_\gamma$ and $s_\delta$ respectively at rate $\sqrt{n}$ in order for $\betahatew$ to have an asymptotic Gaussian distribution. For simplicity, in the ensuing discussion, we will only consider the case where $q=1$, that there exists an $S\in \mathcal{S}_\mu$ such that $\left\Vert \pp{S} \mu \right\Vert^2 = 0$, and the design $(X,Z)$ is fully Gaussian with population covariance matrix $\Sigma$. That is, $\Sigma = \var(X_1,Z^{(1)})$. We will write $\Sigma_{Z,Z}$ to denote the $p\times p$ sub-block of $\Sigma$ corresponding to $Z$. Letting $\Omega = \Sigma^{-1}$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
s_{\delta} = \left| \left\{ 1\leq j \leq p : \Omega_{1,j} \neq 0 \right\} \right|,
\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to $s_\Omega$ from . Compared to the de-biased lasso, showed that, if $s_\gamma = o(n/\log^2(p))$ and $\min(s_\gamma,s_\delta) = o(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$, then the de-biased lasso has an asymptotic Gaussian distribution. However, $\betahatew$ is a valid estimator on a larger class of designs, in particular incompatible designs, and Theorem \[theoremjrconjecture\] formalizes this trade-off between sparsity and compatibility. Before stating the theorem, we will need to introduce a bit of notation regarding our parameter space $\Theta$, which is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta(s_\gamma,s_\delta) \defined \{& \vartheta = \left( \beta , \gamma, \delta, \Sigma_{Z,Z}, \sigma_\eta^2, \sigma_\epsilon^2 \right)
:\left\Vert \gamma \right\Vert_0 \leq s_\gamma, \left\Vert \delta \right\Vert_0 \leq s_\delta ,\\&
\max\left(\gamma^\T \Sigma_{Z,Z} \gamma, \delta^\T \Sigma_{Z,Z} \delta,\sigma_\eta^2,\sigma_\epsilon^2\right) = \mathcal{O}(1)\}.
\end{aligned}$$
\[theoremjrconjecture\] For $\vartheta \in \Theta(s_\gamma,s_\delta)$, consider the following model $$\begin{aligned}
&Z^{(1)},\dots,Z^{(n)} \overset{i.i.d}{\sim} \n_p\left(0_p, \Sigma_{Z,Z} \right),\\
&\epsilon \sim \n_n\left( 0_n , \sigma_\epsilon^2 I_n \right),\\
&\eta \sim \n_n \left( 0_n , \sigma_\eta^2 I_n \right),\\
&Y = X\beta + Z\gamma + \epsilon,\\
&X = Z\delta + \eta.
\end{aligned}$$ Assume that either $s_\gamma = o(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$ or $s_\delta = o(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$. If there exists a $\sqrt{n}$-consistent estimator of $\beta$ for all $\vartheta\in\Theta(s_\gamma,s_\delta)$, then both $s_\gamma = \mathcal{O}(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$ and $s_\delta = \mathcal{O}(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$.
In light of the results of , to construct a $\sqrt{n}$-consistent estimator of $\beta$, it must be the case that either $s_\gamma = o(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$ or $s_\delta = o(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$. The previous theorem implies that the other sparsity must satisfy $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$. Assumption \[assumptionq=1sparsity\] is only mildly stronger, requiring $\max\left( s_\gamma, s_\delta \right) = o(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$.
Inference for $\sigmamu$ and $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ {#sectionsigmamuepsilon}
================================================
In this section, we consider the problem of conducting inference for both $\sigmamu$ and $\sigma_\epsilon^2$. , , and provide interesting applications of both estimation and inference to which we refer the interested reader. The main model that we consider is slightly different than that considered in the previous section. Since we are not interested in the contribution of any particular covariate, we do not need to distinguish $X$ from $Z$. Hence, we will set $q=0$ and consider the following model, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equationplmy3}
Y = \mu + \epsilon.
\end{aligned}$$ Unlike Section \[sectionbeta\], we view $\mu$ as a random quantity, with $\sigmamu \defined \var(\mu_1)$. Thus, $\sigmamu$ can be viewed as the explained variation in the data using the covariates $Z$. Throughout this section, $S_\gamma$ will denote the weakly sparse set for $\mu$ with sparsity $s_\gamma$. When constructing a $\sqrt{n}$-consistent estimator for $\sigmamu$, the asymptotic distribution will depend on the variance of $\mu_1^2$, which we will denote by $\kappa_\mu \defined \var\left(\mu_1^2\right)$. Similarly, we will need to let $\kappa_\epsilon \defined \var\left( \epsilon_1^2 \right)$ when constructing confidence intervals for $\sigma_\epsilon^2$.
Inference for $\sigmamu$ {#sectionsigmamu}
------------------------
To motivate our high-dimensional procedure, we will start by considering the low-dimensional setting. Letting $S_\gamma$ denote a weakly sparse set for $\mu$ relative to $Z$ and identifying $\gamma$ with a vector in $\R^{s_\gamma}$, we will temporarily consider the linear model $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equationlmmu}
Y = Z_{S_\gamma} \gamma + \epsilon.
\end{aligned}$$ The natural estimator for $\sigmamu$ is given by $n^{-1} \left\Vert P_{S_\gamma} Y \right\Vert^2$. The following proposition shows that this natural estimator is in fact efficient for estimating $\sigmamu$ with Gaussian errors.
\[propositionsigmamuefficiency\] Consider the model given in equation . Assume that the design $Z_{S_\gamma}$ has full column rank and $s_\gamma < n$ is fixed. Then, the estimator $n^{-1} \left\Vert P_{S_\gamma} Y \right\Vert^2$ is efficient for estimating $\sigmamu$.
From the Central Limit Theorem, it is immediate that $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n} \left( n^{-1} \left\Vert P_{S_\gamma} Y \right\Vert^2 - \sigmamu \right) \cond \n\left( 0 , \kappa_\mu + 4\sigmamu \sigma_\epsilon^2 \right).
\end{aligned}$$
In the high-dimensional setting, there are three natural extensions of this low-dimensional efficient estimator using exponential weighting. The first idea is to view $P_{S_\gamma} Y$ as the predicted values of $Y$ and directly use take the squared norm of the predicted values given by exponential weighting. For $m\in\m_{u_\gamma}$, let $\gammahatm$ denote the least-squares estimator for $\gamma$ using the covariates $Z_m$ and set $$\begin{aligned}
\muhat \defined \sum_{m\in\m_{u_\gamma}} w_{m,Y} Z_m \gammahatm,
\end{aligned}$$ where $w_{m,Y}$ is defined in Section \[sectionq=1\]. Then, we may consider the estimator $$\begin{aligned}
\sigmamuhats \defined \frac{1}{n}\left\Vert \muhat \right\Vert^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Alternatively, we may take the perspective that exponential weights concentrate well around the models with high predictive capacity, which would suggest aggregating the squared norms, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigmamuhatm \defined \frac{1}{n}\sum_{m\in\m_{u_\gamma}} w_{m,Y} \left\Vert P_m Y \right\Vert^2.
\end{aligned}$$ The last estimator that we consider is inspired by the low-dimensional maximum likelihood estimator for $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ and the fact that $\var(Y_1) = \sigmamu + \sigma_\epsilon^2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigmamuhatl \defined \frac{1}{n} \left( \left\Vert Y \right\Vert^2 - \left\Vert Y - \muhat \right\Vert^2\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Before stating the main results for these estimators, we will first provide all of our assumptions.
1. \[assumptionsigmamuboundednorms\] The mean vector $\mu$ has independent and identically distributed entries with finite fourth moment.
2. \[assumptionsigmamuerrordist\] The entries of $\epsilon$ are independent of $Z$. Moreover, the entries of $\epsilon$ are independent and identically distributed sub-Gaussians with parameter $K_\epsilon$.
3. \[assumptionsigmamusparsity\] The vector $\mu$ is weakly sparse relative to $Z$ with sparsity $s_\gamma$. Furthermore, the chosen sparsity $u_\gamma$ satisfies $u_\gamma = o(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$ and $u_\gamma \geq s_\gamma$ for $n$ sufficiently large.
Assumption \[assumptionsigmamuboundednorms\] implies that $\left\Vert \mu \right\Vert^2 = \Op(n)$. By Jensen’s inequality, it is immediate that $\sigmamuhats \leq \sigmamuhatm \leq \sigmamuhatl$. However, it turns out that, under the above assumptions, these estimators are asymptotically equivalent at the $\sqrt{n}$-rate. Recall that $\kappa_\mu \defined \var(\mu_1^2)$. The following theorem provides the asymptotic distribution of the three estimators.
\[theoremsigmamu\] Consider the model given in equation . Suppose that $\sigmamu > 0$. Under assumptions \[assumptionsigmamuboundednorms\] – \[assumptionsigmamusparsity\], $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n} \left( \sigmamuhat - \sigmamu \right) \cond \n\left( 0 , \kappa_\mu + 4\sigma_\epsilon^2 \sigmamu \right).
\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigmamuhat$ is either $\sigmamuhats$, $\sigmamuhatm$, or $\sigmamuhatl$.
Since our interest is mainly asymptotic, we will write $\sigmamuhat$ to denote generically one of the estimators for $\sigmamu$. To construct confidence intervals for $\sigmamu$, we will need to estimate $\kappa_\mu$, which may be accomplished by considering $$\begin{aligned}
\kappamuhat \defined \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \left( \muhatj^2 - \sigmamuhat \right)^2.
\end{aligned}$$
The following proposition shows that $\kappamuhat$ is a consistent estimator for $\kappa_\mu$.
\[propositionkappamu\] Consider the model given in equation . Under assumptions \[assumptionsigmamuboundednorms\] – \[assumptionsigmamusparsity\], $$\begin{aligned}
\kappamuhat \conp \kappa_\mu.
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, an asymptotic $(1-\alpha)$ confidence interval for $\sigmamu$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cimu}
\left( \sigmamuhat - z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\frac{\kappamuhat + 4 \sigmaepsilonhat\sigmamuhat}{n}} , \sigmamuhat + z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\frac{\kappamuhat + 4 \sigmaepsilonhat\sigmamuhat}{n}} \right).
\end{aligned}$$
Inference for $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ {#sectionsigmaepsilon}
---------------------------------
In this section, we are interested in constructing confidence intervals for $\sigma_\epsilon^2$. In the low-dimensional setting with Gaussian errors, an estimator for $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ is given by maximum likelihood, which may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}_{\epsilon,\text{ML}}^2 = \frac{1}{n} \left\Vert Y - P_{S_\gamma} Y \right\Vert^2.
\end{aligned}$$ From classical parametric theory, $\hat{\sigma}_{\epsilon,\text{ML}}^2$ is an efficient estimator for $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ that achieves the information bound. A natural extension in the high-dimensional setting is to view $P_{S_\gamma} Y$ as the predicted value and consider the estimator $$\begin{aligned}
\sigmaepsilonhats \defined \frac{1}{n} \left\Vert Y - \muhat \right\Vert^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\muhat$ is defined in Section \[sectionsigmamu\]. Recalling that $\var\left( Y_1 \right) = \sigma_\mu^2 + \sigma_\epsilon^2$, we may consider two more estimators of $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ in light of the results of Section \[sectionsigmamu\], which are
1. $$\sigmaepsilonhatm \defined \frac{1}{n} \left\Vert Y \right\Vert^2 - \sigmamuhatm.$$
2. $$\sigmaepsilonhatl \defined \frac{1}{n} \left\Vert Y \right\Vert^2 - \sigmamuhats.$$
Again, by Jensen’s inequality, it is immediate that $\sigmaepsilonhats \leq \sigmaepsilonhatm \leq \sigmaepsilonhatl$. Similar to before, these three estimators are asymptotically equivalent at the $\sqrt{n}$-rate and the following theorem provides the asymptotic distribution for all three.
\[theoremsigmaepsilon\] Consider the model given in equation . Suppose that $\sigmamu > 0$. Under assumptions \[assumptionsigmamuboundednorms\] – \[assumptionsigmamusparsity\], $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n} \left( \sigmaepsilonhat - \sigma_\epsilon^2 \right) \cond \n\left( 0 , \kappa_\epsilon \right).
\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigmaepsilonhat$ is one of $\sigmaepsilonhats$, $\sigmaepsilonhatm$, or $\sigmaepsilonhatl$.
This gives us an immediate corollary to estimating $\bar{d}$ from Section \[sectionq=1correlated\], which requires the following assumption:
1. \[assumptionsigmamuerrordistcorrelated\] The vector $\epsilon \sim \n_n \left( 0 , \Sigma_\epsilon \right)$ is independent of $Z$ with $\left\Vert \Sigma_\epsilon \right\Vert = \mathcal{O}(1)$ and $\Tr(\Sigma_\epsilon)/n \to \bar{d} > 0$.
\[corollarysigmaepsiloncorrelated\] Consider the model given in equation . Under assumptions \[assumptionsigmamuboundednorms\], \[assumptionsigmamuerrordistcorrelated\], and \[assumptionsigmamusparsity\], $$\begin{aligned}
\sigmaepsilonhats \conp \bar{d}.
\end{aligned}$$
Currently, in this section, we have assumed that $q=0$ but the theory for all three estimators of $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ are still valid when $q>0$. In this setting, $X\beta + \mu$ is weakly sparse relative to $(X,Z)$ with sparsity $s_\gamma$ at rate $\sqrt{n}$. Therefore, by using exponential weighting with the design $(X,Z)$, the above theorem implies that all three estimators are consistent for $\sigma_\epsilon^2$.
In practice, one may consider a version of the three estimators dividing by $n-u_\gamma$ instead of $n$, consistent with the low-dimensional unbiased mean squared error estimator. Asymptotically, since $u_\gamma = o(\sqrt{n})$, they will have the same asymptotic distribution but seem to have better performance empirically in finite sample.
Again, since $\sigmaepsilonhats$, $\sigmaepsilonhatm$, and $\sigmaepsilonhatl$ are asymptotically equivalent, we will write $\sigmaepsilonhat$ to denote a generically any of the three estimators. To construct confidence intervals for $\sigma_\epsilon^2$, we will need to estimate $\kappa_\epsilon$. The estimator that we propose is similar to $\kappamuhat$, namely we will defined $\kappaepsilonhat$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\kappaepsilonhat \defined \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \left( \left(y_j - \muhatj\right)^2 - \sigmaepsilonhat \right)^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Analogous to Proposition \[propositionkappamu\], the following provides the consistency of $\kappaepsilonhat$.
\[propositionkappaepsilon\] Consider the model given in equation . Under assumptions \[assumptionsigmamuboundednorms\] – \[assumptionsigmamusparsity\], $$\begin{aligned}
\kappaepsilonhat \conp \kappa_\epsilon.
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, an asymptotic $(1-\alpha)$ confidence interval for $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ciepsilon}
\left( \sigmaepsilonhat - z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\frac{\kappaepsilonhat}{n}} , \sigmaepsilonhat + z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\frac{\kappaepsilonhat}{n}} \right).
\end{aligned}$$
Implementation {#sectionnumerics}
==============
In this section, we describe a method to approximate all of the proposed estimators. Since all of our estimators are based on exponential weighting, we will only detail the task of estimating $\thetahatew$, with the others being analogous. Then, the goal of approximating $\thetahatew$ can be split into the following two tasks:
1. Determining the values of the tuning parameters $\alpha_Y$ and $u_\theta$.
2. Aggregating over ${p \choose u_\theta}$ models.
We will start with the second task. Suppose temporarily that values of $\alpha_Y$ and $u_\theta$ have been selected. To aggregate the models, we will follow the Metropolis Hastings scheme of . Our approach slightly differs from theirs since we restrict our attention to $u_\theta$-sparse models whereas they consider models of varying sizes.
Conditional on the data, the values of $\thetahatew$ and $\thetahatm$ for each $m\in\m_{u_\theta}$ are fixed. We may view $\m_{u_\theta}$ as the vertices of the Johnson graph $J(p,u_\theta, u_\theta - 1)$ (cf ). Then, for each $m\in\m_{u_\theta}$, by assigning weight $w_{m,Y}$ to vertex $m$, the target $\thetahatew$ may be viewed as the expectation of the fixed estimators $\thetahatm$ over the graph $J(p,u_\theta, u_\theta - 1)$, conditional on the observed data. Hence, by taking a random walk over $J(p,u_\theta, u_\theta - 1)$, we may approximate $\thetahatew$.
Before describing the algorithm, we need to introduce a bit of notation. For any model $m\in\m_{u_\theta}$, we will let $\k_m$ denote the neighbors of $m$, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\k_m \defined \left\{k\in\m_{u_\theta} : \left| k \cap m \right|=u_\theta - 1\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we will write $RSS_m \defined \left\Vert \pp{m} Y \right\Vert^2$, the residual sum of squares. Finally, let $T_0$ denote some burn-in time for the Markov chain and $T$ denote the number of samples from the Markov chain. This will yield the following algorithm, which closely parallels .
Initialize a random point $m_0\in\m_u$ and compute $RSS_{m_0}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=T_0+1}^{T_0+T} \hat{\theta}_{t+1}\text{\;}
\end{aligned}$$
Then, analogous to Theorem 7.1 of , it will follow that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{T\to\infty} \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=T_0+1}^{T_0+T} \hat{\theta}_{t+1} = \thetahatew && \p \text{ almost surely}.
\end{aligned}$$
Now, for the first task, we may construct a grid of parameter points and use cross-validation to jointly tune the parameters using the above algorithm. Since both $\alpha_Y$ and $u_\theta$ do not need to be known exactly, but need to be tuned to be larger than a threshold, the grid can be quite coarse to ease the computational burden.
Computation in the ultrahigh-dimension is inherently difficult. In view of , there is no polynomial time algorithm that achieves the minimax rate for prediction without the restricted eigenvalue condition. However, we do not know any algorithm that verifies the restricted eigenvalue condition in polynomial time (cf ). In this paper, we completely avoid assuming a condition like the restricted eigenvalue condition and therefore we cannot guarantee polynomial time convergence. Yet, the algorithm behaves well in practice, as can be seen from the simulations in the following section.
Simulations {#sectionsimulations}
===========
We divide this section into two parts, corresponding to simulations for $\beta$ and simulations for variance components $\sigma_\mu^2$ and $\sigma_\epsilon^2$. Additional simulation tables are included in the Supplement.
Simulations for $\beta$
-----------------------
For ease of comparison, our simulations will be similar to those given in . For the linear models $$\begin{aligned}
&Y = X\beta + \mu + \epsilon,\\
&X_j = N_j + H_j,
\end{aligned}$$ we will consider the setting where $n=100$ and $p=500$. There are a few parameters with which we will experiment: $q$, $\beta$, the distribution of the design and errors, the sparsities, and the signal to noise ratio. For each parameter pairing, we run $500$ simulations. All confidence intervals will be constructed at the nominal $95\%$ level.
Since the number of parameters of interest is fixed and low-dimensional, we will consider the settings where $q\in\left\{1,3\right\}$. To assess both the coverage and the power, we will let $\beta$ be a vector in $\R^q$ with values in $\left\{0,1\right\}$. To experiment with the robustness to the sub-Gaussianity assumption, we will use Gaussian, double exponential, and $t(3)$ distributions for the errors, all scaled to have mean zero and unit variance. We will denote these distributions by z, e, and t respectively. Therefore, $\sigma_\epsilon^2 = 1$ throughout this section. The design will have the same distribution as the error, but with an equi-correlation covariance matrix. That is, we consider the covariance matrix, $\Sigma(Z)$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma(Z)_{i,j} =
\begin{cases}
1 &\text{ if } i=j\\
\rho &\text{ if } i\neq j
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ for $\rho \in \left\{0,0.8\right\}$. When $q=3$, the covariance matrix for $H^{(1)}$, denoted by $\Sigma(H)$, will also be equi-correlation, $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma(H) = \begin{cases}
\sigma_\eta^2& \text{ if } i=j.\\
0.5\sigma_\eta^2 &\text{ if } i\neq j,
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_\eta^2$ is chosen so that $\var(X_1)=1$.
Similar to , we will let the sparsity $s_\gamma\in\left\{3,15\right\}$, and, for simplicity, set $s_\delta=s_\gamma$. We will set the signal to noise ratio of $\mu$ to $\epsilon$, which is given by $\sigma_\mu^2/\sigma_\epsilon^2$, to be $2$. Since large values of the signal to noise ratio ($SNR$) of $N_j$ to $H_j$ correspond to highly correlated designs, we will also consider $SNR_X \defined \sigma_\nu^2/\sigma_\eta^2 \in \{2,1000\}$.
For our simulations, we will say $\mu$ is weakly sparse relative to $Z$ with sparsity $s_\gamma$ at rate $\sqrt{n}$ if there exists an $s_\gamma$-sparse set $S$ and vector $\gamma_S$ such that $\var(\mu_1 - \left(Z_S\gamma_S\right)_1) \leq n^{-1/2}$. In particular, we will consider vectors $\gamma$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_j \propto \pi(j)^{-\kappa} && j=1,\dots,p
\end{aligned}$$ for some value $\kappa >0$ and permutation $\pi : \left\{1,\dots, p\right\} \to \left\{1,\dots, p\right\}$. A similar approach is applied for $\Delta$.
We will compare our estimators with a few other procedures:
1. (LS) Oracle least-squares that knows the true weakly sparse set $S_\gamma$.
2. (DLA) De-biased lasso from as implemented in the R package [hdi]{}. We only apply this when $q=1$.
3. (SILM) Simultaneous inference for high-dimensional linear models of as implemented in the R package [SILM]{}.
4. (DML) Double/de-biased machine learning of with $4$ folds using the scaled lasso of as the estimation procedure as implemented in the R package [scalreg]{}. We only apply this when $q=1$.
5. ($\text{EW}_{I}$), ($\text{EW}_{II}$), ($\text{EW}_{III}$) Exponential weights using $\sigmaepsilonhats$, $\sigmaepsilonhatm$, and $\sigmaepsilonhatl$ respectively. We tune the parameters using cross-validation with $T_0 = 3000$ and $T=7000$.
To evaluate the procedures, we use the following two measures
1. (AvgCov) Average coverage: The percentage of time the true value of $\beta$ falls inside the confidence region.
2. (AvgLen) Average length: The average length of the confidence interval (only when $q=1$).
The results are given in Table 1 and Tables \[tableq3beta0desz\]–\[tableq3beta1dest\] from the Supplement. In the $q=1$ setting with $SNR_X=2$, the coverage is comparable amongst all of the estimators. However, the de-biased lasso and the SILM procedure are slightly preferable in this regime since the length of the intervals are slightly shorter. When $\beta=0$, $SNR_X=1000$, and $\rho=0.8$, the coverage of the de-biased lasso is quite poor, with less than a $25\%$ coverage against a nominal rate of $95\%$. The result should not be surprising since this corresponds to a setting of high correlation in the design, which weakens the compatibility condition. The double/de-biased machine learning approach has strong nominal coverage in this regime (about $100\%$), but the length of the intervals are significantly longer than the other procedures (about four to five times longer than exponential weighting). When $\beta=1$, $SNR_X=1000$, and $\rho=0.8$, we note that the SILM procedure no longer maintains nominal coverage. The results remain the same when we consider $q=3$ and different distributions for the design and the errors.
Simulations for $\sigma_\mu^2$ and $\sigma_\epsilon^2$
------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we set $q=0$ and only consider the setting of strong sparsity (ie. $\mu = Z\gamma$ for some vector $\gamma \in \R^p$ satisfying $\left\Vert \gamma \right\Vert_0 = s_\gamma$). This reduces the linear model to $$\begin{aligned}
Y = Z\gamma + \epsilon.
\end{aligned}$$ We still consider the setting where $n=100$ and $p=500$. The value of $\sigma_\mu^2 =2$ and $\sigma_\epsilon^2=1$ throughout these simulations. The parameters with which we will experiment are the distributions of the design and errors and the sparsity.
Again, we will consider Gaussian, double exponential, and $t(3)$ distributions for the design and the errors. The design will have an equi-correlation structure with $\rho\in\left\{0,0.8\right\}$ and the sparsity will satisfy $s_\gamma \in\left\{3,15\right\}$.
The vector of coefficients, $\gamma$, will have $s_\gamma$ components generated from uniform(-1,1) and $p-s_\gamma$ components that are zero. The values will then be scaled such that $\sigma_\mu^2 = \gamma^\T \Sigma_Z \gamma = 2$.
For estimation of $\sigma_\mu^2$, we will compare our results with an oracular estimator based on low-dimensional least-squares and the recent proposal of CHIVE.
1. (LS) Oracle least-squares that knows the true strongly sparse set $S_\gamma$ using equation .
2. (CHIVE) The calibrated inference for high-dimensional variance explained of . We follow Algorithm 1 of the paper with $\tau_0^2\in \left\{0,2,4,6\right\}$.
3. ($\text{EW}_{I}$), ($\text{EW}_{II}$), ($\text{EW}_{III}$) Exponential weighting using $\sigmamuhats$, $\sigmamuhatm$, and $\sigmamuhatl$ respectively. We tune the parameters using cross-validation with $T_0 = 3000$ and $T=7000$.
The results are presented in Table \[tablemusgamma3\] and Table \[tablemusgamma15\] from the Supplement. We note that the coverage of the least-squares procedure is close to the nominal $95\%$ rate when $s_\gamma=3$ and the errors are either Gaussian or double exponential. The coverage is significantly worse for the $t(3)$ design, which should not be surprising since the fourth moment is not defined for this distribution. However, when $s_\gamma=15$, the coverage of least-squares falls, which establishes a reference for the problem difficulty, since Proposition \[propositionsigmamuefficiency\] establishes the efficiency of least-squares in this problem.
Amongst the exponential weighting estimators, when $s_\gamma=3$ and the errors are Gaussian or double exponential, the procedure based on $\sigmamuhats$ has the best performance and $\sigmamuhatl$ has the coverage when the errors are $t$ distributed. For higher sparsity, no one estimators dominates the others; depending on our assumptions, any of the three estimators may be preferable. Compared with CHIVE, the best exponential weighting procedure seems to be able to achieve comparable coverage with significantly shorter intervals, which can be seen across all of our simulation settings.
For the estimation of $\sigma_\epsilon^2$, we will consider the oracular least-squares, the scaled lasso estimator, and the refitted cross-validation with Sure Independence Screening, along with our proposed procedures based on exponential weighting.
1. (LS) Oracle least-squares that knows the true strongly sparse set $S_\gamma$ using equation .
2. (SL) Scaled lasso as implemented in the R package [scalreg]{} with a confidence interval constructed using Theorem 2 of .
3. (RCV-SIS) Refitted cross-validation of using the Sure Independence Screening of as implemented in the R package [SIS]{} in the first stage. The confidence interval is constructed using Theorem 2 of , with $\e\epsilon^4$ estimated by Proposition \[propositionkappaepsilon\] of the present paper.
4. ($\text{EW}_{I}$), ($\text{EW}_{II}$), ($\text{EW}_{III}$) Exponential weighting using $\sigmaepsilonhats$, $\sigmaepsilonhatm$, and $\sigmaepsilonhatl$ respectively. We tune the parameters using cross-validation with $T_0 = 3000$ and $T=7000$.
The results are given in Table \[tableepsilonsgamma3\] and Table \[tableepsilonsgamma15\] from the Supplement. When the signal is very sparse, $s_\gamma=3$, and there is no correlation in the design, scaled lasso has better coverage than exponential weighting. However, as the correlation increases to $\rho=0.8$, the confidence intervals constructed using $\sigmaepsilonhatm$ outperforms scaled lasso both in terms of coverage and average length. When the model is less sparse, $\sigmaepsilonhats$ has comparable or better performance than scaled lasso. The poor performance of refitted cross-validation with Sure Independence Screening in the $s_\gamma=15$ case should not come as a surprise since the signal to noise ratio is kept constant. The task of sure screening $15$ active covariates out of $500$ with low signal strength from $50$ observations is very difficult.
Proofs {#sectionproofs}
======
Proofs for Section \[sectionq=1\]
---------------------------------
For ease of reference in later proofs, we will prove Proposition \[propositionsubgaussianoracle\] as two lemmata.
\[lemmabiashw\] Let $w_m$ be any collection of convex weights over $\m_u$, and $\xi$ be a sub-Gaussian vector with parameter $K_\xi$, independent of $Z$. If $u = o(n^\tau/\log(p))$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\e \left( \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \left\Vert P_m \xi \right\Vert^2 \right) = o(n^\tau).
\end{aligned}$$
Fix $t>0$ arbitrarily. Define the event $\Tset_t$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\Tset_t \defined \bigcap_{m\in\m_u} \left\{ \left\Vert P_m \xi \right\Vert^2 \leq K_\xi^2 \left( u + 2\sqrt{utn^{\tau}} + 2tn^{\tau} \right) \right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ For any fixed $m\in\m_u$, it follows from Theorem 2.1 of that $$\begin{aligned}
\p\left( \left\Vert P_m \xi \right\Vert^2 > K_\xi^2 \left( u + 2\sqrt{utn^{\tau}} + 2tn^{\tau} \right) \right) \leq \exp\left( -tn^{\tau} \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equationtsettcprob}
\p \left( \Tset_t^\C \right) \leq \exp\left( -tn^\tau + \log\left( |\m_u|\right) \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Now, note that $$\begin{aligned}
\e \left( \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \left\Vert P_m \xi \right\Vert^2 \right)
= \e \left( \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \left\Vert P_m \xi \right\Vert^2 \indic{\Tset_t} \right)
+ \e \left( \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \left\Vert P_m \xi \right\Vert^2 \indic{\Tset_t^\C} \right).
\end{aligned}$$ For the first term, by the definition of $\Tset_t$, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} n^{-\tau} \e \left( \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \left\Vert P_m \xi \right\Vert^2 \indic{\Tset_t} \right) \leq 2tK_\xi^2.
\end{aligned}$$ For the second term, by Cauchy-Schwarz and equation , it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}n^{-\tau}\e \left( \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \left\Vert P_m \xi \right\Vert^2 \indic{\Tset_t^\C} \right)
&\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty}n^{-\tau} \e \left( \left\Vert \xi \right\Vert^2 \indic{\Tset_t^\C} \right)\\
&\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty}n^{-\tau} \e \left( \left\Vert \xi \right\Vert^4 \right)^{1/2} \p\left( \Tset_t^\C \right)^{1/2}\\
&= 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} n^{-\tau} \e \left( \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \left\Vert P_m \xi \right\Vert^2 \right) \leq 2tK_\xi^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $t>0$ was arbitrary, this finishes the proof.
\[lemmabiasother\] Under the assumptions and setup of Proposition \[propositionsubgaussianoracle\], for any sub-Gaussian vector $\zeta$ with parameter $K_\zeta$ independent of $Z$,
1. $$\e \left( \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \left\Vert \pp{m} \mu \right\Vert^2 \right) = o(n^\tau).$$
2. $$\e \left( \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \mu^\T \pp{m} \zeta \right) = o(n^\tau).$$
For $m\in\m_u$, let $$\begin{aligned}
r_m\defined \left\Vert \pp{m} \mu \right\Vert^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Fixing $t>0$ arbitrarily, define the set $$\begin{aligned}
\A_t \defined \left\{ m\in\m_u : r_m \leq tn^{\tau} \right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now, $$\begin{aligned}
\e\left( \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m r_m \right)
= \e\left( \sum_{m\in\A_t} w_m r_m \right)
+ \e\left( \sum_{m\in\A_t^\C} w_m r_m \right)
\end{aligned}$$ By the definition of $A_t$, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} n^{-\tau} \e\left( \sum_{m\in\A_t} w_m r_m \right) \leq t.
\end{aligned}$$ For $\A_t^\C$, fix a value of $a>0$, which will be determined later, and define the set $\Tset_a$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\Tset_a \defined \bigcap_{m\in\m_u} \left\{ \left\Vert P_m \xi \right\Vert^2 \leq K_\xi^2 \left( u + 2\sqrt{uan^{\tau}} + 2an^{\tau} \right) \right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ By the calculations from equation , it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equationtsetacprob}
\p \left( \Tset_a^\C \right) \leq \exp\left( -an^\tau + \log\left( |\m_u|\right) \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, note that, by assumption, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \sup_{m\in\m_u} n^{-1} r_m
\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty} n^{-1} \left\Vert \mu \right\Vert^2
\leq C,
\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C>0$. Then, for $n$ sufficiently large, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equationatcdecomposition}
\begin{aligned}
n^{-\tau} \e \left( \sum_{m\in\A_t^\C} w_m r_m \right)
\leq 2C n^{1-\tau} \sum_{m\in\A_t^\C} \e \left( w_m \right)
\leq 2C n^{1-\tau} \sum_{m\in\A_t^\C} \left( \e \left( w_m \indic{\Tset_a} \right) + \p\left( \Tset_a^\C \right) \right).
\end{aligned}
\end{aligned}$$ Fix $m\in\A_t^\C$ temporarily and let $S$ be any weakly sparse set for $\mu$. Then, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
w_m \indic{\Tset_a} &\leq \exp\left( -\frac{1}{\alpha} \left( \left\Vert \pp{m} Y \right\Vert^2 - \left\Vert \pp{S} Y \right\Vert^2 \right) \right)\indic{\Tset_a}\\
&\leq \exp\left( -\frac{1}{\alpha} \left( r_m - r_S + 2\mu^\T\pp{m}\xi - 2\mu^\T\pp{S}\xi - K_\xi^2 \left( u + 2\sqrt{uan^{\tau}} + 2an^{\tau} \right) \right) \right).
\end{aligned}$$ By Cauchy-Schwarz, $$\begin{aligned}
\e\left( w_m \indic{\Tset_a} \right) \leq &\exp\left( -\frac{1}{\alpha}\left( r_m - r_S - K_\xi^2 \left( u + 2\sqrt{uan^{\tau}} + 2an^{\tau} \right) \right) \right)\\
&\times \left( \e \exp\left( -\frac{4}{\alpha} \mu^\T\pp{m}\xi \right) \right)^{1/2}
\left( \e \exp\left( \frac{4}{\alpha} \mu^\T\pp{S}\xi \right) \right)^{1/2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Computing each of the Laplace transforms directly, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\e \exp\left( -\frac{4}{\alpha} \mu^\T\pp{m}\xi \right) \leq \exp\left( \frac{8K_\xi^2}{\alpha^2} r_m \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have used Definition \[definitionsg\]. Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
\e \exp\left( \frac{4}{\alpha} \mu^\T\pp{S}\xi \right) \leq \exp\left( \frac{8K_\xi^2}{\alpha^2} r_S \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\e\left( w_m \indic{\Tset_a} \right) &\leq \exp\left( -\frac{1}{\alpha} \left( \left(1 - \frac{4K_\xi^2}{\alpha}\right)r_m - \left( 1 + \frac{4K_\xi^2}{\alpha}\right)r_S - K_\xi^2 \left( u + 2\sqrt{uan^{\tau}} + 2an^{\tau} \right) \right) \right)\\
&\leq \exp\left( -\frac{1}{\alpha} \left( \left(1 - \frac{4K_\xi^2}{\alpha}\right)tn^\tau - \left( 1 + \frac{4K_\xi^2}{\alpha}\right)r_S - K_\xi^2 \left( u + 2\sqrt{uan^{\tau}} + 2an^{\tau} \right) \right) \right).
\end{aligned}$$ The second inequality follows from the fact that $m\in\A_t^\C$. Since $u = o(n^\tau/\log(p))$, setting $a < \left(1 - 4K_\xi^2/\alpha\right)t/2$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equationweightsatcconcentration}
\e\left( w_m \indic{\Tset_a} \right) \leq \exp\left( -\frac{1}{\alpha}\left(\left( 1 - \frac{4K_\xi^2}{\alpha}\right)t - 2a\right)n^\tau + o(n^\tau) \right)
\end{aligned}$$ Combining equations , , and , it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} n^{-\tau} \e\left( \sum_{m\in\A_t^\C} w_m r_m \right) = 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} n^{-\tau} \e\left( \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m r_m \right) \leq t.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $t>0$ was arbitrary, this proves the first claim. For the second half, define the set $\Fset_t$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\Fset_t \defined \bigcap_{m\in\A_t} \left\{ \left| \mu^\T \pp{m} \zeta \right| \leq tn^{\tau} \right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ For a fixed $m\in\A_t$, it will follow by a Chernoff bound that, for some constant $c>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\p\left( \left| \mu^\T \pp{m} \zeta \right| > tn^{\tau} \right) \leq 2 \exp \left( -\frac{ct^2 n^{2\tau}}{K_\zeta^2 r_m} \right) \leq 2 \exp \left( -\frac{ct n^{\tau}}{K_\zeta^2} \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, an upper bound for $\p\left( \Fset_t^\C \right)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equationfsettcprob}
\p\left( \Fset_t^\C \right) \leq 2 \exp\left( -\frac{ct n^{\tau}}{K_\zeta^2} + \log(|\A_t|) \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Now, $$\begin{aligned}
\e\left(\sum_{m\in\A_t} w_{m} \left|\mu^\T\pp{m}\zeta\right|\right)
= \e\left(\sum_{m\in\A_t} w_{m} \left|\mu^\T\pp{m}\zeta\right| \indic{\Fset_t} \right)
+ \e\left(\sum_{m\in\A_t} w_{m} \left|\mu^\T\pp{m}\zeta\right| \indic{\Fset_t^\C} \right).
\end{aligned}$$ By the definition of $\Fset_t$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\e\left(\sum_{m\in\A_t} w_{m} \left|\mu^\T\pp{m}\zeta\right| \indic{\Fset_t} \right) \leq tn^\tau.
\end{aligned}$$ On $\Fset_t^\C$, two applications of Cauchy-Schwarz and equation yields $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} n^{-\tau}&\e\left(\sum_{m\in\A_t} w_{m} \left|\mu^\T\pp{m}\zeta\right| \indic{\Fset_t^\C} \right)\\
&\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty}n^{-\tau}\left\Vert \mu \right\Vert \e \left( \left\Vert \zeta \right\Vert \indic{\Fset_t^\C} \right)\\
&\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty}n^{-\tau}\left\Vert \mu \right\Vert \left(\e \left\Vert \zeta \right\Vert^2\right)^{1/2} \left( \p\left( \Fset_t^\C \right) \right)^{1/2}\\
&= 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, on $\A_t^\C$, by another two applications of Cauchy-Schwarz, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} n^{-\tau}&\e\left(\sum_{m\in\A_t^\C} w_{m} \left|\mu^\T\pp{m}\zeta\right|\right)\\
&\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty} n^{-\tau}\left\Vert \mu \right\Vert \sum_{m\in\A_t^\C} \e\left( w_{m} \left\Vert \zeta \right\Vert\right)\\
&\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty} n^{-\tau}\left\Vert \mu \right\Vert \sum_{m\in\A_t^\C} \left( \e w_{m}^2 \right)^{1/2} \left(\e \left\Vert \zeta \right\Vert^2\right)^{1/2}\\
&\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty} n^{-\tau} \left\Vert \mu \right\Vert \left(\e \left\Vert \zeta \right\Vert^2\right)^{1/2} \sum_{m\in\A_t^\C} \left( \e w_{m} \right)^{1/2}\\
&\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty} n^{-\tau} \left\Vert \mu \right\Vert \left(\e \left\Vert \zeta \right\Vert^2\right)^{1/2} \sum_{m\in\A_t^\C} \left( \e \left( w_{m} \indic{\Tset_a} \right) + \p\left( \Tset_a^\C \right) \right)^{1/2}\\
&= 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where the limit follows by equations and . Since $t>0$ was arbitrary, this proves the second claim and finishes the proof.
Immediately, we have the following corollary for random designs when the mean vector is assumed to be weakly sparse in probability.
\[corollarybiasother\] Consider the setup of Lemma \[lemmaq=1nonbias\]. If $\mu$ is weakly sparse relative to $Z$ in probability and $\left\Vert \mu \right\Vert^2 = \Op(n^\tau)$, then
1. $$\left( \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \left\Vert \pp{m} \mu \right\Vert^2 \right) = \op(n^\tau).$$
2. $$\left( \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \mu^\T \pp{m} \zeta \right) = \op(n^\tau).$$
With these lemmata, we can now prove Proposition \[propositionsubgaussianoracle\].
Indeed, by convexity of the norm, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m Z\hat{\gamma}_m - \mu \right\Vert^2
\leq \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \left\Vert \pp{m} \mu \right\Vert^2
+ \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \left\Vert P_m \xi \right\Vert^2 .
\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemmata \[lemmabiashw\] and \[lemmabiasother\] finishes the proof.
Instead of directly proving Theorem \[theoremq=1asympdist\], we will decompose the estimator and prove each part separately. Indeed, we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\betahatew = \frac{\left( \nu - Z\deltahatew + \eta \right)^\T \left( \mu - Z\thetahatew + \eta\beta + \epsilon \right)}{\left\Vert X - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n}\betahatew = \Big( &\left(\nu - Z\deltahatew \right)^\T \left( \mu - Z\thetahatew + \eta\beta + \epsilon \right) + \eta^\T\left( \mu - Z\thetahatew \right)\\ &+ \eta^\T\eta\beta + \eta^\T\epsilon \Big) \times \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}\sigma_\eta^2} \times \frac{n\sigma_\eta^2}{\left\Vert X - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert^2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{aligned}$$ We will start by proving that the first line, which corresponds to the bias from inexact orthogonalization, converges to zero.
\[lemmaq=1bias\] Consider the models given in equations and . Under assumptions \[assumptionq=1boundednorms\] – \[assumptionq=1sparsity\], $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\nu - Z\deltahatew \right)^\T \left( \mu - Z\thetahatew + \eta\beta + \epsilon \right) + \eta^\T\left( \mu - Z\thetahatew \right) = \op(\sqrt{n}).
\end{aligned}$$
Without the loss of generality, we will assume that $u \defined u_\theta = u_\delta$. Expanding, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\nu - Z\deltahatew \right)^\T \left( \mu - Z\thetahatew \right) + \left(\nu - Z\deltahatew \right)^\T\left( \eta\beta + \epsilon \right) + \eta^\T\left( \mu - Z\thetahatew \right).
\end{aligned}$$ We will consider each of the three terms separately. By Cauchy-Schwarz and Corollary \[corollarysubgaussianoracle\], it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \left(\nu - Z\deltahatew \right)^\T \left( \mu - Z\thetahatew \right) \right| \leq \left\Vert \nu - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert \left\Vert \mu - Z\thetahatew \right\Vert = \op(\sqrt{n}).
\end{aligned}$$ For the second term, we may further expand to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\nu - Z\deltahatew \right)^\T\left( \eta\beta + \epsilon \right) =& \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_{m,X} \left( \pp{m} \nu - P_m\eta \right)^\T \left( \eta\beta + \epsilon \right)\\
=& \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_{m,X} \nu^\T \pp{m} \left( \eta\beta + \epsilon \right) + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{m\in\m_u} w_{m,X} \left\Vert P_{m} \epsilon \right\Vert^2\\
&- \frac{1}{2}\sum_{m\in\m_u} w_{m,X} \left\Vert P_m \left( \eta + \epsilon \right) \right\Vert^2 \\
&- \left(\beta - \frac{1}{2}\right) \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_m \left\Vert P_m \eta \right\Vert^2 .
\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemma \[lemmabiashw\] and Corollary \[corollarybiasother\], it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\nu - Z\deltahatew \right)^\T\left( \eta\beta + \epsilon \right) = \op(\sqrt{n}).
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
\eta^\T\left( \mu - Z\thetahatew \right) =& \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_{m,Y} \eta^\T \left( \pp{m} \mu - P_m\left( \eta\beta + \epsilon \right) \right)\\
=& \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_{m,Y} \eta^\T \pp{m} \mu - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_{m,Y} \left\Vert P_m\left( \eta(\beta+1) + \epsilon \right) \right\Vert^2 \\&+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_{m,Y} \left\Vert P_m \left( \eta\beta + \epsilon \right) \right\Vert^2 + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m\in\m_u} w_{m,Y} \left\Vert P_m \eta \right\Vert^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Again, applying Lemma \[lemmabiashw\] and Corollary \[corollarybiasother\], it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\eta^\T\left( \mu - Z\thetahatew \right) = \op(\sqrt{n}).
\end{aligned}$$ This finishes the proof.
\[lemmaq=1nonbias\] Consider the models given in equations (\[equationplmy2\]) and (\[equationplmx\]). Under assumptions \[assumptionq=1boundednorms\] – \[assumptionq=1sparsity\],
1. $$\sqrt{n}\left( \frac{\eta^\T\eta\beta}{\left\Vert X - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert^2} - \beta \right) \conp 0.$$
2. $$n^{-1/2}\frac{\eta^\T\epsilon}{\sigma_\eta^2} \cond \n\left( 0 , \frac{\sigma_\epsilon^2}{\sigma_\eta^2}\right).$$
3. $$\frac{n\sigma_\eta^2}{\left\Vert X - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert^2} \conp 1.$$
Indeed, expanding the denominator, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert X - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert^2 = \left\Vert \nu - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert^2 + 2\eta^\T\left( \nu - Z\deltahatew \right) + \left\Vert \eta \right\Vert^2.
\end{aligned}$$ By Corollary \[corollarysubgaussianoracle\] and Lemma \[lemmaq=1bias\], it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert X - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert^2 = \op(\sqrt{n}) + \left\Vert \eta \right\Vert^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, by the Law of Large Numbers, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n} \left\Vert X - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert^2 \conp \sigma_\eta^2.
\end{aligned}$$ This proves the third claim. Now, by direct substitution, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n}\left( \frac{\left(\left\Vert X - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert^2 + \op(\sqrt{n})\right)\beta}{\left\Vert X - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert^2} - \beta \right) = \frac{n}{\left\Vert X - Z\deltahatew \right\Vert^2} \frac{\op(\sqrt{n})}{\sqrt{n}} = \op(1),
\end{aligned}$$ which proves the first claim. The second claim follows by the Central Limit Theorem, which finishes the proof.
The proof follows by combining Lemmata \[lemmaq=1bias\] and \[lemmaq=1nonbias\].
Proofs for Section \[sectionsparsity\]
--------------------------------------
Suppose that $s_\delta = o(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$. We will consider a sequence of $\vartheta \in \Theta(s_\gamma,s_\delta)$ such that $S_\gamma \cap S_\delta = \varnothing$ and $\delta \geq 0$ componentwise. We will construct $\Sigma_{Z,Z}$ implicitly. For $j\in S_\delta^\C$, let $$\begin{aligned}
Z_j \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} \n_n \left( 0_n , I_n \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Before defining $Z_j$ for $j\in S_\delta$, we will need to define another Gaussian matrix $\Xi \in \R^{n\times p}$. For $j\in S_\delta^\C$, set $\Xi_j = 0_n$. Then, for $j\in S_\delta$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi_j \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} \n_n \left( 0_n , \tau_n^2 I_n \right),
\end{aligned}$$ independent of $Z_k$ for all $k \in S_\delta^\C$; the value $\tau_n^2 > 0$ will be determined later. Now, for $j\in S_\delta$, we will let $$\begin{aligned}
Z_j = Z\gamma + \Xi_j.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
Z\delta = Z\gamma \left\Vert \delta \right\Vert_1 + \Xi\delta.
\end{aligned}$$ By a direct calculation, $$\begin{aligned}
\cov( \left(Z\delta\right)_1 , \left(Z\gamma\right)_1) = \cov(\left(Z\gamma\right)_1 \left\Vert \delta \right\Vert_1 + \left(\Xi\delta\right)_1 , \left(Z\gamma\right)_1) = \var(\left(Z\gamma\right)_1)\left\Vert \delta \right\Vert_1.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\var(\left(Z\delta\right)_1) = \var(\left(Z\gamma\right)_1 \left\Vert \delta \right\Vert_1 + \left(\Xi\delta\right)_1) = \var(\left(Z\gamma\right)_1)\left\Vert \delta \right\Vert_1^2 + \tau_n^2\left\Vert \delta \right\Vert_2^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Choosing $\tau_n^2 \to 0$ sufficiently fast, it will follow that $$\begin{aligned}
\var(\left(Z\delta\right)_1) = \var(\left(Z\gamma\right)_1)\left\Vert \delta \right\Vert^2_1 + o\left(n^{-1/2}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, this implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\cov\left( \left(Z\delta\right)_1 , \left( Z\gamma \right)_1 \right) = \sqrt{\var(\left(Z\delta\right)_1)\var(\left(Z\gamma\right)_1)} + o(n^{-1/2}).
\end{aligned}$$ Now, note that $$\begin{aligned}
\cov\left( \left(Z\delta\right)_1 , \left( Z\gamma \right)_1 \right) = \cov\left( X_1 , Y_1 \right) - \beta \var\left( X_1 \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Let $\betahat$ be any $\sqrt{n}$-consistent estimator for $\beta$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n} \left( X^\T Y - \betahat X^\T X \right)
\end{aligned}$$ is a $\sqrt{n}$-consistent estimator for $\cov\left( \left(Z\delta\right)_1 , \left( Z\gamma \right)_1 \right)$. Consider an oracle that has access to the set $S_\delta$, knows $S_\delta \cap S_\gamma = \varnothing$, and knows the covariance structure of the design. Then, since $s_\delta = o(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$, a $\sqrt{n}$-consistent estimator for $\var(\left(Z\delta\right)_1)$ is given by Theorem \[theoremsigmamu\]. This implies that there exists a $\sqrt{n}$-consistent estimator for $\var(\left(Z\gamma\right)_1)$. By the minimax lower bounds established by , it follows that, in order to have a $\sqrt{n}$-consistent estimator for $\var(\left(Z\gamma\right)_1)$, it must be the case that $s_\gamma = \mathcal{O}(\sqrt{n}/\log(p))$. This proves half of the claim. The other half follows by symmetry, which finishes the proof.
[^1]: Supported in part by NSF Grant DMS-1712962.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The friction force acting on a small neutral particle during relativistic motion relative to the blackbody radiation is calculated in the framework of fluctuation electrodynamics. It is shown that the particle acceleration is determined by the friction force in the particle rest reference frame ($K^{\prime}$-frame) which in general is not equal to the friction force in the frame of the blackbody radiation ($K$-frame). The difference between the friction forces in the different frames is connected with the change of the rest mass of a particle due to the absorption and emission of radiation. The friction force in the $K^{\prime}$-frame is determined only by the interaction of a particle with the blackbody radiation. In the $K$-frame the interaction of a particle with its own thermal radiation also contributes to the friction force. For the steady state temperature of a particle the friction forces in the $K^{\prime}$-and $K$-frames are equal. For an atom the blackbody friction is determined by the electronic linewidth broadening which is calculated considering the interaction of an atom with its own radiation. In the ultrarelativistic case ($1-\beta\rightarrow 0$) for an atom the friction force diverges as $(1-\beta)^{-3}$ and the (average) temperature of an atom $T_2\approx (1-\beta)^{-3/8}T_1$, where $T_1$ is the temperature of the blackbody radiation and $\beta=V/c$. Controversies in the theory of the blackbody friction are discussed.'
author:
- 'A. I. Volokitin$^{1,2}$[^1]'
title: Blackbody friction force on a relativistic small neutral particle
---
Introduction
============
A remarkable example of the forces induced by fluctuations is the friction force acting on a particle at motion relative to the fluctuating electromagnetic field created by thermal and quantum fluctuations. At present the radiation friction is attracting a lot of attention due to the fact that it is one of the mechanisms of non-contact friction between bodies in the absence of direct contact [@VolokitinRMP2007]. The non-contact friction determines the ultimate limit to which the friction force can be reduced and, consequently, also the force fluctuations. The force fluctuations (and hence friction) are important for ultrasensitive force registration. Perhaps the most exciting application of these ideas is associated with mechanical detection of nuclear spin resonance [@RugarNature2004]. For example, a single spin detection using magnetic resonance force microscopy [@SidlesRMP1995] (which was proposed to obtain images of biological objects, such as proteins, with atomic resolution) and for quantum computing [@BermanPRB200] would require reducing the fluctuating forces (and therefore friction) to unprecedented levels. In addition, the measurements of gravitation interactions at a small length scale [@ArkaniPLB1998], and the future measurements of the Casimir forces [@SushkovNature2011] and the behavior of micro-and nano-electromechanical devices may eventually be limited by non-contact friction effects.
Radiative friction has deep roots in the foundation of quantum mechanics. Friction force during the motion of a particle relative to the blackbody radiation, which is a limiting case of the fluctuating electromagnetic field, was studied by Einstein and Hopf [@Einstein1910] and Einstein [@Einstein1917] in the early days of quantum mechanics. The friction in this case can be explained by the direction-dependent Doppler effect. In the rest reference frame an atom absorbs blue-shifted counterpropagating blackbody photons, while emitting these photons in all directions which leads to the momentum transfer and friction. Blackbody radiation friction is connected with the interaction of atoms with the cosmic blackbody radiation [@GreiserPRL1966; @ZatsepinJETPLett1966; @MkrtchianPRL2003]. The friction induced by electromagnetic fluctuations was studied in the plate-plate [@PendryJPCM1997; @VolokitinJPCM1999; @VolokitinPRL2003; @VolokitinPRB2003; @VolokitinRMP2007; @VolokitinPRB2008], neutral particle-plate [@TomassonePRB1997; @VolokitinPRB2002; @VolokitinRMP2007; @DedkovPLA2005; @DedkovJPCM2008; @BrevikEntropy2013; @KardarPRD2013; @BrevikEPJD2014; @BartonNJP2010; @HenkelNJP2013; @DalvitPRA2014], and neutral particle-blackbody radiation [@VolokitinRMP2007; @VolokitinPRB2008; @HenkelNJP2013; @MkrtchianPRL2003; @DedkovPLA2005; @DedkovNIMPR2010; @DedkovPhysScr2014; @JentschuraPRL2012; @JentschuraPRL2015] configurations. However, the theory of radiative friction is still controversial. As an example, different authors have studied the friction force between a small neutral particle and blackbody radiation [@VolokitinRMP2007; @VolokitinPRB2008; @HenkelNJP2013; @MkrtchianPRL2003; @DedkovPLA2005; @DedkovNIMPR2010; @DedkovPhysScr2014; @JentschuraPRL2012; @JentschuraPRL2015], using different approaches, and have obtained results which are in sharp contradiction to each other. In Refs. [@Einstein1910; @Einstein1917; @VolokitinRMP2007; @VolokitinPRB2008; @MkrtchianPRL2003] only interaction of a particle with blackbody radiation was taken into account, therefore the friction force depends only on the temperature of this radiation. On the other hand, in Refs. [@HenkelNJP2013; @DedkovPLA2005; @DedkovNIMPR2010] the interaction of a particle with its own thermal radiation was also taken into account, in this case the friction force depends on the temperatures of both a particle and the blackbody radiation. Controversies between different theories of blackbody radiation friction recently were discussed in Ref. [@DedkovNIMPR2010].
In the present paper a general theory of the blackbody friction for a neutral particle at relativistic motion relative to the blackbody radiation which includes as limiting cases the previous theories from Refs.[@VolokitinRMP2007; @VolokitinPRB2008; @HenkelNJP2013; @MkrtchianPRL2003; @DedkovPLA2005; @DedkovNIMPR2010; @DedkovPhysScr2014; @JentschuraPRL2012; @JentschuraPRL2015] is developed. This general theory establishes a link between the different theories of the blackbody friction. In sharp contrast to the opinion of the authors of Ref.[@DedkovNIMPR2010] the total friction forces acting on a particle in the frame of the blackbody radiation ($K$-frame) and in the rest frame of a particle ($K^{\prime}$-frame) are not equal. This difference is due to the change of the rest mass of a particle as a result of the absorption and emission of radiation by a particle. Recently, Ref. [@HenkelNJP2013] used a fully covariant formulation of the blackbody friction. However, the physical origin of the difference of the friction force in the different frame and the condition for the steady state temperature of a particle were not established in that article.
Theory
======
We introduce two reference frames, $K$ and $K^{\prime}$. $K$ is the frame of blackbody radiation, and $K^{\prime}$ moves with velocity $V$ along the $x$ axis. In the $K^{\prime}$ frame a particle moves with velocity $v^{\prime}\ll V$ along the $x$-axis. At the motion of a particle with acceleration the $K^{\prime}$ frame coincides with the particle rest reference frame only at $t=t_0$ when $v^{\prime}(t_0)=0$. However, for $v^{\prime}\ll V$ the difference between the friction forces in the $K^{\prime}$ frame and the particle rest reference frame can be neglected thus in this paper the $K^{\prime}$ frame is denoted as the particle rest reference frame. The relation between the $x$ components of the momentum in the different reference frames is given by $$p_x=(p_x^{\prime}+\beta E^{\prime}/c)\gamma, \label{1bb1}$$ where $\beta=V/c$, $\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}$, $E^{\prime}=E_0/\sqrt{1-(v^{\prime}/c)^2}$ is the total energy of a particle in the $K^{\prime}$ frame, and $E_0=m_0c^2$ is the rest energy of a particle. The rest energy can change due to the absorption and emission of thermal radiation by a particle. The connection between forces in the $K$ and $K^{\prime}$ frames follows from Eq. (\[1bb1\]) $$\frac{dp_x}{dt}=\frac{1}{1+(Vv^{\prime}/c^2)}\left[\frac{dp_x^{\prime}}{dt^{\prime}}+V
\frac{dm_0}{dt^{\prime}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(v^{\prime}/c)^2}}+m_0V\frac{d}{dt^{\prime}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(v^{\prime}/c)^2}}\right)\right]. \label{2bb1}$$ For $v^{\prime}\ll V$ from (\[2bb1\]) we get $$F_x=F_x^{\prime}+V
\frac{dm_0}{dt^{\prime}},
\label{2bb11}$$ where $F_x$ and $F_x^{\prime}$ are the forces in the $K$ and $K^{\prime}$ frames, respectively. The last term in Eq. (\[2bb11\]) determines the rate of change of the momentum of a particle in the $K$ frame due to the change of its rest mass as a result of the absorption and emission of radiation by a particle. Taking into account that at $v^{\prime}\ll V$ $$\frac{dp_x}{dt} =
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{m_0v}{\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}}\right)=\frac{dm_0}{dt^{\prime}}V +
m_0\gamma^3\frac{dv}{dt}, \label{4bb1}$$ from Eq. (\[2bb11\]) we get $$m_0\gamma^3\frac{dv}{dt}=\frac{dp_x^{\prime}}{dt^{\prime}}=F_x^{\prime},
\label{4bc}$$ where $v$ is the velocity of a particle in the $K$ frame. From Eq. (\[4bc\]) it follows that acceleration in the $K$ frame is determined by the friction force in the $K^{\prime}$ frame.
At uniform motion of a particle an external force $f_x$ should be applied to it. At $V=$const the equation of the motion of a particle is $$\gamma V\frac{dm_0}{dt}=F_x+f_x.
\label{equation1}$$ If the force $f_x$ does not change the rest mass of a particle, then its value is the same in the $K$ and $K^{\prime}$ frames, i.e., $f_x=f_x^{\prime}$. In this case $$f_x=-F_x+\gamma V\frac{dm_0}{dt}=-F_x+\frac{dm_0}{dt^{\prime}}V=-F_x^{\prime},
\label{equation2}$$ that is, for uniform motion of a particle, an external force that is equal but opposite in sign to the friction force in the $K^{\prime}$ frame should be applied to it.
In the $K^{\prime}$ frame the Lorentz force on the particle is determined by the expression [@VolokitinPRB2002; @Dedkov2008]
$$F_x^{\prime} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x ^{\prime}}\langle
\mathbf{d_e^{\prime}\cdot E^{\prime
*}(r^{\prime})}\rangle_{\mathbf{r^{\prime} =r^{\prime}_0}} , \label{6bb}$$
where according to the fluctuation electrodynamics [@Rytov53; @Rytov67; @Rytov89] $\mathbf{d}_e^{\prime}=\mathbf{d}_e^{f\prime}+\mathbf{d}_e^{in\prime}$, $\mathbf{E}^{\prime}=
\mathbf{E}^{f\prime}+\mathbf{E}^{in\prime}$, $\mathbf{d}_e^{f\prime}$ and $\mathbf{E}^{f\prime}$ are the fluctuating dipole moment of a particle and the electric field of the blackbody radiation, and $\mathbf{d}_e^{in\prime}$ and $\mathbf{E}^{in\prime}$ are the dipole moment of a particle induced by the blackbody radiation and the electric field induced by the fluctuating dipole moment of a particle, respectively. Taking into account the statistical independence of the fluctuating values, the Lorentz force can be written in the form $$F_x^{\prime} = F_{1x}^{\prime}+ F_{2x}^{\prime}, \label{6bb2}$$ where $$F_{1x}^{\prime} =\frac{\partial}{\partial x ^{\prime}}\langle
\mathbf{d_e^{in\prime}\cdot E^{f\prime
*}(r^{\prime})}\rangle_{\mathbf{r^{\prime} =r^{\prime}_0}}, \label{6bb2}$$ $$F_{2x}^{\prime} =\frac{\partial}{\partial x ^{\prime}}\langle
\mathbf{d_e^{f\prime}\cdot E^{in\prime
*}(r^{\prime})}\rangle_{\mathbf{r^{\prime} =r^{\prime}_0}}. \label{6bb3}$$
To calculate $F_{1x}^{\prime}$ while writing the electric field in the $K^{\prime}$ frame as a Fourier integral $$\mathbf{E}^{f\prime
}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime}, t^{\prime})
= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\frac{d\omega^{\prime}}{2\pi}\int
\frac{d^3k^{\prime}}{(2\pi)^3}e^{i\mathbf{k}^{\prime}\cdot\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-i\omega^{\prime}t^{\prime}}\mathbf{E}^{f\prime
}(\mathbf{k}^{\prime}, \omega^{\prime}),$$ and taking into account that $$\mathbf{d}_e^{in\prime} =
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\frac{d\omega^{\prime}}{2\pi}\int
\frac{d^3k^{\prime}}{(2\pi)^3}\alpha(\omega^{\prime})e^{i\mathbf{k}^{\prime}\cdot\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-i\omega^{\prime}t^{\prime}}\mathbf{E}^{f\prime
}(\mathbf{k}^{\prime}, \omega^{\prime}),$$ where $\alpha(\omega^{\prime})$ is the particle polarizability, we get $$F_{1x}^{\prime}
=-i\int_{\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega^{\prime}}{2\pi}\int
\frac{d^3k^{\prime}}{(2\pi)^3}k_x^{\prime}
\alpha(\omega^{\prime})\langle \mathbf{E^{f\prime}\cdot
E^{f\prime *}}\rangle_{\omega^{\prime}\mathbf{k}^{\prime}}.
\label{7bb}$$ When we change from the $K^{\prime}$ frame to the $K$ frame $\langle \mathbf{E^{\prime}\cdot E^{\prime *}}\rangle_{\omega^{\prime}\mathbf{k}^{\prime}}$ is transformed as the energy density of a plane electromagnetic field. From the law of transformation of the energy density of a plane electromagnetic field [@LandauField] we get $$\langle \mathbf{E^{f\prime}\cdot E^{f\prime
*}}\rangle_{\omega^{\prime}\mathbf{k}^{\prime}} = \langle
\mathbf{E^f\cdot E^{f *}}\rangle_{\omega
\mathbf{k}}\left(\frac{\omega^{\prime}}{\omega}\right)^2.
\label{8bb}$$ According to the theory of the fluctuating electromagnetic field the spectral density of the fluctuations of the electric field is determined by [@Lifshitz80] $$<E_i^f(\mathbf{r})E_j^{f*}(\mathbf{r^{\prime}})>_{\omega \mathbf{k}}
=\hbar\mathrm{Im}D_{ij}(\mathbf{k},
\omega)\coth\left(\frac{\hbar
\omega}{2k_BT_1}\right),\label{thelh3}$$ where the Green’s function of the electromagnetic field in the free space is determined by $$D_{ik}(\omega, \mathbf{k}) = -
\frac{4\pi\omega^2/c^2}{\omega^2/c^2 - k^2 + i0\cdot \mathrm{sgn}
\,\omega }\left[\delta_{ik} - \frac{c^2k_ik_k}{\omega^2
}\right], \label{thelh2a}$$ $T_1$ is the temperature of the blackbody radiation. Taking into account that $$\mathrm{Im}\frac{1}{\omega^2/c^2 - k^2 + i0\cdot \mathrm{sign}
\,\omega }=
\mathrm{Im}\frac{1}{\omega^{\prime 2}/c^2 - k^{\prime 2} + i0\cdot \mathrm{sgn}
\,\omega^{\prime } },$$ we get $$\langle \mathbf{E^{f\prime}\cdot E^{f\prime*}}\rangle_{\omega^{\prime} \mathbf{k}^{\prime}} = 4\pi^2
\hbar k^{\prime} \left\{\delta (\frac{\omega^{\prime}}{c}-k^{\prime}) - \delta
(\frac{\omega^{\prime}}{c}+k^{\prime})\right\}\coth\left(\frac{\hbar
\omega}{2k_BT_1}\right). \label{9bb}$$
Substitution (\[9bb\]) in Eq. (\[7bb\]) and integration over $\omega^{\prime}$ give $$F_{1x}^{\prime} = \frac{\hbar c}{2\pi^2}\int d^3k^{\prime} k^{\prime} k_x^{\prime}
\mathrm{Im}\alpha (ck^{\prime})
\coth\left(\frac{\hbar\gamma
(ck^{\prime}+Vk_x^{\prime})}{2k_BT_1}\right),
\label{12bb}$$ where it was taken into account, that $\omega = (\omega^{\prime}
+ k^{\prime}_xV)\gamma$. Introducing the new variable $\omega^{\prime} = ck^{\prime}$, (\[12bb\]) can be written in the form $$F_{1x}^{\prime} = \frac{\hbar }{\pi c^2}\int_0^{\infty} d\omega^{\prime} \omega^{\prime2}
\int_{-\omega^{\prime}/c}^{\omega^{\prime}/c} dk_x^{\prime} k_x^{\prime} \mathrm{Im}\alpha (\omega^{\prime})
\coth\left(\frac{\hbar\gamma
(\omega^{\prime}+Vk_x^{\prime})}{2k_BT_1}\right).
\label{13bb}$$ At small velocities ($V\ll c$)$ F_x = -\Gamma V$, where $$\Gamma =\frac{ \hbar ^2}{3\pi c^5k_BT_1}\int_0^\infty d\omega
\frac{ \omega ^5\mathrm{Im}\alpha (\omega )}{\sinh ^2(\frac{
\hbar \omega}{2k_BT_1} )}, \label{bb1}$$ Equation (\[bb1\]) was first derived in Ref. [@MkrtchianPRL2003] using a different approach. The rate of change of the rest energy of a particle in the $K^{\prime}$ frame due to the absorption of blackbody radiation is determined by the equation $$P_1^{\prime}=\frac{dm_0}{dt^{\prime}}c^2=\langle
\mathbf{j}_e^{in\prime}\cdot \mathbf{E}^{f\prime
*}\rangle =
\frac{\partial}{\partial t ^{\prime}}\langle
\mathbf{d}_e^{in\prime}(t^{\prime})\cdot \mathbf{E}^{f\prime
*}(t^{\prime}_0)\rangle_{t^{\prime} =t^{\prime}_0} . \label{6bb}$$ After the calculations, which are similar to what was done when calculating $F_{1x}^{\prime}$ we get $$P_1^{\prime} = \frac{\hbar }{\pi c^2}\int_0^{\infty} d\omega^{\prime} \omega^{\prime2}
\int_{-\omega^{\prime}/c}^{\omega^{\prime}/c} dk_x^{\prime} \omega^{\prime} \mathrm{Im}\alpha (\omega^{\prime})
\coth\left(\frac{\hbar
\gamma(\omega^{\prime}+Vk_x^{\prime})}{2k_BT_1}\right).
\label{13bbh}$$ From Eq. (\[2bb11\]) the friction force acting on a particle in the $K$-frame due to the interaction with the blackbody radiation is given by $$F_{1x}=F_{1x}^{\prime}+\beta \frac{P_1^{\prime}}{c}$$ $$= \frac{\hbar }{\pi c^2}\int_0^{\infty} d\omega^{\prime} \omega^{\prime2}
\int_{-\omega^{\prime}/c}^{\omega^{\prime}/c} dk_x^{\prime} (k_x^{\prime}+\beta\frac{\omega^{\prime}}{c}) \mathrm{Im}\alpha (\omega^{\prime})
\coth\left(\frac{\hbar
\gamma(\omega^{\prime}+Vk_x^{\prime})}{2k_BT_1}\right).
\label{14bb}$$ Introducing the new variables: $k_x^{\prime}=\gamma(q_x-\beta\omega/c)$, $\omega^{\prime}=\gamma(\omega-Vk_x)$ in the integral (\[14bb\]) we get $$F_{1x} = \frac{\hbar\gamma }{\pi c^2}\int_0^{\infty} d\omega
\int_{-\omega/c}^{\omega/c} dk_x k_x (\omega-Vk_x)^2\mathrm{Im}\alpha [\gamma(\omega-Vk_x)]
\coth\left(\frac{\hbar
\omega}{2k_BT_1}\right),
\label{15bb}$$ where we have taken into account that $d\omega^{\prime}dq_x^{\prime}=d\omega dq_x$. To calculate $F_{2x}^{\prime}$ in the $K^{\prime}$ frame we use the representation of the fluctuating dipole moment of a particle as a Fourier integral $$\mathbf{d}^{f}( t^{\prime})
= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\frac{d\omega^{\prime}}{2\pi}e^{-i\omega^{\prime}t^{\prime}}\mathbf{d}^{f
}( \omega^{\prime}).
\label{16bb}$$ The electric field created in the $K^{\prime}$ frame by the fluctuating dipole moment of a particle is determined by the equation $$E_i^{in\prime
}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime}, t^{\prime})
= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\frac{d\omega^{\prime}}{2\pi}\int
\frac{d^3k^{\prime}}{(2\pi)^3}e^{i\mathbf{k}^{\prime}\cdot(\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-\mathbf{r}_0^{\prime})-i\omega^{\prime}t^{\prime}}
D_{ik}(\omega^{\prime}, \mathbf{k}^{\prime})d_k^{f
}( \omega^{\prime}).
\label{17bb}$$ According to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, the spectral density of the fluctuations of the fluctuating dipole moment is determined by the equation [@Lifshitz80] $$<d^f_id_k^{f*}>_{\omega^{\prime}}
=\hbar\mathrm{Im}\alpha(
\omega^{\prime})\coth\left(\frac{\hbar
\omega^{\prime}}{2k_BT_2}\right)\delta_{ik},\label{18bb}$$ where $T_2$ is the temperature of a particle. Substituting Eqs. (\[16bb\]) and (\[17bb\]) in Eq. (\[6bb3\]) and taking into account Eq. (\[18bb\]), we get $$F_{2x}^{\prime} = -\frac{\hbar }{\pi c^2}\int_0^{\infty} d\omega^{\prime} \omega^{\prime2}
\int_{-\omega^{\prime}/c}^{\omega^{\prime}/c} dk_x^{\prime} k_x^{\prime} \mathrm{Im}\alpha (\omega^{\prime})
\coth\left(\frac{\hbar
\gamma\omega^{\prime}}{2k_BT_2}\right)=0.
\label{19bb}$$ Thus, in the rest reference frame of a particle the friction force due to its own thermal radiation is zero. This result due to the fact that in this frame, due to the symmetry, the total radiated momentum from the dipole radiation is identically zero. Thus the change in momentum of a particle in the rest reference frame is determined by the Lorentz force $F_x^{\prime}$ acting on a particle from the external electromagnetic field associated with the blackbody radiation observed in this reference frame. The rate of change of the rest energy of a particle in the $K^{\prime}$ frame due to its thermal radiation can be obtained with similar calculations $$P_2^{\prime}=\langle
\mathbf{j}_e^{f\prime}\cdot \mathbf{E}^{in\prime
*}\rangle =
\frac{\partial}{\partial t ^{\prime}}\langle
\mathbf{d}_e^{f\prime}(t^{\prime})\cdot \mathbf{E}^{in\prime
*}(t^{\prime}_0)\rangle_{t^{\prime} =t^{\prime}_0}$$ $$= -\frac{\hbar }{\pi c^2}\int_0^{\infty} d\omega^{\prime} \omega^{\prime2}
\int_{-\omega^{\prime}/c}^{\omega^{\prime}/c} dk_x^{\prime} \omega^{\prime} \mathrm{Im}\alpha (\omega^{\prime})
\coth\left(\frac{\hbar
\gamma\omega^{\prime}}{2k_BT_2}\right),
\label{20bb}$$ and the friction force in the $K$ frame associated with thermal radiation of a particle is given by $$F_{2x} = F_{2x}^{\prime} + \beta\frac{P_2^{\prime}}{c}=-\frac{\hbar\gamma }{\pi c^2}\int_0^{\infty} d\omega
\int_{-\omega/c}^{\omega/c} dk_x k_x (\omega-Vk_x)^2\mathrm{Im}\alpha [\gamma(\omega-Vk_x)]
\coth\left(\frac{\hbar
\gamma(\omega-Vk_x)}{2k_BT_2}\right),
\label{15bb}$$ The total friction force in the $K$ frame is given by $$F_x=F_{1x}+F_{2x} = \frac{2\hbar\gamma }{\pi c^2}\int_0^{\infty} d\omega
\int_{-\omega/c}^{\omega/c} dk_x k_x (\omega-Vk_x)^2\mathrm{Im}\alpha (\gamma(\omega-Vk_x))(n_1(\omega)-n_2(\omega^{\prime})),
\label{16bbf}$$ where $n_i(\omega)=[\exp(\hbar\omega/k_BT_i)-1]^{-1}$. Equation (\[16bbf\]) was first derived in Ref. [@DedkovPLA2005]. Recently, it was derived on the basis of a relativistically covariant theory [@HenkelNJP2013]. The approach presented in this paper is more compact and transparent, and it gives us the possibility to connect the difference between the friction forces in the different frames to the absorption and emission of radiation by a particle. Note that the friction force $F_x$ can be either positive or negative. However, the acceleration, which is determined by the friction force $F_x^{\prime}$, is always negative. The total heat absorbed by a particle in the $K^{\prime}$-frame is determined by the equation $$P^{\prime}=P^{\prime}_1+P^{\prime}_2=\frac{2\hbar\gamma^2 }{\pi c^2}\int_0^{\infty} d\omega^{\prime}
\int_{-\omega^{\prime}/c}^{\omega^{\prime}/c} dk_x^{\prime}\omega ^{\prime} (\omega-Vq_x)^2\mathrm{Im}\alpha [\gamma(\omega-Vq_x)](n_1(\omega)-n_2(\omega^{\prime})).
\label{17bbh}$$ In the $K$ frame the total change in energy of a particle due to the interaction with radiation can be calculated from the law of the transformation of energy of a particle: $E=\gamma(E^{\prime}+p^{\prime}_xV)$, where $E$ and $E^{\prime}$ are the total energy of a particle in the $K$ and $K^{\prime}$ frames, respectively. From this relation we get the equation for the rate of change of the energy of a particle in the $K$ frame $$\frac{dE}{dt}=P=P^{\prime}+F_x^{\prime}V=\frac{2\hbar\gamma }{\pi c^2}\int_0^{\infty} d\omega
\int_{-\omega/c}^{\omega/c} dk_x\omega (\omega-Vk_x)^2\mathrm{Im}\alpha [\gamma(\omega-Vk_x)][n_1(\omega)-n_2(\omega^{\prime})].
\label{18bbh}$$ Formula (\[17bbh\]) was also recently obtained in [@DedkovPhysScr2014] using a different approach. The rate of change of the energy of the blackbody radiation in the $K$ frame is determined by the equation $dW_{BB}/dt=-P$. The steady-state temperature of a particle is determined by the condition $P^{\prime}(T_1,T_2)=0$, and for this state $F_x=F_x^{\prime}$ and $P=F_x^{\prime}V$.
Results
=======
The friction force acting on a particle moving relative to the blackbody radiation is determined by the imaginary part of the particle polarizability. For an atom the imaginary part of the polarizability is determined by the atom electronic linewidth broadening due to the radiation mechanism which can be calculated considering the interaction of an atom with its own radiation. Taking into account this interaction, the dipole moment of an atom induced by an external electric field $E_x^{ext}(\omega,\mathbf{r}_0)$ can be written in the form [@VolokitinPRB2002; @VolokitinPRB2006] $$p_x^{ind}=\alpha_0(\omega)(\omega)[E_x^{ind}(\omega,\mathbf{r}_0)+E_x^{ext}(\omega,\mathbf{r}_0)],
\label{dipol1}$$ where in the single-oscillator model without the radiation linewidth broadening the atomic polarizability is given by the equation $$\alpha_0(\omega)=\frac{\alpha(0)\omega_0^2}{\omega_0^2-\omega^2},
\label{dipol2}$$ $\alpha(0)$ is the static polarizability of an atom, and $E_x^{ind}(\omega,\mathbf{r}_0)$ is the radiation electric field created by the induced dipole moment of an atom. In the Coulomb gauge, which is used in this article, the Green’s function of the electromagnetic field determines the electric field created by the unit point dipole, so $E_x^{ind}(\omega,\mathbf{r}_0)= \tilde{D}_{xx}(\omega,\mathbf{r}_0,\mathbf{r}_0)p_x^{ind}$, where $\tilde{D}_{xx}(\omega,\mathbf{r}_0,\mathbf{r}_0)$ is the reduced part of the Green’s function of the electromagnetic field in the vacuum, which takes into account only the contribution from the propagating electromagnetic waves and determines the radiation in the far field. The Green’s function of the electromagnetic field in the vacuum $D_{xx}(\omega,\mathbf{r}_0,\mathbf{r}_0)$ diverges at $\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{r}_0$. However, the contribution from the propagating waves remains finite and purely imaginary at $\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{r}_0$, and the divergent contribution from the evanescent waves is real. Therefore, $\tilde{D}_{xx}(\omega,\mathbf{r}_0,\mathbf{r}_0)=i\mathrm{Im}D_{xx}(\mathbf{r_0},\mathbf{r_0})$. From Eqs. (\[dipol1\]) and (\[dipol2\]) we get $$\mathrm{Im}\alpha(\omega) = \mathrm{Im}\frac{p_x^{ind}}{E_x^{ext}(\omega,\mathbf{r}_0)}= \mathrm{Im}\frac{\alpha(0)\omega_0^2}{\omega_0^2-\omega^2-i\alpha(0)\omega_0^2\mathrm{Im}D_{xx}(\mathbf{r_0},\mathbf{r_0})}=
\frac{\alpha^2(0)\omega_0^4\mathrm{Im}D_{xx}(\mathbf{r_0},\mathbf{r_0})}{(\omega_0^2-\omega^2)^2+[\alpha(0)\omega_0^2\mathrm{Im}D_{xx}]^2},
\label{19bb}$$ where $$\mathrm{Im}D_{xx}(\mathbf{r_0},\mathbf{r_0})=\mathrm{Im}D_{yy}=\mathrm{Im}D_{zz}
= \int
\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
\mathrm{Im}D_{xx}(\omega, \mathbf{k})=\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{\omega}{c}\right)^3\mathrm{sgn}\,\omega.
\label{18bbd}$$ At the resonance ($\omega^2\approx\omega_0^2$) usually $\alpha(0)\mathrm{Im}D_{xx}\ll 1$ (for example, for a hydrogen atom it is $\sim 10^{-6}$) thus the limit $\alpha(0)D_{xx}\rightarrow i0$ can be taken. In this case the resonant contribution is given by $$\mathrm{Im}\alpha(\omega)\approx \frac{\pi\alpha(0)\omega_0}{2}[\delta(\omega-\omega_0)-\delta(\omega+\omega_0)],
\label{20bbd}$$ and the off-resonant contribution in the field far from resonance ($\omega^2\ll\omega_0^2$) $$\mathrm{Im}\alpha(\omega)\approx \frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{\omega}{c}\right)^3\alpha^2(0)\mathrm{sign}\,\omega.
\label{21bbd}$$ Recently, the result (\[21bbd\]) was also obtained using quantum electrodynamics [@JentschuraPRL2015]. However, the analysis presented in this paper, is much simpler, and it clarifies the physical meaning of the terms of the series of the perturbation theory of quantum electrodynamics. Using Eqs. (\[20bbd\]) and (\[21bbd\]) in Eq. (\[13bb\]) we get the resonant and off-resonant contributions to the friction force $$F_{1x}^{res}=\frac{ \hbar \omega^5_0\alpha(0)}{ c^4}\int_{-1}^1dxx\left[\exp{\left(\frac{\hbar\gamma\omega_0(1+\beta x)}{k_BT_1}\right)}-1\right]^{-1},
\label{21bbfr}$$ $$F_{1x}^{nonres}=-\frac{ 512\pi^7\hbar \alpha(0)^2\gamma^6}{945 c^7 }\left(\frac{k_BT_1}{\hbar}\right)^8(7\beta+14\beta^3+3\beta^5),
\label{22bbfnr}$$
At $\beta \ll 1$ the friction force $F_{1x}=-\Gamma V$, where the resonant and off-resonant contributions to the friction coefficient are $$\Gamma_{res}=\frac{ \hbar ^2\alpha(0)\omega^6_0}{6 c^5k_BT_1}
\frac{ 1}{\sinh ^2(\frac{
\hbar \omega_0}{2k_BT_1} )},
\label{22bb}$$ $$\Gamma_{nonres}=\frac{ 512\pi^7\hbar \alpha(0)^2}{135 c^8 }\left(\frac{k_BT_1}{\hbar}\right)^8,
\label{23bb}$$ Results (\[22bb\]) and (\[23bb\]) were already obtained in Refs. [@MkrtchianPRL2003; @JentschuraPRL2015]. In the ultrarelativistic case ($1-\beta \ll k_BT_1/\hbar\omega_0\ll 1$) $$F_{1x}^{res}=\frac{ \omega^4_0\alpha(0)}{ c^4}\sqrt{2}k_BT_1\sqrt{1-\beta}\ln\frac{\hbar \omega_0\sqrt{1-\beta}}{\sqrt{2}k_BT_1},
\label{21bbfrr}$$ $$F_{1x}^{nonres}=\frac{ 216\pi^7\hbar \alpha(0)^2}{135 c^7 (1-\beta)^3}\left(\frac{k_BT_1}{\hbar}\right)^8
\label{22bbfnrr}$$ Thus in the ultrarelativistic case $F_{1x}^{res}\sim\sqrt{1-\beta}\ln\sqrt{1-\beta}\rightarrow 0$ and $F_{1x}^{nonres}\sim (1-\beta)^{-3}\rightarrow \infty$ at $1-\beta \rightarrow 0$.
For small velocities and typical temperatures the infrared thermal peak of the blackbody radiation is far below the resonance frequency $\omega_0$, so it dominates the far-off-resonant contribution (\[22bb\]), which has already been mentioned in Ref. [@JentschuraPRL2012]. However, in the ultrarelativistic case the friction is dominated by the far-off-resonant contribution for all temperatures.
According to Eq. (\[17bbh\]) the total heat absorbed by an atom in the $K^{\prime}$ frame is determined by the equation $$P^{\prime}=\frac{ 128\pi^7 k_B^8\alpha(0)^2}{315 c^6\hbar^7 }\left[\gamma^6(7+35\beta^2+21\beta^4+\beta^6)T_1^8-7T_2^8\right].
\label{17bbhr}$$ For small velocities the steady-state temperature of a particle $T_2=T_1$ and in the ultrarelativistic case $T_2\approx (1-\beta)^{-3/8}T_1$. The problem in calculating the imaginary part of the atom’s polarizability in the far off-resonant field was considered in Ref. [@JentschuraPRL2012]. It was noted that in the literature there are still questions still remain regarding the gauge invariance of the imaginary part of the polarizability. In this paper, the imaginary part of the atomic polarizability in the field far from resonance is determined by the imaginary part of the electric field of the unit point dipole, which is a gauge-invariant quantity. In the Coulomb gauge, which is used in this article, the electric field of the unit point dipole is the same as the Green’s function of the electromagnetic field. At another gauge the expression for the Green’s function will changed; however, the electric field determined with this Green’s function will remain unchanged. Therefore, despite the fact that the Green’s function for the electromagnetic field is a gauge-dependent quantity, the imaginary part of the atomic polarizability calculated in this article is a gauge-invariant quantity. The gauge invariance of the obtained results are also confirmed by the direct calculation using quantum electrodynamics [@JentschuraPRL2015]. The gauge-invariant formulation presented in this paper confirms that the polarizability of the atom, for small frequencies, is a nonresonant effect, which is proportional to $\omega^3$ for small driving frequency $\omega$. This is consistent with the gauge-invariant analysis conducted in Ref. [@JentschuraPRL2015].
Discussion
==========
The theory of the friction force at the relativistic movement of a small neutral particle relative to the blackbody radiation was developed by Dedkov and Kyasov [@DedkovPLA2005; @DedkovNIMPR2010; @DedkovPhysScr2014] (DK) in a series of works in which the friction force in the $K$ frame was calculated. Recently DK’s results were confirmed within the framework of a fully covariant theory [@HenkelNJP2013]. In Ref.[@VolokitinPRB2008] we proposed an alternative theory (VP) in which the friction force in the $K^{\prime}$ frame was calculated. This theory was criticized by DK in Ref.[@DedkovNIMPR2010]. In this paper, a general theory which includes previous theories and establishes a link between them is developed. Within this theory we refute the criticisms of the VP theory made by DK. The key point in the VP theory is the establishment of the relation between the friction forces in the $K$ and $K^{\prime}$ frames. According to the VP theory these friction forces are generally not equal but differ due to the change in the rest mass of a particle as a result of absorption and emission of radiation by a particle. This result is in sharp contradiction to the opinion of DK in Ref.[@DedkovNIMPR2010] which overlooked the effect of changing the rest mass of a particle. As a result, they came to the conclusion (which we find to be incorrect) that in the general case the total friction forces, which consist from the contributions from the interaction of a particle with the blackbody radiation and with its own radiation, in the $K$ and $K^{\prime}$ frames are equal. DK suggested [@DedkovNIMPR2010] that, in the general case, the contribution to the friction force from the interaction of a particle with its own radiation in the $K^{\prime}$ frame is not equal to zero, which we believe is incorrect. In the present paper the result that this frictional force is equal to zero is proved by rigorous calculation. However, this result is evident from the symmetry of the dipole radiation in the $K^{\prime}$ frame. Due to this symmetry the momentum emitted by a particle, and hence the force due to the interaction of a particle with its own radiation, is equal to zero. So, if we follow the reasoning of DK, the total friction force in the $K$ frame in general case should be equal to the contribution to the friction force in the $K^{\prime}$ frame due to the interaction of a particle with the blackbody radiation, which we find to be incorrect and contradicts opinions stated by DK. As shown in the present work, the equality of the total friction forces in the $K$ and $K^{\prime}$ frames takes place only in the special (but physically most important) case of motion of a particle with a steady- state temperature. In this case the particle rest mass does not change and friction forces in the $K$ and $K^{\prime}$ frames are equal to the friction force in the $K^{\prime}$ frame due to the interaction of a particle with the blackbody radiation, which also contradicts the opinion of DK. In addition, considering the relativistic dynamics DK stated that the acceleration of the particle is determined by the friction force in the $K$ frame, which can be positive or negative. However, according to the VP theory the particle acceleration is determined by the friction force in the $K^{\prime}$ frame, which is always negative.
Conclusion
==========
It was shown that in the most simple way the friction force on a neutral particle at the relativistic motion relative to the blackbody radiation can be calculated in the rest frame of a particle ($K^{\prime}$ frame) where the friction force is determined only by the interaction of a particle with the blackbody radiation. In the frame of the blackbody radiation ($K$ frame) the friction force can be found by using the Lorentz transformation for the friction force. The friction force in the $K$ frame is determined by both the interactions of a particle with the blackbody radiation and the thermal radiation of a particle and can be either positive or negative. However, the acceleration, which is determined by the friction force in the $K^{\prime}$ frame, is always negative. The difference between the forces in the different frames is connected to a change in the rest mass of a particle due to the absorption and emission of radiation by a particle. For the steady-state temperature of a particle the friction forces in the $K^{\prime}$ and $K$ frames are equal. For an atom, blackbody radiation friction is determined by the radiation electronic linewidth broadening, which can be calculated by considering the interaction of an atom with its own radiation. The obtained results can be used to studying the interaction of cosmic rays with background blackbody radiation and noncontact friction. For example, the approach proposed in this paper for calculating the radiation friction can also be used to calculate quantum Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation [@KardarPRA2013] by a neutral particle moving parallel to a dielectric.
0.5cm The study was supported by the Ministry of education and science of Russia under Competitiveness Enhancement Program of SSAU for 2013-2020 years, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant N 14-02-00384-a) and COST Action MP1303 “Understanding and Controlling Nano and Mesoscale Friction.” 0.5cm
[999]{}
A. I. Volokitin and B. N. J. Persson, Rev. Mod. Phys. **79**, 1291 (2007).
Rugar D, Budakian R, J.Mamin H J and Chui B W 2004 Nature 430 329.
J. A. Sidles, J.L. Garbini, K.J. Bruland, D. Rugar, O. Zuger, S. Hoen and C. S. Yannoni. Rev. Mod. Phys. **67**, 249265 (1995)
G. P. Berman, G. D. Doolen, P. C. Hammel and V. I. Tsifrinovich , Phys. Rev. B, **61**, 14694 (2000).
N. Arkani-Hameda, S. Dimopoulosb and G. Dvali., Phys. Lett. B **429**, 263 (1998).
A. O. Sushkov, W. J. Kim, D. A. R. Dalvit, and S. K. Lamoreaux, Nature Phys. **7**, 230 (2011).
A. Einstein and L. Hopf, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) **33**, 1105 (1910).
A. Einstein, Phys. Z. **18**, 121 (1917).
K. Greiser, Phys. Rev. Lett. **16**, 748 (1966).
G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuz$'$min, JETP Lett. **4**, 78 (1966).
V. Mkrtchian, V. A. Parsegian, R. Podgornik, and W. M. Saslow, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 220801 (2003).
J. B. Pendry, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **9**, 10301 (1997).
A. I. Volokitin and B. N. J. Persson, J.Phys.: Condens. Matter **11**, 345
(1999).
A. I. Volokitin and B. N. J. Persson, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 106101 (2003).
A. I. Volokitin and B. N. J. Persson, Phys. Rev. B, **68**, 155420 (2003).
A. I. Volokitin and B. N. J. Persson, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 155437 (2008).
M. S. Tomassone and A. Widom, Phys. Rev. B **56**, 4938 (1997).
A. I. Volokitin and B. N. J. Persson, Phys. Rev. B **65**, 115419 (2002).
G. V. Dedkov and A. A. Kyasov, Phys. Lett. A **339**, 212 (2005).
G. V. Dedkov and A. A. Kyasov, *J.Phys.:Condens.Matter* **20**, 354006 (2008).
G. Barton, New J. Phys. **12**, 113045 (2010).
G. Pieplow and C. Henkel, New J. Phys. **15**, 023027 (2013).
J. S. H[ø]{}ye and I. Brevik, Entropy [**15**]{}, 3045 (2013).
M. F. Maghrebi, , R. Golestanian and M. Kardar, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 025016 (2013).
J. S. H[ø]{}ye and I. Brevik, Eur. Phys. J. D [**68**]{}, 61 (2014).
F. Intravaia, R. O. Behunin and D. A. R. Dalvit, Phys. Rev. A [**89**]{}, 050101(R) (2014).
G. V. Dedkov and A. A. Kyasov, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys.Rres. B **268**, 599 (2010).
G. V. Dedkov and A. A. Kyasov, Phys. Scr. **89**, 105501 (2014).
G. Lach, M. DeKieviet, and U. D. Jentschura, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 043005 (2012).
U. D. Jentschura, G. Lach, M. DeKieviet, and K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. Lett. **114**, 043001 (2015).
G. V. Dedkov, A. A. Kyasov, Tech. Phys. **53**, 389 (2008).
S. M. Rytov, *Theory of Electrical Fluctuation and Thermal Radiation* (Academy of Science of USSR Publishing, Moscow, 1953).
M. L. Levin, S. M. Rytov, *Theory of eqilibrium thermal fluctuations in electrodynamics* (Science Publishing, Moscow, 1967).
S. M. Rytov, Yu. A. Kravtsov, and V. I. Tatarskii, *Principles of Statistical Radiophyics*(Springer, New York.1989), Vol.3.
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, *The classical theory of field*, Pergamon, Oxford, 1975.
E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii, *Statistical Physics, Pt.2* Pergamon, Oxford, 1980.
A. I. Volokitin and B. N. J. Persson, Phys. Rev. B **74**, 205413 (2006).
M. F. Maghrebi, R. Golestanian and M. Kardar, Phys.Rev. A **88**, 042509 (2013).
[^1]: *E-mail address*:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study non-equilibrium differential conductance and current fluctuations in a single quantum point contact. The two-terminal electrical transport properties – differential conductance and shot noise – are measured at 1.5 K as a function of the drain-source voltage and the Schottky split-gate voltage. In differential conductance measurements, conductance plateaus appear at integer multiples of $2e^2/h$ when the drain-source voltage is small, and the plateaus evolve to a fractional of $2e^2/h$ as the drain-source voltage increases. Our shot noise measurements correspondingly show that the shot noise signal is highly suppressed at both the integer and the non-integer conductance plateaus. This main feature can be understood by the induced electrostatic potential model within a single electron picture. In addition, we observe the 0.7 structure in the differential conductance and the suppressed shot noise around 0.7 ($2e^2/h$); however, the previous single-electron model cannot explain the 0.7 structure and the noise suppression, suggesting that this characteristic relates to the electron-electron interactions.'
author:
- 'N. Y. Kim'
- 'W. D. Oliver'
- 'Y. Yamamoto'
- 'Y. Hirayama'
date: 'November 19, 2003'
title: |
Shot Noise Suppression at Non-integer Conductance Plateaus\
in a Quantum Point Contact
---
[^1]
[^2]
A quantum point contact (QPC) in a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) system has been a prototypical device used to investigate low-dimensional mesoscopic physics. The Landauer-Büttiker formalism [@Buttiker92; @Landauer92], which interprets the electrical transport in such devices, is the most widely used theoretical model. By applying a negative voltage to lithographically patterned Schottky gates on top of 2DEG, additional spatial confinements can be achieved. Combinations of QPCs form zero-dimensional quantum dots [@Kastner93] in which single charge tunnelling occurs, and a single QPC defines one-dimensional conducting channels [@Houten96]. In the latter situation, the QPC becomes an electron waveguide that regulates the number of transverse modes between electron reservoirs. As a manifestation, a conductance trace consists of quantized steps in integer multiples of the spin degenerate quantum unit of conductance, $G_Q = 2 e^2 /h$, where $e$ is an electron charge and $h$ is Planck’s constant. Recently, the quantum modes of coherent electrons under QPCs were imaged with atomic force microscopy [@Topinka01]. An additional remarkable feature has been identified around 0.7 $G_Q$, which is called the “ 0.7 structure ” or “ 0.7 anomaly ” in the QPC conductance [@Fitzgerald02]. Its physical origin is still under investigation in terms of the interaction [@Thomas96] and spin properties of electrons [@Cronenwett02] by means of conductance.
The integer-plateau picture is true when a drain-source voltage ($V_{ds}$) is kept small. As $V_{ds}$ increases, the plateaus evolve from integer units $n G_Q$ to non-integer units $(\beta +n)
G_Q$, where $\beta$ is a fraction between 0 and 1 and $n$ is a non-negative integer [@Patel91]. The transition of conductance plateaus can be understood by a model of an electrostatic potential which is a function of $V_{ds}$ [@Moreno92; @Kouwenhoven89]. Due to the discrepancy between the number of allowed forward and backward transverse modes for a given finite energy window, the location of quantized levels depends on the degree ($\beta$) of the voltage drop across drain and source sides.
Along with experimental and theoretical work on the conductance, the current fluctuations have been studied as well with QPCs since these fluctuations provides information that is not contained, even in principle, in the conductance. Shot noise is the non-equilibrium current fluctuation resulting from the stochastic transport of quantized charge carriers. In mesoscopic conductors, shot noise occurs due to the random partition of electrons by a scatterer. Previous shot noise experiments with a QPC [@Reznikov95; @Kumar96] clearly showed that shot noise signals agree well with a non-interacting theory, meaning that shot noise is nearly zero at the integer conductance plateaus where electrons are fully transmitted. We, however, have not yet found any thorough noise studies on the characteristic around the 0.7 structure clearly seen in early noise data[@Liu98; @Heiblum] except as reported in the Ph.D. thesis [@Oliver02] regarding to such structure.
In this Letter, we reexamine a single QPC and report our experimental results on low frequency shot noise as well as differential conductance at 1.5 K by sweeping both $V_{ds}$ and a split-gate voltage $V_g$. We find a close connection between noise and conductance data. Shot noise is suppressed when conductance approaches quantized values of $G_Q$. Furthermore, the highly reduced shot noise signals are resolved near other fractional $G_Q$ regions and around 0.7 $G_Q$ for non-zero $V_{ds}$.
Our QPC devices were fabricated on a high mobility 2DEG formed in an undoped GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure. A back-gate field-effect configuration allows us to tune the electron density in 2DEG [@Hirayama02]. The average electron density is $~$ 2 $\times$ 10$^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$. From the Hall bar pattern, the voltage drop across the QPC can be probed so that QPC conductance was experimentally extracted. Two external parameters — $V_{ds}$ and $V_g$ — were varied in both the differential conductance, $g=dI/dV_{ds}$, and the low frequency two-terminal shot noise measurements. A standard lock-in technique was used on the differential conductance $g$ measurement. In order to improve the signal-to-noise-ratio in the shot noise experiment, an ac modulation lock-in technique and a resonant circuit were used together with a home-built cryogenic low-noise preamplifier [@Reznikov95; @Liu98; @Oliver99]. All measurements were performed in a He$^3$ cryostat, whose base temperature was kept at 1.5 K.
The measured differential conductance $g$ with an ac bias voltage $V_{ac} \sim $ 100 $\mu V$ is plotted as a function of $V_{ds}$ and $V_g$ in Fig. \[Fig:fig1\](a). All data on each line are taken at a different $V_g$, and all measured values are normalized by $G_Q$. Dark regions are formed around the regions of plateaus. Conductance flattens around $G_Q$ and 2 $G_Q$ along $V_{ds} \sim$ 0, but away from $V_{ds} \sim$ 0, $g$ approaches plateaus at different locations. Alternatively, Fig. \[Fig:fig1\](c) clearly illustrates that the first step appears below 0.5 $G_Q$ when $V_{ds}$= - 2.5 mV. We compute transconductance $dg/dV_{g}$ by differentiating $g$ in terms of $V_g$, and plot it in a two-dimensional image graph (Fig. \[Fig:fig1\](b)). Here, black areas correspond the plateaus due to the small difference between traces along $V_g$ axis. In the first big diamond black area, there is a V-shape red structure, which separates the 0.9 $G_Q$ structures from the $G_Q$ plateau.
Furthermore, we notice that the transition behavior is not identical over the whole conductance values for finite $V_{ds}$. Below $G_Q$, an additional shoulder structure around 0.7 $G_Q$ is manifest and it moves to 0.9 $G_Q$, and then the plateau clearly forms below 0.5 $G_Q$ at a large $V_{ds}$ . In contrast, above $G_Q$, as $V_{ds}$ increases, no structure similar to the 0.7 anomaly is apparent and the plateau shows an increasing manner. The appearance of the non-integer conductance plateaus in terms of $V_{ds}$ is understood quantitatively by a $V_{ds}$-dependent saddle-point potential model where the potential in a two-dimensional $x$ and $y$ plane is given by[@Moreno92] $$U(x,y) = U_0 (V_{ds}) + U_y y^2 - U_x x^2.$$ The first term in the right hand side contains the effect of a non-zero $V_{ds}$ and it is written as: $$U_0(V_{ds})= U_0 - \beta eV_{ds} + \gamma eV^2_{ds}/2,$$ where the coefficient $\beta$ is determined by the actual voltage drop between the drain and source side, and $\gamma$ is related to the trend of plateau movements as $V_{ds}$ gets bigger[@Moreno92].
Although the simulation result (Fig. \[Fig:fig2\]) show the qualitative picture of plateau evolution in $V_{ds}$, it fails to replicate the 0.7 $G_Q$ and 0.9 $G_Q$ structures, suggesting that more complicated physical mechanism is involved under $G_Q$ and especially around 0.7 $G_Q$ and 0.9 $G_Q$.
Following the differential conductance experiments, the low frequency two-terminal shot noise measurements performed. In order to extract the distinguishable shot noise signal from background noise, $V_{ds}$ cannot be smaller than 500 $\mu V$. Three representative graphs are drawn as a function of $V_g$ in Fig. \[Fig:fig3\]. Similar behaviors were observed in other devices as well. No matter what value of $V_{ds}$ was applied, the shot noise level was clearly minimal when conductance $G =
I/V_{ds}$ reached about $G_Q$ and 2 $G_Q$. The degree of the suppression at 3 $G_Q$ became less smaller for a large $V_{ds}$. In the transient zones between the multiples of $G_Q$, the noise characteristic was rather complex. Below the first plateau, the noise suppression appeared around 0.6 $G_Q$ and 0.9 $G_Q$ until $V_{ds} \sim$ 1.5 mV (Fig. \[Fig:fig3\](a)). As $V_{ds}$ further increased, these locations moved down to 0.5 $G_Q$ and 0.8 $G_Q$ (Fig. \[Fig:fig3\](b)), and eventually the suppressed noise was found only at 0.4 $G_Q$ for $V_{ds} >$ 2.5 mV (Fig. \[Fig:fig3\](c)). Unlikely, when $G$ is higher than $G_Q$, only one additional noise reduction was found about 1.6 $G_Q$ or 1.7 $G_Q$ regardless of the magnitude of $V_{ds}$. Meanwhile, the plateau structures in $G$ gradually washed out as $V_{ds}$ increased as shown in Fig. \[Fig:fig3\](d).
Figure \[Fig:fig4\] (a) exhibits the above observation of the shot noise response as a function of $V_{ds}$ and $V_g$ in a continuous manner. The black color depicts the base shot noise level. Even though the occurrence of the suppressed shot noise can be easily seen in units of $G_Q$, the actual plot contains other noticeable features. The colored contour plot of conductance $G =
I/V_{ds}$(Fig. \[Fig:fig4\](b)) helps us to see the relation of $G$ and the shot noise. Again under $G_Q$, several black strips are visible: The upper strip relates to the shot noise suppression around $G_Q$, and the lower two ones start at the conductance values 0.7 $G_Q$ and 0.9 $G_Q$. For a high $V_{ds}$, the shot noise suppression occurs at less than 0.5 $G_Q$. The shot noise signal in higher G has a rather simple pattern: The reduced noises are observed around 1.6 or 1.7 $G_Q$ and 2 $G_Q$ as previously stated.
We notice that the shot noise behavior in the transient zone between the integer multiples of $G_Q$ shares some features with the transconductance two-dimensional image plot (Fig. \[Fig:fig1\](b)). The peaks in the transconductance correspond to the larger shot noise signals and the dark areas in the transconductance match to the black strips in the shot noise image. Moreover, both the transconductance and the shot noise share common features for $G < G_Q$; 0.7 structure can be distinctive and the location of the noise suppression and the new plateaus in $dg/dV_g$ occur around 0.4 $G_Q$ as $V_{ds} >$ 2 mV. Within the saddle-point potential model, $dg/dV_{g}$ is expressed in terms of $T_i(1 - T_i)$ where $T_i$ is the i-th one-dimensional (1D) channel transmission probability. Since the shot noise has a term of $T_i(1 - T_i)$ for a small energy window, two quantities are closely related. It is not, however, obvious to predict the response of the shot noise for a large $V_{ds}$ because the shot noise is obtained from the integral of the energy dependent transmission probability. Qualitatively, the noise suppression around the plateaus can be expected based on the fact that the current fluctuations can be zero or low when the current remains constant.
The different characteristics in both the transconductance and the shot noise are observed in the region of $G < G_Q$ and $G
> G_Q$. This observation is certainly beyond the simple saddle-point potential model in a single-particle approximation. In particular, it is surprising to have the strongly suppressed shot noise at 0.7 $G_Q$, meaning that electrons are regulated by a certain governing physical mechanism. The possible factor relating to the mechanism of the 0.7 anomaly would be the density of electrons. The shot noise study in terms of the electron density would provide more information to explore this question in the future.
In conclusion, we have experimentally studied the low frequency shot noise and the differential conductance with finite values of $V_{ds}$. We showed that the main feature of shot noise suppression in terms of $V_{ds}$ can be understood by the differential conductance. However, the further investigation of the properties of both the differential conductance and the shot noise around the 0.7 structure should be needed in order to establish better understandings.
We acknowledge the ARO-MURI grant DAAD19-99-1-0215 for supporting this research.
M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B[**46**]{}, 12485 (1992).
Th. Martin and R. Landauer, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{} 1742 (1992).
M. A. Kastner, Physics Today [**46**]{}(1), 24 (1993).
H. van Houten and C. Beenakker, Physics Today [**49**]{}(7), 22 (1996).
M. A. Topinka, B. J. LeRoy, R. M. Westervelt, S. E. J. Shaw, R. Fleischmann, E. J. Heller, K. D. Maranowski, and A. C. Gossard, Nature [**410**]{}, 183 (2001).
R. Fitzgerald, Physics Today [**55**]{}(5), 21 (2002).
K. J. Thomas, J. T. Nicholls, M. Y. Simmons, M. Pepper, D. R. Mace, and D. A. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 135 (1996).
S. M. Cronenwett, H. J. Lynch, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, L. P. Kouwenhoven, C. M. Marcus, K. Hirose, N. S. Wingreen, and V. Umansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 226805 (2002).
N. K. Patel, J. T. Nicholls, L. Martin-Moreno, M. Pepper, J. E. F. Frost, D. A. Ritchie, and G. A. C. Jones, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 13549 (1991).
L. Martin-Moreno, J. T. Nicholls, N. K. Patel, and M. Pepper, J. Phys.:Condens. Matter [**4**]{}, 1323 (1992).
L. P. Kouwenhoven, B. J. van Wees, C. J. P. M. Harmans, J. G. Williamson, H. van Houten, C. W. J. Beenakker, C. T. Foxon, and J. J. Harris, Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 8040 (1989).
M. Reznikov, M. Heiblum, H. Shtrikman, and D. Mahalu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 3340 (1995).
A. Kumar, L. Saminadayar, D. C. Glattli, Y. Jin, and B. Etienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 2778 (1996).
R. C. Liu, B. Odom, Y. Yamamoto, and S. Tarucha, Nature [**391**]{}, 263 (1998).
M. Heiblum (Private communication)
W. D. Oliver, Ph.D. Dissertation (2002).
W. D. Oliver, J. Kim, R. C. Liu, and Y. Yamamoto, Science [**284**]{}, 299 (1999).
Y. Hirayama and Y. Tokura (Private communication)
[^1]: Corresponding author.
[^2]: also at NTT Basic Research Laboratories, 3-1 Morinosato-Wakamiya Atsugi, Kanagawa, 243-01 Japan
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the present article we will give a new proof of the ground state asymptotics of the Dirichlet Laplacian with a Neumann window acting on functions which are defined on a two-dimensional infinite strip or a three-dimensional infinite layer. The proof is based on the analysis of the corresponding Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator as a first order classical pseudo-differential operator. Using the explicit representation of its symbol we prove an asymptotic expansion as the window length decreases.'
address:
- 'André Hänel, Institut für Analysis, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Welfengarten 1, D-30167 Hannover'
- 'Timo Weidl, Institut für Analysis, Dynamik und Modellierung, Universität Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 57, D-70569 Stuttgart'
author:
- André Hänel
- Timo Weidl
title: 'Spectral asymptotics for the Dirichlet Laplacian with a Neumann window via a Birman-Schwinger analysis of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator'
---
Introduction
============
In what follows we consider an infinite quantum waveguide subject to a perturbation of the boundary conditions. In spectral theory this type of perturbation is of particular interest, since it is non-additive and may not be treated with standard methods, such as the Birman-Schwinger principle. The simplest case arises by considering the Dirichlet Laplacian on an infinite strip having a so-called Neumann window. Let $\Omega = \R \times (0,\alpha)$. We consider $-\Delta$ on $\Omega$ with Dirichlet boundary on all of $\partial \Omega$ except for some small part of the boundary, where we impose Neumann boundary conditions. We are interested in the behaviour of the discrete eigenvalues below the essential spectrum $[\pi^2/\alpha^2,\infty)$ depending on the length of the window, cf. Figure \[fig:Neumann\_window\].
(-3.5,0.8) – (3.5,0.8); (-3.5,2.5) – (-1.1,2.5); (1.1,2.5) – (3.5,2.5); (-2.4, 2.5) node\[anchor=south\] [$u=0$]{}; (2.4,2.5) node\[anchor=south\] [$u=0$]{}; (0,2.5) node\[anchor=south\] [$\partial_n u = 0$]{}; (-1.1,2.5) – (1.2,2.5); (0,2.4) node\[anchor=north\] [$2\ell$]{}; (1.2,1.5) node [$-\Delta u = \lambda u $]{}; (4,0.75) – (4,2.5); (-2.8,0.8) – (-2.8,0.8) node\[anchor=north\] [$u=0$]{}; (4.2,1.625) node\[anchor=west\] [width=$\alpha$]{};
This case was first investigated in [@ExnerSebaTaVa], where the existence of an eigenvalue was proved by a variational argument. Moreover, a numerical computation given by these authors suggested that for small windows of size $2\ell$ the distance of the eigenvalue to the spectral threshold $\pi^2/\alpha^2$ is of order $\ell^4$. The first analytic proof concerning this fact was given by Exner and Vugalter in [@ExVu]. They proved a two-sided asymptotic estimate, i.e., for small $\ell >0$ there exist a unique eigenvalue $\lambda(\ell)$ below the essential spectrum $[\pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty)$ and constants $c_1, c_2 > 0$ such that $$\label{eq:two_sided}
c_1 \ell^4 \le \pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) \le c_2 \ell^4 \qquad \text{as} \quad \ell \to 0 .$$ In fact in [@ExnerSebaTaVa; @ExVu] the authors considered the more general case of two quantum waveguides which are coupled through a small window, cf. Figure \[fig:waveguides\].
(-3.5,0.25) – (3.5,0.25); (-3.5,2.5) – (3.5,2.5); (-3.5,1.5) – (-0.9,1.5); (3.5,1.5) – (0.9,1.5); (3.75, 1.5) – (3.75,2.5); (3.75,0.25) – (3.75,1.5); (4.2,2) node [$\alpha_+$]{}; (4.2,0.75) node [$\alpha_-$]{}; (0.5, 1) node [$-\Delta u = \lambda u $]{}; (-2.8, 2.5) node\[anchor=south\] [$u=0$]{}; (-2.8, 1.5) node\[anchor=south\] [$u=0$]{}; (1.8, 1.5) node\[anchor=south\] [$u=0$]{}; (-2.8, 0.25) node\[anchor=north\] [$u=0$]{}; (-0.9,1.7) – (0.9,1.7); (0, 1.75) node\[anchor=south\] [$2 \ell$]{};
If both waveguides have the same width $\alpha_+ = \alpha_- = \alpha$, then we may use the symmetry with respect to the horizontal direction. In this case the eigenvalue problem is equivalent to the mixed problem in Figure \[fig:Neumann\_window\]. The proof of the two-sided asymptotic estimate in [@ExVu] is based on a variational argument. The upper bound may easily be obtained using a suitable test-function and the min-max principle for self-adjoint operators. However, the more delicate part consists in finding a uniform lower bound for the variational coefficient. In order to prove such an estimate Exner and Vugalter decomposed an arbitrary test-function, using an expansion in the vertical direction.
Popov [@Popov99] refined the two-sided estimate and proved that the ground state eigenvalue $\lambda(\ell)$ satisfies the following asymptotic behaviour $$\label{eq:asympt_2D_Popov}
\frac{\pi^2}{\alpha^2} - \lambda(\ell) = \begin{cases} \displaystyle \left( \frac{\pi^3}{4\alpha^3} \right)^2 \ell^4 + o(\ell^4),
& \alpha_+ \neq \alpha_-, \\[12pt] \displaystyle
\left( \frac{\pi^3}{2\alpha^3} \right)^2 \ell^4 + o(\ell^4) , & \alpha_+ = \alpha_- ,\end{cases} \qquad \text{as} \quad \ell \to 0 .$$ His proof is based on a scheme which matches the asymptotic expansions for the eigenfunctions, cf. [@Ilin; @Gad92]. Popov uses different expansions for the eigenfunctions near the window and distant from the window. Using the explicit formulae for the Green’s functions in the upper and lower waveguide he computes the asymptotic behaviour of the eigenvalue. Further terms in this expansion have been calculated in [@FrolovPopov00]. In [@Popov02] the approach was generalised to three-dimensional layers, cf. also [@ExVuLayers] for a two-sided asymptotic estimate. Further extensions include e.g. higher dimensional cylinders [@Popov201; @Gad04], a finite or an infinite number of windows [@Popov201; @Popov101; @BorisovBunoiuCardone10; @BorisovBunoiuCardone11; @BorisovBunoiuCardone13; @Nazarov13], the case of three coupled waveguides [@FrolovPopov03] or magnetic operators [@BoEkKov05]. The case of two retracting distant windows has been investigated in [@BorisovExner04; @BorisovExner06]. For an overview concerning spectral problems in quantum waveguides we refer to [@ExnerKov15].
We provide a new approach for the symmetric case which uses the explicit representation of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator. This allows us to reformulate the singular perturbation of the original operator into an additive perturbation of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator, or merely its truncated part. We replace the matching scheme for the eigenfunctions in [@Popov99] by an asymptotic expansion of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator and a subsequent use of the Birman-Schwinger principle. As a particular consequence we will observe that only the principal symbol has an influence on the first term of the asymptotic formula. In a similar way we treat the case of two coupled quantum waveguides. An application of the method to elastic waveguides may be found in [@HaenelWeidl].
Structure of the article {#structure-of-the-article .unnumbered}
------------------------
We start by treating the two-dimensional case. We consider the Laplacian $-\Delta$ on $\Omega = \R \times (0, \alpha)$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions except for some small set $\Sigma_\ell \times \{ 0 \} \subseteq \partial \Omega$, where we impose Robin boundary conditions. Here $\Sigma_\ell := \ell \cdot \Sigma \subseteq \R$ and $\Sigma \subseteq \R$ is a finite union of bounded open intervals. Section 2 starts with the definition of the self-adjoint realisation of the corresponding Laplacian and the introduction of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator and of the Dirichlet-to-Robin operator. The asymptotic formula for the eigenvalue of the corresponding Laplacian is stated and proven in Section \[sec:2D\], see Theorems \[th:main\_2D\] and \[th:main\_2D\_special\]. Additionally, in Theorems \[th:main\_2D\] and \[th:main\_2D\_special\] we prove the uniqueness of the eigenvalue for small window sizes and in Theorem \[th:main\_coupled\] we treat the case of two quantum waveguides coupled through a small window.
Section \[sec:3D\] is devoted to three-dimensional layers of the form $\Omega = \R^2 \times (0, \alpha)$. In this case the Robin window is given by $\Sigma_\ell \times \{ 0 \} \subseteq \partial \Omega$, where $\Sigma_\ell := \ell \cdot \Sigma \subseteq \R^2$ is a bounded open set with Lipschitz boundary, cf. Figure \[fig:layer\]. We follow the same scheme as in the two-dimensional case and prove in Theorem \[th:main\_3D\] an asymptotic formula for the ground state eigenvalue as the window length decreases.
(0,0) – (0,1.5); (4.5,0) – (4.5,1.5); (2,1) – (2,2.5); (6.5,1) – (6.5,2.5); (0,0) – (4.5,0) – (6.5,1); (0,0) – (4.5,0) – (6.5,1) – (2,1) – (0,0); (0,1.5) – (4.5,1.5) – (6.5,2.5) – (2,2.5) – (0,1.5);
(-0.6,0).. controls (0.18259,0.02218) and (0.31251,0.21639) ..(0.5,0.2).. controls (0.68426,0.18389) and (0.80980,-0.04411) ..(1,0.5).. controls (1.19307,0.70254) and (1.18126,0.93079) ..(1,1).. controls (0.83172,1.06425) and (0.67339,0.91497) ..(0.5,0.9).. controls (0.32763,0.88512) and (0.17237,1.00348) ..(0,1).. controls (-0.74957,0.98486) and (-0.64760,-0.07866) ..(-0.6,0);
The two-dimensional case {#sec:2D}
========================
The construction of the Dirichlet-to-Robin operator {#the-construction-of-the-dirichlet-to-robin-operator .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------
Let $\alpha > 0$ and put $\Omega := \R \times (0,\alpha)$ with coordinates $(x,y) \in \Omega$. Let $\Sigma \subseteq \R$ be the Robin window and assume that $\Sigma$ is a bounded open set, which is a finite union of open intervals. We denote the scaled window by $\Sigma_\ell := \ell \cdot \Sigma$. The Laplacian on $\Omega$ with Robin boundary conditions on $\Sigma_\ell \times \{0\}$ and Dirichlet boundary conditions on the remaining part of the boundary is defined by the quadratic form $$a_{\ell,b} [u] := \int_{\Omega} |\nabla u(x,y)|^2 \ \mathrm{d} x \ \mathrm{d} y + \int_{\Sigma_\ell} b (x) \cdot |u(x,0)|^2 \ \mathrm{d} x ,$$ with the form domain $$D[a_{\ell,b}] := \{ u \in H^1(\Omega) : u|_{\R \times \{\alpha\}} = 0 \; \wedge \; \mathrm{supp}(u|_{\R \times \{0\}} ) \subseteq
\overline{\Sigma_\ell}\} .$$ Here $b \in L_\infty(\R)$ is a real-valued function and $u|_{\R \times \{0\}} , u|_{\R \times \{\alpha\}} \in H^{1/2}(\R)$ are the boundary traces of the function $u \in H^{1}(\Omega)$. Then $a_{\ell,b} $ defines a closed semi-bounded form on $L_2(\Omega)$ and gives rise to a self-adjoint operator, which we denote by $A_{\ell,b}$. The essential spectrum of the operator $A_{\ell,b}$ is given by $\sigma_{\mathrm{ess}}(A_{\ell,b}) = [\pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty)$. This well-known fact is due to Birman [@Birman62], where he gives a proof in the case of compact boundary $\partial \Omega$.
As a first step we consider the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator acting on the lower part of the boundary $\R \times \{0\}$. For $s \in \R$ let $H^s(\R)$ be the standard Sobolev space on $\R$ with the usual norm defined via Fourier transform. Let $\omega \in \C$ and $g \in H^{1/2} (\R)$. We consider a weak solution $u \in H^1(\Omega)$ of the Poisson problem $$\label{eq:Poisson_bvp}
(- \Delta - \omega) u = 0 \quad \text{in } \Omega , \qquad u|_{\R \times \{0\}} = g, \qquad u|_{\R \times \{\alpha\}} = 0 .$$ Applying the Fourier transform in the horizontal direction, it follows from that $\hat u (\xi,y)$ solves $$\label{eq:Poisson_FT}
( - \partial^2_y + \xi^2 - \omega) \hat u(\xi,y) = 0, \qquad
\hat u (\xi,0) = \hat g(\xi) , \qquad \hat u (\xi,\alpha) = 0$$ with $(\xi,y) \in \R \times (0,\alpha)$. Conversely, if $u \in H^1(\Omega)$ is given such that its Fourier transform $\hat u(\xi,y)$ solves the family of Sturm Liouville problems, then $u$ is a weak solution of the Poisson problem . For fixed $\xi \in \R$ with $\xi^2 \neq \omega$, the solution of is given by $$\label{eq:sol_u}
\hat u(\xi, y) = \frac{\hat g (\xi)}{\sinh
(\alpha \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega})} \cdot \sinh (( \alpha - y)\sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega}) .$$ Here and subsequently we choose the branch of the square root function such that $z \mapsto \sqrt{z}$ is holomorphic in $\C \backslash (-\infty,0]$ and such that $\sqrt{z} > 0 $ for $z > 0 $. Moreover, we extend the definition to $z \in (-\infty, 0 ]$ and assume that ${\mathrm{Im}}\left( \sqrt{z} \right) \ge 0 $ for $z \le 0$. Actually, the expression for $\hat u$ is independent of the value of the square root function as long as one uses the same in the two terms.
\[lemma:Poisson\_op\] Let $\omega \in \C \backslash [\pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty)$. For every $g \in H^{1/2}(\R)$ there exists a unique $u \in H^1(\Omega)$ which solves , and moreover $\| u \|_{H^1(\Omega)} \le c \| g\|_{H^{1/2}(\R)}$ with $c = c(\omega, \alpha) > 0$ independent of $g$.
For the proof of Lemma \[lemma:Poisson\_op\] one has to verify that the function $u$ given by belongs indeed to $H^1(\Omega)$ if $g \in H^{1/2}(\R)$. We want to omit this simple calculation.
If $\omega \ge \pi^2/\alpha^2$, then in general $\hat u$ will have a singularity and the above mapping property does not hold true. This is to be expected, as in this case $\omega$ will be located in the essential spectrum $[\pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty)$.
Here and subsequently we assume that $\omega \in \C \backslash[\pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty)$. Let $g \in H^{1/2}(\R)$ and let $u$ be the solution of the Poisson problem . Its normal derivative $\partial_n u$ satisfies $$\widehat{\partial_n u} (\xi, 0 ) = m_\omega(\xi) \hat g (\xi),$$ where $$m_\omega(\xi) := \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega} \cdot \coth (\alpha \sqrt{\xi^2-\omega} ) .$$ The Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator is defined by $D_\omega : H^{1/2}(\R) \to H^{-1/2}(\R)$, $$\widehat{D_\omega g} (\xi)
:= \hat g (\xi) \cdot \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega} \cdot \coth (\alpha \sqrt{\xi^2-\omega} ) .$$ We note that $D_\omega$ is a classical pseudo-differential operator of order $1$ with $x$-independent symbol $m_\omega$. Since the operator $A_{\ell,b}$ is defined by its quadratic form we give a variational characterisation of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator $D_\omega$. We also refer to Chapter 4 in McLean [@McLean] for mixed problems formulated in their variational form.
\[lemma:DtNo\_variational\] Let $\omega \in \C \backslash [\pi^2/\alpha^2 ,\infty)$ and $g \in H^{1/2}(\R)$. We denote by $u \in H^1(\Omega)$ the solution of the Poisson problem . Then for $h \in H^{-1/2}(\R)$ the following two assertions are equivalent:
1. $ h = D_\omega g$.
2. For all $v \in H^1(\Omega)$ with $v |_{\R \times \{\alpha\}}= 0$ we have $$\label{eq:weak_def_DtoN_2D} { \langle \nabla u , \nabla v \rangle}_{\Omega} = \omega { \langle u , v \rangle}_{\Omega} +
{ \langle h , v|_{\R \times \{0\}} \rangle}_{\R} .$$
Here ${ \langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle}_{\Omega}$ and ${ \langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle}_{\R}$ denote the dual pairings with respect to the scalar product in $L_2(\Omega)$ and $L_2(\R)$ identified with $L_2(\R \times \{0\})$.
Let $g \in H^{1/2}(\R)$ and $u \in H^1(\Omega)$ be chosen as above. From and integration by parts we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{ \langle \nabla u , \nabla v \rangle}_{\Omega} - \omega { \langle u , v \rangle}_{\Omega} &= \int_\R \partial_y \hat u(\xi , 0) \overline{\hat v(\xi, 0)} \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&= \int_\R \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega} \cdot \coth(\alpha \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega}) \hat g(\xi)
\overline{\hat v(\xi, 0)} \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&= { \langle D_\omega g , v|_{\R \times \{0\}} \rangle}_\R .
\end{aligned}$$ This proves one direction of the equivalence. The converse follows as the trace operator $
u \mapsto u|_{\R \times \{0\}} : H^{1}(\Omega) \to H^{1/2}(\R)$ has a continuous right inverse, cf. [@McLean Lemma 3.36]. In particular, for every $f \in H^{1/2}(\R)$ there exists $v \in H^1(\Omega)$ such that $v|_{\R \times \{\alpha\}} = 0$ and $v|_{\R \times \{0\}} =f$, and thus, $D_\omega g$ is uniquely defined by .
In order to treat the mixed boundary value problem we introduce for $s \in \R$ the following function spaces $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:Hs_0}
\tilde H_0^{s}(\Sigma_{\ell}) &:= \{ g \in H^{s}(\R) : \mathrm{supp}(g) \subseteq \overline{\Sigma_{\ell}} \} , \\
H^s(\Sigma_{\ell}) &:= \{ g \in (C_c^\infty(\Sigma_\ell))' : \exists G \in H^{s}(\R) \text{ with } g = G|_{\Sigma_{\ell}} \} .
\label{def:Hs} \end{aligned}$$ Here $C_c^\infty(\Sigma_\ell)$ is the space of smooth functions with compact support in $\Sigma_\ell $; we denote by $(C_c^\infty(\Sigma_\ell))'$ the space of distributions on $\Sigma_\ell$. We note that $\tilde H_0^{s}(\Sigma_\ell)$ is a closed subspace of distributions in $\R$ whereas $H^{s}(\Sigma_\ell)$ is a subspace of distributions in $\Sigma_\ell$. The latter space may be identified with the quotient space $$\raisebox{0.5ex}{\ensuremath{H^s(\R)}}
\ensuremath{\mkern-0.3mu}/\ensuremath{\mkern-0.3mu}
\raisebox{-0.5ex}{\ensuremath{\tilde H^s_0(\R \backslash \overline{\Sigma_\ell}) }} ,$$ where $\tilde H^s_0(\R \backslash \overline{\Sigma_\ell})$ contains, by definition, those distributions in $H^s(\R)$ which have support in $\R \backslash \Sigma_\ell$. We endow the spaces in and with their natural topology, i.e., $\tilde H^s_0(\Sigma_\ell)$ carries the subspace topology of $H^s(\R)$ and $H^s(\Sigma_\ell)$ has the quotient topology. For $s \ge 0$ we may identify $\tilde H_0^{s}(\Sigma_\ell)$ with the subspace of $L_2(\Sigma_\ell)$ which consists of those functions whose extension by $0$ yields an element of $H^s(\R)$. Furthermore, the space $\tilde H^s_0(\Sigma_\ell)$ is an isometric realisation of the (anti-)dual of $H^{-s}(\Sigma_\ell)$ and vice-versa. The dual pairing is given by the expression $$\label{eq:dual_pairing}
{ \langle g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell} := { \langle G , h \rangle}_{\R} ,\qquad g \in H^{-s}(\Sigma_\ell) , \; h \in \tilde H^s_0(\Sigma_\ell) ,$$ where $G \in H^{-s}(\R)$ denotes any extension of $g$, cf. [@McLean Theorem 3.14]. Note that $C_c^\infty(\Sigma_\ell)$ is a dense subset of $\tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma_\ell)$, cf. [@McLean Theorem 3.29]. In particular the above expression is independent of the chosen extension $G$. Thus, the domain of the quadratic form $a_{\ell,b}$ may be rewritten as follows $$D[a_{\ell,b}] = \left\{ u \in H^{1}(\Omega ) : u|_{\R \times \{ \alpha\} } = 0 \; \wedge \;
u|_{\R \times \{0\} } \in \tilde H^{1/2}_{0}(\Sigma_\ell) \right \} .$$ We define the truncated Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator $$D_{\ell,\omega} : \tilde H^{1/2}_{0}(\Sigma_\ell) \to H^{-1/2} (\Sigma_\ell), \qquad
D_{\ell,\omega} := r_\ell \, D_\omega e_\ell ,$$ where $$r_\ell : H^{-1/2}(\R) \to H^{-1/2}(\Sigma_\ell)$$ is the restriction operator and $$e_\ell : \tilde H^{1/2}_{0}(\Sigma_\ell) \to H^{1/2}(\R)$$ is the embedding. Identifying $ \tilde H^{1/2}_{0}(\Sigma_\ell) $ with a subspace of $L_2(\Sigma_\ell)$, the operator $e_\ell$ is simply extension by $0$. Considering the corresponding topologies one easily observes that $D_{\ell,\omega}$ is a bounded linear operator. Recalling that $b\in L_\infty(\R)$, we define the truncated Dirichlet-to-Robin operator by $$D_{\ell,\omega} + b : \tilde H^{1/2}_{0}(\Sigma_\ell) \to H^{-1/2} (\Sigma_\ell) , \qquad D_{\ell, \omega} + b := r_\ell ( D_{ \omega} + b ) e_\ell ,$$ where we identify $b$ with the corresponding multiplication operator. The next lemma gives a characterisation of the eigenvalues of $A_{\ell,b}$ in terms of the truncated Dirichlet-to-Robin operator.
\[lemma:kernel\] Let $\omega \in \C \backslash [\pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty)$ and $\ell > 0$. Then $$\mathrm{dim}\; \mathrm{ker} (A_{\ell,b} - \omega) = \mathrm{dim}\; \mathrm{ker} (D_{\ell,\omega} + b) .$$
The assertion follows if we prove that the trace mapping is an isomorphism of $\mathrm{ker} (A_{\ell,b} - \omega)$ onto $\mathrm{ker} (D_{\ell,\omega} + b)$. Let us first prove that it indeed maps $\mathrm{ker} (A_{\ell,b} - \omega)$ into $\mathrm{ker} (D_{\ell,\omega} + b)$. Let $u \in \ker (A_{\ell,b}- \omega)$ and denote $g := u|_{\R \times \{0\}} \in \tilde H^{1/2}_{0}(\Sigma_\ell) $ its boundary trace. Let $h \in \tilde H^{1/2}_{0}(\Sigma_\ell)$ be an arbitrary test function and choose $v\in D[a_{\ell,b}]$, such that $v|_{\R \times \{0\}} = h$. The dual pairing and Lemma \[lemma:DtNo\_variational\] imply $$\begin{aligned}
{ \langle
( D_{\ell,\omega} + b ) g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell } &= { \langle D_\omega g + b g , h \rangle}_{\R }
= { \langle \nabla u , \nabla v \rangle}_{\Omega} + { \langle bg , h \rangle}_\R - \omega { \langle u , v \rangle}_{\Omega} \\
&= a_{\ell, b} [u,v] - \omega { \langle u , v \rangle}_\Omega = 0 ,
\end{aligned}$$ as $D_\omega g \in H^{1/2}(\R)$ is obviously an extension of $D_{\ell,\omega} g \in H^{1/2}(\Sigma_\ell)$ and $u$ is an eigenfunction for the eigenvalue $\omega$. Hence, $g \in \mathrm{ker}( D_{\ell,\omega} + b)$, which proves that the mapping $$\mathrm{ker}( A_{\ell,b} - \omega) \ni u \mapsto u|_{\R \times \{0\}} \in \mathrm{ker} ( D_{\ell,\omega} + b)$$ is well defined. Moreover, Lemma \[lemma:Poisson\_op\] implies that this mapping is injective. It remains to prove surjectivity. Let $g \in \mathrm{ker}(D_{\ell,\omega} + b)$ and denote by $ u \in H^1(\Omega)$ the unique solution of the Poisson problem . Then $u \in D[a_{\ell,b}]$ and for arbitrary $v \in D[a_{\ell,b}]$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\ell,b}[u,v] &= { \langle \nabla u , \nabla v \rangle}_{\Omega} + { \langle bg , v|_{\R \times \{0\}} \rangle}_\R =
\omega { \langle u , v \rangle}_{\Omega} +
{ \langle D_\omega g +b g , v|_{\R \times \{0\}} \rangle}_{\R } \\
&= \omega { \langle u , v \rangle}_{\Omega } + { \langle (D_{\ell,\omega} + b)g , v|_{\R \times \{0\}} \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell}
=\omega { \langle u , v \rangle}_{\Omega} .
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $u \in D(A_{\ell,b})$ and $(A_{\ell,b} - \omega) u = 0 $. This proves the assertion.
A particular consequence of Lemma \[lemma:kernel\] is the observation that the Dirichlet-to-Robin operator $D_{\ell,\omega} + b$ has non-trivial kernel if and only if $\omega$ is an eigenvalue of $A_{\ell,b}$. Put $V := \tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma_\ell)$ and consider the Gelfand triple $$V \to L_2(\Sigma_\ell) \to V^* .$$ We identify $V$ with a subspace of $L_2(\Sigma_\ell)$ and $V^* = H^{-1/2}(\Sigma_\ell)$ is the space of antilinear functionals on $\tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma_\ell)$, cf. the dual pairing . The truncated Dirichlet-to-Robin operator $D_{\ell, \omega}$ maps $$D_{\ell, \omega} + b: V \to V^* ,$$ and thus, it is completely described by the sesquilinear form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:d_ell}
(d_{\ell, \omega} + b) [g,h] := { \langle ( D_{\ell,\omega}+ b) g , h \rangle}_{V^*,V} = { \langle D_{\ell,\omega} g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell} +
{ \langle b g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell}\end{aligned}$$ where $g,h \in D[d_{\ell,\omega}] := \tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma_\ell)$. Using the dual pairing we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:d_ell}
d_{\ell, \omega}[g,h] &= { \langle D_\omega g , h \rangle}_{\R} = \int_\R \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega} \coth(\alpha \sqrt{\xi^2-\omega}) \cdot \hat g(\xi) \; \overline{\hat h(\xi)} \ \mathrm{d} \xi \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
b[g,h] &= \int_{\Sigma_\ell} b(x) \cdot g(x) \; \overline{h(x)} \ \mathrm{d} x .\label{eq:b_ell} \end{aligned}$$ We note that is independent of $\ell$ and the dependence of $\ell$ in is manifested in the domain of integration. In particular we may consider the dependence on $\ell$ as a constraint on the support of the functions $g$ and $h$.
\[lemma:form\_DtoN\] Let $\omega \in \C \backslash [\pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty)$. Then $d_{\ell,\omega}$ defines a closed sectorial form in $L_2(\Sigma_\ell)$. The associated m-sectorial operator is the restriction of $D_{\ell,\omega} +b$ to the operator domain $$X_{\ell,\omega} := \left\{ g \in \tilde H^{1/2}_0 (\Sigma_\ell) : D_{\ell,\omega} g \in L_2(\Sigma_\ell) \right\} .$$
Combining Formulae and we have for $g ,h\in \tilde H_0^{1/2}(\Sigma_\ell) $ $$(d_{\ell, \omega} + b )[g,h] = \int_\R m_\omega(\xi) \cdot \hat g(\xi) \; \overline{\hat h(\xi) }
\ \mathrm{d} \xi + \int_{\Sigma_\ell} b(x) \cdot g(x) \; \overline{h(x)} \ \mathrm{d} x$$ with $m_\omega(\xi) = \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega} \coth(\alpha \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega})$. Note that $$m_\omega(\xi) = \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega} \coth(\alpha \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega}) = |\xi| + O(1) \qquad \text{as} \quad \xi \to \pm \infty .$$ As $\tilde H_0^{1/2}(\Sigma_\ell)$ carries the subspace topology induced by $H^{1/2}(\R)$ this implies $$\label{eq:d_ell_omega_2D_closed}
c_1^{-1} \|g \|_{\tilde H_0^{1/2}(\Sigma_\ell)}^2 \le {\mathrm{Re}}(d_{\ell, \omega} + b)[g] + c_2 \| g\|_{L_2(\Sigma_\ell)}^2 \le
c_1 \|g \|_{\tilde H_0^{1/2}(\Sigma_\ell)}^2 ,$$ for constants $c_i = c_i(\omega,\alpha, \Sigma_\ell) \in \R$, $i=1,2$. Thus, the form $d_{\ell, \omega}$ is bounded from below and closed. Moreover, it easily follows that $d_{\ell,\omega} +b$ is sectorial. To prove the second assertion let $g \in X_{\ell,\omega}$ such that $D_{\ell,\omega} g = \tilde f\in L_2(\Sigma_\ell)$. Then, $$(d_{\ell, \omega}+b)[g,h] = { \langle D_{\ell,\omega} g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell} + { \langle bg , h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell}
= { \langle \tilde f + bg , h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell}$$ for all $h \in C_c^\infty(\Sigma_\ell)$. As $ C_c^\infty (\Sigma_\ell)$ is dense in $\tilde H_0^{1/2}(\Sigma_\ell)$ the above equality holds true for every $h \in \tilde H_0^{1/2}(\Sigma_\ell)$. Thus, $g$ lies in the operator domain of the m-sectorial realisation which acts as $D_{\ell, \omega} + b$. In the same way it follows that the domain of the m-sectorial realisation is contained in $X_{\ell,\omega}$.
Since $$\mathrm{ker} ( D_{\ell,\omega} + b) \subseteq X_{\ell,\omega} ,$$ we can apply Hilbert space methods to determine whether zero is an eigenvalue of $D_{\ell,\omega} +b $ or not. The spectrum of the m-sectorial realisation consists of a discrete set of eigenvalues only accumulating at infinity, since $D[d_{\ell,\omega} +b] = \tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma_\ell)$ is compactly embedded into $L_2(\Sigma_\ell)$, cf. [@McLean Theorem 3.27]. Moreover, for real $\omega \in \R \backslash [\pi^2/\alpha^2 , \infty)$ the quadratic form $d_{\ell, \omega} +b$ is symmetric, and thus, the associated operator is self-adjoint.
The close relation between self-adjoint extensions of differential operators and self-adjoint operators acting on the boundary has been pointed out in the case of bounded domains by G.Grubb, in particular with regard to resolvent formulae, cf. [@Grubb11] and the references therein.
Another consequence of Lemma \[lemma:form\_DtoN\] or merely its proof is the following lemma.
The (original) operator $D_{\ell, \omega} + b : \tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma_\ell) \to H^{-1/2}(\Sigma_\ell)$ is an Fredholm operator with zero index.
The proof follows by combining Formula and [@McLean Theorems 2.34 and 3.27].
As the m-sectorial realisation of the Dirichlet-to-Robin operator is simply the restriction of the original operator we do not want to introduce a separate notation for it. In fact, we will mainly work with a quadratic form, which arises after scaling the Robin window. Recall that $\Sigma_\ell := \ell \cdot \Sigma$. We define the unitary scaling operator $$\begin{aligned}
T_\ell : L_2(\Sigma) \to L_2(\Sigma_\ell), \qquad (T_\ell g)(x) =
\ell^{-1/2} g\left(\frac{x}\ell\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Note that the operator $T_\ell$ bijectively maps $\tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma)$ into $\tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma_\ell)$. Set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega) : \tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma) \to H^{-1/2}(\Sigma), \qquad \mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega) := T_\ell^* (D_{\ell, \omega} + b) T_\ell \end{aligned}$$ and let $$\begin{aligned}
q_b(\ell, \omega ) [g,h] := ( d_{\ell,\omega} + b)[T_\ell g, T_\ell h ] \end{aligned}$$ be the associated sesquilinear form with $D[q_b(\ell, \omega ) ] := \tilde H^{1/2}_{0}(\Sigma)$. Then $$\mathrm{dim}\; \mathrm{ker} (A_{\ell,b} - \omega) = \mathrm{dim}\; \mathrm{ker} (D_{\ell,\omega} + b) = \dim \; \ker (\mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega) ) .$$
Next we prove an asymptotic expansion of the operator $\mathcal Q_{b}(\ell, \omega)$ as $\ell \to 0$ and $\omega \to \pi^2/\alpha^2$. This expansion represents the principal tool of the proof of the main result. Here and subsequently we denote by $\mathcal Q_0 : \tilde H_0^{1/2}(\Sigma) \to H^{-1/2}(\Sigma)$, $$\begin{aligned}
{ \langle \mathcal Q_0 g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} := q_0[g,h] := \int_{\R} |\xi| \cdot \hat g(\xi) \; \overline{\hat h (\xi)} \ \mathrm{d} \xi\end{aligned}$$ the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator for the mixed problem on the upper half-space or equivalently on the lower half-space corresponding to the spectral parameter $\omega = 0$. Note that $\mathcal Q_0 : \tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma) \to H^{-1/2}(\Sigma)$ is also a Fredholm operator with Fredholm index $0$, which follows from [@McLean Theorem 2.34]. The identity $\mathcal Q_0 g = 0$ implies $$0= { \langle \mathcal Q_0 g , g \rangle}_{\Sigma} = \int_{\R} |\xi| \cdot | \hat g(\xi)|^2 \ \mathrm{d} \xi ,$$ and thus, $g = 0$. Hence $\mathcal Q_0$ has trivial kernel and it is invertible.
In what follows we denote by $P_{\mathrm{ct}}$ the projection in $L_2(\Sigma)$ onto the subspace of constant functions and let $K_{\ln|x|} : L_2(\Sigma) \to L_2(\Sigma)$, $$( K_{\ln|x|} f ) (z) = \int_{\Sigma} \ln |z-x| \cdot f(x) \ \mathrm{d} x , \qquad x \in \Sigma .$$
\[th:form\_asymptotics\_2D\] Let $b = 0$. There exist $\ell_0 = \ell_0(\alpha, \Sigma) > 0$ and $\varepsilon = \varepsilon(\alpha, \Sigma) > 0 $ such that for $\ell \in ( 0,\ell_0)$ and $| \omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon$ the following asymptotic expansion holds true $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:asympt_q_ell,omega_2D}
\mathcal Q_0(\ell, \omega) &= \frac{1}\ell \mathcal Q_0
- \ell \cdot \left( \frac{|\Sigma| \cdot \pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right) \cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2 -\omega }} \; P_{\mathrm{ct}}\\
&\quad + \sum_{k_1=1}^\infty \sum_{k_2=0}^\infty \ell^{2 k_1 - 1} \left(\sqrt{\pi^2/ \alpha^2 - \omega}\right)^{k_2}
\Bigr(B_{k_1,k_2}^{(0)} + B_{k_1,k_2}^{(1)} \cdot \ln \ell \Bigr) .
\end{aligned}$$ Here $B_{k_1,k_2}^{(i)} \in \mathcal L(L_2(\Sigma))$ for $i=1,2$. The series converges absolutely in the operator norm of $\mathcal L(L_2(\Sigma))$. For the first terms we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
B_{1,0}^{(0)} &= \frac{|\Sigma| \cdot \rho(\alpha)}{2\pi} P_{\mathrm{ct}}+ \frac{\pi }{2 \alpha^2} K_{\ln|x|} , \qquad B_{1,0}^{(1)} = \frac{|\Sigma| \cdot \pi}{2 \alpha^2} P_{\mathrm{ct}},
\qquad B_{1,1}^{(0)} = B_{1,1}^{(1)} = 0 ,
\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $ \rho(\alpha) \in \R$ is given by Formula and $|\Sigma|$ is the Lebesgue measure of $\Sigma$.
The next section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[th:form\_asymptotics\_2D\].
The proof of Theorem \[th:form\_asymptotics\_2D\] {#subsec:asymptotics_2D .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------
For $g, h \in \tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma)$ we have $${ \langle \mathcal Q_{0}(\ell, \omega) g , h \rangle}_\Sigma = q_0(\ell,\omega) [g,h ] = \ell \int_{\R} m_\omega(\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \overline{h(\ell \xi)} \ \mathrm{d} \xi,$$ where $m_\omega(\xi) = \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega} \cdot \coth(\alpha \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega})$. The main idea of the proof is to use the asymptotic expansion of the function $m_\omega(\xi) $ for $\xi = 0$ and $\xi \to \pm \infty$ while letting the parameter $\omega \to \pi^2/\alpha^2$.
As a first step of the proof we show that $m_\omega$ has a meromorphic extension to the complex plane and calculate explicitly its singularities and residues. To this end we use the partial fraction decomposition of the hyperbolic cotangent function, i.e., we have $$\label{eq:series_coth}
\coth( z) = \frac1z + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{2z}{z^2+k^2 \pi^2} ,\qquad z \in \C \backslash
\{ \mathrm{i} k \pi : k \in \Z\},$$ cf. e.g. [@LawSchabat Chapter V, §1.71]. Hence, $$\label{eq:series_m_omega}
m_\omega(\xi ) =
\frac1{\alpha} + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{2 \alpha (\xi^2 - \omega)}{\alpha^2 (\xi^2 - \omega) +k^2 \pi^2 } , \qquad
\xi \in \R,$$ and the meromorphic extension of $m_\omega$ is given by the series . For $\omega \in \C \backslash [\pi^2/\alpha^2 , \infty) $ the singularities of $m_\omega$ are all simple poles which are located at $$\pm \mathrm{i} \sqrt{\frac{k^2 \pi^2}{\alpha^2}-\omega} , \qquad k \in \N .$$ In particular they do not lie on the real axis. As $\omega \to \pi^2/\alpha^2$ the two poles nearest the real axis converge to $0 \in \C$ and they give rise to a pole of order two in the limit case. Here and subsequently we fix $\beta = \beta(\alpha) \in (\pi/\alpha, \sqrt{3} \pi/\alpha)$. Then there exists $\varepsilon = \varepsilon (\alpha) > 0$ such that for $\omega \in \C \backslash [\pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty)$, $|\omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon$ the function $m_\omega$ has exactly two poles inside the strip $\R + \mathrm{i} [- \beta, \beta]$. The residues of the function $m_\omega$ at these points are given by $$\label{eq:residue_m_omega}
\mathrm{Res}_{\xi = \pm \mathrm{i} \sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2-\omega} } \; m_\omega(\xi) = \pm \frac{\pi^2}{\alpha^3} \cdot \frac{\mathrm{i} }{\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2-\omega}}$$ as can easily be seen from the expansion .
Let $g ,h \in \tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma)$. Since $g,h$ are compactly supported their Fourier transforms $\hat g, \hat h$ admit holomorphic extensions on the whole complex plane. Note that the function $\hat h^*$, $$\hat h^*(\xi) := \overline{\hat h (\overline \xi)}, \qquad \xi \in \C,$$ is also an entire function on $\C$. We decompose the form $q_0(\ell, \omega)$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
q_0(\ell,\omega)[g,h ]
&= \ell \left( \int_{[-1,1]} + \int_{[-1,1]^c} \right) m_\omega(\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell\xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi ,
\label{eq:decomp_q_ell_2D}\end{aligned}$$ where we put $[-1,1]^c = \R \backslash [-1,1]$. Using the Taylor expansion of the function $\hat g \cdot \hat h^*$ at $0 \in \C$, we obtain for the first integral $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:asympt_q_ell_1}
\int_{[-1,1]} m_\omega(\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi
&= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \ell^k e_k[g,h] \int_{[-1,1]} \xi^k m_\omega(\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \end{aligned}$$ with $$e_{k}[g,h] = \frac1{k!} \cdot \left. \frac{\mathrm{d}^{k}}{\mathrm{d} \xi^{k}} ( \hat g (\xi) \hat h^*(\xi) ) \right|_{\xi =0 }
= \frac1{k!} \cdot \sum_{j=0}^{k} \binom{k}j \hat g^{(j)} (0) \cdot \overline{\hat h^{(k-j)} (0)} .$$ We note that $m_\omega$ is an even function, and thus, in the expansion the terms of odd order vanish. Let $E_{k}$ be the operator associated with the form $e_{k}$. Then $$\int_{[-1,1]} m_\omega(\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi
= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \ell^{2k} { \langle E_{2k} g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} \int_{[-1,1]} \xi^{2k} m_\omega(\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi .$$ Note that $$| \hat g^{(j)} (0) | \le \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \left ( \int_{\Sigma} |x|^{2j} \right)^{1/2} \| g\|_{L_2(\Sigma)}
\le C^j \| g\|_{L_2(\Sigma)}$$ for sufficiently large $C = C(\Sigma) > 0$, which implies $$\|E_{k} \|_{\mathcal L(L_2(\Sigma))} \le \frac{(2C)^{k }}{k!} .$$ To estimate the integral $\int_{[-1,1]} \xi^{2k} m_\omega(\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi $ we denote by $\gamma$ the path depicted in Figure \[fig:rect\_2D\] connecting the points $-1$ and $1$. Its image $\mathrm{im}(\gamma)$ coincides with the boundary of the following rectangle except for the line segment $[-1,1]$.
(-4.5,0) – (4.5,0); (0,-0.5) – (0,2.75); (-2.5,-1pt) – (-2.5,1pt) node\[anchor=north\] [$-1$]{}; (2.5,-1pt) – (2.5,1pt) node\[anchor=north\] [$\phantom{-}1$]{}; (-2.5,0) – (3.5,0); (2.5,0) – (2.5,1.5); (-2.5,1.5) – (2.5,1.5) node\[anchor=south east\] [$\gamma$]{}; (-2.5,0) – (-2.5,1.5); (-2.5,0) rectangle (2.5,1.5); (-4,1.5) – (4,1.5) node\[anchor=west\] [$\mathrm{i} \beta$]{}; (-1pt,0.75) – (1pt,0.75) node\[anchor=east\] [$\mathrm{i} \sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2-\omega}$]{}; (-1pt,2.25) – (1pt,2.25) node\[anchor=east\] [$\mathrm{i} \sqrt{4 \pi^2/\alpha^2-\omega}$]{};
Note that ${\mathrm{Im}}(\mathrm{i} \sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2-\omega}) > 0$ if $\omega \in \C \backslash[\pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty)$. Using Formula the residue theorem implies $$\int_{[-1,1]} \xi^{2k} m_{\omega} (\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi =
- \frac{(-1)^k \cdot 2 \pi^3}{\alpha^3} (\pi^2 / \alpha^2 - \omega)^{k-1/2} + \int_{\gamma} \xi^{2k} m_\omega (\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi .$$ Next we use for fixed $\xi \in \mathrm{im}(\gamma)$ the Taylor expansion of $m_\omega(\xi)$ at $\omega = \pi^2 /\alpha^2$. Thus, there exists $\varepsilon >0$ such that for $|\omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon$ we have $$m_\omega(\xi) = \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^j (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega)^j }{j!} \left. \frac{\mathrm{d}^j}{\mathrm{d} \omega^j} m_\omega (\xi) \right|_{\omega = \pi^2/\alpha^2} .$$ This expression may be considered as a power series in $\omega$ with values in $L_1(\mathrm{im} (\gamma))$, and we obtain $$\int_{\gamma} \xi^{2k} m_\omega (\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi = \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^j (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega)^j }{j!}
\left[ \int_{\gamma} \xi^{2k} \frac{\mathrm{d}^j}{\mathrm{d} \omega^j} m_\omega (\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \right]_{\omega = \pi^2/\alpha^2} .$$ Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
&\ell \int_{[-1,1]} m_\omega(\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&\quad = - \ell \left(\frac{ 2 \pi^3}{\alpha^3} \right) \cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega}} { \langle E_0 g , h \rangle}_\Sigma \\
&\qquad - \left( \frac{2 \pi^3}{\alpha^3} \right) \cdot \sum_{k = 1}^\infty \ell^{2k+1} \cdot (-1)^k \cdot (\pi^2 / \alpha^2 - \omega)^{k-1/2} \cdot { \langle E_{2k} g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} \\
&\qquad + \sum_{k=0}^\infty \sum_{j=0}^\infty \ell^{2k+1}{ \langle E_{2k} g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma}
\frac{(-1)^j (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega)^j }{j!}
\left[ \int_{\gamma} \xi^{2k} \frac{\mathrm{d}^j}{\mathrm{d} \omega^j} m_\omega (\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \right]_{\omega = \pi^2/\alpha^2}
\hspace{-0.5cm}.\end{aligned}$$ We note that the two series $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k = 1}^\infty \ell^{2k+1} E_{2k} \cdot (-1)^k \cdot (\pi^2 / \alpha^2 - \omega)^{k-1/2} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty\sum_{j=0}^\infty \ell^{2k+1} E_{2k}
\frac{(-1)^j (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega)^j }{j!}
\left[ \int_{\gamma} \xi^{2k} \frac{\mathrm{d}^j}{\mathrm{d} \omega^j} m_\omega (\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \right]_{\omega = \pi^2/\alpha^2}\end{aligned}$$ converge absolutely in the operator norm in $\mathcal L(L_2(\Sigma))$, uniformly in $\ell \in [0,1]$ and $|\omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon$. For the first series this is obvious. Considering the second series leads us to the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^\infty \ell^{2k+1} \| E_{2k} \|_{\mathcal L(L_2(\Sigma))}
\sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{|\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega|^j }{j!}
\left| \int_{\gamma} \xi^{2k} \frac{\mathrm{d}^j}{\mathrm{d} \omega^j} m_{\pi^2/\alpha^2} (\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \right| \\
&\qquad \le \left( \sum_{k=0}^\infty \ell^{2k+1} \cdot c_1^{2k} \cdot \frac{(2C)^{2k}}{(2k)!} \right)
\left( \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{\varepsilon^j}{j!}
\left\| \frac{\mathrm{d}^j}{\mathrm{d} \omega^j} m_{\pi^2/\alpha^2} \right\|_{L_1(\mathrm{im} (\gamma))} \right) < \infty \end{aligned}$$ for $\ell > 0$ and $|\omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon$. Here $c_1 := \sup \{ |\xi| : \xi \in \mathrm{im}(\gamma) \}$. Calculating the first terms of the expansion we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& \ell \int_{[-1,1]} m _\omega (\xi) \cdot \hat g (\ell \xi) \; \hat h^* (\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\ & \quad =
- \ell \cdot \frac{2 \pi^3 \bigr(\hat g \hat h^*\bigr)(0) }{\alpha^3 \sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega }}
+ \ell \cdot \bigr(\hat g \hat h^*\bigr)(0) \int_{\gamma} m_{\pi^2/\alpha^2}(\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi + \mathcal O(\ell^3 + \pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega) . \end{aligned}$$ Let $P_{\mathrm{ct}}$ be the projection in $L_2(\Sigma)$ onto the subspace of constant functions. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\bigr(\hat g \hat h^*\bigr)(0) = \frac1{2\pi} \left( \int_{\Sigma} g(x) \ \mathrm{d} x \right) \left( \int_{\Sigma} \overline{h(x)} \ \mathrm{d} x \right) = \frac{|\Sigma|}{2\pi} { \langle P_{\mathrm{ct}}g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} ,\end{aligned}$$ and thus, $$\begin{aligned}
&\ell \int_{[-1,1]} m_\omega(\xi) \cdot \hat g (\ell \xi) \; \hat h^* (\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi\\
&\quad = \ell \biggr(- \frac{|\Sigma| \cdot \pi^2}{\alpha^3 \sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega}}
+ \frac{|\Sigma| \cdot \rho_{0,1}(\alpha)}{2\pi} \biggr) { \langle P_{\mathrm{ct}}g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma}
+ \mathcal O(\ell^3 + \pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega) , \end{aligned}$$ with $ \rho_{0,1}(\alpha) = \int_{\delta} m_{\pi^2/\alpha^2} (\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi$. In order to treat the second integral in we use the asymptotic expansion of $m_\omega(\xi)$ for $\xi \to \pm \infty$. For ease of notation we suppose that $\alpha > \pi$, so that $[-1,1] \subseteq ( -\pi/\alpha, \pi/\alpha )$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\ell \int_{[-1,1]^c} m_\omega(\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\ &\qquad = \ell \int_{\R}
|\xi| \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi + \ell \sum_{i=1}^3 \int_\R m_{\omega,i} (\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi , \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\omega,1}(\xi) &:= - \mathds 1_{[-1,1]} (\xi) \cdot |\xi| , \\[5pt]
m_{\omega,2} (\xi) &:= \mathds{1}_{[-1,1]^c} (\xi) \cdot \Bigr( \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega} - |\xi| \Bigr) , \\[5pt]
m_{\omega,3} (\xi) &:=
\mathds{1}_{[-1,1]^c}(\xi) \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega} \left( \coth(\alpha \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega}) -1 \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Here $ \mathds{1}_E$ denotes the indicator function of a Borel set $E\subseteq \R$. We note that the first term $\int_\R m_{\omega,1} (\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi $ is independent of $\omega$ and may be expanded as before into a power series with respect to the parameter $\ell$; we have $$\begin{aligned}
\ell \int_\R m_{\omega,1} (\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi &= \ell \int_{[-1,1]} |\xi| \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&= \frac{\ell |\Sigma| }{2 \pi} { \langle P_{\mathrm{ct}}g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} \cdot \int_{[-1,1]} |\xi| \ \mathrm{d} \xi + \mathcal O(\ell^3) \\
&= \frac{\ell |\Sigma| }{2 \pi} { \langle P_{\mathrm{ct}}g , h \rangle} + \mathcal O(\ell^3) .\end{aligned}$$ To treat the second integral we use for $\xi \in \R $ and $|\omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon $ the following expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:exp_m_omega_symbol}
m_{\omega,2} (\xi) &= \mathds{1}_{[-1,1]^c}(\xi) \left( \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega} - |\xi| \right)
= \mathds{1}_{[-1,1]^c}(\xi) \cdot \left(
|\xi| \cdot \sqrt{ 1- \frac{\omega}{\xi^2}} - |\xi| \right) \\
&= \sum_{k=1}^\infty \binom{1/2}{k} (- \omega) ^k \cdot | \xi|^{-2k+1} \mathds{1}_{[-1,1]^c}(\xi) .\end{aligned}$$ This series may be considered as power series in $ \omega $ with values in $L_\infty(\R_\xi)$. Let $Y_k , Z_k \in C^\infty(\R \backslash\{0\}) \cap L_{1,\mathrm{loc}}(\R)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\hat Y_k (\xi ) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \cdot | \xi|^{-2k+1} \mathds{1}_{[-1,1]^c}(\xi) \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\hat Z_k (\xi) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \; \mathrm{f.p.}\left(|\xi|^{-2k+1}\right) . \end{aligned}$$ Here $$\mathrm{f.p.}\left(|\xi|^{-2k+1}\right) = \mathrm{f.p.} \left(\xi_+^{-2k+1}\right) + \mathrm{f.p.} \left(\xi_-^{-2k+1}\right)$$ designates the distribution which is defined by the finite part of the singular function $|\xi|^{-2k+1}$, cf.[@McLean Chapter 5]. We note that $X_k := Y_k - Z_k$ is analytic, since its Fourier transform $\hat X_k = \hat Y_k - \hat Z_k$ has compact support. This allows us to determine the order of the singularity of $Y_k$ at $0\in \R$. Using [@McLean Lemma 5.10] we have $$\begin{aligned}
Z_k (x) = \frac{1}{\pi} \cdot \frac{ (-1)^{k} x^{2k-2}}{(2k-2)!} \left( \ln |x| + \gamma_0 - H_{2k-2}
\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_0$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant and $H_{2k-2} = \sum_{j=1}^{2k-2} \frac{1}{j}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\ell \int_{\R} m_{\omega,2} (\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi
&= \sum_{k=1}^\infty \binom{1/2}{k} (- \omega)^k \cdot \ell \cdot \int_{\R} \hat Y_k(\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&= \sum_{k=1}^\infty \binom{1/2}{k} (- \omega)^k \cdot { \langle Y_k \ast T_\ell g , T_\ell h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell} , \\[5pt]
{ \langle Y_k \ast T_\ell g , T_\ell h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell}
&= \ell \int_{\Sigma \times \Sigma} (X_k + Z_k) (\ell |z-x|) \; g(x)\; \overline{h (z)} \ \mathrm{d} x \ \mathrm{d} z . \end{aligned}$$ Defining the operators $K_{|x|^{2k-2}} , K_{|x|^{2k-2}\ln |x|} : L_2(\Sigma) \to L_2(\Sigma)$, $$\begin{aligned}
(K_{|x|^{2k-2}} f)(z) &= \int_{\Sigma} | z - x |^{2k-2} \; f(x) \ \mathrm{d} x , \qquad z \in \Sigma \\
(K_{|x|^{2k-2} \ln |x| } f)(z) &= \int_{\Sigma} | z - x|^{2k-2} \ln |z -x| \; f(x) \ \mathrm{d} x , \qquad z\in \Sigma\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& \ell \int_{\Sigma \times \Sigma} Z_k (\ell |z - x|) \; g(x) \;\overline{h (z)} \ \mathrm{d} x \ \mathrm{d} z \\
&\quad = \frac{(-1)^{k} \; \ell^{2k-1}}{ \pi \cdot (2k-2)!}
\int_{\Sigma \times \Sigma} |z- x|^{2k-2} \ln (\ell |z-x|) \; g(x)\; \overline{h (z)} \ \mathrm{d} x \ \mathrm{d} z \\
&\qquad + \frac{(-1)^{k} \; \ell^{2k-1}}{ \pi \cdot (2k-2)!} \cdot \left( \gamma_0 - H_{2k-2}\right)
\int_{\Sigma \times \Sigma} |z - x|^{2k-2} \; g(x) \; \overline{h (z)} \ \mathrm{d} x \ \mathrm{d} z \\[8pt]
&\quad = \frac{(-1)^{k} \; \ell^{2k-1}}{ \pi \cdot (2k-2)!} \left( \ln \ell + \gamma_0 - H_{2k-2} \right)
{ \langle K_{|x|^{2k-2}} g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} \\
&\qquad + \frac{(-1)^{k} \; \ell^{2k-1}}{ \pi \cdot (2k-2)!}
{ \langle K_{|x|^{2k-2} \ln |x| } g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\begin{aligned}
& \ell \int_{\Sigma \times \Sigma} X_k (\ell |z -x|) \; g(x) \; \overline{h (z)} \ \mathrm{d} x \ \mathrm{d} z
= \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{X_k^{(2j)}(0) \cdot \ell^{2j+1} }{(2j)!} { \langle K_{|x|^{2j}} g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} ,\end{aligned}$$ which follows by expanding the even function $X_k$ into a power series. For the coefficients $X_k^{(2j)}(0)$ we obtain from the definition of the finite part $$\begin{aligned}
2\pi X_k^{(2j)}(0) &= 2 \int_0^\infty (\mathrm{i} \xi)^{2j} (\hat Y_k - \hat Z_k)(\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi
= - 2 (-1)^j \mathrm{f.p.}_{\varepsilon \to 0} \int_{\varepsilon}^{1} \xi^{2j} \cdot \xi^{-2k+1} \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&= (-1)^{j+1} \cdot \begin{cases} \displaystyle \frac{1}{j-k + 1 } , &
j - k +1 \neq 0, \\[10pt] \displaystyle 0 , & j - k +1 = 0 . \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\ell \int_{\R} m_{\omega,2} (\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
& = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \binom{1/2}{k}
\frac{\omega^k \cdot \ell^{2k-1}}{\pi (2k-2)!} \Bigr[ \left( \ln \ell + \gamma_0 - H_{2k-2} \right) { \langle K_{|x|^{2k-2}} g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} + { \langle K_{|x|^{2k-2} \ln |x| } g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} \Bigr] \\
&\quad + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \sum_{j=0}^\infty \binom{1/2}{k} \cdot (- \omega)^k \cdot
\frac{X_k^{(2j)}(0) \cdot \ell^{2j+1} }{(2j)!} { \langle K_{|x|^{2j}} g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} .\end{aligned}$$ Note that both series, $$\frac{1}{\pi} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \binom{1/2}{k} \cdot \omega^k \cdot
\frac{\ell^{2k-1}}{ (2k-2)!} \biggr[ \left( \ln \ell + \gamma_0 - H_{2k-2} \right) K_{|x|^{2k-2}}
+ K_{|x|^{2k-2} \ln |x| } \biggr]$$ and $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty \sum_{j=0}^\infty \binom{1/2}{k} (- \omega)^k \cdot
\frac{X_k^{(2j)}(0) \cdot \ell^{2j+1} }{(2j)!} K_{|x|^{2j}} ,$$ converge uniformly in the operator norm for $\ell \in (0,\ell_0)$ and $| \omega - \pi^2/ \alpha^2| < \varepsilon$. This follows from the estimates on the coefficients $X_k^{2j}(0)$ and from $$\|K_{|x|^{2k-2}}\|_{\mathcal L(L_2(\Sigma))} \le C^{2k-2} , \qquad \| K_{|x|^{2k-2} \ln |x| }\|_{\mathcal L(L_2(\Sigma))}
\le C^{2k-2}$$ for sufficiently large $C = C(\Sigma) >0$. Note that $\omega < 1$ since we assumed that $\pi^2/\alpha^2 < 1$. Changing the centre of the power series in $\omega$ and calculating the first terms give us the following asymptotic estimate $$\begin{aligned}
&\ell \int_{\R} m_{\omega,2} (\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&= \frac{\ell \ln \ell \cdot |\Sigma| \cdot \pi}{2 \alpha^2} { \langle P_{\mathrm{ct}}g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma}
+ \ell \cdot |\Sigma| \cdot \left ( \frac{\pi\cdot \gamma_0 }{2\alpha^2} + \frac{\rho_{0,2}(\alpha)}{2\pi} \right) { \langle P_{\mathrm{ct}}g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} \\[4pt]
&\quad + \ell \cdot \frac{\pi}{2\alpha^2} { \langle K_{\ln|x|}g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} + \mathcal O (\ell^3 \ln \ell + \pi^2 /\alpha^2 - \omega) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{0,2}(\alpha) := \pi \sum_{k=1}^\infty \binom{1/2}{k} \left( - \frac{\pi^2}{\alpha^2} \right)^k
X_k(0) = \frac1{2} \sum_{k=2}^\infty \binom{1/2}{k} \left(- \frac{\pi^2}{\alpha^2} \right)^k
\frac{1}{k-1} .\end{aligned}$$ We note that $K_{|x|^0} = |\Sigma| \cdot P_{\mathrm{ct}}$. Thus, the only point remaining is the expansion of the integral $ \ell^2 \int_{\R} m_{\omega,3}(\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\omega,3} (\xi)
&= \mathds{1}_{[-1,1]^c}(\xi) \; \sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega} \; \left(\coth(\alpha\sqrt{\xi^2 - \omega} ) - 1 \right) . \end{aligned}$$ It easily follows that the function $$\omega \mapsto \mathrm{e}^{\delta |\xi|} m_{\omega,3} (\xi) \in L_\infty(\R_\xi)$$ is a vector-valued holomorphic function for $|\omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon$ and some $\delta > 0$. In particular, we obtain that $$m_{\omega,3} (\xi) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k ( \pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega)^k}{k!}
\left. \frac{\mathrm{d}^k}{\mathrm{d} \omega^k} m_{\omega,3} (\xi)\right|_{\omega= \pi^2/\alpha^2}$$ and the series converges absolutely as a power series in $\omega$ with values in some exponentially weighted $L_\infty$-space. Choose $\widetilde X_k \in C^\infty(\R)$ such that $$\widehat{\widetilde X_k} (\xi) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \cdot
\left. \frac{\mathrm{d}^k}{\mathrm{d} \omega^k} m_{\omega,3} (\xi) \right|_{\omega = \pi^2/\alpha^2} .$$ Then $\widetilde X$ is an even function and analytic in some neighbourhood of $0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde X_k (x) &= \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{\widetilde X_k^{(2j)}(0) }{(2j)!} x^{2j} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde X_k^{(2j)}(0) =
\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\R} (\mathrm{i} \xi)^{2j} \frac{\mathrm{d}^k}{\mathrm{d} \omega^k} m_{\pi^2/\alpha^2,3}(\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde X_k^{(2j)}(0)| &\le \frac{1}{2\pi} \left\| \mathrm{e}^{\delta |\xi|}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^k}{\mathrm{d} \omega^k} m_{\pi^2/\alpha^2, 3} (\xi)\right\|_{L_\infty(\R_\xi)}
2 \int_{0}^\infty \xi^{2j} \mathrm{e}^{-\delta \xi} \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&= \frac{\delta ^{-1-2j} (2j)!}{\pi} \left\| \mathrm{e}^{\delta |\xi|}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^k}{\mathrm{d} \omega^k} m_{\pi^2/\alpha^2,3} (\xi)\right\|_{L_\infty(\R_\xi)} ,\end{aligned}$$ since $\int_{0}^\infty \xi^{2j} \mathrm{e}^{-\delta \xi} \ \mathrm{d} \xi = \delta ^{-1-2j} (2j)!$, cf. [@GradRyz Formula 2.321]. In particular, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\ell \int_{\R} m_{\omega,3} (\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&\quad= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k \left(\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega\right)^k }{k!} { \langle \widetilde X_k \ast T_\ell g , T_\ell h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell} \\
&\quad= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \sum_{j=0}^\infty\frac{(-1)^k\left(\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega\right)^k }{k!}
\frac{\widetilde X_k^{(2j)} (0)}{(2j)!} \cdot \ell^{2j+1} \cdot
{ \langle K_{|x|^{2j}} g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} . \end{aligned}$$ Note that the estimates on the coefficients $\widetilde X_k^{(2j)}(0)$ imply that the series $$\sum_{k=0}^\infty \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k\left(\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega\right)^k }{k!}
\frac{\widetilde X_k^{(2j)} (0)}{(2j)!} \cdot \ell^{2j+1} \cdot
K_{|x|^{2j}} ,$$ converges in the operator norm of $\mathcal L(L_2(\Sigma))$, uniformly in $\ell \in [0, \ell_0]$ and $| \omega - \pi^2 /\alpha^2 | < \varepsilon $. In particular, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\ell \int_{\R} & m_{\omega,3} (\xi) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \hat h^*(\ell \xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&= \frac{\ell \cdot |\Sigma|\cdot { \langle P_{\mathrm{ct}}g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma}}{2\pi}
\int_\R m_{\pi^2/\alpha^2,3} (\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi + \mathcal O(\ell^3 + \pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega ) \\
&= \frac{\ell \cdot |\Sigma| \cdot \rho_{0,3}(\alpha) }{2\pi} { \langle P_{\mathrm{ct}}g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma}
+ \mathcal O(\ell^3 + \pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega ) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_{0,3}(\alpha) = \int_{\R} m_{\pi^2/\alpha^2,3} (\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi$. Putting $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rho_2D}
\rho_0(\alpha) = \rho_{0,1}(\alpha) + \rho_{0,2}(\alpha) + \rho_{0,3}(\alpha)
+ 1 + \frac{\gamma_0 \pi^2}{\alpha^2} ,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{0,1}(\alpha) &= \int_{\delta} m_{\pi^2/\alpha^2}(\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi , &
\rho_{0,2}(\alpha) &= \frac1{2} \sum_{k=2}^\infty \binom{1/2}{k} \left(- \frac{\pi^2}{\alpha^2} \right)^k
\frac{1}{k-1} , \\
\rho_{0,3}(\alpha) &= \int_{\R} m_{\pi^2/\alpha^2,3} (\xi) \ \mathrm{d} \xi . \end{aligned}$$ proves Theorem \[th:form\_asymptotics\_2D\].
The asymptotic behaviour of the ground state eigenvalue of $A_{\ell,b}$ {#subsec:asympt_formula .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that $b \in L_\infty(\R)$ and $\Sigma_\ell = \ell \cdot \Sigma \subseteq \R$, where $\Sigma \subseteq \R$ is a finite union of bounded intervals. The following theorems provide the asmyptotic behaviour of the ground state eigenvalue as the window length decreases.
\[th:main\_2D\] There exists $\ell_0 = \ell_0(\alpha, b, \Sigma) > 0 $ such that for all $\ell \in (0, \ell_0)$ the operator $A_{\ell,b}$ has a unique eigenvalue $\lambda(\ell)$ below its essential spectrum. It satisfies $$\label{eq:asympt_main_2D}
\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) }
= \ell^2 \left( \frac{\pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right) \cdot \tau_0(\Sigma) + \mathcal O(\ell^3) \qquad \text{as} \quad \ell \to 0 .$$ The constant $ \tau_0(\Sigma) >0$ is given by . If $b$ is continuously differentiable in some neighbourhood of $0$, then the next term of the asymptotic formula is given by $$\ell^3 \left( \frac{b(0) \cdot \tau_1(\Sigma) \cdot \pi^2 }{\alpha^3} \right)$$ up to an error of order $\mathcal O(\ell^4 \cdot \ln \ell)$. The constant $\tau_1(\Sigma) >0 $ is given by .
For the special case $\Sigma = (-1, 1)$ we obtain:
\[th:main\_2D\_special\] Let $\Sigma_\ell = (-\ell, \ell)$ and let $b$ be twice differentiable in some neighbourhood of $0$. Then the eigenvalue $\lambda(\ell)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:asympt_main_int}
\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) } \notag
&= \ell^2 \left( \frac{\pi^3}{2 \alpha^3} \right) + \ell^3 \left( \frac{4b(0) \pi^2 }{3 \alpha^3} \right)
- \ell^4 \ln \ell \left( \frac{\pi^5}{8 \alpha^5} \right) \\
&\quad + \ell^4 \left( \frac{\rho_0(\alpha) \pi^3}{8 \alpha^3 } + \frac{\pi^5}{32 \alpha^5}( 1 + \ln 16) - b(0)^2 \cdot
\frac{\rho_1 \cdot \pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right) + \mathcal O(\ell^5 \ln \ell)
\end{aligned}$$ as $\ell \to 0$. The constant $\rho_1 >0 $ is given by .
First we prove the existence and the uniqueness of the eigenvalue of the operator $A_{\ell,b}$ for small $\ell > 0$. To this end we use the asymptotic expansion in Theorem \[th:form\_asymptotics\_2D\] in its weaker form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:first_asympt_q}
\mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega) = \frac1\ell \mathcal Q_0 - \ell \cdot \left( \frac{|\Sigma| \cdot \pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right) \cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2-\omega}} P_{\mathrm{ct}}+ R_b(\ell , \omega) \end{aligned}$$ with the following estimate on the remainder $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:R(ell,omega)}
\sup\{ \| R_b(\ell , \omega)\|_{\mathcal L (L_2(\Sigma))} : \ell \in (0, \ell_0) \; \wedge \; |\omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon \} < \infty . \end{aligned}$$ We note that $ | { \langle b T_\ell g , T_\ell h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell} | \le \ell \|b \|_{L_\infty(\Sigma)} \|g\|_{L_2(\Sigma)} \|h \|_{L_2(\Sigma)} $.
Using a similar argumentation as in Theorem \[th:form\_asymptotics\_2D\] it follows that for every compact set $K \subseteq \C \backslash [\pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty)$ there exists $\ell_0 = \ell_0(\alpha, b, \Sigma, K)$ such that $$\mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega) = \frac1\ell \mathcal Q_0 + \tilde R_b(\ell, \omega) ,$$ and the remainder satisfies $$\sup \{ \| \tilde R_b(\ell, \omega) \|_{\mathcal L(L_2(\Sigma))} : \omega \in K \; \wedge \ell \in (0, \ell_0 ) \} < \infty .$$ Recalling that the operator $\mathcal Q_0$ is a invertible, we obtain $$\ell \mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega) = \mathcal Q_0 \left( I + \ell \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \tilde R_b(\ell, \omega) \right) .$$ Choosing $\ell> 0$ sufficiently small implies that $\mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega)$ is invertible for all $\omega \in K$ and $\ell \in (0, \ell_0)$. In particular, $0$ cannot be an eigenvalue of $\mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega)$. As a consequence the discrete eigenvalues of the operator $A_{ \ell,b}$ converge to $\pi^2/\alpha^2$ as $\ell \to 0$.
In what follows we consider for real $\omega$ not only the kernel of the operator $\mathcal Q_{b}(\ell, \omega)$, but more generally the discrete eigenvalues of the self-adjoint realisation of $\mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega)$. For $\ell> 0$ and $\omega \in \R \backslash [\pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty)$ we denote $$\mu_1(\ell, \omega) \le \mu_2(\ell, \omega) \le \ldots$$ these eigenvalues counted with multiplicities.
\[lemma:ev\_D\_ell\_2D\] Let $\ell_0 > 0$ and $\varepsilon > 0$ be chosen as in Theorem \[th:form\_asymptotics\_2D\]. Then the following assertions hold true:
1. For fixed $\ell > 0 $ the function $ \mu_1 (\ell, \cdot )$ is strictly decreasing in $(- \infty, \pi^2/\alpha^2)$.
2. For fixed $\ell \in (0,\ell_0)$ we have $ \mu_1 (\ell ,\omega) \to -\infty$ as $\omega \to \pi^2/\alpha^2$.
3. For fixed $\omega \in (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \varepsilon , \pi^2/\alpha^2 )$ we have $\mu_1(\ell, \omega) \to \infty$ as $\ell \to 0$.
4. There exists $\tilde \ell_0 = \tilde \ell_0 (\alpha, \Sigma)$ such that for all $\tilde \ell \in (0, \ell_0)$ and for all $| \omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon $ we have $\mu_2(\ell, \omega) > 0$.
We note that for fixed $\xi \in \R$ the function $ m_\omega (\xi)$ is strictly decreasing in $\omega$ as can easily be seen from $$\begin{aligned}
m_\omega(\xi) &= \frac1{\alpha} + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{2 \alpha (\xi^2 - \omega)}{\alpha^2 (\xi^2 - \omega) +k^2 \pi^2 }
= \frac1{\alpha} + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{2 \alpha}{\alpha^2 + \frac{k^2 \pi^2}{\xi^2 - \omega} } .
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for $- \infty < \omega_1 < \omega_2< \pi^2 /\alpha^2$ and $g \in \tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma) \backslash\{0\}$ we have $$q_b(\ell, \omega_1)[g] > q_b(\ell, \omega_2)[g] .$$ Then assertion (1) follows by applying the min-max principle for self-adjoint operators. Let us now prove assertion (2). Decomposition and the min-max principle for self-adjoint operators yield for $\ell \in (0, \ell_0)$ and $|\omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon$ that $\mu_1(\ell, \omega) \le q_b(\ell, \omega) [g_0]$ for any $g_0 \in \tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma)$ with $\| g_0 \|_{L_2(\Sigma)} =1$. Choosing $g_0$ such that ${ \langle P_{\mathrm{ct}}g_0 , g_0 \rangle}_\Sigma \neq 0$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1(\ell, \omega) \le \frac1\ell { \langle \mathcal Q_0 g_0 , g_0 \rangle}_\Sigma - \ell \cdot \left( \frac{|\Sigma| \cdot \pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right) \cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2-\omega}} \cdot { \langle P_{\mathrm{ct}}g_0 , g_0 \rangle}_{\Sigma} + C_1 ,
\end{aligned}$$ which tends to $- \infty $ as $\omega \to \pi^2 /\alpha^2$. Here $C_1 := \sup\{ \| R_b(\ell , \omega)\|_{\mathcal L (L_2(\Sigma))} : \ell \in (0, \ell_0) \; \wedge \; |\omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon \}$. This proves (2). To deduce (3) we recall that $\mathcal Q_0$ is invertible and we have $q_0[g] = { \langle \mathcal Q_0 g , g \rangle}_\Sigma \ge 0$ for all $g \in \tilde H^{1/2}_0 (\Sigma)$. Thus, there exists $\mu_* > 0$ such that $${ \langle \mathcal Q_0 g , g \rangle}_\Sigma = q_0[g] \ge \mu_* \|g\|_{L_2(\Sigma)}^ 2 , \qquad g \in H^{1/2}_0 .$$ We note that the spectrum of the self-adjoint realisation of $\mathcal Q_0$ is discrete since the form domain of $q_0$ is compactly embedded in $L_2(\Sigma)$. Thus, for fixed $\omega \in \R \backslash [\pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty)$ with $| \omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2 | < \varepsilon$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1(\ell, \omega) &= \inf\{ q_b(\ell, \omega)[g] : g \in \tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma) \; \wedge \; \| g\|_{L_2(\Sigma)} = 1 \} \ge \frac{\mu_*}\ell - C_1 \to \infty
\end{aligned}$$ as $\ell \to 0$. This proves (3). Assertion (4) follows if we prove that the form $q_b(\ell,\omega)$ is positive on a subset of codimension $1$. Choose $ g \in \tilde H^{1/2}_0 (\Sigma) $, $\|g\|_{L_2(\Sigma)} = 1$, orthogonal to the constant functions. Then $$q_b(\ell , \omega) [g] = \frac1\ell q_0[g] + { \langle R_b(\ell, \omega)g , g \rangle}_\Sigma \ge \frac{\mu_*}{\ell} - C_1 > 0$$ for $0 < \ell < \tilde \ell_0 := \min \{ 1, \mu_*/C_1 \}$ and $|\omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon$. This concludes the proof of Lemma \[lemma:ev\_D\_ell\_2D\].
\[lemma:uniqueness\_2D\] There exists $\ell_0 = \ell_0(\alpha, b, \Sigma) > 0$ such that for all $\ell \in (0, \ell_0)$ the operator $A_{\ell,b}$ has a unique eigenvalue $\lambda(\ell)$ below its essential spectrum.
We start by proving the uniqueness of the eigenvalue. Let $\varepsilon> 0$ be chosen as in Theorem \[th:form\_asymptotics\_2D\] and Lemma \[lemma:ev\_D\_ell\_2D\]. Using the remark before Lemma \[lemma:ev\_D\_ell\_2D\] we may choose $\ell_0 > 0$ such that $\inf \sigma(A_{\ell,b}) \ge \pi^2/\alpha^2 - \varepsilon$ for all $\ell \in (0, \ell_0)$. Moreover, we assume that $\mu_2(\ell, \omega) > 0$ for all $ \ell \in (0,\ell_0)$ and $\omega \in (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \varepsilon , \pi^2/\alpha^2)$. Fix $\ell \in (0, \ell_0)$ and assume that $\omega \in \sigma_d(A_{\ell,b})$. Then $\mu_1(\ell,\omega) = 0$. Lemma \[lemma:ev\_D\_ell\_2D\] (1) implies for $\omega_1 < \omega< \omega_2< \pi^2/\alpha^2$ $$\mu_1 (\ell,\omega_1) < \mu_1 (\ell,\omega) = 0 < \mu_1 (\ell,\omega_2) .$$ In particular we have $\mathrm{ker} \; \mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega_1) = \mathrm{ker} \; \mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega_2) = \{0\}$, which proves the uniqueness of the eigenvalue of $A_{\ell,b}$.
Next we prove the existence of the eigenvalue. Using Lemma \[lemma:ev\_D\_ell\_2D\] (3) we may assume that $\mu_1(\ell, \pi^2/\alpha^2 - \varepsilon/2) > 0$ for all $\ell \in (0, \ell_0)$. Fix $ \ell \in (0, \ell_0)$. Since $\mu_1(\ell, \omega) \to - \infty $ as $\omega \to
\pi^2 /\alpha^2$ and $\mu_1(\ell, \omega)$ depends continuously on $\omega$ it follows that there exists $\tilde \omega \in (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \varepsilon/2 , \pi^2/\alpha)$ such that $\mu_1(\ell, \tilde \omega) = 0$.
Another method of proof for Lemma \[lemma:uniqueness\_2D\] may be based on a variant of operator-valued Rouché’s theorem, cf. e.g. [@GohbergSigal] or the monograph [@AmKaLee].
Next we prove the asymptotic formula for the eigenvalue of $A_{\ell,b}$ using the Birman-Schwinger principle. To this end we choose $\ell_0 > 0$ such that the operator $ \mathcal Q_0 + \ell R_b(\ell, \omega) $ is invertible for all $\ell \in (0, \ell_0)$ and $\omega \in (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \varepsilon, \pi^2/\alpha^2)$. The existence of such an $\ell_0$ follows from the estimate .
\[lemma:Birman\_Schwinger\] Let $\ell \in (0, \ell_0)$ and $\omega \in (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \varepsilon, \pi^2/\alpha^2)$. Then $0$ is an eigenvalue of the operator $$\ell \mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega) = \mathcal Q_0 - \ell^2 \left( \frac{|\Sigma| \cdot \pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right)
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2-\omega}} P_{\mathrm{ct}}+\ell R_b(\ell, \omega)$$ if and only if $1$ is an eigenvalue of the Birman-Schwinger operator $$\label{eq:BS_2D}
\ell^2 \left( \frac{|\Sigma| \cdot \pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right)
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2-\omega}} \cdot P_{\mathrm{ct}}^{1/2} ( \mathcal Q_0 +\ell R_b(\ell, \omega) )^{-1} P_{\mathrm{ct}}^{1/2}$$
A proof may be found e.g. in [@BirSol92].
Since the projection $P_{\mathrm{ct}}$ is a rank-one operator with $P_{\mathrm{ct}}^2 = P_{\mathrm{ct}}= P_{\mathrm{ct}}^{1/2}$, the Birman-Schwinger principle implies that $\omega$ is an eigenvalue of the operator $A_{\ell,b}$ if and only if the trace of the Birman-Schwinger operator is equal to one, i.e., $$\ell^2 \left( \frac{\pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right) \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2-\omega}}
{ \langle ( \mathcal Q_0 +\ell R_b(\ell, \omega) )^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_\Sigma = 1 ,$$ where $\phi_0(x) = 1$ is the (non-normalised) constant function on $L_2(\Sigma)$. For the choice $\omega = \lambda(\ell)$ we obtain $$\label{eq:eigenvalue_Birman_Schwinger_2D}
\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) }
= \ell^2 \left( \frac{ \pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right) { \langle ( \mathcal Q_0 +\ell R_b(\ell, \lambda(\ell)))^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_\Sigma .$$ Next we use an asymptotic expansion for the resolvent term. We have $$\begin{aligned}
( \mathcal Q_0 +\ell R_b(\ell, \omega) )^{-1} &= ( I + \ell \mathcal Q_0^{-1} R_b(\ell, \omega))^{-1} \mathcal Q_0^{-1} , \notag \\
&= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \ell^k \bigr( - \mathcal Q_0^{-1} R_b(\ell, \omega) \bigr)^{k} \mathcal Q_0^{-1} = \mathcal Q_0^{-1} + \mathcal O(\ell) , \label{eq:exp_Q+R_ell}
\end{aligned}$$ uniformly in $\omega \in (\pi^2/\alpha^2, - \varepsilon, \pi^2/\alpha^2)$. Note that for sufficiently small $\ell$ the sum converges absolutely in $\mathcal L(L_2(\Sigma))$. Hence, $${ \langle (\mathcal Q_0 +\ell R_b(\ell, \lambda(\ell) ) )^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{\Sigma} = { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1}
\phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{\Sigma} + \mathcal{O}(\ell)$$ as $\ell \to 0$, and thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) }
&= \ell^2 \left( \frac{\pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right) { \langle ( \mathcal Q_0 + \ell R_b(\ell, \lambda(\ell)) )^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{\Sigma} \\
&= \left( \frac{\pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right) \cdot { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_\Sigma \cdot \ell^2 + \mathcal{O}(\ell^3) .\end{aligned}$$ This proves the first term of the asymptotics in Theorem \[th:main\_2D\] with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:tau_0_2D}
\tau_0(\Sigma) := { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_\Sigma = { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1/2} \phi_0 , Q_0^{-1/2} \phi_0 \rangle}_\Sigma > 0 .\end{aligned}$$ Until now no additional assumptions on $b \in L_\infty(\R)$ were necessary. Now let $b$ be differentiable in a neighbourhood of $0$. Then $${ \langle b T_\ell g , T_\ell h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell } = \int_{\Sigma} b(\ell x) \cdot g(x) \; \overline{h(x)} \ \mathrm{d} x = b(0) { \langle g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} + \mathcal O(\ell) .$$ Note that the remainder may be estimated uniformly in the operator norm. Thus, together with Theorem \[th:form\_asymptotics\_2D\] we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
R_b(\ell, \omega) = b(0) I + \mathcal O(\ell \ln \ell ) .\end{aligned}$$ The estimate holds uniformly in $\ell \in (0, \ell_0)$ and $| \omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon$. Using Formula we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
( \mathcal Q_0 + \ell R_b(\ell, \lambda(\ell) )^{-1} &= \mathcal Q_0^{-1} + \ell \mathcal Q_0^{-1} R_b(\ell, \lambda(\ell)) \mathcal Q_0^{-1} + \mathcal O(\ell^2) \\[4pt]
&= \mathcal Q_0^{-1} + \ell \cdot b(0) \cdot I + \mathcal O(\ell^2 \cdot \ln \ell) . \end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) }
&= \ell^2 \left( \frac{\pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right) { \langle ( \mathcal Q_0 + \ell R_b(\ell, \omega) )^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{\Sigma} \\
&= \left( \frac{\pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right) \cdot \tau_0(\Sigma) \cdot \ell^2 + \left( \frac{b(0) \pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right) \cdot \tau_1(\Sigma) \cdot \ell^3 + \mathcal O(\ell^4 \ln \ell) \end{aligned}$$ with $$\label{def:tau_1_2D}
\tau_1(\Sigma) := { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-2} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_\Sigma = { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 \rangle}_\Sigma > 0 .$$ This proves Theorem \[th:main\_2D\].
Now let $\Sigma =(-1,1)$. Then the operator $\mathcal Q_0$ becomes the composition of the standard finite Hilbert transform and the derivative. Using [@AmKaLeeElastic13 Formula (4.8)] or [@AmKaLee Section 5.2] we obtain $$(\mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 )(x) =\sqrt{1- x^2} ,$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
{ \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{\Sigma} = \int_{-1}^1 \sqrt{1-x^2} \ \mathrm{d} x = \frac\pi2 .\end{aligned}$$ For the sake of simplicity we assume that $b \in C^2(\R)$. Then $${ \langle b T_\ell g , T_\ell h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell } = \int_{\Sigma} b(\ell x) \cdot g(x) \; \overline{h(x)} \ \mathrm{d} x = b(0) { \langle g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} +
\ell \cdot b ' (0) { \langle M_x g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} + \mathcal O(\ell^2) ,$$ where $M_x : L_2(\Sigma) \to L_2(\Sigma)$ is the multiplication operator $(M_xf)(x) = x f(x) $. Theorem \[th:form\_asymptotics\_2D\] implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:exp_remainder_2D}
\begin{split} R_b(\ell, \omega) &= b(0) \cdot I + \ell \ln \ell \cdot \frac{ \pi}{\alpha^2} P_{\mathrm{ct}}+ \ell \left( \frac{\rho_0(\alpha)}\pi P_{\mathrm{ct}}+ \frac{\pi }{2\alpha^2} K_{\ln|x| } + b'(0) M_x \right) \\
& \quad+ R^{(1)}_b(\ell, \omega),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\| R_b^{(1)}(\ell, \lambda(\ell) ) \|_{\mathcal L(L_2(\Sigma))} \le C ( \ell^3 \ln \ell + \pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) ) = \mathcal O(\ell^3 \ln \ell) .$$ To calculate the asymptotic behaviour of the eigenvalue we use the expansion $$\begin{aligned}
( \mathcal Q_0 + \ell R_b(\ell, \lambda(\ell) ) )^{-1} &= \mathcal Q_0^{-1} - \ell \cdot b(0) \mathcal Q_0^{-2} - \ell^2 \ln \ell \cdot \frac{\pi }{\alpha^2} \mathcal Q_0^{-1} P_{\mathrm{ct}}\mathcal Q_0^{-1} \\
&\quad - \ell^2 \cdot \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \left( \frac{\rho_0(\alpha)}\pi P_{\mathrm{ct}}+ \frac{\pi }{2\alpha^2} K_{\ln|x|} + b'(0) M_x \right) \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \\[6pt]
&\quad + \ell^2 \cdot b(0)^2 \mathcal Q_0^{-3} + \mathcal O(\ell^3 \ln \ell ) . \end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
&\ell^{-2} \left( \frac{\pi^2}{\alpha^3} \right)^{-1} \cdot \sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) } \\
& \quad= \frac\pi2 - \ell \cdot b(0) { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-2}\phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)} - \ell^2 \ln \ell \cdot
\frac{\pi}{\alpha^2} { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1} P_{\mathrm{ct}}\mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)} \\[6pt]
&\qquad - \ell^2 \cdot \frac{\rho_0(\alpha)}{\pi} { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1} P_{\mathrm{ct}}\mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)}
- \ell^2 \cdot \frac{\pi}{\alpha^2} { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1} K_{\ln|x|} \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)} \\[6pt]
&\qquad - \ell^2 \cdot b'(0) { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1} M_x \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)}
+ \ell^2 \cdot b(0)^2 { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-3} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)} \\[6pt]
&\qquad + \mathcal O(\ell^3 \ln \ell ) . \end{aligned}$$ In order to calculate the asymptotic behaviour of ${ \langle (\mathcal Q_0^{-1} + \ell R_{\ell, \lambda(\ell)} )^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)}$ we shall need the following identities $$\begin{aligned}
{ \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-2 } \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)} &= { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \mathcal Q_0^{-1}\phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)}
= \int_{-1}^1 ( 1-x^2 ) \ \mathrm{d} x = \frac43 , \\
{ \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1} P_{\mathrm{ct}}\mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)} &= { \langle P_{\mathrm{ct}}\mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)}
= \frac{\pi^2}8 , \\
{ \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1} M_x \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)} &= { \langle M_x \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)}
= \int_{-1}^1 x ( 1- x^2) \ \mathrm{d} x = 0. \end{aligned}$$ Next we calculate ${ \langle K_{\ln|x|} \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)}$. Recall that $(\mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0)(x) = \sqrt{1-x^2}$. Using [@AmKaLee Formulae (5.6)-(5.9)] for $\psi := K_{\ln|x|} \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0$ we obtain $$\psi'(x) = \mathrm{p.v.} \int_{-1}^1 \frac{\phi_0(x)}{x-y} \ \mathrm{d} y = \mathrm{p.v.} \int_{-1}^1 \frac{\sqrt{1-x^2}}{x-y} \ \mathrm{d} y = \pi x .$$ Thus, $\psi(x) = \frac{\pi x^2}{2} + \psi(0) $, where $$\psi(0) = \int_{-1}^1 \ln |x| \sqrt{1-x^2} \ \mathrm{d} x = 2 \int_{0}^1 \ln |x| \sqrt{1-x^2} \ \mathrm{d} x = - \frac{\pi}2 \left(\frac12 + \ln 2 \right) ,$$ cf. [@GradRyz Section 4.241]. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&{ \langle K_{\ln|x|} \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)} \\
&\qquad = \frac\pi2 \int_{-1}^1 x^2 \sqrt{1-x^2} \ \mathrm{d} x - \frac{\pi}2 \left(\frac12 + \ln 2 \right) \int_{-1}^1 \sqrt{1-x^2} \ \mathrm{d} x
= \frac{\pi^2}{16} \left( - 1 - \ln 16\right) . \end{aligned}$$ Setting $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\rho_1 &:= { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-3} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)} = { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-2} \phi_0 , \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)} \\
&= { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-3/2} \phi_0 , \mathcal Q_0^{-3/2} \phi_0 \rangle}_{(-1,1)} > 0 \label{eq:rho_1}\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) }
&= \ell^2 \left( \frac{\pi^3}{2 \alpha^3} \right) - \ell^3 \left( \frac{4b(0) \pi^2}{3 \alpha^3} \right)
- \ell^4 \ln \ell \left( \frac{\pi^5}{8 \alpha^5} \right) \\
&\quad - \ell^4 \left( \frac{\rho_0(\alpha) \pi^3}{8 \alpha^3 } - \frac{\pi^5}{32 \alpha^5}( 1 + \ln 16) - b(0)^2 \rho_1 \cdot
\frac{ \pi^2}{\alpha^3}
\right) + \mathcal O(\ell^5 \ln \ell).\end{aligned}$$ This proves Theorem \[th:main\_2D\_special\].
Concluding the two-dimensional case we briefly want to sketch what happens in the case of two waveguides of width $\alpha_+$ and $\alpha_-$, which are coupled through a window $\Sigma_\ell := \ell \cdot \Sigma$. We use the same ansatz and introduce the corresponding Dirichlet-to-Neumann operators $D_{\ell,\omega}^{+}$ and $D_{\ell,\omega}^{-}$ on the upper and on the lower waveguide. Comparing the normal derivatives along the window we observe that $\omega$ is an eigenvalue of the corresponding Dirichlet-Laplacian if and only if $0$ is an eigenvalue of $$D_{\ell, \omega} := D_{\ell, \omega}^+ + D_{\ell, \omega}^{-} .$$ Using the same scaling operator $T_\ell$ as above leads to the analysis of the operator $$\mathcal Q(\ell, \omega) = \mathcal Q^+(\ell, \omega) + \mathcal Q^-(\ell, \omega) = T_\ell^* D_{\ell, \omega}^+ T_\ell
+ T_\ell^* D_{\ell, \omega}^- T_\ell$$ In what follows we assume that $\alpha_+ > \alpha_-$ so that the essential spectrum of the corresponding operator $A_\ell$ is given by the interval $[\pi^2 /\alpha_+^2, \infty)$. Using the asymptotic expansions of $\mathcal Q^\pm(\ell , \omega)$ as $\ell \to 0$ and $\omega \to \pi^2/\alpha^2_+$ we obtain $$\mathcal Q(\ell, \omega )
= \frac2\ell \mathcal Q_0 - \frac{\ell}{\sqrt{\pi^2 /\alpha^2 - \omega}} \left( \frac{|\Sigma| \cdot \pi^2}{\alpha_+^3} \right) P_{\mathrm{ct}}+ \mathcal O(1) ,$$ The same approach yields now the following result.
\[th:main\_coupled\] In the case of two coupled waveguides the ground state eigenvalue $\lambda(\ell)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{ \pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell)} = \left( \frac{\pi^2}{2 \alpha_+^3} \right) \cdot \tau_0(\Sigma) \cdot
\ell^2 + \mathcal{O}(\ell^3 ) \qquad \text{as} \quad \ell \to 0 .
\end{aligned}$$ Here $\tau_0 (\Sigma) > 0 $ is again given by .
Infinite layers {#sec:3D}
===============
We consider the mixed problem for an infinite layer $\Omega := \R^2 \times (0, \alpha)$ with coordinates $(x,y) = (x_1, x_2, y) \in \R^2 \times (0, \alpha)$. Let $\Sigma \times \{0 \} \subseteq \partial \Omega$ be the Robin window, where $\Sigma \subseteq \R^2$ is a bounded open subset with Lipschitz boundary. For $\ell > 0$ we denote by $\Sigma_\ell := \ell \cdot \Sigma \subseteq \R^2$ the scaled window. Let $b \in L_\infty(\R^2)$ be a real-valued function and consider the quadratic form $$a_{\ell,b} [u ] := \int_{\Omega} |u(x,y)|^2 \ \mathrm{d} x \ \mathrm{d} y + \int_{\Sigma_{\ell}} b(x) \cdot |u(x,0)|^2 \ \mathrm{d} x$$ with the form domain $$D[a_{\ell,b}] := \left\{ u \in H^1(\Omega) : u|_{\R^2 \times \{\alpha \} } = 0 \; \wedge \;
\mathrm{supp} (u|_{\R^2 \times \{0\}} ) \subseteq \overline{\Sigma_\ell} \right\} .$$ As in the two-dimensional case we observe that $a_{\ell,b}$ is a closed semi-bounded form in $L_2(\Omega)$, and thus, it induces a self-adjoint operator $A_{\ell,b}$. The essential spectrum of $A_{\ell,b}$ is independent of $b$ and $\ell$ and given by $\sigma_{\mathrm{ess}} (A_{\ell,b} ) = [ \pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty) . $ We prove the following theorem.
\[th:main\_3D\] There exists $\ell_0 = \ell_0(\alpha, b, \Sigma) >0 $ such that the operator $A_{\ell,b}$ has a unique eigenvalue $\lambda(\ell)$ below the essential spectrum $[\pi^2/\alpha^2, \infty)$. If $b$ is $C^1$ in some neighbourhood of $0 \in \R^2$ then the eigenvalue satisfies the asymptotic estimate $$\ln (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) ) = - \ell^{-3} \frac{4\alpha^3}{ \tau_0 (\Sigma) + \tau_1 (\Sigma) b(0) \ell + \mathcal{O}(\ell^2)}
\qquad \text{as} \quad \ell \to 0,$$ with constants $\tau_0(\Sigma) >0 $ given by and $\tau_1(\Sigma) > 0 $ given by .
Since we shall only slightly modify our approach we will merely sketch the major steps of the proof. Actually, most of the results proven in the two-dimensional case may be reused. Let $\omega \in \C$ and $g \in H^{1/2}(\R^2)$. We consider for $u \in H^1(\Omega)$ the Poisson problem $$\label{eq:Poisson_3D}
( -\Delta - \omega )u =0 \quad \text{in } \Omega , \qquad u (\cdot , 0 ) = g , \qquad u(\cdot , \alpha ) = 0 .$$ Applying the Fourier transform with respect to the first two variables leads for every $\xi= (\xi_1, \xi_2) \in \R^2$ to the following Sturm-Liouville problem $$(- \partial_y^2 + |\xi|^2 - \omega) \hat u(\xi,\cdot ) = 0 , \quad \text{in } (0,\alpha) \qquad \hat u (\xi , 0) = \hat g(\xi), \qquad
\hat u (\xi, \alpha) = 0 ,$$ where $\xi \in \R^2$. The solution of is given by $$\hat u (\xi, y) := \hat g(\xi) \cdot \frac{\sinh((\alpha - y) \sqrt{|\xi|^2 - \omega})}{\sinh(\alpha \sqrt{|\xi|^2 - \omega})} ,$$ which is similar to Formula . In the same way we obtain that the Poisson problem is uniquely solvable for all $g \in H^{1/2}(\R^2)$ if and only if $\omega \in \C \backslash [\pi^2/\alpha^2 , \infty)$. Moreover, there exists a constant $c = c(\alpha, \omega) > 0 $ such that $ \| u\|_{H^1(\Omega)} \le c \| g\|_{H^{1/2}(\R^2)} . $ In what follows let $\omega \in \C \backslash [\pi^2/\alpha^2 , \infty)$. Then the normal derivative of $u$ satisfies $$\widehat{\partial_n u} (\xi, 0 ) = m_{\omega} (|\xi|) \cdot \hat g (\xi) , \quad \xi \in \R^2,$$ where the function $m_\omega$ is defined as in the two-dimensional case, i.e., $$m_\omega(|\xi|) = \sqrt{|\xi|^2 - \omega} \cdot \coth(\alpha\sqrt{|\xi|^2 - \omega}) .$$ Hence, the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator for the infinite layer is given by the Fourier integral operator $$D_\omega : H^{1/2} (\R^2) \to H^{-1/2}(\R^2) , \qquad \widehat{D_\omega g} (\xi) := m_\omega(|\xi|) \cdot \hat g(\xi) .$$
The next step is to define the truncated operator on the boundary. The corresponding spaces $\tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma_\ell)$ and $H^{-1/2}(\Sigma_\ell)$ are defined as in and . As both $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma_\ell$ have Lipschitz boundary, the dual pairing still holds true, cf. [@McLean Theorems 3.14, 3.30]. Put $$D_{\ell, \omega} +b : \tilde H_0^{1/2}(\Sigma_\ell) \to H^{-1/2}(\Sigma_\ell), \qquad
D_{\ell, \omega} +b := r_\ell (D_\omega + b ) e_\ell ,$$ where $r_\ell : H^{-1/2}(\R^2) \to H^{-1/2}(\Sigma_\ell)$ denotes the restriction operator and $e_\ell :\tilde H_0^{1/2}(\Sigma_\ell) \to H^{1/2}(\R^2)$ the embedding operator. As in Lemma \[lemma:kernel\] we obtain $$\mathrm{dim}\; \mathrm{ker} (A_{\ell,b} - \omega) = \mathrm{dim}\; \mathrm{ker} (D_{\ell,\omega} + b) .$$ Let $$T_\ell : L_2(\Sigma) \to L_2(\Sigma_\ell) , \qquad (T_\ell g )(x) := \ell^{-1} g(x/\ell) .$$ be the unitary scaling operator. In what follows we consider the scaled operator $$\mathcal Q_b (\ell, \omega) = T_\ell^* (D_{\ell, \omega} + b ) T_\ell$$ together with its associated sesquilinear form $$\begin{aligned}
q_b (\ell , \omega) &:= { \langle \mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega) g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} \\
&= \ell^2 \int_{\R^2} m_\omega(|\xi|) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \overline{h(\ell \xi)} \ \mathrm{d} \xi +
\int_{\Sigma} b(\ell x) \cdot g(x) \; \overline{h(x)} \ \mathrm{d} x ,\end{aligned}$$ where $g, h \in D[q_b(\ell,\omega) ] := \tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma)$. As before we define $\mathcal Q_0 : \tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma) \to H^{-1/2}(\Sigma)$, $${ \langle \mathcal Q_0 g , h \rangle}_\Sigma := q_0 [g,h] := \int_{\R^2} |\xi| \cdot \hat g(\xi) \cdot \overline{\hat h(\xi)} \ \mathrm{d} \xi ,$$ and let $P_{\mathrm{ct}}$ denote the projection onto the space of constant functions in $L_2(\Sigma)$. Moreover, we denote by $K_{\frac1{|x|}} : L_2(\Sigma) \to L_2(\Sigma) $ the following convolution operator $$(K_{\frac{1}{|x|}} f)(z) := \int_{\Sigma} \frac{f(z)}{|x-z|} \ \mathrm{d} x, \qquad z \in \Sigma .$$
\[th:form\_asymptotics\_3D\] Let $b=0$. There exists $\ell_0 >0 $ and $\varepsilon > 0$ such that for $\ell \in (0, \ell_0)$ and $|\omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon$ the following expansion holds true $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal Q_0(\ell, \omega) &= \frac1\ell \mathcal Q_0 +
\ell^2 \cdot \frac{|\Sigma|}{4 \alpha^3} \ln (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega ) P_{\mathrm{ct}}- \ell \frac{\pi}{4 \alpha^2} K_{\frac1{|x|}} + R(\ell, \omega) .
\end{aligned}$$ Here $|\Sigma|$ denotes the volume of $\Sigma$ and the remainder satisfies $$\|R(\ell,\omega)\|_{\mathcal L (L_2(\Sigma))} \le C (\ell^2 + \pi^2 / \alpha^2 - \omega)$$ for some constant $C = C( \alpha, \Sigma) > 0 $ which is independent of $\ell$, $\omega$.
We use the same decomposition for $q_0(\ell,\omega)$ as in the two-dimensional case and put $$\begin{aligned}
q_0(\ell, \omega)[g,h] &=
\ell^2 \left(\int_{\{|\xi| \le 1 \} } + \int_{\{|\xi| > 1 \}} \right) m_\omega(|\xi|) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \overline{h(\ell \xi)} \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&=: q_0^{(1)}(\ell,\omega) [g,h] + q_0^{(2)}(\ell,\omega)[g,h] .
\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $$m_\omega(\xi ) = \frac1{\alpha} + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{2 \alpha (\xi^2 - \omega)}{\alpha^2 (\xi^2 - \omega) +k^2 \pi^2 } = - \left(\frac{2\pi^2}{\alpha^3}\right) \frac{1}{\xi^2- \omega +\pi^2/\alpha^2} + \mathcal O(1)$$ and thus, $$\begin{aligned}
q_0^{(1)}(\ell,\omega) [g,h] &= - \ell^2 \cdot \left(\frac{2\pi^2}{\alpha^3}\right) \int_{\{ |\xi| \le 1\}} \frac{1}{|\xi|^2- \omega +\pi^2/\alpha^2} \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \overline{h(\ell \xi)} \ \mathrm{d} \xi + \mathcal O(\ell^2) .
\end{aligned}$$ We note that the the first expression coincides almost with the free resolvent of the Laplacian in $\R^2$, which with respect to the spectral parameter $\omega$ has a logarithmic singularity. Using the Taylor expansion of $\hat g \cdot \overline{\hat h}$ at $0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&- \ell^2 \cdot \left(\frac{2\pi^2}{\alpha^3}\right) \int_{\{ |\xi| \le 1\}} \frac{1}{|\xi|^2- \omega +\pi^2/\alpha^2} \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \overline{h(\ell \xi)} \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&\quad= - \ell^2 \cdot \left(\frac{2\pi^2}{\alpha^3}\right) \cdot \sum_{\beta \in \N_0^2 } \ell^{|\beta|} \frac{1}{\beta!} \left. \frac{\partial^\beta}{\partial \xi^\beta} \Bigr(\hat g(\xi) \overline{\hat h} (\xi) \Bigr) \right|_{\xi=0} \cdot
\int_{\{|\xi| \le 1\}} \frac{\xi^{\beta+1}}{|\xi|^2 + \pi^2/\alpha^2- \omega} \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&\quad= - \ell^2 \cdot \left(\frac{2\pi^2}{\alpha^3}\right) \hat g(0) \overline{\hat h} (0) \cdot
\int_{\{|\xi| \le 1\}} \frac{1}{|\xi|^2 + \pi^2/\alpha^2- \omega} \ \mathrm{d} \xi + \mathcal O(\ell^3) ,
\end{aligned}$$ since for $|\beta| \ge 1$ we have $$\left| \int_{\{|\xi| \le 1\}} \frac{\xi^\beta }{|\xi|^2 + \pi^2/\alpha^2- \omega} \ \mathrm{d} \xi \right| \le \int_0^1 \frac{r^2}{r^2 + \pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega} \ \mathrm{d} r \le C$$ and $C$ may be chosen independently of $\omega$. Moreover, $$\int_{\{|\xi| \le 1\}} \frac{1}{|\xi|^2 + \pi^2/\alpha^2- \omega} \ \mathrm{d} \xi = - \frac{1}2 \ln \left(\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega\right) + \mathcal O(1) ,$$ and thus, $$\begin{aligned}
q_0^{(1)}(\ell,\omega) [g,h] &= \ell^2 \cdot \left(\frac{\pi^2}{\alpha^3}\right) \hat g(0) \cdot \overline{\hat h} (0) \cdot \ln \left(\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega\right) + \mathcal O(\ell^3) \\
&= \ell^2 \cdot \left(\frac{|\Sigma| }{4 \alpha^3}\right) \ln \left(\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega\right) { \langle P_{\mathrm{ct}}g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} + \mathcal O(\ell^3) .
\end{aligned}$$ Next we consider the form $q_0^{(2)}(\ell,\omega )$. The expansion of $m_\omega$ for large $|\xi|$ implies $$\begin{aligned}
& q_0^{(2)}(\ell,\omega) [g,h] \\ &= \ell^2 \int_{\{|\xi| > 1 \}} m_\omega(|\xi| ) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \overline{\hat h(\ell \xi)} \ \mathrm{d} \xi \\
&= \frac1\ell q_0[g,h] - \ell^2 \cdot \frac{\omega}{2} \int_{\R^2} \frac{ \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \overline{\hat h(\ell \xi)}}{|\xi|} \ \mathrm{d} \xi + \ell^2 \int_{\R^2} m_{\omega,\mathrm{res}} (|\xi|) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \overline{\hat h(\ell \xi)} \ \mathrm{d} \xi ,
\end{aligned}$$ with $$m_{\omega,\mathrm{res}} (|\xi|) = - \mathds 1_{\{ |\xi| \le 1\}} (\xi) \cdot |\xi| +
\mathds 1_{\{|\xi| > 1 \}} (\xi) \cdot \Bigr( m_\omega(|\xi|) - |\xi| \Bigr) +
\frac{\omega}{2|\xi|} = \mathcal O( |\xi|^{-3}) .$$ We choose the functions $X_\omega, X_{\omega,\mathrm{res}} \in C^\infty(\R^2 \backslash \{0\})$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\hat X_\omega(\xi) = \frac{\omega}{4 \pi |\xi|} \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\hat X_{\omega,\mathrm{res}} (\xi) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \; m_{\omega,\mathrm{res}} (\xi ) .
\end{aligned}$$ Calculating $X_\omega$ for $(s,\varphi) \in \R_+ \times (0,2 \pi)$, $x = (s \cos \varphi, s \sin \varphi)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
X_\omega(x) &= \frac{\omega}{8\pi^2 } \int_{\R^2} \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} x \xi}}{|\xi|} \ \mathrm{d} \xi
= \frac{\omega}{8\pi^2} \int_0^\infty \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm i s t \left( \cos \varphi \; \sin\varphi \right) \cdot
\left(\cos u \; \sin u \right)^T} \ \mathrm{d} u \ \mathrm{d} t \\
&= \frac{\omega}{4\pi} \int_0^\infty J_0(t s) \ \mathrm{d} t .
\end{aligned}$$ Here $J_0$ is the Bessel function of the first kind of order $0$. Moreover, all integrals should be interpreted as oscillatory integrals or improper Riemann integrals. Using [@GradRyz Section 6.511] we obtain $$X_\omega(x) = \frac{\omega}{4\pi |x|} \int_0^\infty J_0(r) \ \mathrm{d} r = \frac\omega{4\pi |x|} ,$$ and thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\ell^2 \cdot \frac{\omega}2 \int_{\R^2} \frac{\hat g(\ell \xi) \; \overline{\hat h(\ell \xi)} }{|\xi|} \ \mathrm{d} \xi
&= \frac\omega{4\pi} { \langle K_{\frac1{|x|}} T_\ell g , T_\ell h \rangle}_{\Sigma_\ell}
= \frac{\omega\cdot \ell^2} {4\pi} \int_{\Sigma \times \Sigma}
\frac{g(x) \; \overline{h(z)}}{\ell |z-x|} \ \mathrm{d} x \ \mathrm{d} z \\[5pt]
&=\ell \cdot \frac{\pi}{4 \alpha^2} { \langle K_{\frac1{|x|}} g , h \rangle}_{\Sigma} +
\mathcal O(\pi^2/ \alpha^2 - \omega) .
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $m_{\omega,\mathrm{res}}(\xi) = \mathcal O( |\xi|^{-3})$ as $|\xi| \to \infty$, uniformly in $\omega \in (0, \pi^2/\alpha^2)$, and thus, $$\sup_{\omega \in (0, \pi^2/\alpha^2)} \|X_{\omega, \mathrm{res}} \|_{L_\infty(\R^2)} < \infty ,$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\ell^2 \int_{\R^2} m_{\omega,\mathrm{res}} (|\xi|) \cdot \hat g(\ell \xi) \; \overline{\hat h(\ell \xi)} \ \mathrm{d} \xi
&= \ell^2 \int_{\Sigma \times \Sigma} X_{\omega, \mathrm{res}} (\ell (z-x) ) \cdot g(x) \; \overline{h(z)} \ \mathrm{d} x \ \mathrm{d} z = \mathcal O(\ell^2) .
\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof of the theorem.
Let us now prove the asymptotics of the ground state eigenvalue of the operator $A_{\ell,b}$ as $\ell \to 0$. We shall omit the proof of the uniqueness or the existence of the eigenvalue for small $\ell >0$ as this follows in much the same way as in Lemma \[lemma:uniqueness\_2D\]. We note that the operator $\mathcal Q_0$ is again invertible and a Fredholm operator since $\tilde H^{1/2}_0(\Sigma)$ is compactly embedded into $L_2(\Sigma)$, cf. the arguments from the previous section. Then for arbitrary $b \in L_\infty(\R)$ we have $$\ell \mathcal Q_b(\ell, \omega) =
\mathcal Q_0 + \ell^3 \cdot \frac{|\Sigma| }{4 \alpha^3} \ln (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \omega ) \cdot P_{\mathrm{ct}}+ \ell R_b(\ell,\omega )$$ with $$\sup \{ \| R_b (\ell,\omega ) \| : \ell \in (0,\ell_0) \; \wedge \; | \omega - \pi^2/\alpha^2| < \varepsilon \} < \infty .$$ Applying the Birman-Schwinger principle, we obtain the following identity for the eigenvalue $\lambda(\ell)$ $$- \frac{\ell^3 }{4 \alpha^3} \ln (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) ) \cdot
{ \langle ( \mathcal Q_0 +\ell R_b(\ell, \lambda(\ell)))^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_\Sigma = 1$$ or equivalently $$\ln (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) )
= - \frac{4 \alpha^3}{\ell^3 \cdot { \langle (\mathcal Q_0 +\ell R_b(\ell, \lambda(\ell)))^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_\Sigma }
.$$ Here $\phi_0 (x) = 1$ is again the non-normalised constant function in $L_2(\Sigma)$. As before we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
- \ln (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) ) &= \frac{4 \alpha^3}{\ell^3 \cdot \tau_1(\Sigma) + \mathcal O(\ell^4) } \end{aligned}$$ as $\ell \to 0$. Here $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:tau_0_3D}
\tau_1(\Sigma) := { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \phi_0 \rangle}_{\Sigma} = { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1/2} \phi_0 , \mathcal Q_0^{-1/2} \phi_0 \rangle}_{\Sigma} > 0 .\end{aligned}$$ This proves the first term of the asymptotic formula. Higher terms of the expansion may be calculated as above; assuming smoothness of $b$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\ln (\pi^2/\alpha^2 - \lambda(\ell) )
&= - \ell^{-3} \frac{4\alpha^3}{\tau_0(\Sigma) - \ell \cdot \tau_1(\Sigma) \cdot b(0) + \mathcal O(\ell^3)} \qquad \text{as} \quad \ell \to 0 ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:tau_1_3D}
\tau_1(\Sigma) = { \langle \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 , \mathcal Q_0^{-1} \phi_0 \rangle}_{\Sigma} >0 . \end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof of Theorem \[th:main\_3D\].
**Acknowledgements** {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
====================
The research and in particular A.H. were supported by DFG grant WE-1964/4-1.
, *Layer potential techniques in spectral analysis*. [American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI]{}, (2009).
, *Boundary perturbations due to the presence of small linear cracks in an elastic body*. [J. Elasticity]{} [**113**]{}, (2013), [75–91]{}.
, *Perturbations of the continuous spectrum of a singular elliptic operator by varying the boundary and the boundary conditions*. [Vestnik Leningrad. Univ.]{} [**17**]{}, (1962), [22–55]{} (in Russian).
, *Schrödinger operator. Estimates for number of bound states as function-theoretical problem*. [Amer. Math. Soc. Transl.]{} [**150**]{}, (1992), [1–54]{}. [Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI]{}.
, *On a waveguide with frequently alternating boundary conditions: homogenized Neumann condition*. [Ann. Henri Poincaré]{} [**11**]{}, (2010), [1591–1627]{}.
, *On a waveguide with an infinite number of small windows*. [C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris]{} [**349**]{}, (2011), [53–56]{}.
, *Waveguide with non-periodically alternating Dirichlet and Robin conditions: homogenization and asymptotics*. [Z. Angew. Math. Phys.]{} [**64**]{}, (2013), [439–472]{}.
, *Spectrum of the magnetic [S]{}chrödinger operator in a waveguide with combined boundary conditions*. [Ann. Henri Poincaré]{} [**6**]{}, (2005), [327–342]{}.
, *Exponential splitting of bound states in a waveguide with a pair of distant windows*. [J. Phys. A]{} [**37**]{}, (2004), [3411–3428]{}.
, *Distant perturbation asymptotics in window-coupled waveguides. [I]{}. [T]{}he nonthreshold case*. [J. Math. Phys.]{} [**47**]{}, (2006), [113502, 24]{}.
, *Bound states and scattering in quantum waveguides coupled laterally through a boundary window*. [J. Math. Phys.]{} [**37**]{}, (1996), [4867–4887]{}.
, *Asymptotic estimates for bound states in quantum waveguides coupled laterally through a narrow window*. [Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Phys. Théor.]{} [**65**]{}, (1996), [109–123]{}.
, *Bound-state asymptotic estimates for window-coupled [D]{}irichlet strips and layers*. [J. Phys. A]{} [**30**]{}, (1997), [7863–7878]{}.
, *Quantum waveguides*. [Springer]{}, (2015).
, *Resonances for laterally coupled quantum waveguides*. [J. Math. Phys.]{} [**41**]{}, (2000), [4391–4405]{}.
, *Three laterally coupled quantum waveguides: breaking of symmetry and resonance asymptotics*. [J. Phys. A]{} [**36**]{} (2003), [1655–1670]{}.
, *Surface potentials and the method of matching asymptotic expansions in the [H]{}elmholtz resonator problem*. [Algebra i Analiz]{} [**4**]{}, (1992), [88–115]{}.
, *On regular and singular perturbations of acoustic and quantum waveguides*. [C. R., Méc., Acad. Sci. Paris]{} [**332**]{}, (2004), [647–652]{}.
, *An operator generalization of the logarithmic residue theorem and [R]{}ouché’s theorem*. [Mat. Sb.]{} [**84**]{}, (1971), [607–629]{}.
, *Table of integrals, series, and products*. [Academic Press, New York-London]{}, (1965).
, *The mixed boundary value problem, [K]{}rein resolvent formulas and spectral asymptotic estimates*. [J. Math. Anal. Appl.]{} [**382**]{}, (2011), [339–363]{}.
, *Eigenvalue asymptotics for an elastic strip and an elastic plate with a crack*. (to appear).
, *Matching of asymptotic expansions of solutions of boundary value problems*. [American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI]{}, (1992).
, *Methoden der komplexen [F]{}unktionentheorie*. [VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin]{}, (1967).
, *Strongly elliptic systems and boundary integral equations*. [Cambridge University Press, Cambridge]{}, (2000).
, *Asymptotics of an eigenvalue on the continuous spectrum of two quantum waveguides coupled through narrow windows*. [Math. Notes]{} [**93**]{}, (2013), [266–281]{}.
, *Asymptotics of bound state for laterally coupled waveguides*. [Rep. Math. Phys.]{} [**43**]{}, (1999), [427–437]{}.
, *Asymptotics of bound states and bands for laterally coupled three-dimensional waveguides*. [Rep. Math. Phys.]{} [**48**]{}, (2001), [277–288]{}.
, *Asymptotics of bound states and bands for waveguides coupled through small windows*. [Appl. Math. Lett.]{} [**14**]{}, (2001), [109–113]{}.
, *Asymptotics of bound states and bands for laterally coupled waveguides and layers*. [J. Math. Phys.]{} [**43**]{}, (2002), [215–234]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Ryan G. James'
- Jeffrey Emenheiser
- 'James P. Crutchfield'
date:
-
-
title:
-
-
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Consider a joint distribution over “source” variables [$X_{0}$]{} and [$X_{1}$]{} and “target” [$Y$]{}. Such distributions arise in many settings: sensory integration, logical computing, neural coding, functional network inference, and many others. One promising approach to understanding how the information shared between $\left({\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}, {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}\right)$, and [$Y$]{}is organized is the *partial information decomposition* (PID) [@williams2010nonnegative]. This decomposition seeks to quantify how much of the information shared between [$X_{0}$]{}, [$X_{1}$]{}, and [$Y$]{}is done so *redundantly*, how much is *uniquely* attributable to [$X_{0}$]{}, how much is *uniquely* attributable to [$X_{1}$]{}, and finally how much arises *synergistically* by considering both [$X_{0}$]{} and [$X_{1}$]{} together.
Unfortunately, the lack of a commonly accepted method of quantifying these components has hindered PID’s adoption. In point of fact, several proposed axioms are not mutually consistent [@rauh2017extractable; @rauh2017secret]. And, to date, there is little agreement as to which should hold. Here, we take a step toward understanding these issues by adopting an operational definition for the unique information. This operational definition comes from information-theoretic cryptography and quantifies the rate at which two parties can construct a secret while a third party eavesdrops.
There are four varieties of secret key agreement rate depending on which parties are allowed to communicate, each of which defines a different PID. Each variety also relates to a different intuition as to how the PID operates. We discuss several aspects of these different methods and further demonstrate that three of the four fail to construct an internally consistent decomposition.
Our development proceeds as follows. Section\[sec:pid\] briefly describes the two-source PID. Section\[sec:secrets\] reviews the notion of secret key agreement rate and how to quantify it in three contexts: No one communicates, only Alice communicates, and both Alice and Bob communicate. Section\[sec:decompositions\] discusses the behavior of the PID quantified utilizing secret key agreement rates as unique informations and what intuitions are implied by the choice of who is permitted to communicate. Section\[sec:discussion\] explores two further implications of our primary results, first in a distribution where two-way communication seems to capture synergistic, third-order connected information and second in the behavior of an extant method of quantifying the PID along with maximum entropy methods. Finally, Section\[sec:conclusion\] summarizes our findings and speculates about PID’s future.
Partial Information Decomposition {#sec:pid}
=================================
Two-source PID seeks to decompose the mutual information between “sources” [$X_{0}$]{} and [$X_{1}$]{} and a “target” [$Y$]{}into four nonnegative components. The components identify information that is redundant, uniquely associated with [$X_{0}$]{}, uniquely associated with [$X_{1}$]{}, and synergistic: $$\begin{aligned}
\I{{\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}} =
& \phantom{+}~{{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\cdot}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}}
& \textrm{\emph{redundant}} \nonumber \\
& + {{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}}
& \textrm{\emph{unique with {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}} \nonumber \\
& + {{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}}
& \textrm{\emph{unique with {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}} \nonumber \\
& + {{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}} ~.
& \textrm{\emph{synergistic}}
\label{eq:decomp}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the mutual information $\I{{\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}$ between [$X_{0}$]{} and [$Y$]{}is decomposed into two components: $$\begin{aligned}
\I{{\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}} =
& \phantom{+}~{{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\cdot}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}}
& \textrm{\emph{redundant}} \nonumber \\
& + {{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}}
~.
& \textrm{\emph{unique with {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}}
\label{eq:decompa}\end{aligned}$$ And, similarly: $$\begin{aligned}
\I{{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}} =
& \phantom{+}~{{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\cdot}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}}
& \textrm{\emph{redundant}} \nonumber \\
& + {{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}}
~.
& \textrm{\emph{unique with {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}}
\label{eq:decompb}\end{aligned}$$ In this way, PID relates the four component informations. However, since Eqs. to provide only three independent constraints for four quantities, it does not uniquely determine how to quantify them in general. That is, this fourth constraint lies outside of the PID.
By the same logic, though, the decomposition is uniquely determined by quantifying exactly one of its constituents. In the case that one wishes to directly quantify the unique informations [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} and [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{}, a consistency relation must hold so that they do not overconstrain the decomposition: $$\begin{aligned}
{{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}} & + \I{{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}} \nonumber \\
& = {{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}} + \I{{\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}
~.
\label{eq:consistency}\end{aligned}$$ This ensures that using either Eq. or Eq. results in the same quantification of [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\cdot}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{}.
Secret Key Agreement {#sec:secrets}
====================
*Secret key agreement* is a fundamental concept within information-theoretic cryptography [@maurer1993secret]. Consider three parties—Alice, Bob, and Eve—who each partially observe a source of common randomness, joint probability distribution $ABE \sim p(a, b, e)$, where Alice has access only to $a$, Bob $b$, and Eve $e$. The central challenge is to determine if it is possible for Alice and Bob to agree upon a secret key of which Eve has no knowledge. The degree to which they may generate such a secret key immediately depends upon the structure of the joint distribution $ABE$. It also depends upon whether Alice and Bob are allowed to publicly communicate.
Concretely, consider Alice, Bob, and Eve each receiving $n$ independent, identically distributed samples from $ABE$—Alice receiving $A^n$, Bob $B^n$, and Eve $E^n$. A *secret key agreement scheme* consists of functions $f$ and $g$, as well as a protocol ($h$) for public communication allowing either Alice, Bob, neither, or both to communicate. In the case of a single party being permitted to communicate—say, Alice—she constructs $C = h(A^n)$ and then broadcasts it to all parties. In the case that both parties are permitted communication, they take turns constructing and broadcasting messages of the form $C_i = h_i(A^n, C_{[0 \ldots i-1]})$ (Alice) and $C_i = h_i(B^n, C_{[0 \ldots i-1]})$ (Bob) [@gohari2017coding].
Formally, a secret key agreement scheme is considered $R$-achievable if for all $\epsilon > 0$: $$\begin{aligned}
K_A &\stackrel{(1)}{=} f(A^n, C) ~, \\
K_B &\stackrel{(2)}{=} g(B^n, C) ~, \\
p(K_A = K_B = K) &\stackrel{(3)}{\geq} 1 - \epsilon ~, \\
\I{K : C E^n} &\stackrel{(4)}{\leq} \epsilon ~, ~\text{and}\\
\frac{1}{n} \H{K} &\stackrel{(5)}{\geq} R - \epsilon
~,\end{aligned}$$ where $(1)$ and $(2)$ denote the method by which Alice and Bob construct their keys $K_A$ and $K_B$, respectively, $(3)$ states that their keys must agree with arbitrarily high probability, $(4)$ states that the information about the key which Eve—armed with both her private information $E^n$ as well as the public communication $C$—has access to be arbitrarily small, and $(5)$ states that the key consists of approximately $R$ bits per sample.
The greatest rate $R$ such that an achievable scheme exists is known as the *secret key agreement rate*. Notational variations indicate which parties are permitted to communicate. In the case that Alice and Bob are not allowed to communicate, their rate of secret key agreement is denoted [$\operatorname{S}(A : B ~||~ E)$]{}. When only Alice is allowed to communicate their secret key agreement rate is [[$\operatorname{S}(A \rightarrow B ~||~ E)$]{}]{} or, equivalently, [$\operatorname{S}(B \leftarrow A ~||~ E)$]{}. When both Alice and Bob are allowed to communicate, their secret key agreement rate is denoted [$\operatorname{S}(A \leftrightarrow B ~||~ E)$]{}. In this, we modified the standard notation for secret key agreement rates to emphasize which party or parties communicate.
In the case of no communication, [$\operatorname{S}(A : B ~||~ E)$]{} is given by [@chitambar2018conditional]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{S}(A : B ~||~ E)}\xspace} = \H{A \meet B | E}
~,
\label{eq:skarzero}\end{aligned}$$ where $X \meet Y$ denotes the G[á]{}cs-K[ö]{}rner common random variable [@gacs1973common]. It is worth noting that this quantity does not vary continuously with the distribution and generically vanishes.
In the case of one-way communication, [[$\operatorname{S}(A \rightarrow B ~||~ E)$]{}]{} is given by [@ahlswede1993common]: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{S}(A \rightarrow B ~||~ E)}\xspace}} = \max \left\{ \I{B : K | C} - \I{E : K | C} \right\}
~,
\label{eq:skarone}\end{aligned}$$ where the maximum is taken over all variables $C$ and $K$, such that the following Markov condition holds: $C \markov K \markov A \markov BE$. It suffices to consider $K$ and $C$ such that $|K| \leq |A|$ and $|C| \leq |A|^2$.
There is no such solution for [$\operatorname{S}(A \leftrightarrow B ~||~ E)$]{}; however, various upper- and lower-bounds are known [@gohari2017coding]. One simple lower bound is the supremum of the two one-way secret key agreement rates, as they are both a subset of bidirectional communication. An even simpler upper bound that we will use is the *intrinsic mutual information* [@maurer1999unconditionally]: $$\begin{aligned}
\I{A : B \downarrow E} = \min_{p(\overline{e}|e)} \I{A : B | \overline{E}}
~.
\label{eq:imi}\end{aligned}$$ This effectively states that any information Eve has access to through any local modification of her observations cannot be secret.
The unique PID component [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} could be assigned the value of a secret key agreement rate under four different schemes. First, neither [$X_{0}$]{} nor [$Y$]{}may be allowed to communicate. Second, only [$X_{0}$]{} can communicate. Third, only [$Y$]{}is permitted to communicate. Finally, both [$X_{0}$]{} and [$Y$]{}may be allowed to communicate. Note that the eavesdropper [$X_{1}$]{} is not allowed to communicate in any secret sharing schemes here.
Secret key agreement rates have been associated with unique informations before. One particular upper bound on [$\operatorname{S}(A \leftrightarrow B ~||~ E)$]{}—the intrinsic mutual information Eq.—is known to not satisfy the consistency condition Eq. [@bertschinger2013shared]. More recently, the relationship between a particular method of quantifying unique information and one-way secret key agreement [$\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \leftarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace})$]{}has been considered [@banerjee2018unique].
Cryptographic Partial Information Decompositions {#sec:decompositions}
================================================
We now address the application of each form of secret key agreement rate as unique information in turn. For each resulting PID, we consider two distributions. The first is that called <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pointwise Unique</span>, chosen here to exemplify the differing intuitions that can be applied to the PID. The second distribution we look at is entitled <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Problem</span> as it serves as a counterexample demonstrating that three of the four forms of secret key agreement do not result in a consistent decomposition. Both distributions are given in Fig.\[fig:distributions\].
Interpreting the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pointwise Unique</span> [@finn2018pointwise] distribution is relatively straightforward. The target [$Y$]{}takes on the values ‘1’ and ‘2’ with equal probability. At the same time, exactly one of the two sources (again with equal probability) will be equal to [$Y$]{}, while the other is ‘0’. The mutual informations $\I{{\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}} = \SI{1/2}{\bit}$ and $\I{{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}} = \SI{1/2}{\bit}$.
The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Problem</span> distribution lacks the symmetry of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pointwise Unique</span>, yet still consists of four equally probable events. The sources are restricted to take on pairs ‘00’, ‘01’, ‘02’, ‘10’. The target [$Y$]{}is equal to a ‘1’ if either [$X_{0}$]{} or [$X_{1}$]{} is ‘1’, and is ‘0’ otherwise. With this distribution, the mutual informations $\I{{\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}} = \SI{0.3113}{\bit}$ and $\I{{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}} = \SI{1/2}{\bit}$.
![ Two distributions of interest: The first, `Pointwise Unique`, exemplifies the directionality inherent in the one-way secret key agreement rates. The second, `Problem`, demonstrates that the no-communication, one-way communication with the source communicating (“camel”), and the two-way communication secret key agreement rates result in inconsistent PIDs. []{data-label="fig:distributions"}](figure_01.pdf)
No Public Communication {#subsec:zero}
-----------------------
In the first case, we consider the unique information from [$X_{i}$]{} to [$Y$]{}as the rate at which [$X_{i}$]{} and [$Y$]{}can agree upon a secret key while exchanging no public communication: ${{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace} \setminus {\ensuremath{X_{j}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}}~=~{\ensuremath{\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{j}}\xspace})}\xspace}$. This approach has some appeal: the PID is defined simply by a joint distribution without any express allowance or prohibition on public communication. However, given its quantification in terms of the G[á]{}cs-K[ö]{}rner common information, the quantity [$\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{j}}\xspace})$]{} does not vary continuously with the distribution of interest. Now, what is the behavior of this measure on our two distributions of interest?
When applied to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pointwise Unique</span>, each source and the target are unable to construct a secret key. In turn, each unique information is determined to be . This results in a redundancy and a synergy each of .
The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Problem</span> distribution demonstrates the inability of [$\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{j}}\xspace})$]{} to construct a consistent PID. In this instance, as in the case of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pointwise Unique</span>, no secrecy is possible and each unique information is assigned a value of . We therefore determine from Eq. that the redundancy should be $\I{{\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}} - {{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}} = \SI{0.3113}{\bit} - \SI{0}{\bit} = \SI{0.3113}{\bit}$. Equation, however, says the redundancy is $\I{{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}} - {{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}} = \SI{1/2}{\bit} - \SI{0}{\bit} = \SI{1/2}{\bit}$. This contradiction demonstrates that no-communication secret key agreement rate cannot be used as a PID’s unique components.
The resulting partial information decompositions for both distributions are listed in Table\[tab:intuitionsa\].
[clr]{}\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\cdot}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\cdot}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
One-Way Public Communication {#subsec:one}
----------------------------
We next consider the situation when one of the two parties is allowed public communication. This gives us two options: either the source [$X_{i}$]{} communicates to target [$Y$]{}or *vice versa*. Both situations enshrine a particular *directionality* in the resulting PID.
The first, where [$X_{i}$]{} constructs $C = h({\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace}^n)$ and publicly communicates it, emphasizes the channels ${\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace} \to {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}$ and creates a narrative of the sources conspiring to create the target. We call this interpretation the *camel intuition*, after the aphorism that a camel is a horse designed by committee. The committee member [$X_{i}$]{} may announce what design constraints they brought to the table.
The second option, where [$Y$]{}constructs $C = h({\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}^n)$ and publicly communicates it, emphasizes the channels ${\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\to {\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace}$ and implies the situation that the sources are imperfect representations of the target. We call this interpretation the *elephant intuition*, as it recalls the parable of the blind men describing an elephant for the first time. The elephant [$Y$]{}may announce which of its features is revealed in a particular instance.
### Camels {#subsubsec:source}
The first option adopts ${{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace} \setminus {\ensuremath{X_{j}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}} = {{\ensuremath{\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{j}}\xspace})}\xspace}}$, bringing to mind the idea of sources acting as inputs into some scheme by which the target is produced. When viewed this way, one may ask questions such as “How much information in [$X_{0}$]{} is uniquely conveyed to [$Y$]{}?”. Furthermore, the channels ${\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \to {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \to {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}$ take center stage.
Through this lens, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pointwise Unique</span> distribution has a clear interpretation. Given any realization, exactly one source is perfectly correlated with the target, while the other is impotently ‘0’. From this vantage, it is clear that the unique informations should each be , and this is borne out with the one-way secret key agreement rate. This implies that the redundancy and synergy of this decomposition are both .
For the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Problem</span> distribution, we find that [$X_{1}$]{} can broadcast the times when they observed a ‘1’ or a ‘2’, which correspond to [$Y$]{}having observed a ‘1’ or ‘0’, respectively. In both instances [$X_{0}$]{} observed a ‘0’ and so cannot deduce what the other two have agreed upon. This leads to [$\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace})$]{} being equal to . At the same time, [$\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace})$]{} vanishes. However, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Problem</span>’s redundancy and synergy cannot be quantified, since the two secret key agreement schemes imply different redundancies and so are inconsistent with Eq..
The resulting PIDs for both are given in Table\[tab:intuitionsb\].
[clr]{}\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\cdot}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\cdot}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
### Elephants {#subsubsec:target}
When the target [$Y$]{}is the one party permitted communication, one adopts ${{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace} \setminus {\ensuremath{X_{j}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}} = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace} \leftarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{j}}\xspace})}\xspace}$ and we can interpret the sources as alternate views of the singular target. Consider, for example, journalism where several sources give differing perspectives on the same event. When viewed this way, one might ask a question such as “How much information in [$Y$]{}is uniquely captured by [$X_{0}$]{}?”. The channels ${\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \leftarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \leftarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}$ are paramount with this approach. We denote these in reverse to emphasize that [$Y$]{}is still the *target* in the PID.
Considered this way, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pointwise Unique</span> distribution takes on a different character. The sources each receive identical descriptions of the target—accurate half the time and erased the remainder. The description is identical, however. Nothing is uniquely provided to either source. This is reflected in the secret key agreement rates, which are , leaving both the redundancy and synergy .
The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Problem</span> distribution’s unique informations are ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \leftarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace})}\xspace} = \SI{0}{\bit}$ and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \leftarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace})}\xspace} = \SI{0.1887}{\bit}$. Unlike the prior two decompositions, these unique informations satisfy Eq.. The resulting redundancy is while the synergy is .
Their PIDs are listed in Table\[tab:intuitionsc\]. Thus, by having [$Y$]{}publicly communicate and so invoking a particular directionality we, finally, get a consistent PID.
[clr]{}\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\cdot}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\cdot}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
Two-Way Public Communication {#subsec:two}
----------------------------
We finally turn to the full two-way secret key agreement rate: ${{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace} \setminus {\ensuremath{X_{j}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}} = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{j}}\xspace})}\xspace}$. This approach is also appealing, as it does not ascribe any directionality to interpreting the PID. Furthermore, it varies continuously with the distribution, unlike the no-communication case. However, this quantity is generally impossible to compute directly, with only upper and lower bounds known. Fortunately, this only slightly complicates the analyses we wish to make.
In the case of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pointwise Unique</span> distribution, it is not possible to extract more secret information than was done in the camel situation. Therefore, the resulting PID is identical: unique informations of and redundancy and synergy of .
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Problem</span>, however, is again a problem. Upper and lower bounds on [$\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace})$]{} converge[^1] to , and so we know this value exactly. Utilizing the consistency relation Eq., we find that the other unique information must be in order for the full decomposition to be consistent. However, the intrinsic mutual information places an upper bound of on [$\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace})$]{}. We therefore must conclude that two-way secret key agreement rates cannot be used to directly quantify unique information and a consistent PID cannot be built using them.
The resulting PIDs for both these distributions can be seen in Table\[tab:intuitionsd\].
[clr]{}\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\cdot}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} & $\leq$\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
& [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\cdot}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} &\
Summary {#sec:PID_SKAR_summary}
-------
To conclude, then, there is only one secret-key communication scenario—[$Y$]{}publicly communicates—that yields a consistent PID, as in Table\[tab:intuitionsc\]. While we have not proven this, we have been unable to find a counterexample after extensive numerical searches using the `dit` [@dit] software package. That is, one must invoke a directionality, unspecified by the PID, to have a consistent PID if using secret key agreement as the basis for the PID component of unique information.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We now turn to two follow-on developments arising from the tools developed thus far. First, we define a distribution whose two-way secret key agreement rates behave in a curious manner with very interesting implications regarding the nature of information itself. Second, we take a closer look at an alternative proposal for quantifying unique information and describe its behavior in relationship to the camel/elephant dichotomy defined in Section\[sec:decompositions\].
When Conversation is More Powerful Than a Lecture {#subsec:twowaydist}
-------------------------------------------------
We now explore the PID quantified by two-way secret key agreement further. Consider the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Giant Bit</span> distribution, which exemplifies redundant information. The distribution <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G.B. Erased</span>, resulting from passing each variable through an independent binary erasure channel (BEC), exhibits many interesting properties. It is listed in Fig.\[fig:moredistributions\]. Most notably, the one-way secret key agreement rates between any two variables with the third eavesdropping vanish. However, the two-way secret key agreement rate is equal to $p{\ensuremath{\overline{p}}\xspace}^2 = \I{{\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}| {\ensuremath{X_{j}}\xspace}}$ [@gohari2017comments]. Furthermore, notice that subtracting Eq. from Eq. tells us that: $$\begin{aligned}
\I{{\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}} & - \I{{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}} \nonumber \\
&= \I{{\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} : {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}| {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}} \nonumber \\
&= {{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\setminus {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}} + {{
\ensuremath{
\operatorname{I_{\partial}}
\if\relax\detokenize{{\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ {\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}\right]
\fi
}
\xspace
}}
.\end{aligned}$$ That is, the conditional mutual information is equal to unique information plus synergistic information.
Evaluating the PID using [$\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{j}}\xspace})$]{} as unique information results, in this case, in a consistent decomposition. Furthermore, the redundant and synergistic informations are zero. This is, however, troublesome: <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G.B. Erased</span> possesses nonzero third-order connected information [@Schneidman2003], a quantity commonly considered a component of the synergy [@james2017unique]. Indeed, it is provably attributed to synergy by both the [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\textrm{dep}}}
\if\relax\detokenize{}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ \rightarrow \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} [@james2017unique] and [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\textrm{BROJA}}}
\if\relax\detokenize{}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ \rightarrow \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} [@bertschinger2014quantifying] methods, and likely others as well. No other proposed method of quantifying the PID results in zero redundancy or synergy. The implication here is that, if indeed the third-order connected information is a component of synergy, the two-way secret key agreement rate *overestimates* unique information by including some types of synergistic effect. Therefore, we conclude that bidirectional communication between two parties can, in some instances, determine information held solely in trivariate interactions. It remains to be understood (i) how independently and identically transforming a distribution with no third-order connected information can result in its creation and (ii) how only two of the variables can recover it when allowed to communicate.
![ Distribution whose one-way secret key agreement rates are all , yet has nonzero two-way secret key agreement rate. It is constructed from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Giant Bit</span> distribution by passing each variable independently through a binary erasure channel $BEC(p)$ with erasure probability $p$. This distribution has a two-way secret key agreement rate of $p{\ensuremath{\overline{p}}\xspace}^2$ between any two variables with the third as an eavesdropper. []{data-label="fig:moredistributions"}](figure_02.pdf)
[[ $
\operatorname{I_{\textrm{BROJA}}}
\if\relax\detokenize{}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ \rightarrow \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{}, the Elephant {#subsec:ibroja}
-------------------------------------
The measure of Bertschinger [@bertschinger2014quantifying], here referred to as [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\textrm{BROJA}}}
\if\relax\detokenize{}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ \rightarrow \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{}, is perhaps the most widely accepted and used method of quantifying the PID. Though popular, it has its detractors [@ince2017measuring; @finn2018pointwise]. Here, we interpret the criticisms leveled and [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\textrm{BROJA}}}
\if\relax\detokenize{}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ \rightarrow \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} as a product of camel intuitions being applied to an elephantesque [@banerjee2018unique] measure. In doing so, we will primarily consider the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pointwise Unique</span> distribution.
As noted in Section\[subsec:one\], if a source is permitted to communicate with the target, then a secret key agreement rate of is achievable; while if the target communicates with the source then it is impossible to agree upon a secret key. From this camel perspective it is clear that each source, half the time, uniquely determines the target. The elephant perspective, however, allots nothing to unique informations as each source is provided with identical information. This would greatly disconcert the camel and may lead one to think that the elephant has “artificially inflated” the redundancy. We next take a closer look at this notion, using [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\textrm{BROJA}}}
\if\relax\detokenize{}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ \rightarrow \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{}.
In the course of computing [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\textrm{BROJA}}}
\if\relax\detokenize{}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ \rightarrow \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} for the distribution $p({\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}, {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}, {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace})$, the set of distributions: $$\begin{aligned}
Q = \left\{ q({\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace}, {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace}, {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}) : \forall i,~ q({\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace}, {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}) = p({\ensuremath{X_{i}}\xspace}, {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}) \right\}\end{aligned}$$ is considered. The [**()**]{}assumption [@bertschinger2014quantifying] is then invoked, which states that redundancy and all unique informations are constant within this family of distributions. To complete the quantification, the distribution with minimum is selected from this family. The resulting distribution associated with the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pointwise Unique</span> distribution can be seen in Fig.\[fig:pntunqdists\]. Made explicit, it can now be seen that [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\textrm{BROJA}}}
\if\relax\detokenize{}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ \rightarrow \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} does indeed correlate the sources, but under assumption [**()**]{}this does not effect the redundancy.
One aspect of [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\textrm{BROJA}}}
\if\relax\detokenize{}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ \rightarrow \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} and assumption [**()**]{}we believe warrants further investigation is its relationship with *maximum entropy* philosophy [@Jayn83]. The latter is, in effect, Occam’s razor applied to probability distributions: given a set of constraints, the most natural distribution to associate with them is that with maximum entropy. As it turns out, this is equivalent to the distribution nearest the unstructured product-of-marginals distribution $\overline{p}(x, y, z, \ldots) = p(x)p(y)p(z)\ldots$ [@amari2001information]: $$\begin{aligned}
\argmax_{q \in Q} \H{q} = \argmin_{q \in Q} \DKL{q}{\overline{p}}
~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\DKL{P}{P}$ is the relative entropy between distributions $P$ and $Q$. Having briefly introduced the ideas behind maximum entropy, we next cast their light on the BROJA optimization employed to calculate [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\textrm{BROJA}}}
\if\relax\detokenize{}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ \rightarrow \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{}.
Let us first consider the distribution resulting from BROJA optimization. Its entropy is unchanged from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pointwise Unique</span> distribution indicating that it has the same amount of structure—they are equally distant from the product distribution. The BROJA distribution has a reduced mutual information, however, indicating perhaps that the optimization has shifted some of the distribution’s structure away from the sources-target interaction. It is interesting that this optimization could not simply remove the synergy from the distribution altogether, resulting in a larger entropy.
If one takes assumption [**()**]{}and directly applies the maximum entropy philosophy, a different distribution results. This distribution, seen in Fig.\[fig:pntunqdists\], has a larger entropy than both the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pointwise Unique</span> and the BROJA intermediate distribution, indicating that it in fact has less structure than either. Under assumption [**()**]{}, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MaxEnt</span> distribution, also in Fig.\[fig:pntunqdists\], retains all the redundant and unique informations, while under maximum entropy it contains no structure not implied by the source-target marginals—, no synergy.
To be clear, this is not to claim that assumption [**()**]{}or BROJA optimization are *wrong* or *incorrect*, only that the optimization’s behavior in light of well-established maximum entropy principles is subtle and requires a careful investigation. For example, it may be that the source-target marginals do imply some level of triadic interaction and therefore the maximum entropy distribution reflects this lingering synergy. At the same time, BROJA minimization may be capable of maintaining that level of structure implied by the marginals, but somehow shunts it into [$Y$]{}| [$X_{0}$]{}[$X_{1}$]{}.
![ Two modified forms of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pointwise Unique</span> distribution. a) Intermediate distribution resulting from the BROJA optimization. It has the minimum sources-target mutual information consistent with the source-target marginals. b) Maximum entropy distribution consistent with the source-target marginals. It contains no structure beyond that implied by those marginals. []{data-label="fig:pntunqdists"}](figure_03.pdf)
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
At present, a primary barrier for PID’s general adoption as a useful and possibly a central tool in analyzing how complex systems store and process information is an agreement on a method to quantify its component informations. Here, we posited that one reason for disagreement stems from conflicting intuitions regarding the decomposition’s operational behavior. To give an operational meaning to unique information and address these intuitions, we equated unique information with the ability of two parties to agree upon a secret. This leads to numerous observations.
The first is that the PID, as currently defined, is ambivalent to any notion of directionality. There are, however, very clear cases in which the assumption of a directionality—or lack there of—is critical to the existence of unique information. Consider, for example, the case of the McGurk effect [@mcgurk1976hearing] where the visual stimulus of one phoneme and the auditory stimulus of another phoneme gives rise to the perception of a third phoneme. By construction, the stimuli *cause* the perception, and the channels implicit in a camel intuition are central. If one were to study this interaction using an elephant-like PID, it is unclear that the resulting decomposition would reflect the neurobiological mechanisms by which the perception is produced. Similarly, a camel-like measure would be inappropriate when interpreting simultaneous PET and MRI scans of a tumor.
One can view this as the PID being inherently context-dependent and conclude that quantification requires specifying directionality. In this case, the elephant intuition is apparently more natural, as adopting closely-related notions from cryptography results in a consistent PID. If context demands the camel intuition, though, either a noncryptographic method of quantifying unique information is needed or consistency must be enforced by augmenting the secret key agreement rate. It is additionally possible that associating secret key agreement rates with unique information is fundamentally flawed and that, ultimately, PID entails quantifying unique information as something distinct from the ability to agree upon a secret key. This missing thing has yet to be identified.
The next observation concerns the third-order connected information. We first demonstrated that such triadic information can be constructed from common information from which each variable is then independently and identically modified. Furthermore, it has been shown that two of those three parties, when engaging in bidirectional communication, can capture this triadic information. This does not generically occur: For example, if [$X_{0}$]{}[$X_{1}$]{}[$Y$]{}are related by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Xor</span>, the distribution contains of third-order connected information, but [$\operatorname{S}({\ensuremath{X_{0}}\xspace} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{Y}\xspace}~||~ {\ensuremath{X_{1}}\xspace})$]{} (or any permutation of the variables) is equal to . This suggests that the third-order connected information may not be an atomic quantity, but rather consists of two parts, one accessible to two communicating parties and one not.
Our third observation regards the behavior of the [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\textrm{BROJA}}}
\if\relax\detokenize{}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ \rightarrow \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} measure, especially in relation to standard maximum entropy principles. We first demonstrated that [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\textrm{BROJA}}}
\if\relax\detokenize{}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ \rightarrow \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} indeed correlates sources, but argued that this behavior only seems inappropriate when adopting a camel intuition. We then discussed how its intermediate distribution is as structured as the initial one and so if indeed [[ $
\operatorname{I_{\textrm{BROJA}}}
\if\relax\detokenize{}\relax
\!\!
\else
\left[ \rightarrow \right]
\fi
$ ]{}]{} is operating correctly, it must shuffle the dependencies that result in synergy to another aspect of the distribution. Finally, we discussed how the standard maximum entropy approach may remove synergy from a distribution all together. This calls for a more careful investigation as to whether it does—and BROJA optimization is incorrect—or does not—and synergistic information is implied under source-target marginals and Occam’s razor.
Looking to the future, we trust that this exploration of the relationship between cryptographic secrecy and unique information will provide a basis for future efforts to understand and quantify the partial information decomposition. Furthermore, the explicit recognition of the role that directional intuitions play in the meaning and interpretation of a decomposition should reduce cross-talk and improve understanding as we collectively move forward.
Acknowledgments {#sec:acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
All calculations were performed using the `dit` Python package [@dit]. We thank P. Banerjee, E. Olbrich, S. Loomis, and D. Feldspar for many helpful discussions. As a faculty member, JPC thanks the Santa Fe Institute and the Telluride Science Research Center for their hospitality during visits. This material is based upon work supported by, or in part by, Foundational Questions Institute grant FQXi-RFP-1609, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.S. Army Research Office under contracts W911NF-13-1-0390 and W911NF-13-1-0340 and grant W911NF-18-1-0028, and via Intel Corporation support of CSC as an Intel Parallel Computing Center.
[10]{}
P. L. Williams and R. D. Beer. Nonnegative decomposition of multivariate information. .
J. Rauh, P. Banerjee, E. Olbrich, J. Jost, and N. Bertschinger. On extractable shared information. , 19(7):328, 2017.
J. Rauh. Secret sharing and shared information. , 19(11):601, 2017.
U. M. Maurer. Secret key agreement by public discussion from common information. , 39(3):733–742, 1993.
A. Gohari, O. G[ü]{}nl[ü]{}, and G. Kramer. Coding for positive rate in the source model key agreement problem. .
E. Chitambar, B. Fortescue, and M.-H. Hsieh. The conditional common information in classical and quantum secret key distillation. , 2018.
P. G[á]{}cs and J. K[ö]{}rner. Common information is far less than mutual information. , 2(2):149–162, 1973.
R. Ahlswede and I. Csisz[á]{}r. Common randomness in information theory and cryptography. [I. Secret]{} sharing. , 39(4):1121–1132, 1993.
U. M. Maurer and S. Wolf. Unconditionally secure key agreement and the intrinsic conditional information. , 45(2):499–514, 1999.
N. Bertschinger, J. Rauh, E. Olbrich, and J. Jost. Shared information—new insights and problems in decomposing information in complex systems. In [*Proceedings of the European Conference on Complex Systems 2012*]{}, pages 251–269. Springer, 2013.
P. K. Banerjee, E. Olbrich, J. Jost, and J. Rauh. Unique informations and deficiencies. .
C. Finn and J. T. Lizier. Pointwise partial information decomposition using the specificity and ambiguity lattices. , 20(4):297, 2018.
R. G. James, C. J. Ellison, and J. P. Crutchfield. : a [P]{}ython package for discrete information theory. , 3(25):738, 2018.
A. Gohari and V. Anantharam. Comments on “information-theoretic key agreement of multiple terminals: [Part I]{}”. , 63(8):5440–5442, 2017.
E. Schneidman, S. Still, M. J. Berry, W. Bialek, et al. Network information and connected correlations. , 91(23):238701, 2003.
R. G. James, J. Emenheiser, and J. P. Crutchfield. Unique information via dependency constraints. , in press, 2018. arXiv:1709.06653.
N. Bertschinger, J. Rauh, E. Olbrich, J. Jost, and N. Ay. Quantifying unique information. , 16(4):2161–2183, 2014.
R. A.A. Ince. Measuring multivariate redundant information with pointwise common change in surprisal. , 19(7):318, 2017.
E. T. Jaynes. Where do we stand on maximum entropy? In E. T. Jaynes, editor, [*Essays on Probability, Statistics, and Statistical Physics*]{}, page 210. Reidel, London, 1983.
S. Amari. Information geometry on hierarchy of probability distributions. , 47(5):1701–1711, 2001.
H. McGurk and J. MacDonald. Hearing lips and seeing voices. , 264(5588):746, 1976.
[^1]: In this instance, the larger of the two one-way secret key agreement rates form a lower bound of . While the upper bound provided by the intrinsic mutual information is also .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We disprove a conjecture in Density Functional Theory, relative to multimarginal optimal transport maps with Coulomb cost. We also provide examples of maps satisfying optimality conditions for special classes of data.'
author:
- 'Maria Colombo [^1]'
- 'Federico Stra [^2]'
title: |
Counterexamples in multimarginal optimal transport\
with Coulomb cost and spherically symmetric data
---
Introduction
============
A natural problem in Quantum Physics consists in studying the behavior of $N$ electrons subject to the interaction with some nuclei, their mutual interaction and the effect of an external potential. In this setting, a relevant quantity is the ground state energy of the system, which can be found by solving the Schrödinger equation. However, this procedure is computationally very costly even for a small number of electrons; Density Functional Theory proposes an alternative method to compute the ground state energy and was first introduced by Hohenberg and Kohn [@HK] and then by Kohn and Sham [@KS].
In [@BDG; @CF] the authors present a mathematical model for the strong interaction limit of Density Functional Theory; they study the minimal interaction of $N$ electrons and the semiclassical limit of DFT. The model is based on Monge multimarginal optimal transport (see also the recent survey [@DGN], where the state of the art on this problem is described), which consists in the minimization problem $$\label{monge-old}
(M) = \inf\Set{ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} C\bigl(x,T_2(x), \dotsc, T_N(x)\bigr) \, d\rho(x)
: T_2,\dotsc, T_N \in {\mathcal{T}}(\rho) },$$ where $\rho\in \operatorname{\mathscr{P}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ is a given probability measure, $C:({\mathbb{R}}^n)^N\to [0,\infty]$ is the Coulomb interaction $$\label{defn:coulomb-cost}
C(x_1, \dotsc, x_N) = \sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq N} \frac{1}{|x_i-x_j|}
\qquad \forall (x_1, \dots, x_N) \in ({\mathbb{R}}^n)^N,$$ and ${\mathcal{T}}(\rho)$ is the set of admissible transport maps $${\mathcal{T}}(\rho)=\set{ T:{\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}^n \text{ Borel}: T_\sharp \rho=\rho }.$$ Since the cost is symmetric, a natural variant of the Monge problem allows only cyclical maps $$(M_\text{cycl}) = \inf\Set{ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} C\bigl(x,T(x), \dotsc, T^{(N-1)}(x)\bigr)
\, d\rho(x) : T\in {\mathcal{T}}(\rho),\, T^{(N)}=\operatorname{Id}}$$ where with $T^{(k)}$ we denote the composition of $T$ with itself for $k$ times. Following the standard theory of optimal transport (see [@Villani09; @Ambrosiolectures]), we also introduce the Kantorovich problem $$(K) = \min \Set{ \int _{({\mathbb{R}}^n)^N} c(x_1, \dotsc, x_N) \, d\gamma (x_1, \dotsc, x_N)
: \gamma \in \Pi(\rho) },$$ where $\Pi(\rho)$ is the set of transport plans $$\Pi(\rho)=\Set{\gamma\in\operatorname{\mathscr{P}}({\mathbb{R}}^{nN})
:\pi^i_\sharp \gamma= \rho, \, i=1, \dotsc, N }$$ and $\pi^i:({\mathbb{R}}^n)^N \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ are the projections on the $i$-th component for $i=1,\dotsc,N$. To every $(N-1)$-uple of transport maps $T_2,\dotsc,T_N \in {\mathcal{T}}(\rho)$ we canonically associate the transport plan $\gamma = (Id, T_2,\dotsc, T_N)_\sharp \rho \in \Pi (\rho)$. As proved in [@CD], if $\rho$ is non-atomic the values of the minimum problems coincide $$(K)= (M)= (M_\text{cycl}).$$
Existence of optimal transport plans in $(K)$ follows from a standard compactness and lower semicontinuity argument. In turn, existence of optimal maps in $(M)$ is largely open; it is understood only with $N=2$ marginals in any dimension $n$ and in dimension $n=1$ with any number $N$ of marginals (see [@CF] and [@CDD] respectively). In a different context, optimal cyclical maps as in $(M_\text{cycl})$ appear in [@GMo] for some particular costs generated by vector fields.
As regards uniqueness of optimal symmetric plans with Coulomb cost, it holds in dimension $1$, but, as shown in [@P2], it fails in the same class already when we consider spherically symmetric densities in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, for any $N$. On the other hand, the Kantorovich duality works also for this cost (see [@RR]) and the dual problem admits maximizers (namely, Kantorovich’s potentials), as shown by De Pascale [@DeP]; moreover, in [@CFP] the limit of symmetric optimal plans as $N\to\infty$ is shown to be the infinite product measure of $\rho$ with itself.
Beyond the $1$-dimensional case, which is well understood, a physically relevant case is given by spherically symmetric densities $\rho$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, with any number of marginals. In the physics literature, they appear in [@S99; @SGS] to study simple atoms like Helium ($N=2$), Litium ($N=3$), and Berillium ($N=4$). In this case the problem reduces, thanks to the spherical symmetry, to a problem in $1$-dimension, with a more complicated cost function (see [@P2], where this reduction is rigorously described). In the class of admissible transport maps for problem $(M_\text{cycl})$, Seidl, Gori Giorgi and Savin identified some particularly simple maps: roughly speaking, they divide ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ in $N$ spherical shells, each containing one electron in average, and consider the transport maps which send each shell onto the next one by a monotonically increasing or decreasing map. They conjecture the optimality of one of these maps in $(M_\text{cycl})$.
In the following, we provide counterexamples to the conjecture showing that there are cases in which none of these maps is optimal in problem $(M_\text{cycl})$. On the other hand, we also point out situations where some of these maps satisfy optimality conditions, namely $c$-monotonicity. We deal for simplicity with radial measures in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with $3$ marginals, although similar examples and computations can be carried out in any dimension and with any number of marginals.
The plan of the paper is the following. In Section \[sec:e-c\] we present the problem with spherically symmetric data, we recall the notion of $c$-monotonicity and a few properties of optimal transport maps, and we give some examples and counterexamples. In Sections \[sec:taylor\] and \[sec:spread\] we study the properties of the cost for close radii and for spread apart radii, respectively. In Section \[sec:proofs\] we apply these properties to give rigorous proofs of the examples and counterexamples.
Examples and counterexamples {#sec:e-c}
============================
Monge and Kantorovich problems with radial densities
----------------------------------------------------
As we mentioned above, the transport problem reduces to a $1$-dimensional one (i.e., by proving that spheres get mapped to spheres), as rigorously done in [@P2].
(0,0) circle\[radius=1.5\] circle\[radius=2.5\] circle\[radius=3.5\]; (0,0) circle \[radius=.05\]; (0:1.5) circle node\[right\] [$v_1$]{} (110:2.5) circle node\[above left\] [$v_2$]{} (220:3.5) circle node\[below left\] [$v_3$]{}; (0,0) – node\[below\] [$r_1$]{} (0:1.5) (0,0) – node\[pos=.75, left\] [$r_2$]{} (110:2.5) (0,0) – node\[pos=.9, below right\] [$r_3$]{} (220:3.5); (.4,0) arc (0:110:.4); (.25,0) arc (0:220:.25); +(55:.4) node\[above\] [$\theta_2$]{} +(180:.25) node\[left\] [$\theta_3$]{};
Assuming from now on $N=3$, given three radii $r_1,r_2,r_3 \in {\mathbb{R}}_+=(0,\infty)$, we consider the associated *exact cost* (see ) $$\label{eqn:c-cost}
c(r_1, r_2, r_3)
= \min \Set{ \frac1{{\left\lvertv_2-v_1\right\rvert}} + \frac1{{\left\lvertv_3-v_2\right\rvert}} + \frac1{{\left\lvertv_1-v_3\right\rvert}}
: {\left\lvertv_i\right\rvert}=r_i,\ i=1,2,3},$$ which is a positive, symmetric, continuous function. Let us denote $(0,\infty)$ by ${\mathbb{R}}_+$. Given a non-atomic probability measure $\rho \in \operatorname{\mathscr{P}}({\mathbb{R}}_+)$, the set of transport maps reads as $${\mathcal{T}}(\rho) = \set{ T:{\mathbb{R}}_+ \to {\mathbb{R}}_+ \text{ Borel}: T_\sharp \rho=\rho },$$ and the cyclical Monge problem corresponding to can be written as $$\label{monge}
(M_\text{cycl}) = \inf\Set{ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+} c\bigl(x,T(x), T^{(2)}(x)\bigr) \, d\rho(x)
: T\in {\mathcal{T}}(\rho),\, T^{(3)}=\operatorname{Id}}.$$ We also introduce the set of transport plans $$\Pi(\rho)=\set{\gamma \in \operatorname{\mathscr{P}}({\mathbb{R}}_+^{3})
:\pi^i_\sharp \gamma= \rho, \, i=1,2,3 },$$ where $\pi^i:({\mathbb{R}}_+)^3 \to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ are the projections on the $i$-th component for $i=1,\dotsc,3$, and the Kantorovich multimarginal problem $$\label{kantorovich}
(K)=\min \Set{ \int _{({\mathbb{R}}_+)^3} c(r_1, r_2, r_3) \,d\gamma (r_1, r_2, r_3)
: \gamma \in \Pi(\rho) }.$$
Some special maps
-----------------
In the following definition, we introduce some special transport maps, which were conjectured in [@SGS] to be good candidates for optimality in problem .
Let $\rho \in \operatorname{\mathscr{M}}({\mathbb{R}}_+)$ be a non-atomic probability measure and let $d_1, d_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$ such that $\rho([0,d_1])= \rho([d_1,d_2])= \rho([d_2, \infty])= 1/3$. The $DDI$-map $T: {\mathbb{R}}_+ \to{\mathbb{R}}_+$ associated to $\rho$ is the unique (up to $\rho$-negligible sets) map such that $T_\sharp \rho = \rho$ and
- $T$ maps $(0,d_1)$ onto $(d_1,d_2)$ decreasingly,
- $T$ maps $(d_1,d_2)$ onto $(d_2,\infty)$ decreasingly,
- $T$ maps $(d_2,\infty)$ onto $(0,d_1)$ increasingly.
Similarly, we define, for instance, the $DID$-map mapping $(0,d_1)$ onto $(d_1,d_2)$ decreasingly, $(d_1,d_2)$ onto $(d_2,\infty)$ increasingly and $(d_2,\infty)$ onto $(0,d_1)$ decreasingly.
The $\{D,I\}^3$-class associated to $\rho$ is composed by the maps with all the possible monotonicities, under the condition that $T^{(3)}=\operatorname{Id}$: therefore we have $III$, $IDD$, $DID$ and $DDI$, (see ).
[.25]{}
(0,3.5) node\[above\] [$T(r)$]{} |- (3.5,0) node\[below=4pt\] [$r$]{}; in [0,1,2,3]{} (,1pt) – (,-3pt) node\[below\] [$\t$]{} (1pt,) – (-3pt,) node\[left\] [$\t$]{}; (0,1) – (2,3) (2,0) – (3,1);
[.25]{}
(0,3.5) node\[above\] [$T(r)$]{} |- (3.5,0) node\[below=4pt\] [$r$]{}; in [0,1,2,3]{} (,1pt) – (,-3pt) node\[below\] [$\t$]{} (1pt,) – (-3pt,) node\[left\] [$\t$]{}; (0,1) – (1,2) (1,3) – (2,2) (2,1) – (3,0);
[.25]{}
(0,3.5) node\[above\] [$T(r)$]{} |- (3.5,0) node\[below=4pt\] [$r$]{}; in [0,1,2,3]{} (,1pt) – (,-3pt) node\[below\] [$\t$]{} (1pt,) – (-3pt,) node\[left\] [$\t$]{}; (0,2) – (1,1) (1,2) – (2,3) (2,1) – (3,0);
[.25]{}
(0,3.5) node\[above\] [$T(r)$]{} |- (3.5,0) node\[below=4pt\] [$r$]{}; in [0,1,2,3]{} (,1pt) – (,-3pt) node\[below\] [$\t$]{} (1pt,) – (-3pt,) node\[left\] [$\t$]{}; (0,2) – (1,1) (1,3) – (2,2) (2,0) – (3,1);
In the rest of the paper we answer the following question:
Is the $DDI$-map associated to $\rho$ optimal in problem for every measure $\rho \in \operatorname{\mathscr{P}}({\mathbb{R}}_+)$? Is one of the maps in $\{D,I\}^3$-class associated to $\rho$ optimal in problem for every non-atomic probability measure $\rho \in \operatorname{\mathscr{P}}({\mathbb{R}}_+)$?
c-monotonicity
--------------
Before presenting the examples and counterexamples, we recall a well-known optimality condition in optimal transport.
\[defn:c-mon\] Let $c:({\mathbb{R}}_+)^N \to [0, \infty]$ be a cost function. We say that a set $\Gamma \subset ({\mathbb{R}}_+)^N$ is $c$-monotone with respect to $p \subseteq \{1,\dotsc,N\}$ if $$\label{eqn:c-mon-con-p}
c(x)+c(y) \leq c({X(x,y,p)})+ c({Y(x,y,p)}) \qquad \forall x,y \in \Gamma,$$ where $X(x,y,p), Y(x,y,p) \in ({\mathbb{R}}_+)^N$ are obtained from $x$ and $y$ by exchanging their coordinates on the complement of $p$, namely $$X_i(x,y,p)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
x_i &\mbox{if } i\in p \\
y_i&\mbox{if } i\notin p \\
\end{array}
\right.
\qquad
Y_i(x,y,p)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
y_i &\mbox{if } i\in p \\
x_i&\mbox{if } i\notin p \\
\end{array}
\right.
\qquad \forall i\in \{1,...,N\}.$$ We say that $\Gamma \subset ({\mathbb{R}}_+)^N$ is $c$-monotone if holds true for every $p \subseteq \{1,\dotsc,N\}$.
Let $\gamma \in \Pi(\rho)$ be a transport plan. The following Proposition ([@pass2012local Lemma 2], see also [@CDD Proposition 2.2], where the result is used to describe optimal maps with Coulomb cost in $1$ dimension) presents a necessary condition for optimality of $\gamma$.
\[monotonia\] Let $c:({\mathbb{R}}_+)^3 \to [0, \infty]$ be a continuous cost and let $\rho$ be a probability measure on $({\mathbb{R}}_+)$. Let $\gamma \in \Pi(\rho)$ be an optimal transport plan for problem and assume $(K)<\infty$ (therefore $\gamma$ has finite cost). Then $\operatorname{supp}\gamma$ is $c$-monotone.
Given an optimal plan $\gamma$, the support of $\gamma$ is $c$-monotone even in a stronger sense than the one in . More precisely, given two points $x$ and $y$ (for simplicity, assume that all their coordinates are distinct to avoid multiplicity issues), we have that $$\label{eqn:stronger-c-monot}
c(x)+c(y) \leq c(X)+ c(Y)$$ for every choice of $X,Y \in ({\mathbb{R}}_+)^N$ such that the union of the coordinates of $X$ and $Y$ is the same as the union of the coordinates of $x$ and $y$. Indeed, given any permutation $\sigma$ of the coordinates of $({\mathbb{R}}_+)^N$, we have that $\sigma (y)$ is in the support of the symmetrization of $\gamma$, which is still optimal because of the symmetry of the optimal plan. Hence, applying to $x$ and $\sigma(y)$, we obtain for any $X$ and $Y$.
Counterexamples
---------------
The first example shows that the $DDI$-map is not always optimal in problem , by taking as marginal a measure which is concentrated in a small neighborhood of the unit sphere.
\[ce:145\] There exists ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that, setting $$\rho_{\varepsilon}= \frac{1}{12 {\varepsilon}} 1_{[1,1+12{\varepsilon}]} \, dr \in \operatorname{\mathscr{M}}({\mathbb{R}}_+),$$ the $DDI$-map associated to $\rho_{\varepsilon}$ is not $c$-monotone and, therefore, not optimal in problem .
The proof is based on the analysis of $c$-monotonicity for similar radii, obtained by Taylor expanding the cost around the point $(1,1,1)$. The analysis of $c$-monotone sets in this context suggests that the $DID$-map may be optimal in this example.
The next example modifies the previous one by sending $1/6$ of the total mass far away; in this way, the cost of the orbits of these points (which have two coordinates close to $1$ and one large coordinate) can be easily computed. Thanks to this property, we can show that none of the maps in the $\{ D, I\}^3$-class can be optimal, since their support is not $c$-monotone.
\[ce:class\] There exist $M,{\varepsilon}>0$ such that, setting $$\rho_{M,{\varepsilon}} =\Big( \frac{1}{6 {\varepsilon}} 1_{[1,1+5{\varepsilon}]} +
\frac{1}{6} 1_{[M, M+1]} \Big)\, dr \in \operatorname{\mathscr{M}}({\mathbb{R}}_+),$$ none of the maps in the $\{ D, I\}^3$-class associated to $\rho_{M,{\varepsilon}}$ is optimal in problem .
In we will see a similar result for the problem with $4$ marginals. However, we preferred to restrict the presentation to the case with $3$ marginals since the ideas involved are the same, but the computations are easier.
There are particular measures $\rho$ for which the $DDI$-map is $c$-monotone (whereas this property fails in and \[ce:class\]). For this reason one may expect that this map is also optimal in problem , but, to show this, sufficient conditions for optimality (stronger than $c$-monotonicity) would have to be identified.
\[prop:example\] There exists $M>0$ such that for any probability measure $\rho$ such that $\rho([1,2])= \rho([3,4])= \rho([M,\infty))=1/3$ the $DDI$-map is $c$-monotone (according to ).
[.45]{}
(0,0) circle\[radius=3.5\]; (0,0) circle \[radius=.05\]; (0:3.5) circle node\[right\] [$v_1$]{} (120:3.5) circle node\[above left\] [$v_2$]{} (-120:3.5) circle node\[below left\] [$v_3$]{}; (0,0) – node\[pos=.7, above\] [$r_1$]{} (0:3.5) (0,0) – node\[pos=.5, below left\] [$r_1$]{} (120:3.5) (0,0) – node\[pos=.5, above left\] [$r_1$]{} (-120:3.5); (.3,0) arc (0:120:.3); (.3,0) arc (0:-120:.3); +(90:.4) node\[above right\] [$2/3\pi$]{} +(-90:.2) node\[below right\] [$-2/3\pi$]{};
[.45]{}
(0,0) circle\[radius=1.5\] circle\[radius=2.5\] circle\[radius=3.5\]; (0,0) circle \[radius=.05\]; (0:1.5) circle node\[above right\] [$v_1$]{} (180:2.5) circle node\[left\] [$v_2$]{} (0:3.5) circle node\[right\] [$v_3$]{}; (0,0) – node\[pos=.7, below\] [$r_1$]{} (0:1.5) (0,0) – node\[pos=.85, below\] [$r_2$]{} (180:2.5) (0,0) – node\[pos=.85, below\] [$r_3$]{} (0:3.5); (.3,0) arc (0:180:.3); +(90:.3) node\[above\] [$\pi$]{};
Taylor expansion of the cost at r1=r2=r3=1 {#sec:taylor}
==========================================
In this section we want to address the following problem: given three radii $r_1(t)$, $r_2(t)$ and $r_3(t)$ parametrized by $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and starting from the value $1$ at $t=0$, what is the expansion of $c\bigl(r_1(t),r_2(t),r_2(t)\bigr)$ in powers of $t$ at $t=0$?
First, we notice that at $t=0$ the optimal angles are $\pm 2/3\pi$ and $c(1,1,1)=\sqrt 3$. Indeed, given three unitary vectors $v_1,v_2,v_3$, calling $\alpha_1,\alpha_2, \alpha_3$ the angles of the triangle with vertices $v_1,v_2,v_3$ we have that $|v_1-v_2| = 2 \sin \alpha_3$ (and cyclical) and therefore, by Jensen’s inequality and by the convexity of $\alpha \mapsto (\sin \alpha)^{-1}$ in $[0,\pi]$, $$\label{eqn:2pi3-ottimo}
\frac{1}{{\left\lvertv_2-v_1\right\rvert}} + \frac{1}{{\left\lvertv_3-v_2\right\rvert}} + \frac{1}{{\left\lvertv_1-v_3\right\rvert}} =
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^3 \frac{1}{\sin \alpha_i} \geq
\frac{3}{2\sin ((\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\alpha_3)/3)} = \sqrt 3,$$ with equality if and only if the triangle is equilateral.
Taking the angles to be exactly $\pm 2/3\pi$ leads to the following cost $$\label{eqn:c-triangle}
c_\triangle(r_1,r_2,r_3) :=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{r_1^2 + r_1 r_2 + r_2^2}} +
\frac{1}{\sqrt{r_2^2 + r_2 r_3 + r_3^2}} +
\frac{1}{\sqrt{r_1^2 + r_1 r_3 + r_3^2}}\geq c(r_1,r_2,r_3).$$ However the inequality is strict as soon as the three radii are different and the approximation of $c$ with $c_\triangle$ is too rough to deduce that they enjoy the same $c$-monotonicity structures. Therefore, we perform a finer analysis.
We want to take into account only the first order variation of the radii as functions of $t$, so it is natural to consider three linearly varying radii $$r_1(t) = 1+a_1t, \qquad
r_2(t) = 1+a_2t, \qquad
r_3(t) = 1+a_3t$$ where $a_1,a_2,a_3\in{\mathbb{R}}$ are some constants. To these radii we associate the exact cost $$\label{defn:g}
g(a_1,a_2,a_3,t) = c(1+a_1t,1+a_2t,1+a_3t),$$ and we study the expansion of this function near $t=0$.
\[lemma:derivatives\] Let $a_1,a_2,a_3\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and let $g$ be as in . Then we have that $$g(a,b,c,0) = \sqrt3.$$ $$\frac{\partial g}{\partial t}(a_1,a_2,a_3,0) = -\frac{a_1+a_2+a_3}{\sqrt3},$$ $$\frac{\partial^2 g}{\partial t^2}(a_1,a_2,a_3,0) =
\frac{4(a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2) + 6(a_1a_2+a_2a_3+a_3a_1)}{5\sqrt3},$$ $$\begin{split}
\frac{\partial^3 g}{\partial t^3}(a_1,a_2,a_3,0) =
&\frac{308(a_1^3+a_2^3+a_3^3)}{375\sqrt3} \\
&+\frac{888(a_1^2a_2+a_1a_2^2+a_2^2a_3+a_2a_3^2+a_3^2a_1+a_3a_1^2) + 498a_1a_2a_3}
{375\sqrt3}.
\end{split}$$
In the proof, we will write the Coulomb potential of three charges in terms of the distances from the origin and the angles between the charges. Given three radii $r_1$, $r_2$, $r_3$ and two angles $\theta_2$ and $\theta_3$, we define the *Coulomb potential* of the configuration of charges depicted in : $$\label{eq:coulomb}
C(r_1, r_2, r_3, \theta_2, \theta_3) =
\frac{1}{{\left\lvertv_2-v_1\right\rvert}} + \frac{1}{{\left\lvertv_3-v_2\right\rvert}} + \frac{1}{{\left\lvertv_1-v_3\right\rvert}}$$ where $$v_1 = (r_1, 0), \qquad
v_2 = r_2 (\cos\theta_2, \sin\theta_2), \qquad
v_3 = r_3 (\cos\theta_3, \sin\theta_3).$$ By definition of $c$, we notice that $$\label{eq:exact-cost}
c(r_1, r_2, r_3) = \min_{\theta_2, \theta_3 \in{\mathbb{R}}}
C(r_1, r_2, r_3, \theta_2, \theta_3).$$
For $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\theta=(\theta_2,\theta_3)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ we define also the function $$G(t,\theta) = C(1+a_1t, 1+a_2t, 1+a_3t, \theta_2, \theta_3).$$ Then $g(t) = G\bigl(t,\theta_0(t)\bigr)$ where $\theta_0(t)$ is the pair of angles which minimizes . From this optimality condition we know that $$G_\theta\bigl(t, \theta_0(t)\bigr) = 0.$$ We want to apply the implicit function theorem to find the behavior of $\theta_0(t)$. It’s easy to check that $\theta_0(0) = (2/3\pi, -2/3\pi)$ and a direct computation shows that $$G_{\theta\theta}\bigl(0,\theta_0(0)\bigr) =
\frac{5}{6\sqrt{3}} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & -1/2 \\ -1/2 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\in \operatorname{Inv}({\mathbb{R}}^2;{\mathbb{R}}^2).$$ Therefore $\theta_0\in C^\infty\bigl((-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon})\bigr)$ for some ${\varepsilon}>0$ and we can compute its derivatives in $0$. In particular, we have that $$\label{eq:opt-angles}
\theta_0'(0) = G_{\theta\theta}^{-1} \cdot G_{t\theta}
\Bigr\rvert_{(0,\theta_0(0))} =
\frac{1}{5\sqrt{3}}\begin{pmatrix} -a_1-a_2+2a_3 \\ a_1-2a_2+a_3 \end{pmatrix}.$$ The idea is now to consider the first order approximation $$\bar\theta(t) = \theta_0(0) + \theta_0'(0)t =
\begin{pmatrix} 2/3\pi \\ -2/3\pi \end{pmatrix} +
\frac{1}{5\sqrt{3}}\begin{pmatrix} -a_1-a_2+2a_3 \\ a_1-2a_2+a_3\end{pmatrix} t$$ and the perturbed cost $$h(t) = G\bigl(t,\bar\theta(t)\bigr).$$ We claim that $h(t) = g(t) + o(t^3)$, namely $$h(0) = g(0), \qquad h'(0) = g'(0), \qquad h''(0) = g''(0), \qquad
h'''(0) = g'''(0).$$ The first two are clearly true, since $\bar\theta(0)=\theta_0(0)$ and $\bar\theta'(0) = \theta_0'(0)$ by definition. Now consider the function $t\mapsto G\bigl(t, \theta(t)\bigr)$, where $\theta$ is either $\theta_0$ or $\bar\theta$. To prove the claim, we show that its second and third derivatives at $t=0$ depend only on $\theta'(0)$ and not on the second and third derivatives of $\theta$.
As a matter of fact, we have $$\frac{d^2 G\bigl(t, \theta(t)\bigr)}{dt^2}\Biggr\rvert_{t=0} =
G_{tt} + 2G_{t\theta}\theta' + G_{\theta\theta}\theta'\theta' +
G_\theta\theta'' \Bigr\rvert_{t=0},$$ but $G_\theta\bigl(0,\theta(0)\bigr)=0$, so the second derivative does not depend on $\theta''(0)$. In a similar fashion, we have $$\frac{d^3 G\bigl(t, \theta(t)\bigr)}{dt^3}\Biggr\rvert_{t=0} =
G_{ttt}+ 3G_{tt\theta} \theta' + 3G_{t\theta\theta} (\theta')^2+ G_{\theta\theta\theta} (\theta')^3 +
3\left(G_{t\theta}+G_{\theta\theta}\theta'\right)\theta'' +
G_\theta\theta''' \Bigr\rvert_{t=0}.$$ Again, $G_\theta\bigl(0,\theta(0)\bigr) = 0$, therefore $\theta'''(0)$ doesn’t contribute. Furthermore, we have $G_\theta\bigl(t,\theta_0(t)\bigr) = 0$, so that differentiating in $t$ yields $$G_{t\theta}\bigl(0,\theta_0(0)\bigr) +
G_{\theta\theta}\bigl(0,\theta_0(0)\bigr)\theta_0'(0) = 0.$$ But then also $$G_{t\theta}\bigl(0,\bar\theta(0)\bigr) +
G_{\theta\theta}\bigl(0,\bar\theta(0)\bigr)\bar\theta'(0) = 0,$$ since $\bar\theta'(0)=\theta_0'(0)$. Therefore we see that in both cases the coefficient of $\theta''$ vanishes. This concludes the proof of the claim because we have shown that the first three derivatives of $h$ and $g$ coincide at $t=0$.
At this point the derivatives of $h$ can be computed directly, since $h(a_1,a_2,a_3, {\,\cdot\,})$ is an explicit function of the last variable.
In we found the first nontrivial Taylor term in the expansion of $g(t)$. We employ this computation to obtain informations on the $c$-monotonicity of points with linearly spaced radii close to $t=0$.
\[lemma:120asint\] For every $t>0$, consider six linearly spaced radii $$\label{eqn:r1-6}
(r_1, r_2, r_3, r_4, r_5, r_6) = (1, 1+t, 1+2t, 1+3t, 1+4t, 1+5t).$$ Then there exists $t_0>0$ such that, for every $t\leq t_0$, $$c(r_1, r_4, r_6) + c(r_2, r_3, r_5) < c(r_1, r_4, r_5) + c(r_2, r_3, r_6).$$
Let us define $$F(t) = g(0,3,5,t) + g(1,2,4,t) - g(0,3,4,t) - g(1,2,5,t)$$ Applying we can compute the derivatives of $F$ and find that $$F(0) = 0, \qquad F'(0) = 0, \qquad F''(0) = 0, \qquad F'''(0) = -\frac{284 \sqrt 3 }{125} < 0;$$ this shows that $F(t)<0$ for $t$ sufficiently small and proves the lemma.
Considering $r_1,...,r_6$ as in , one could prove that the choice $146$-$235$ is optimal between all possible choices, namely $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:146otpimal}
c(r_1, r_4, r_6) + c(r_2, r_3, r_5) \\
= \min\Set{ c(p_1,p_2,p_3)+ c(p_4,p_5,p_6) : \{p_1,\dotsc,p_6\} = \{r_1,\dotsc,r_6\} },\end{gathered}$$ for $t$ small enough. Moreover, one could see that holds also if we replace $c$ with $c_\triangle$ defined in . This is, however, not needed for our counterexamples.
Although they will not be used in the proofs of the main results, we report the following formulas since they might help in future studies to gain more insight into the structure of $c$-monotone sets. We are interested in the asymptotic expansion of the cost as some of the radii go to infinity and the others remain fixed.
For $(r_1,r_2,r_3) = (1, 1, r)$, the optimal angles are $$\theta_2(r) = \pi - \frac{8}{r^2} + o\left(\frac{1}{r^3}\right), \qquad
\theta_3(r) = -\frac{\pi}{2} - \frac{4}{r^2} + o\left(\frac{1}{r^3}\right).$$ In comparison to , this expansion is harder to justify (but can be easily verified numerically). However, from this fact it follows rigorously that the cost has the following asymptotic behaviour: $$\begin{split}
c(1, 1, r) &= C(1, 1, r, \pi, -\pi/2) - \frac{4}{r^4} +
o\left(\frac{1}{r^4}\right) \\
&= \left(\frac12 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+r^2}}\right) - \frac{4}{r^4} +
o\left(\frac{1}{r^4}\right).
\end{split}$$ Similarly, for $(r_1,r_2,r_3) = (1, r, r)$, the optimal angles are $$\theta_2(r) = \frac{\pi}{2} + \frac{4}{r} + o\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right), \qquad
\theta_3(r) = -\frac{\pi}{2} - \frac{4}{r} + o\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right),$$ and the cost is $$\begin{split}
c(1, r, r) &= C(1, r, r, \pi/2, -\pi/2) - \frac{4}{r^3} +
o\left(\frac{1}{r^4}\right) \\
&= \frac{1}{2r} + \frac{2}{\sqrt{1+r^2}} - \frac{4}{r^3} +
o\left(\frac{1}{r^4}\right).
\end{split}$$ Furthermore, one can verify that $$c(1, r, r) = C\left(1, r, r, \frac\pi2+\frac4r, -\frac\pi2-\frac4r \right)
- O\left(\frac1{r^7}\right).$$
Condition for c = cpi and cpi-monotonicity {#sec:spread}
==========================================
When the radii are spread apart, a reasonable approximate cost appears to be $$c_\pi(r_1, r_2, r_3) =
\frac{1}{r_1+r_2} + \frac{1}{r_2+r_3} + \frac{1}{r_3-r_1},$$ which arises from collocating the charges at angles $\theta_2=\pi$ and $\theta_3=0$ (see ). In the first part of this section we want to study under which condition on the radii $r_1$, $r_2$ and $r_3$ we have $$c(r_1, r_2, r_3) = c_\pi(r_1, r_2, r_3).$$ We start with a heuristic argument involving a necessary condition. Up to permutations, we may assume $r_1 \leq r_2 \leq r_3$. It is simple to check that $$C_\theta(r_1, r_2, r_3, \pi, 0) = 0,$$ where $C$ has been defined in , either by direct computation or by a symmetry argument.[^3] If $(\theta_2, \theta_3) = (\pi, 0)$ must be a minimum, then a necessary condition is $$C_{\theta\theta}(r_1, r_2, r_3, \pi, 0) \geq 0,$$ in the sense that the Hessian matrix is positive-definite. We have $$C_{\theta\theta}(r_1, r_2, r_3, \pi, 0) =
\begin{pmatrix}
r_2 \left( \frac{r_1}{(r_1+r_2)^3} + \frac{r_3}{(r_2+r_3)^3} \right) &
-\frac{r_2 r_3}{(r_2+r_3)^3} \\
-\frac{r_2 r_3}{(r_2+r_3)^3} &
r_3 \left( \frac{r_2}{(r_2+r_3)^3} - \frac{r_1}{(r_3-r_1)^3} \right);
\end{pmatrix}$$ since the first entry is positive, this $2\times2$ matrix is positive-definite if and only if the determinant is positive too, namely $$\det C_{\theta\theta}(r_1, r_2, r_3, \pi, 0) = -\frac{r_1 r_2 r_3 [r_2r_3(r_2-r_3) + r_1(r_2^2 + 5r_2r_3 + r_3^2) + r_1^3]}
{(r_1+r_2)^3 (r_2+r_3)^2 (r_3-r_1)^3} \geq 0,$$ or equivalently$$r_1(r_2^2 + 5r_2r_3 + r_3^2) + r_1^3 < r_2r_3(r_3-r_2).$$ depicts the region where the Hessian is positive.
![The region in the $(r_2,r_3)$ plane where $C_{\theta\theta}(r_1, r_2, r_3, \pi, 0) \geq 0$, with $r_1=1$. The dotted line is $r_3=r_2+7$.[]{data-label="fig:spread"}](spread.pdf)
We partially justify the previous argument in the following lemma which, despite not being quantitative, will suffice for our purposes.
\[lemma:c-pi\] If $0<r_1^-\le r_1^+<r_2^-\le r_2^+$, then there exists $r_3^-(r_1^-,r_1^+,r_2^-,r_2^+)$ such that for every $r_1\in[r_1^-,r_1^+]$, $r_2\in[r_2^-,r_2^+]$ and $r_3\geq r_3^-$ we have $$c(r_1, r_2, r_3) = c_\pi(r_1, r_2, r_3).$$
We denote by ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ the $2$-dimensional torus ${\mathbb{R}}^2 / (2\pi {\mathbb{Z}})^2$. The idea of the proof is the following: we claim that for sufficiently large $r_3$ there are exactly four stationary points $(\theta_2,\theta_3)\in{\mathbb{T}}^2$ for $C(r_1,r_2,r_3,\theta_2,\theta_3)$, corresponding to $\theta_2,\theta_3\in\{0,\pi\}$. Therefore $c(r_1,r_2,r_3)$ must coincide with the value achieved at one of them and by comparing the four values we arrive at the desired conclusion.
First of all, we compute the gradient $$C_\theta(r_1,r_2,r_3,\theta_2,\theta_3) = \begin{pmatrix}
-\frac{r_1r_2\sin(\theta_2)}{\left(r_1^2+r_2^2-2r_1r_2\cos(\theta_2)\right)^{3/2}}
-\frac{r_2r_3\sin(\theta_2-\theta_3)}
{\left(r_2^2+r_3^2-2r_2r_3\cos(\theta_2-\theta_3)\right)^{3/2}} \\
-\frac{r_1r_3\sin(\theta_3)}{\left(r_1^2+r_3^2-2r_1r_3\cos(\theta_3)\right)^{3/2}}
+\frac{r_2r_3\sin(\theta_2-\theta_3)}
{\left(r_2^2+r_3^2-2r_2r_3\cos(\theta_2-\theta_3)\right)^{3/2}}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ The gradient vanishes if and only if the following equations are simultaneously satisfied:
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:vertical-curve}
\frac{r_1r_2\sin(\theta_2)}{\left(r_1^2+r_2^2-2r_1r_2\cos(\theta_2)\right)^{3/2}} +
\frac{r_1r_3\sin(\theta_3)}{\left(r_1^2+r_3^2-2r_1r_3\cos(\theta_3)\right)^{3/2}} = 0, \\
\label{eq:diagonal-curve}
-\frac{r_1r_3\sin(\theta_3)}{\left(r_1^2+r_3^2-2r_1r_3\cos(\theta_3)\right)^{3/2}}
+\frac{r_2r_3\sin(\theta_2-\theta_3)}
{\left(r_2^2+r_3^2-2r_2r_3\cos(\theta_2-\theta_3)\right)^{3/2}} = 0.\end{gathered}$$
To show that there are exactly four stationary points, the idea is that, for $r_3$ sufficiently large, equations and define two pairs of closed curves on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$, of type $(0,1)$ and $(1,1)$ respectively, with the property that every curve from the first family intersects each curve of the second family in a single point. The situation is represented in .
![The curves in ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ whose four intersections correspond to stationary points of $C(r_1,r_2,r_3,\theta_2,\theta_3)$. The two solid curves are defined by . The dashed curves are defined by .[]{data-label="fig:curves"}](curves.pdf)
***Step 1.***
Given $r_1$, $r_2$ and a sufficiently large $r_3$, we claim that for every $\theta_3\in S^1$ there are exactly two values $\tilde\theta_2^0(\theta_3), \tilde\theta_2^\pi(\theta_3) \in S^1$ which satisfy ; moreover $\tilde\theta_2^0(\theta_3)$ and $\tilde\theta_2^\pi(\theta_3)$ are close to $0$ and $\pi$ respectively by less than $O\bigl(r_3^{-2}\bigr)$, uniformly in $\theta_3$, and their derivatives go to to zero uniformly in $\theta_3$ for $r_3\to\infty$.[^4] These functions correspond to the solid, almost vertical, lines in .
We begin by finding a useful bound on ${\left\lvert\sin(\theta_2)\right\rvert}$. The two terms of can be estimated by $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lvert\frac{r_1r_2\sin(\theta_2)}
{\left(r_1^2+r_2^2-2r_1r_2\cos(\theta_2)\right)^{3/2}}\right\rvert} &\geq
\frac{r_1^-r_2^-{\left\lvert\sin(\theta_2)\right\rvert}}{(r_1^++r_2^+)^3}, \\
{\left\lvert\frac{r_1r_3\sin(\theta_3)}
{\left(r_1^2+r_3^2-2r_1r_3\cos(\theta_3)\right)^{3/2}}\right\rvert} &\leq
\frac{r_1^+r_3}{(r_3-r_1^+)^3},\end{aligned}$$ therefore, in order to have equality , it must be that $$\frac{r_1^-r_2^-{\left\lvert\sin(\theta_2)\right\rvert}}{(r_1^++r_2^+)^3} \leq
\frac{r_1^+r_3}{(r_3-r_1^+)^3},$$ that is $$\label{eq:sin-theta2}
{\left\lvert\sin(\theta_2)\right\rvert} \leq
\frac{r_1^+(r_1^++r_2^+)^3}{r_1^-r_2^-} \cdot \frac{r_3}{(r_3-r_1^+)^3} =
O\bigl(r_3^{-2}\bigr)$$ as $r_3\to\infty$, where the implied constant depends only on $r_1^\pm$ and $r_2^\pm$.
We have already discussed that, for every $\theta_3\in S^1$, the second term in is smaller than $r_3 (r_3-r_1^+)^{-3}$ in magnitude. On the other hand, the first term vanishes for $\theta_2=0,\pi$ and is equal to $\pm r_1r_2(r_1^2+r_2^2)^{3/2}$ for $\theta_2=\pm\pi/2$. Therefore, by continuity, for $r_3$ large we have at least two solutions to .
The estimate on ${\left\lvert\sin(\theta_2)\right\rvert}$ proves that the solutions must be located near $0$ and $\pi$. Now we want to prove that there are exactly two of them. To do so, we verify that the partial derivative with respect to $\theta_2$ of the first term in is different from zero for $\theta_2$ in the prescribed intervals around $0$ and $\pi$. Indeed, the derivative is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_2} \biggr\rvert_{\theta_2=0} \left(
\frac{r_1r_2\sin(\theta_2)}
{\left(r_1^2+r_2^2-2r_1r_2\cos(\theta_2)\right)^{3/2}} \right) &=
\frac{r_1r_2}{(r_2-r_1)^3}, \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_2} \biggr\rvert_{\theta_2=\pi} \left(
\frac{r_1r_2\sin(\theta_2)}
{\left(r_1^2+r_2^2-2r_1r_2\cos(\theta_2)\right)^{3/2}} \right) &=
-\frac{r_2}{(r_1+r_2)^3},\end{aligned}$$ therefore it is different from zero around the two points and the two solutions are simple.
The claim is almost entirely proved. We now have the two functions $\tilde\theta_2^0({\,\cdot\,}), \tilde\theta_2^\pi({\,\cdot\,})$ and the last thing that we want to derive is the estimate of their first derivatives. Let $\theta_2({\,\cdot\,})$ be one of the two functions. Thanks to the implicit function theorem, we know that $\theta_2({\,\cdot\,})$ is at least $C^1$ and we can compute $$\begin{gathered}
\theta_2'(\theta_3) =
-\frac{r_3}{r_2} \cdot
\frac{2(r_1^2+r_3^2)\cos(\theta_3)+r_1r_3[-5+\cos(2\theta_3)]}
{2(r_1^2+r_2^2)\cos\bigl(\theta_2(\theta_3)\bigr)+
r_1r_2\bigl[-5+\cos\bigl(2\theta_2(\theta_3)\bigr)\bigr]} \\
\cdot \left( \frac{r_1^2+r_2^2-2r_1r_2\cos\bigl(\theta_2(\theta_3)\bigr)}
{r_1^2+r_3^2-2r_1r_3\cos(\theta_3)} \right)^{5/2}.\end{gathered}$$ All the terms are fairly easy to deal with, apart from the denominator of the second fraction. However, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
2(r_1^2+r_2^2)\cos(\theta_2) + r_1r_2[-5+\cos(2\theta_2)] \bigr\rvert_{\theta_2=0}
&= 2(r_1^2-2r_1r_2+r_2^2) \geq 2(r_2^--r_1^+)^2, \\
-2(r_1^2+r_2^2)\cos(\theta_2) - r_1r_2[-5+\cos(2\theta_2)] \bigr\rvert_{\theta_2=\pi}
&= 2(r_1^2+2r_1r_2+r_2^2) \geq 2(r_2^-+r_1^-)^2,\end{aligned}$$ therefore, by the continuity of the functions involved and by compactness, there exists a neighbourhood $U$ of $\{0,\pi\}$ such that if $r_1\in[r_1^-,r_1^+]$, $r_2\in[r_2^-,r_2^+]$ and $\theta_2\in U$ then $${\left\lvert2(r_1^2+r_2^2)\cos(\theta_2) + r_1r_2[-5+\cos(2\theta_2)]\right\rvert} >
(r_2^--r_1^+)^2.$$ From this and , which ensures that $\theta_2(\theta_3)\in U$, we deduce that for $r_3$ large $${\left\lvert\theta_2'(\theta_3)\right\rvert} \leq
\frac{r_3}{r_2^-} \cdot
\frac{2(r_1^+)^2+2r_3^2}{(r_2^--r_1^+)^2} \cdot
\frac{(r_1^++r_2^+)^5}{(r_3-r_1^+)^5} = O\left(r_3^{-2}\right).$$
***Step 2.***
Next we perform the same analysis for . We prove that there exist two $C^1$ functions $\hat\theta_2^0(\theta_3)$ and $\hat\theta_2^\pi(\theta_3)$ which are the only solutions of when $\theta_3$ is prescribed and that their derivatives are strictly positive. First of all, we introduce the new variable $\psi = \theta_2-\theta_3$. Equation reads as $$\label{eq:diagonal-curve-psi}
-\frac{r_1\sin(\theta_3)}{\left(r_1^2+r_3^2-2r_1r_3\cos(\theta_3)\right)^{3/2}}
+\frac{r_2\sin(\psi)}{\left(r_2^2+r_3^2-2r_2r_3\cos(\psi)\right)^{3/2}} = 0.$$
- **The solutions lie in two strips.** From equation we get $$\begin{split}
\frac{r_1^+}{(r_3-r_1^+)^3} &\geq
{\left\lvert\frac{r_1\sin(\theta_3)}{\left(r_1^2+r_3^2-2r_1r_3\cos(\theta_3)\right)^{3/2}}\right\rvert}\\
&= {\left\lvert\frac{r_2\sin(\psi)}{\left(r_2^2+r_3^2-2r_2r_3\cos(\psi)\right)^{3/2}}\right\rvert} \geq
\frac{r_2^-{\left\lvert\sin(\psi)\right\rvert}}{(r_2^++r_3)^3}.
\end{split}$$ Therefore we have $${\left\lvert\sin(\psi)\right\rvert} \leq \left(\frac{r_3+r_2^+}{r_3-r_1^+}\right)^3 \frac{r_1^+}{r_2^-},$$ which, for $r_3$ sufficiently large, implies ${\left\lvert\sin(\psi)\right\rvert} < \eta$ for a fixed $\eta\in(r_1^+/r_2^-,1)$.
- **There are at least two solutions.** The first term of is bounded by $${\left\lvert\frac{r_1\sin(\theta_3)}{\left(1+r_3^2-2r_3\cos(\theta_3)\right)^{3/2}}\right\rvert} \leq
\frac{r_1}{(r_3-1)^3}.$$ On the other hand, when $\psi=\pm\pi/2$ the second term equals $$\pm \frac{r_2}{(r_2^2+r_3^2)^{3/2}},$$ which is bigger for $r_3$ large enough. This tells us that for every $\theta_3$ there are at least two distinct values of $\psi$ which solve , because the second term is a continuous periodic function of $\psi$.
- **There are exactly two solutions.** The derivative of the second term is $$\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi}\left(
\frac{r_2\sin(\psi)}{(r_2^2+r_3^2-2r_2r_3\cos(\psi))^{3/2}}
\right) =
\frac{-3r_2^2r_3+(r_2^3+r_2r_3^2)\cos(\psi)+r_2^2r_3\cos(\psi)^2}
{(r_2^2+r_3^2-2r_2r_3\cos(\psi))^{5/2}}.$$ We observe that the denominator is always positive. We study the sign of the numerator. The equation $$-3r_2^2r_3+(r_2^3+r_2r_3^2)t+r_2^2r_3t^2 = 0$$ for the unknown $t$ has the two solutions $$\frac{-r_2^2-r_3^2+\sqrt{r_2^4+14r_2^2r_3^2+r_3^4}}{2r_2r_3}, \qquad
\frac{-r_2^2-r_3^2-\sqrt{r_2^4+14r_2^2r_3^2+r_3^4}}{2r_2r_3}.$$ However, only the first one lies in the range $[-1,1]$, whereas the second is less than $-2$. In fact, $$r_2^2+r_3^2+\sqrt{r_2^4+14r_2^2r_3^2+r_3^4} \geq
r_2^2+r_3^2+\sqrt{r_2^4+2r_2^2r_3^2+r_3^4} =
2(r_2^2+r_3^2) \geq 4r_2r_3.$$ Therefore the function has exactly two stationary points and is monotone between them.
- **Derivative of the solutions.** At this point we know that there exist two functions $\psi_0(\theta_3)$ and $\psi_\pi(\theta_3)$ such that the corresponding $\hat\theta_2^0(\theta_3)=\psi_0(\theta_3)+\theta_3$ and $\hat\theta_2^\pi(\theta_3)=\psi_\pi(\theta_3)+\theta_3$ parametrize the solutions of .
The goal is to show that for $r_3$ sufficiently large we have $\theta_2'(\theta_3) \geq C > 0$ for some constant $C$ independent of $r_3$, where $\theta_2({\,\cdot\,})$ is either $\hat\theta_2^0({\,\cdot\,})$ or $\hat\theta_2^\pi({\,\cdot\,})$. Thanks to the implicit function theorem we can compute the derivative $$\begin{gathered}
\theta_2'(\theta_3) =
\frac{(r_2^2+r_3^2-2r_2r_3\cos(\psi))^{5/2}}
{-3r_2^2r_3+(r_2^3+r_2r_3^2)\cos(\psi)+r_2^2r_3\cos(\psi)^2} \\
\cdot \Biggl(
\frac{r_1\cos(\theta_3)}{(r_1^2+r_3^2-2r_1r_3\cos(\theta_3))^{3/2}} +
\frac{r_2\cos(\psi)}{(r_2^2+r_3^2-2r_2r_3\cos(\psi))^{3/2}} \\
-\frac{3r_1^2r_3\sin(\theta_3)^2}{(r_1^2+r_3^2-2r_1r_3\cos(\theta_3))^{5/2}} -
\frac{3r_2^2r_3\sin(\psi)^2}{(r_2^2+r_3^2-2r_2r_3\cos(\psi))^{5/2}}
\Biggr),\end{gathered}$$ where $\psi=\theta_2-\theta_3$ as before. We introduce the parameter $\kappa=1/r_3$ and write the derivative in terms of it. We have that $$\theta_2'(\theta_3) = f(r_1,r_2,1/r_3,\theta_2-\theta_3,\theta_3)$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:diagonal-curve-derivative}
f(r_1,r_2,\kappa,\psi,\theta_3) =
\frac{(1-2r_2\kappa\cos(\psi)+r_2\kappa^2)^{5/2}}
{-3r_2\kappa+(r_2^3\kappa^2+r_2)\cos(\psi)+r_2^2\kappa\cos(\psi)^2} \\
\cdot \Biggl(
\frac{r_1\cos(\theta_3)}{(1+r_1^2\kappa^2-2r_1\kappa\cos(\theta_3))^{3/2}} +
\frac{r_2\cos(\psi)}{(1+r_2^2\kappa^2-2r_2\kappa\cos(\psi))^{3/2}} \\
-\frac{3r_1^2\kappa\sin(\theta_3)^2}{(1+r_1^2\kappa^2-2r_1\kappa\cos(\theta_3))^{5/2}}
-\frac{3r_2^2\kappa\sin(\psi)^2}{(1+r_2^2\kappa^2-2r_2\kappa\cos(\psi))^{5/2}}
\Biggr).\end{gathered}$$ Observe that the only singularities are due to the denominator of the first fraction. However, the singular values of $\psi$ lie outside the two intervals $$S = [-\arcsin(\eta),\arcsin(\eta)]\cup[\pi-\arcsin(\eta),\pi+\arcsin(\eta)]$$ for $\kappa$ sufficiently small ($r_3$ large enough), because they converge to $\pm\pi/2$. Therefore there exists $\kappa^+>0$ such that the function $f$ is continuous in the domain $$D = [r_1^-,r_1^+]_{r_1} \times [r_2^-,r_2^+]_{r_2} \times [0,\kappa^+]_\kappa
\times S_\psi \times [0,2\pi]_{\theta_3}.$$
- **Limit case.** We rewrite equation in terms of $\kappa$ as $$\label{eq:diagonal-curve-kappa}
-\frac{r_1\sin(\theta_3)}{(1+r_1^2\kappa^2-2r_1\kappa\cos(\theta_3))^{3/2}} +
\frac{r_2\sin(\psi)}{(1+r_2^2\kappa^2-2r_2\kappa\cos(\psi))^{3/2}} = 0.$$ Let $\Gamma_{r_1,r_2,\kappa}$ denote the set of solutions $(\psi,\theta_3)\in S_\psi\times[0,2\pi]_{\theta_3}$ to . By the continuity of we know that $$\Gamma = \bigcup_{r_1\in[r_1^-,r_1^+]} \bigcup_{r_2\in[r_2^-,r_2^+]}
\bigcup_{\kappa\in[0,\kappa^+]\vphantom{r_1^+}} \Gamma_{r_1,r_2,\kappa} \subset D$$ is a closed set. Our ultimate goal is to show that $f$ is positive on $\Gamma_{r_1,r_2,\kappa}$ when $\kappa$ is small enough.
We start by studying the limit case $\kappa=0$. The limit curve $\Gamma_{r_1,r_2,0}$ is given by the equation $$\label{eq:limit-curve}
r_1 \sin(\theta_3) = r_2 \sin(\psi).$$ For $\kappa=0$, the function $f$ equals $$f(r_1,r_2,0,\psi,\theta_3) =
\frac{1}{r_2\cos(\psi)}\bigl(r_1\cos(\theta_3)+r_2\cos(\psi)\bigr) =
1 + \frac{r_1\cos(\theta_3)}{r_2\cos(\psi)}.$$ We claim that this function is positive on the curve defined by . Indeed, positivity is guaranteed if we are able to prove that $${\left\lvert\frac{r_1\cos(\theta_3)}{r_2\cos(\psi)}\right\rvert} < 1.$$ But, by squaring, this is equivalent to $$r_1^2 \cos(\theta_3)^2 < r_2 \cos(\psi)^2,$$ which, thanks to , reduces to the true inequality $r_1^2<r_2^2$.
- **Conclusion.** Finally, we prove that $f\geq C>0$ on $\Gamma_{r_1,r_2,\kappa}$ for $\kappa$ close to zero, where $C$ is a constant depending only on $r_1^\pm$ and $r_2^\pm$.
We know that $f$ is positive on the compact set $$K = \bigcup_{r_1\in[r_1^-,r_1^+]} \bigcup_{r_2\in[r_2^-,r_2^+]} \Gamma_{r_1,r_2,0}.$$ Therefore there exists a positive constant $C$ and an open neighbourhood $U$ of $K$ in $D$ such that $f>C$ on $U$. Since $\Gamma$ is closed, a compactness argument shows that $\Gamma_{r_1,r_2,\kappa}\subset U$ for $\kappa$ close to zero and this concludes the proof.
***Step 3.***
The previous steps tell us that defines two vertical curves and two diagonal curves. The estimates on the derivatives of such curves prove that the intersections are simple, therefore there are exactly four stationary points. But we already know four stationary points, namely $$(\theta_2,\theta_3) = (0,0),\ (0,\pi),\ (\pi,0),\ (\pi,\pi).$$ To conclude, we can just compare the costs associated to each of them and pick the smallest one. It is easy to see that $(\theta_2,\theta_3)=(\pi,0)$ is the optimal choice. In fact, $(0,0)$ is clearly the worst. Among the three cases left, we can say that $(\pi,0)$ always beats $(\pi,\pi)$, that is $$\begin{gathered}
C(r_1,r_2,r_3,\pi,\pi) - C(r_1,r_2,r_3,\pi,0) \\
= \left( \frac1{r_3-r_2}-\frac1{r_3-r_1} \right) +
\left( \frac1{r_2+r_1}-\frac1{r_3+r_2} \right) > 0,\end{gathered}$$ as both the differences in parenthesis are positive. Finally, $(\pi,0)$ beats $(0,\pi)$ too because $$C(r_1,r_2,r_3,0,\pi) - C(r_1,r_2,r_3,\pi,0) =
\frac{2r_1(r_3^2-r_2^2)}{(r_2^2-r_1^2)(r_3^2-r_1^2)} > 0. \qedhere$$
In the following lemma, we prove that, with the frozen cost $c_\pi$, given six increasing radii numbered $1,\dotsc,6$ the choice of two disjoint subsets of three elements which minimizes the cost is always given by $145$ and $236$. Actually, we prove only some comparisons that are enough for our examples, but one could show in general that $$\begin{gathered}
c_\pi(r_1, r_4, r_5) + c_\pi(r_2, r_3, r_6) = \\
= \min \Set{ c_\pi(p_1,p_2,p_3) + c_\pi(p_4,p_5,p_6)
: \{p_1,\dotsc,p_6\} = \{r_1,\dotsc,r_6\} }.\end{gathered}$$ The proof of this fact reduces to the characterization of $c$-monotonicity with Coulomb cost performed in [@CDD Proposition 2.4].
\[lemma:c-pi145\] Let $0 < r_1 < \dotsb < r_6$. Then we have that $$\label{eqn:c-pi-monot}
\begin{split}
c_\pi(r_1, r_4, r_5) +c&_\pi(r_2, r_3, r_6)
\leq \min\big\{ c_\pi(r_1, r_4, r_6) + c_\pi(r_2, r_3, r_5) ,\\
& c_\pi(r_1, r_3, r_6) + c_\pi(r_2, r_4, r_5),\;c_\pi(r_1, r_3, r_5) + c_\pi(r_2, r_4, r_6) \big\}.
\end{split}$$
Let us consider the one dimensional Coulomb cost defined in ${\mathbb{R}}$ $$\bar c(v_1,v_2,v_3) = \frac{1}{{\left\lvertv_2-v_1\right\rvert}} + \frac{1}{{\left\lvertv_3-v_2\right\rvert}} + \frac{1}{{\left\lvertv_1-v_3\right\rvert}} \qquad \forall v_1,v_2,v_3\in {\mathbb{R}}.$$ We notice that $ c_\pi(r_1, r_4, r_5) = \bar c(r_1, -r_4, r_5) $ and, more in general, for all the $3$-uples appearing in the $c_\pi$-cost and the $\bar c$-cost satisfy the same relation. In [@CDD Proposition 2.4] it is proved that, given the six points $-r_4, -r_3, r_1,r_2,r_5,r_6$ the best way to choose two $3$-uples to minimize the one dimensional Coulomb cost is to take the points in odd position and the points in even position; in particular, we have $$\begin{split}
\bar c( -r_4, r_1, r_5) + \bar c(-&r_3, r_2, r_6)
\leq \min\big\{ \bar c(-r_4, r_1, r_6) + \bar c(-r_3, r_2, r_5) ,\\
& \bar c(-r_3, r_1, r_6) + \bar c(-r_4, r_2, r_5), \; \bar c(-r_3, r_1, r_5) + \bar c(-r_4, r_2, r_6) \big\},
\end{split}$$ which proves .
The previous lemma allows to prove that, for the cost $c_\pi$, the symmetrized optimal plan for the problem is unique and coincides with the symmetrization of the $DDI$-map.
Proofs of examples and counterexamples {#sec:proofs}
======================================
Let $t_0$ be given by and let us choose ${\varepsilon}\leq t_0/2$. If, by contradiction, the $DDI$-map $T$ associated to $\rho_{\varepsilon}$ is optimal, by its support is $c$-monotone. Let us consider $1+ {\varepsilon}$, $1+3{\varepsilon}$ and the images of these points through $T$ and $ T\circ T$: $$T(1+ {\varepsilon}) = 1+ 7{\varepsilon}, \quad T\circ T(1+ {\varepsilon}) = 1+ 9{\varepsilon},$$ $$T(1+ 3{\varepsilon}) = 1+ 5{\varepsilon}, \quad T\circ T(1+ 3{\varepsilon}) = 1+ 11{\varepsilon},$$ We notice that these points $$(r_1,...,r_6) = (1+{\varepsilon}, 1+3{\varepsilon}, 1+5{\varepsilon}, 1+7{\varepsilon}, 1+9{\varepsilon}, 1+11{\varepsilon}),$$ are equally spaced; hence, we can apply the scaling properties of the cost function and with $t= 2{\varepsilon}/(1+{\varepsilon}) \leq t_0$ to deduce that, $$\begin{split}
c(r_1, r_4, r_6) + c(r_2, r_3, r_5) &= \frac{1}{1+{\varepsilon}}\Big[c\Big(\frac{r_1}{1+{\varepsilon}}, \frac{r_4}{1+{\varepsilon}}, \frac{r_6}{1+{\varepsilon}}\Big) + c\Big(\frac{r_2}{1+{\varepsilon}}, \frac{r_3}{1+{\varepsilon}}, \frac{r_5}{1+{\varepsilon}}\Big) \Big]
\\&<\frac{1}{1+{\varepsilon}}\Big[c\Big(\frac{r_1}{1+{\varepsilon}}, \frac{r_4}{1+{\varepsilon}}, \frac{r_5}{1+{\varepsilon}}\Big) + c\Big(\frac{r_2}{1+{\varepsilon}}, \frac{r_3}{1+{\varepsilon}}, \frac{r_6}{1+{\varepsilon}}\Big) \Big]
\\&= c(r_1, r_4, r_5) + c(r_2, r_3, r_6).
\end{split}$$ This contradicts the $c$-monotonicity of the support by taking $p=\{ 3\}$.
***Step 1.***
By choosing ${\varepsilon}$ sufficiently small (independently on $M$), we exclude that the $DDI$-map is optimal in problem for every $M>2$.
Let $T$ be the piecewise continuous $DDI$-map. Consider the following two points in the support of the plan associated to $T$ (recall that the support is a closed set): $$\begin{aligned}
\left(1+\frac{\varepsilon}2,T\left(1+\frac{\varepsilon}2\right),T^{(2)}\left(1+\frac{\varepsilon}2\right)\right) &=
\left(1+\frac{\varepsilon}2,1+\frac{7{\varepsilon}}2,1+\frac{9{\varepsilon}}2\right), \\
\lim_{r\to1+{\varepsilon}^-}\bigl(r,T(r),T^{(2)}(r)\bigr) &= (1+{\varepsilon},1+3{\varepsilon},1+5{\varepsilon}).\end{aligned}$$ We claim that they violate the $c$-monotonicity property () with $p=\{3\}$, namely $$\begin{split}
f({\varepsilon}) =
{}& c\left(1+\frac{\varepsilon}2,1+\frac{7{\varepsilon}}2,1+\frac{9{\varepsilon}}2\right)
+ c(1+{\varepsilon},1+3{\varepsilon},1+5{\varepsilon}) \\
&-\left[c\left(1+\frac{\varepsilon}2,1+\frac{7{\varepsilon}}2,1+5{\varepsilon}\right)
+c\left(1+{\varepsilon},1+3{\varepsilon},1+\frac{9{\varepsilon}}2\right)\right] > 0
\end{split}$$ for ${\varepsilon}$ sufficiently small. The proof is similar to that of . Using the formulas obtained in we just compute the derivatives $$\begin{gathered}
f(0) = f'(0) = f''(0) = 0, \\
f'''(0) = \frac{71\sqrt3}{100} > 0.\end{gathered}$$
***Step 2.***
We exclude that the maps $DID$, $IDD$, $III$ in the $\{D,I\}^3$-class are optimal in problem for $M$ large enough.
We present the argument to exclude the $DID$-map, the others being similar. Let us fix $x,y \in (M+1/4, M+3/4)$, $x<y$, and let us consider their orbits through $T$, that is $T(x),T(y) \in (1, 1+{\varepsilon}_0)$ and $T^{(2)}(x),T^{(2)}(y) \in (1+ 3{\varepsilon}_0, 1+4{\varepsilon}_0)$. Let us consider the increasingly ordered points $$(r_1,...,r_6) = \Big(T(y), T(x),T^{(2)}(x),T^{(2)}(y), x,y \Big);$$ the couples of points $(r_1,r_4,r_6)$ and $(r_2,r_3,r_5)$ belong to the support of the plan associated to the $DID$-map. By , we can choose $M$ sufficiently large so that the previous points, as well as the points $(r_1, r_4, r_5)$ and $(r_2, r_3, r_6)$, have the same $c$ and $c_\pi$ cost. By , which describes the $c_{\pi}$ monotonicity, we have $$\begin{split}
c(r_1, r_4, r_5) + c(r_2, r_3, r_6)&= c_\pi(r_1, r_4, r_5) + c_\pi(r_2, r_3, r_6) \\
& \leq c_\pi(r_1, r_4, r_6) + c_\pi(r_2, r_3, r_5) \\
& = c(r_1, r_4, r_6) + c(r_2, r_3, r_5).
\end{split}$$ This shows, by , that the $DID$-map cannot be optimal.
\[ce:4marg\] Our method can be applied to the $4$-marginal problem to show that there exists ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that, setting $$\rho_{\varepsilon}= \frac1{16{\varepsilon}} 1_{[1,1+16{\varepsilon}]} \,dr \in \operatorname{\mathscr{M}}({\mathbb{R}}_+),$$ any map in the $\{D,I\}^4$-class associated to $\rho_{\varepsilon}$ is not optimal in problem . Indeed, let $T$ be any such map. Pick two points in $[1,1+16{\varepsilon}]$ such that the union of their two orbits is $$\{r_1,\dotsc,r_8\} =
\{1+{\varepsilon},1+3{\varepsilon},1+5{\varepsilon},1+7{\varepsilon},1+9{\varepsilon},1+11{\varepsilon},1+13{\varepsilon},1+15{\varepsilon}\}.$$ We claim that $T$ is not $c$-monotone because the partitioning of $\{r_1,\dotsc,r_8\}$ into two quartets that minimizes $$c(r_{i_1},r_{i_2},r_{i_3},r_{i_4}) + c(r_{i_5},r_{i_6},r_{i_7},r_{i_8})$$ is $\{(r_1,r_5,r_6,r_7),(r_2,r_3,r_4,r_8)\}$ and such partition doesn’t correspond to any of the maps in the $\{D,I\}^4$-class.
The way to see this is to extend the results of Section \[sec:taylor\] to the $4$-marginal case. Consider four radii $$(r_1,r_2,r_3,r_4) = (1+a_1t,1+a_2t,1+a_3t,1+a_4t).$$ Following the same derivation, we find that the angles that give the cost $c$ are $$\begin{pmatrix}
\theta_2(t) \\ \theta_3(t) \\ \theta_4(t)
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\pi/2 \\ \pi \\ 3/3\pi
\end{pmatrix}
+ \frac{6-\sqrt2}{34}
\begin{pmatrix}
-a_1-a_2+a_3+a_4 \\ 2a_4-2a_2 \\ a_1-a_2-a_3+a_4
\end{pmatrix} t + o(t).$$ In turn, this provides the expansion of the cost up to the third order and this information can be used to verify the asymptotic optimality of any given partition. We omit the formulas, since this computations are better performed with the aid of a computer algebra system.
Let $M$ be chosen, thanks to , so that $$\label{eqn:ex-M-choice}
c(r_1, r_2, r_3) = c_\pi(r_1, r_2, r_3) \qquad \mbox{for every } r_1\in [1,2], \; r_2 \in [3,4], \; r_3 \in [M,\infty).$$ In order to prove the $c$-monotonicity property, since the map $T$ is cyclical and since its orbits take exactly one point in each interval $[1,2]$, $[3,4]$, and $[M,\infty)$, it is enough to show that, given $x, y\in [1,2]$, $x<y$, we have $$\label{eqn:c-monot-example}
c\bigl(x,T(x), T^{(2)}(x)\bigr)+ c\bigl(y,T(y), T^{(2)}(y)\bigr) \leq c(x,A,B)+ c(y,C,D)$$ for every possible choice of $A,B,C,D$ such that $\{A , C\} = \{ T(x), T(y)\}$ and $\{B , D\} = \{ T^{(2)}(x), T^{(2)}(y)\}$. By definition, we have that $$1\leq x<y\leq 2 \leq 3 \leq T(y) <T(x) \leq 4 \leq M \leq T^{(2)}(x) <T^{(2)}(y);$$ hence by we have that $c\bigl(x,T(x), T^{(2)}(x)\bigr) = c_\pi\bigl(x,T(x), T^{(2)}(x)\bigr)$ (and similarly for $y$ and for the other $3$-uples) and by we have that $$\begin{split}
c\bigl(x,T(x), T^{(2)}(x)\bigr)&+c\bigl(y,T(y), T^{(2)}(y)\bigr)
= c_\pi\bigl(x,T(x), T^{(2)}(x)\bigr)+ c_\pi\bigl(y,T(y), T^{(2)}(y)\bigr) \\
&\leq c_\pi(x,A,B)+ c_\pi(y,C,D) = c(x,A,B)+ c(y,C,D),
\end{split}$$ for every possible choice of $A,B,C,D$ such that $\{A , C\} = \{ T(x), T(y)\}$ and $\{B , D\} = \{ T^{(2)}(x), T^{(2)}(y)\}$; this proves .
[10]{}
, *Lecture notes on optimal transport problems*, Lecture Notes in Math., [**1812**]{}, Springer, Berlin, 2003, 1–52.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L. Ambrosio, N. Gigli, G. Savaré,</span> *Gradient flows in metric spaces and in the space of probability measures*, Lectures in Mathematics, ETH Zürich, Birkhäuser (2008).
, [*Optimal transport formulation of electronic density-functional theory*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, [**85**]{} (2012), 062502.
, [*Equality between Monge and Kantorovich multimarginal problems with Coulomb cost*]{}, [ Ann. Mat. Pura Appl.]{}, [**194**]{} (2015), 307–320.
, [*Multimarginal optimal transport maps for $1$-dimensional repulsive costs*]{}, Canad. J. Math., [**67**]{} (2015), 350–368.
, [*Density functional theory and optimal transportation with Coulomb cost*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., [**66**]{} (2013), 548–599.
, [*Infinite-body optimal transport with Coulomb Cost*]{}, to appear on [Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations]{}, DOI 10.1007/s00526-014-0803-0.
, [*Optimal transport with Coulomb cost: approximation and duality*]{}, preprint 2015.
, [*Optimal transportation theory for repulsive costs*]{}, preprint 2015.
, [*The strictly-correlated electron functional for spherically symmetric systems revisited*]{}, in preparation. , [*Symmetric Monge-Kantorovich problems and polar decompositions of vector fields*]{}, [Geom. Funct. Anal.]{} [**24**]{} (2014), 1129–1166. , [*Inhomogeneous electron gas*]{}, Physical review, [**136**]{} (1964), B864.
, [*Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation effects*]{}, Physical Review, [**140**]{} (1965), A1133.
, [*On the local structure of optimal measures in the multi-marginal optimal transportation problem*]{}, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, [**43**]{} (2012), 529–536. , [*Remarks on the semi-classical Hohenberg-Kohn functional*]{}, Nonlinearity, [**26**]{} (2013), 2731–2744.
, [*Mass Transportation Problems*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York (1998).
, [*Strong-interaction limit of density-functional theory*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, [**60**]{} (1999), 4387.
, [*Strictly correlated electrons in density-functional theory: A general formulation with applications to spherical densities*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, [**75**]{} (2007), 042511.
, [*Optimal transport. Old and new*]{}, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, [**338**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2009).
[^1]: Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, [[email protected]]([email protected]).
[^2]: Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, [[email protected]]([email protected]).
[^3]: In fact, the four configurations with $\theta_2,\theta_3\in\{0,\pi\}$ are always stationary.
[^4]: More precisely, they are close to zero by less than $O\bigl(r_3^{-2}\bigr)$, uniformly in $\theta_3$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In semi-symbolic (control-explicit data-symbolic) model checking the state-space explosion problem is fought by representing sets of states by first-order formulas over the bit-vector theory. In this model checking approach, most of the verification time is spent in an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver on deciding satisfiability of quantified queries, which represent equality of symbolic states. In this paper, we introduce a new scheme for decomposition of symbolic states, which can be used to significantly improve the performance of any semi-symbolic model checker. Using the decomposition, a model checker can issue much simpler and smaller queries to the solver when compared to the original case. Some [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}calls may be even avoided completely, as the satisfaction of some of the simplified formulas can be decided syntactically. Moreover, the decomposition allows for an efficient caching scheme for quantified formulas. To support our theoretical contribution, we show the performance gain of our model checker on a set of examples from the Software Verification Competition.'
author:
- Jan Mrázek
- Martin Jonáš
- Jiří Barnat
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: |
SMT Queries Decomposition and Caching\
in Semi-Symbolic Model Checking
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Automated formal verification of a real-world code is an ultimate goal for both academia and industry. One of the methods that are most suitable for achieving this goal is model checking. Originally, the model checking approach was designed for verification of distributed systems that were modeled in some appropriate modeling language for the purpose of verification. However, recent achievements made model checking tools more general and applicable directly to source codes of middle-sized software projects. For example, model checker [@DiVinE30] allows for a direct model checking of an unmodified C or C++ code. The general applicability and widespread use of model checking is unfortunately limited by the well-known state space explosion problem, i.e. data structures that need to be produced and explored in order to complete the verification process may blow-up exponentially with respect to the size of the model-checked source code.
The exponential growth of data structures comes from two sources – the interleaving of parallel processes in the system being verified (control-flow non-determinism) and from processing of input data (data non-determinism). The control flow non-determinism can be alleviated by state space reduction methods, e.g. $\tau$-reduction [@RBB13], or partial order reduction [@Peled1998]. Data non-determinism, on the other hand, is typically dealt with using abstract interpretation [@AbsInt], BDD data structures [@CAV02], or using formulas in a suitable logic and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sat</span>]{}or [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solvers [@NuXmv]. Surprisingly, most model checking tools available to general public focus mainly on a single type of non-determinism. To address this issue, a semi-symbolic approach to model checking has been introduced recently. This approach is also called *Control-Explicit Data-Symbolic* ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ceds</span>]{}) model checking [@BBH14]. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ceds</span>]{}approach basically follows the enumerative model checking scheme with the exception that the data parts of states are represented symbolically, which allows a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ceds</span>]{}model checker to represent multiple states with the same control-flow part as a single compactly represented object – so-called *multi-state*. This efficiently mitigates data non-determinism blow-up during the state space exploration, but introduces costly operations for working with symbolic parts of states. The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ceds</span>]{}approach is implemented, e.g. within the tool [@spin2016].
employs first-order formulas and an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver to deal with multiple possible values of symbolic data at one control-flow location. As a result, most of the verification time of verification process is spent in queries to the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver. In this paper, we introduce a new scheme for slicing of states in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ceds</span>]{}approach, which reduces complexity of issued [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}queries and allows for their caching. Caching of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}queries has a significant impact on the performance of the whole model checking procedure, and it is not easy to achieve without the state slicing as the queries issued during verification contain universal quantifiers. Furthermore, the state slicing allows for further optimizations in the model checking procedure: in some cases, the equality of symbolic parts of states may be solved purely syntactically without even calling an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver, which brings another performance boost. In the paper, we give the necessary theoretical background for state slicing, as well as a report on our implementation in the tool and its experimental evaluation on benchmarks from Software Verification Competition (SV-COMP) [@SVCOMP].
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:preliminaries\], we give the necessary introduction to the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ceds</span>]{}model checking and context for the state slicing and caching, which are described in Section \[sec:slicing\]. In Section \[sec:impleval\], we describe details of our implementation and report on experimental evaluation we performed to measure the benefit of our new approach. Finally, we conclude the paper in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
The performance of a semi-symbolic model checker relies on a compact representation of the sets of states and on efficient implementations of operations using this representation. Although several representations have been proposed and tested, the first-order formulas over the theory of fixed size bit-vectors have shown to be most efficient in practice. Using this representation, tests for emptiness of a symbolic state and for equivalence of two symbolic states are performed by queries to an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver capable of handling quantified bit-vector formulas.
Theory of Fixed Sized Bit-vectors
---------------------------------
In this section, we briefly recall the bit-vector theory, which is used to represent sets of valuations in the latest versions of the tool .
The *theory of fixed sized bit-vectors* is a many-sorted first-order theory with infinitely many sorts ${\ensuremath{[n]}}$ corresponding to bit-vectors of length $n$. Additionally, as in Hadarean [@Had15], we suppose a distinguished sort ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Boolean}}\xspace}$ and instead of treating formulas and terms differently, we consider formulas as merely the terms of sort ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Boolean}}\xspace}$. The only predicate symbols in the BV theory are $=$, $\leq_u$, and $\leq_s$, representing equality, unsigned inequality of binary-encoded natural numbers, and signed inequality of integers in $2$’s complement representation, respectively. Functions symbols in the theory are $+, \times, \div, \&, \mid, \oplus, \ll, \gg, \cdot, {\ensuremath{\texttt{extract}^{n}_{p}}}$, representing addition, multiplication, unsigned division, bit-wise and, bit-wise or, bit-wise exclusive or, left-shift, right-shift, concatenation, and extraction of $n$ bits starting from position $p$, respectively. For the map $\mu$ assigning to each variable a value in a domain of its sort, we denote as ${\ensuremath{\llbracket \_ \rrbracket}}_\mu$ the evaluation function, which to each formula $\varphi$ assigns the value ${\ensuremath{\llbracket \varphi \rrbracket}}_\mu$. This value is obtained by substituting free variables in $\varphi$ by values given by $\mu$ and evaluating all functions, predicates, and quantifiers according to their standard interpretation. The formula $\varphi$ is *satisfiable* if ${\ensuremath{\llbracket \varphi \rrbracket}}_\mu = {\top\xspace}$ for some mapping $\mu$; it is *unsatisfiable* otherwise. Formulas $\varphi$ and $\psi$ with the same set of free variables are *equivalent* if ${\ensuremath{\llbracket \varphi \rrbracket}}_\mu = {\ensuremath{\llbracket \psi \rrbracket}}_\mu$ for all assignments $\mu$. Further, formulas $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are *equisatisfiable* if both are satisfiable or both are unsatisfiable. If $\Phi$ is a finite set of formulas, we denote as $\bigwedge \Phi$ the conjunction of all formulas in $\Phi$. A set of free variables of the formula $\varphi$ is defined as usual and denoted ${\ensuremath{\mathit{free}(\varphi)}}$. Formulas $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are called *(syntactically) dependent* if they do not share any free variable, i.e. ${\ensuremath{\mathit{free}(\varphi)}} \cap {\ensuremath{\mathit{free}(\psi)}} = \emptyset$. The precise description of the many-sorted logic can be found for example in Barrett et al. [@BSST09]. For a precise description of the syntax and semantics of the bit-vector theory, we refer the reader to Hadarean [@Had15].
{#sec:symdivine}
is a semi-symbolic model checker aiming for verification of real world C and C++ programs featuring parallelism. To achieve precise semantics of the input languages and, at the same time, to ease the parsing, it is built upon the compiler framework. In order to verify real-world pieces of code, provides intrinsic implementations of a subset of the pthread library to allow parallelism and also of a subset of SV-COMP interface to allow users to model non-deterministic inputs in their programs. Internally, relies on the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ceds</span>]{}approach, in detail described in [@BBH14]. The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ceds</span>]{}approach allows to verify both safety and properties of programs under inspection. In the following subsection, we cover the basics and details relevant to this paper. For further information, we kindly refer the reader to the original paper.
Control-Explicit Data-Symbolic Model Checking {#subsec:ceds}
---------------------------------------------
In the standard explicit state model checking, the state space graph of a program is explored by an exhaustive enumeration of its states, until an error is found or all reachable states have been enumerated. basically follows the same idea, but instead of enumerating states for all possible input values, it employs a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ceds</span>]{}approach in which the inputs of the program are treated in a symbolic manner. While a purely explicit-state model checker has to produce a new state for each and every possible input value, in a set of states that differ only in data values may be represented with a single data structure, the so-called *multi-state*.
A multi-state consists of an explicit control location and a set of program’s memory valuations. In practice, a set of memory valuations is usually not listed explicitly, but in a more succinct representation. By providing procedures for deciding whether the set of memory valuations is empty and whether two sets of memory valuations are equal, we can easily mimic most of explicit-state model checking algorithms [@BBH14] – from a simple reachability of error states to the full model checking. By operating on multi-states, can achieve up to exponential time and memory savings, compared to purely explicit approaches.
Although the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ceds</span>]{}approach is independent of the multi-state representation, the choice of the representation can have an enormous effect on the verification performance. Most recent versions of use a first-order formula over the theory of fixed size bit-vectors to represent a multi-state. In this representation, the set of represented memory valuations is precisely the set of satisfying assignments to the given formula.
Multi-state Representation
--------------------------
Formally, a multi-state in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ceds</span>]{}approach is a tuple $(c, m, \varphi)$, where $c$ is an explicit control part, $m$ is an explicit memory shape and $\varphi$ is a quantifier-free first-order formula over the theory of fixed size bit-vectors.
A *control part* $c$ is a tuple of call stacks, which contains contents of stack for each active thread of a program under inspection. Note that not all multi-states in a state space have to contain the same number of call stacks, as threads can be spawned and killed during the program execution. For each thread, a call stack is composed of frames corresponding to function calls, which hold a program counter and a reference to the segment in the memory shape $m$ that corresponds to the active function call.
A *memory shape* is a collection of segments, where each segment has a unique identifier and contains a list of corresponding variables. Each variable in a segment has associated several pieces of information:
1. a type determining whether the variable is a pointer or a value, and if it is a value, also its bit-width,
2. explicit/symbolic mark, and
3. a value in case of variables marked as explicit.
Given this setup, each variable can be uniquely identified by a pair $(s,p)$, where $s$ is a segment identifier and $p$ is the position of the variable inside that segment.
Note that distinguishes between the control flow and a memory shape, because instructions like `alloca` may allocate memory that can escape from the function’s segment. This happens for example when a function obtains an argument that is a value that was obtained by `alloca`. Therefore a single multi-state can contain more segments than frames of call stacks.
Finally, each multi-state contains a quantifier-free formula $\varphi$ that represents possible values of all variables marked as symbolic in the memory shape. Because a single program variable can be assigned to multiple times, the formula $\varphi$ may for each program variable $(s,p)$ contain multiple variables of form $(s, p)^{\mathit{gen}}$, where $\mathit{gen}\in\mathbb{N}$. Variable $(s, p)^{\mathit{gen}}$ represents a value of the program variable $(s,p)$ just after $\mathit{gen}$-th assignment to that variable. The number $\mathit{gen}$ is called the *generation* of the variable $(s, p)^{\mathit{gen}}$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathit{prog}}\xspace}(s,p)$ denote the variable $(s,p)^{\mathit{lgen}}$, where $lgen$ is the greatest generation of all variables $(s,p)^i$ in $\varphi$. The variable ${\ensuremath{\mathit{prog}}\xspace}(s,p)$ intuitively represents a real value of the program variable $(s,p)$ in the multi-state. Therefore, given a model $\mu$ of a formula $\varphi$, we can obtain a possible valuation of program variables in a multi-state by restricting $\mu$ only to variables of form ${\ensuremath{\mathit{prog}}\xspace}(s,p)$. Thus a single satisfiability query to an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver is sufficient to determine whether the set of states represented by a multi-state is empty or not. This query is called the *emptiness check* for a multi-state.
In the further text, we refer to the control part $c$ and the memory shape $m$ in a multi-state $s$ as the *explicit part of $s$*. Similarly, we refer to $\varphi$ as the *symbolic part of $s$*. Furthermore, if the segment identifier, position of the variable in the segment and the generation of the variable are not important, we refer to variables of formula $\varphi$ only as $x,y,z,a,b, \ldots$. For the convenience, we suppose that each program variable defined in the program location $c$ has at least one corresponding variable in the formula $\varphi$. This assumption is without the loss of generality, as for each program variable $(s,p)$, a vacuous equality $(s,p)^1 = (s,p)^1$ can be conjoined to the formula $\varphi$.
During the interpretation of the program, the verifier has to be able to compute all successors of a given multi-state in order to construct the complete state-space graph. Successors of a node can arise by two types of operations:
- transformation caused by arithmetic, bitwise and memory instructions and
- pruning caused by control-flow branching and by atomic propositions.
Both of these operations can be modeled by changing the formula $\varphi$. For a given formula $\varphi$ and a program variable $(s,p)$, denote as ${\ensuremath{\mathit{gen}}\xspace}(s,p)$ the number $i$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathit{prog}}\xspace}(s,p) = (s,p)^i$; this number is called the *last generation of $(s,p)$ in $\varphi$*. Suppose we want to compute a successor of a multi-state with a symbolic part $\varphi$. Then the state resulting from a program instruction $(s,p) = (s_2,p_2) \oplus (s_3,p_3)$, where $\oplus$ is a binary arithmetic, bitwise or memory instruction, has a symbolic part $$\varphi' {\ensuremath{\stackrel{\mathrm{df}}{=}}}\varphi~\wedge~((s,p)^{{\ensuremath{\mathit{gen}}\xspace}(s,p) + 1} = {\ensuremath{\mathit{prog}}\xspace}(s_2,p_2) \mathbin{\hat{\oplus}} {\ensuremath{\mathit{prog}}\xspace}(s_3,p_3)),$$ where $\hat{\oplus}$ is the corresponding function symbol in the bit-vector theory. Similarly, pruning a multi-state by a binary predicate $(s_1,p_1) \boxtimes (s_2,p_2)$ results in a multi-state with the symbolic part $$\varphi' {\ensuremath{\stackrel{\mathrm{df}}{=}}}\varphi~\wedge~ ({\ensuremath{\mathit{prog}}\xspace}(s_1,p_1) \mathbin{\hat{\boxtimes}} {\ensuremath{\mathit{prog}}\xspace}(s_2,p_2)),$$ where $\hat{\boxtimes}$ is again the corresponding predicate symbol in the bit-vector theory.
Consider the following single-threaded C program.
``` {.c linenos=""}
int main() {
int x = nondet()
int y = x + 5
int x = x + 10
if (x > y)
y = y + 1
}
```
Control parts of all states are straightforward, since they contain only one stack with the associated program counter and a single memory segment. We describe the memory shape and the symbolic part of the multi-state $s$ that represents the state of the program on the end of the line 6. The single memory segment is labeled by 1 and contains two variables: `x` labeled by the index 1 and `y` labeled by the index 2. Both these variables are marked as symbolic values. Therefore, the symbolic part contains variables $(1,1)^i$, which represent values of the program variable $x$, and variables $(1,2)^i$, which represent values of the program variable $y$. For the sake of readability, we will refer to variables $(1,1)^i$ as $x^i$ and to variables $(1,2)^i$ as $y^i$. In particular, the symbolic part $\varphi$ of this multi-state is $$(y^1 = x^1 + 5)~\wedge~(x^2 = x^1 + 10)~\wedge~(x^2 \leq_s y^1)~\wedge~(y^2 = y^1 + 1).$$
Multi-state Equality Check
--------------------------
We now describe how an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver can be used to decide whether two multi-states represent the same set of concrete states. We further refer to this check as to the *equivalence check*.
Let $s_1$ and $s_2$ be multi-states with the same explicit part. That is, $s_1 = (c, m, \varphi)$ and $s_2 = (c, m, \psi)$ for a control part $c$, memory shape $m$ and formulas $\varphi$ and $\psi$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathit{free}(\varphi)}} = \{x_1, \ldots, x_n \}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathit{free}(\psi)}} = \{y_1, \ldots, y_m \}$. Furthermore, let us denote the set of program variables defined at the control location $c$ as ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vars}}(c)}$. For each program variable $p$, there is a variable $x^p$ in $\varphi$ that represents the last generation of the program variable $p$ in the multi-state $s_1$. Analogously, the last generation of the program variable $p$ in $s_2$ is represented by a variable $y^p$ in $\psi$.
We want to decide whether the sets of states represented by $s_1$ and $s_2$ are equal. To determine this, we define a formula ${\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2)$, which is satisfiable precisely if there is a state represented by $s_1$ that is not represented by $s_2$: $${\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2) {\ensuremath{\stackrel{\mathrm{df}}{=}}}\varphi~\land~ \forall y_1 \ldots y_m
\, \Big ( \psi \Rightarrow \bigvee_{p \in {\ensuremath{\mathit{vars}}(c)}} (x^p \not =
y^p) \Big)$$ The equality of two multi-states can now be determined by using an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver: the states $s_1$ and $s_2$ are equal precisely if both of formulas ${\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2)$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_2, s_1)$ are unsatisfiable, i.e. there is no memory valuation that is represented only by one of the multi-states. However, the equality check requires a quantified [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}query, which is usually more expensive than the quantifier-free one. For example, in the theory of fixed-size bit-vectors, deciding satisfiability of a quantifier-free formula is ${\mathsf{NP}}$-complete, whereas deciding satisfiability of a formula with quantifiers is ${\mathsf{PSPACE}}$-complete [@KFB16].
State Slicing and Caching {#sec:slicing}
=========================
In order to reduce the cost of a quantified [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}query, we observe that real-world programs often contain lots of independent variables, i.e. pairs of variables such that a change in any of them does not affect the other. We give two simple examples that illustrate this phenomenon: a sequential program in Figure \[code:sec\] and a multi-threaded program in Figure \[code:par\].
``` {.c linenos=""}
int foo( int a, int b ) {
int result;
// Store a complicated expression,
// e.g. modular arithmetics, to result
return result;
}
int main() {
int x = foo( nondet(), nondet() );
int y = 0;
for ( uint n = nondet(); n % 42 != 0; n++ ) {
y++;
}
return x * y;
}
```
Let us examine state spaces of these two examples. To keep the explanation simple, we provide a rather high-level description and omit technical details of the real implementation of that operates on top of the infrastructure. The example in Figure \[code:sec\] consists of two functions – `main` and `foo`. The function `foo` represents a function taking two integer arguments and computing an integer result. Effect of this function can be described by a formula $\psi(a,b,x)$ as a relation between input arguments and the return value.
When this example is examined by , among others, the following states are produced:
- an initial state (before `main` starts) – $s_{\mathit{init}}$;
- a state $s_i$ after every cycle iteration;
- a final state $s_{\mathit{final}_i}$ corresponding to the location just after line 14 for each number $0 \leq i \leq 42$ of the performed iterations of the for loop.
Note that in this example the cycle has to be unrolled for each iteration. This is due to the presence of a variable `y`, which has different value in every iteration and therefore each iteration can be distinguished from every other.
The symbolic parts of these states are: $$\begin{aligned}
s_{\mathit{init}} = {}&{\top\xspace}, \\
s_i = {}&\psi(a,b,x^1) \wedge y^1=0 \wedge {} \\
&n^1 \bmod 42 \neq 0~\wedge~y^2 = y^1 + 1\wedge~n^2=n^1+1~\wedge{} \\
&\cdots \\
&n^i \bmod 42 \neq 0~\wedge~y^{i+1}=y^i+1~\wedge~n^{i+1} = n^i + 1 \\
s_{\mathit{final}_i} = {}&\psi(a,b,x_1) \wedge y^1=0 \wedge {} \\
&n^1 \bmod 42 \neq 0~\wedge~y^2=y^1+1~\wedge~n^2 = n^1 + 1~\wedge {} \\
&\cdots \\
&n^i \bmod 42 \neq 0~\wedge~y^{i+1}=y^i+1~\wedge~n^{i+1} = n^i + 1 \wedge {} \\
&n^{i+1} \bmod 42 = 0~\wedge~\mathit{returnValue}=x^1 \times y^{i+1}.\end{aligned}$$
During the generation of the state space, tries to merge newly generated states with already existing states and thus performs the equality check. As merging occurs only on the states with the same control-flow locations, equality checks are issued whenever a state $s_i$ or $s_{\mathit{final}_i}$ is produced. If we examine the formulas that are checked for satisfiability during equality checks for $s_i$, we can observe that although the values of variables $x, a$ and $b$ do not change during the loop, all queries test their equality. This forces the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver to consider the expensive formula $\psi(a,b,x_0)$ for each unrolling of the cycle and thus slows the verification of the program down. This effect is even stronger if there is a large number of states per a control-flow location. The observed pattern of computing multiple independent sub-results in advance and combining them later in the computation of the program is quite common in sequential programs.
``` {.c linenos=""}
volatile int x;
volatile int y;
void foo( arg ) {
arg* = nondet();
while( *arg % 5 ) {
( *arg )++;
}
}
int main() {
t1 = new_thread( foo, &x );
t2 = new_thread( foo, &y );
join( t1 );
join( t2 );
return x + y;
}
```
Similarly, if we examine the example of a parallel code in Figure \[code:par\], we find out that the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver again does more work than necessary. If the program under inspection contains threads, they do not necessarily interact in each step of the computation. Some thread interleavings are not interesting from verification point of view and therefore implements state-space reduction techniques. However, these techniques do not eliminate all states produced by equivalent interleaving of threads. By using a similar approach as in the sequential case, i.e. dividing the formula into unrelated parts, we can decrease the verification time and alleviate $\tau$-reduction’s imperfections. In this case, the independent parts of the formula consist of variables local to each of the threads.
These observations motivate the decomposition of multi-states into independent parts, in which each group of independent variables is represented by one first-order formula. We show that such representations can decrease size and in most of the cases also the number of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}queries necessary during the program verification. By decomposing multi-states into multiple independent parts, emptiness and equality checks can be performed independently on each of these parts. The benefit of thus modified emptiness checks is twofold. First, although the number of performed [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}queries grows, they are much simpler, as the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver does not have to reason about independent variables, which have no effect on the satisfiability. In many cases, such queries can be decided by purely syntactic decision procedures, without even using the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver. Second, when an operation is performed on a subset of program variables, the unrelated part of the multi-state does not change, and the resulting queries can thus be efficiently cached.
Sliced Multi-states
-------------------
A *sliced multi-state* is a triple $(c, m, \{ \varphi_i \}_{1 \leq i \leq k})$, where $c$ and $m$ are as before and $\varphi_i$ are mutually independent formulas. Formulas $\varphi_i$ are called *independent symbolic parts* of the state. Intuitively, each $\varphi_i$ describes possible memory valuations of a set of independent program variables in a given control location. Semantics of sliced multi-states is straightforward – a set of concrete program states represented by a sliced multi-state $(c, m, \{ \varphi_i \}_{1 \leq i \leq k})$ is defined as a set of program states represented by the (ordinary) multi-state $(c, m, \bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq k} \varphi_i)$. We say that an ordinary multi-state $s_1 = (c_1, m_1, \varphi)$ is syntactically equivalent to the sliced multi-state $s_2 = (c_2, m_2, \{ \varphi_i \}_{1 \leq i \leq k})$ if $c_1 = c_2$, $m_1 = m_2$, and $\varphi$ is equal to $\bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq k} \varphi_i$ up to the ordering of the conjuncts.
Although each multi-state $s$ can be converted to a syntactically equivalent sliced multi-state in many ways, there always exists a syntactically equivalent sliced multi-state with the largest number of independent symbolic parts. Recall that each multi-state created during the interpretation of the program is of form $(c, m, \bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq k} \varphi_i)$, with possible dependencies among formulas $\varphi_i$. Let $\Phi = \{ \Psi_1, \ldots, \Psi_l \}$ be the set of equivalence classes of $\{ \varphi_i \}_{1 \leq i \leq k}$ modulo the dependence relation. A sliced multi-state syntactically equivalent to $s$ with the largest number of independent symbolic parts is then $(c, m, \{ \bigwedge \Psi_i \mid 1 \leq i \leq l \})$.
\[slicedMaxGroups\] Let $$(c, m, x = y + z~\wedge~b > c~\wedge~z = a~\wedge~d > 0)$$ be a multi-state. The syntactically equivalent sliced multi-state with the largest number of independent symbolic parts is $$(c, m, \{ (x = y + z \wedge z = a),~(b > c),~(d > 0) \}).$$
As before, during the program interpretation a sliced multi-state has to be transformed by conjoining a formula to represent variable assignments or program branching. However, the situation is now more complex, as parts of a sliced multi-state may have to be merged during the computation, because a conjoined formula can introduce new dependencies among the variables and parts of the multi-state may have to be merged together in order for the new sliced multi-state to be correct. In particular, suppose that $s = (c, m, \{ \varphi_i \}_{1 \leq i \leq k})$ is a sliced multi-state and $\psi$ is the formula to be conjoined to it. We partition the set $\{ \varphi_i \mid 1 \leq i \leq k \}$ to two sets $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ such that all formulas in $\Phi$ are independent on $\psi$ and all formulas in $\Psi$ are dependent on $\psi$. Then a result of conjoining $\psi$ to the state $s$ is the sliced multi-state $(c, m, (\psi \wedge \bigwedge \Psi) \cup \Phi)$.
Consider the sliced multi-state from Example \[slicedMaxGroups\]. After pruning caused by interpretation of the branching $x = b$, the new sliced multi-state is $$(c, m, \{ (x = b~\wedge~x = y + z~\wedge~z = a~\wedge~b > c),~(d > 0) \}),$$ because symbolic parts $x = y + z \wedge z = a$ and $b > c$ have to be merged.
Moreover, to be able to compare two sliced multi-states, their independent parts have to be in one-to-one correspondence that respects program variables. To define this formally, we introduce a function [$\mathit{pVars}$]{}that for a given formula $\varphi$ returns the set of program variables represented by the formula $\varphi$, i.e. ${\ensuremath{\mathit{pVars}}\xspace}(\varphi) = \{ (s,p) \mid (s, p)^i \in {\ensuremath{\mathit{free}(\varphi)}} \text{ for
some } i \in \mathbb{N} \}$.
Two sliced multi-states $s_1 = (c_1, m_1, \{ \varphi_i \}_{1 \leq i \leq k})$ and $s_2 = (c_2, m_2, \{ \psi_i \}_{1 \leq i \leq k})$ with the same number of independent symbolic parts are then said to be *matching* if
- they have the same control part,
- sets ${\ensuremath{\mathit{pVars}}\xspace}(\varphi_i)$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathit{pVars}}\xspace}(\varphi_j)$ are disjoint for all $i \not = j$,
- sets ${\ensuremath{\mathit{pVars}}\xspace}(\psi_i)$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathit{pVars}}\xspace}(\psi_j)$ are disjoint for all $i \not = j$, and
- there is a bijection $f \colon \{ \varphi_i \mid {1 \leq i \leq k} \} \rightarrow \{ \psi_i
\mid {1 \leq i \leq k} \}$ such that $${\ensuremath{\mathit{pVars}}\xspace}(\varphi_i) = {\ensuremath{\mathit{pVars}}\xspace}(f(\varphi_i)).$$
It is easy to see that each two sliced multi-states $s_1 = (c, m, \Phi)$ and $s_2 = (c, m, \Psi)$ with the same control part can be transformed to equivalent sliced multi-states that are matching: an equivalent pair of matching sliced multi-states can always be obtained by setting $s_1' = (c, m, \{ \bigwedge \Phi \})$ and $s_2' = (c, m, \{ \bigwedge \Psi \})$. However, it is often possible to obtain equivalent matching sliced multi-states with more independent groups than one, as the following example shows.
Let $s_1 = (c, m, \Phi)$ and $s_2 = (c, m, \Psi)$, where $c$ and m contain only one thread and one segment with variables $x,y,z,u,v$. Because a segment number is not important for this example, let us denote $i$-th generation of the variable $x$ as $x^i$. Let $$\Phi = \{ (x^1 = y^2 \wedge y^2 = y^1 + 1),~~(z^1 \geq 0),~~(u^1 \leq v^1),~~(u^2 = 5)\}$$ and $$\Psi = \{ (y^2 = y^1 + u^1),~~(z^1 \geq 3),~~(z^2 = 5),~~(x^1 \leq v^1)\}.$$ Multi-states $s_1$ and $s_2$ are obviously not matching, although they have the same number of independent groups. Matching multi-states $s_1'$ and $s_2'$ that are equivalent with $s_1$ and $s_2$ are for example $s_1' = (c, m, \Phi')$ and $s_2' = (c, m, \Psi')$, where $$\Phi = \{ (x^1 = y^2 \wedge y^2 = y^1 + 1 \wedge u^1 \leq v^1 \wedge u^2 = 5),~~(z^1 \geq 0)\}$$ and $$\Psi = \{ (y^2 = y^1 + u^1 \wedge x^1 \leq v^1),~~(z^1 \geq 3 \wedge z^2 = 5)\}.$$
Equality Check
--------------
We can raise the equality check to sliced multi-states. Let $s_1$ and $s_2$ be matching sliced multi-states with the same control part. That is, $s_1 = (c, m, \{ \varphi_i \}_{1 \leq i \leq k})$ and $s_2 = (c, m, \{ \psi_i \}_{1 \leq i \leq k})$ for a control part $c$ and formulas $\varphi_i$ and $\psi_i$ for each $1 \leq i \leq
k$. Further, let $f$ be the function from the definition of matching sliced multi-states. An obvious way to check equality of these sliced multi-states is to use the equality procedure for ordinary multi-states with multi-states $(c, m, \bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq k}\varphi_i)$ and $(c, m, \bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq k}\psi_i)$. However, this way of performing the equality check completely ignores the structure of split multi-states. Instead, we present an equality check procedure that leverages the structure of sliced multi-states and allows simpler queries that can be easier to solve and also cached efficiently.
As $s_1$ is a sliced multi-state, sets ${\ensuremath{\mathit{free}(\varphi_i)}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathit{free}(\varphi_j)}}$ are disjoint for each $i \not = j$. For each program variable $p$ defined in the control location $c$, there is a variable $x^p$ in some formula $\varphi_i$. The variable $x^p$ represents the last generation of the program variable $p$ in the multi-state $s_1$. Moreover, as the sliced multi-states are matching, the variable $y^p$, which corresponds to the same program variable, is a free variable of $f(\varphi_i)$. We without loss of generality suppose that $\psi_i = f(\varphi_i)$. Note that from the definition of the function $f$, the formula $\psi_i = f(\varphi_i)$ is the same for all free variables $x^p$ in $\varphi_i$. Therefore, we can denote as ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vars}}(c, i)}$ the set of program variables, whose last generations are in $\varphi_i$, which is equivalent to the set of program variables whose last generation is in $\psi_i$.
We can now define for each $i$ the formula ${\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2, i)$, which is satisfiable precisely if there is a valuation of variables from ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vars}}(c, m, i)}$ that is present in the multi-state $s_1$ but not present in the multi-state $s_2$. If $y_1, \ldots, y_m$ are all free variables that occur in any of the formulas $\psi_i$, the formula ${\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}$ is defined as follows: $${\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2, i) {\ensuremath{\stackrel{\mathrm{df}}{=}}}\varphi_i~\land~ \forall y_1 \ldots
y_m \, \Big( \psi_i \Rightarrow \bigvee_{p \in {\ensuremath{\mathit{vars}}(c, i)}} (x^p
\not = y^p) \Big)$$ Using this formula, the equality of the two split multi-states can be decided by calling an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver on each of the formulas ${\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2, i)$ independently. We show that the original formula ${\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2)$ is equisatisfiable with the formula $\bigvee_{1 \leq i \leq k} {\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2, i)$ and therefore the original [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}query can be replaced by multiple independent [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}queries. Although this is true only in the case in which both multi-states $s_1$ and $s_2$ are non-empty, this is not a problem, as the equality is checked only for non-empty multi-states.
First, we prove two lemmas that are used in the theorem that states the correctness of the approach.
\[lem:independentSwap\] Let $\varphi$ be a satisfiable formula, $\rho$ a formula independent of $\varphi$ and $\psi$ an arbitrary formula. Then formulas $\varphi \wedge (\psi \vee \rho)$ and $(\varphi \wedge \psi) \vee \rho$ are equisatisfiable.
The implication from left to right follows easily from distributivity of conjunction and disjunction. For the converse, suppose $(\varphi \wedge \psi) \vee \rho$ is satisfiable and $\mu$ is its model. If $\mu$ is a model of $(\varphi \wedge \psi)$, it is obviously also a model of $\varphi \wedge (\psi \vee \rho)$. Suppose on the other hand that $\mu$ is a model of $\rho$ and let $\mu'$ be the restriction of $\mu$ to the free variables of $\rho$. As $\varphi$ is satisfiable, it has a model $\nu$. Then by the independence of $\varphi$ and $\rho$, the map $\mu' \cup \nu$ is well-defined and is a model of both $\varphi$ and $\rho$ and therefore also of $\varphi \wedge (\psi \vee \rho)$.
\[lem:equisatisfiability\] For non-empty states $s_1$ and $s_2$, formulas ${\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2)$ and $\bigvee_{1 \leq i \leq k} {\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2, i)$ are equisatisfiable.
First, we show that the formula ${\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2)$ is logically equivalent to the formula $$\bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq k} \varphi_i~\land~
\bigvee_{1 \leq i \leq k} \Big ( \forall y_1 \ldots y_m \, \big ( \neg \psi_i \lor \bigvee_{p \in {\ensuremath{\mathit{vars}}(c, i)}} (x^p \not = y^p) \big ) \Big ) \\$$ and subsequently we show that this formula is equisatisfiable with $\bigvee_{1 \leq i \leq k} {\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2, i)$.
To show the logical equivalence above, we present a sequence of formulas that are logically equivalent due to the definitions used and well-known first-order tautologies.
$$\begin{aligned}
\varphi~&\land~
\forall y_1 \ldots y_m \, \Big ( \psi \Rightarrow \bigvee_{p \in {\ensuremath{\mathit{vars}}(c)}} (x^p \not = y^p) ) \\
\bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq k} \varphi_i~&\land~
\forall y_1 \ldots y_m \, \Big ( \bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq k} \psi_i \Rightarrow \bigvee_{\substack{1 \leq i \leq k \\ p \in {\ensuremath{\mathit{vars}}(c, i)}}} (x^p \not = y^p) \Big ) \\
\bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq k} \varphi_i~&\land~
\forall y_1 \ldots y_m \, \Big ( \bigvee_{1 \leq i \leq k} \neg \psi_i \lor \bigvee_{\substack{1 \leq i \leq k \\ p \in {\ensuremath{\mathit{vars}}(c, i)}}} (x^p \not = y^p) \Big ) \\
\bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq k} \varphi_i~&\land~
\forall y_1 \ldots y_m \, \Big ( \bigvee_{1 \leq i \leq k} \big ( \neg \psi_i \lor \bigvee_{p \in {\ensuremath{\mathit{vars}}(c, i)}} (x^p \not = y^p) \big ) \Big ) \\
\bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq k} \varphi_i~&\land~
\bigvee_{1 \leq i \leq k} \Big ( \forall y_1 \ldots y_m \, ( \neg \psi_i \lor \bigvee_{p \in {\ensuremath{\mathit{vars}}(c, i)}} (x^p \not = y^p) ) \Big )
\end{aligned}$$
Some of these steps require explanation. The equivalence of (1) and (2) follows from definitions used and reordering of disjuncts. The equivalence of (3) and (4) follows again by reordering the disjuncts, and the equivalence of (4) and (5) follows from the fact that for independent formulas $\varphi$ and $\psi$, the formula $\forall x \, (\varphi \vee \psi)$ is equivalent to $(\forall x \, \varphi) \vee (\forall x \,
\psi)$.
Now, as each $\varphi_i$ is satisfiable and independent on $\forall y_1 \ldots y_m \, ( \neg \psi_j \lor \bigvee_{p \in
{\ensuremath{\mathit{vars}}(c, j)}} (x^p \not = y^p) ))$ for all $j \not = i$, a repeated application of Lemma \[lem:independentSwap\] shows that the last formula is equisatisfiable with the formula $$\bigvee_{1 \leq i \leq k} \Big ( \varphi_i~\wedge~\forall y_1 \ldots y_m
\, ( \neg \psi_i \lor \bigvee_{p \in {\ensuremath{\mathit{vars}}(c, i)}} (x^p \not =
y^p) ) \Big ).$$ However, this is precisely the formula $\bigvee_{1 \leq i \leq k} {\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2, i)$, as was required.
The previous lemma now implies correctness of the improved equality check.
For non-empty states $s_1$ and $s_2$, the formula ${\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2)$ is satisfiable if and only if at least one of formulas ${\ensuremath{\mathit{notsubseteq}}}(s_1, s_2, i)$ is satisfiable.
Follows from Lemma \[lem:equisatisfiability\] by distributivity of existential quantifier over disjunctions.
Consider again the program in Figure \[code:sec\]. After the state decomposition, the independent symbolic parts of split multi-states are $$\begin{aligned}
s_{\mathit{init}} = {}\{ &{\top\xspace}\}, \\
s_i = {}\{ &\psi(a,b,x_1), \\
&(y^1=0 \wedge {} \\
&n^1 \bmod 42 \neq 0~\wedge~y^2 = y^1 + 1\wedge~n^2=n^1+1~\wedge{} \\
&\cdots \\
&n^i \bmod 42 \neq 0~\wedge~y^{i+1}=y^i+1~\wedge~n^{i+1} = n^i + 1) \} \\
s_{\mathit{final}_i} = {}\{ &\psi(a,b,x_1) \wedge y^1=0 \wedge {} \\
&n^1 \bmod 42 \neq 0~\wedge~y^2=y^1+1~\wedge~n^2 = n^1 + 1~\wedge {} \\
&\cdots \\
&n^i \bmod 42 \neq 0~\wedge~y^{i+1}=y^i+1~\wedge~n^{i+1} = n^i + 1 \wedge {} \\
&n^{i+1} \bmod 42 = 0~\wedge~\mathit{returnValue}=x^1 \times y^{i+1} \}.\end{aligned}$$ The equality check of two states $s_k$, $s_l$ for $k \not = l$ is decomposed into two queries: a query concerning the values of variables $a,b,x$ and a query concerning variables $y$ and $n$. The former query can be decided without a call to an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{} solver, since both states $s_k$ and $s_l$ have the identical symbolic part $\psi(a,b,x_1)$ and a simple syntactic check is sufficient to determine this. Only the latter query needs to be sent to the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver, which does not have to reason about the potentially hard subformula $\psi(a,b,x_1)$ to decide that the states $s_k$ and $s_l$ are not equivalent.
Implementation and Evaluation {#sec:impleval}
=============================
---------------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- -------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
Category time\[s\] solved time\[s\] solved time\[s\] solved time\[s\] solved
Concurrency 1828 40 **1344** 41 2414 39 1506 **42**
DeviceDrivers 12156 241 12154 241 768 **298** **763** **298**
ECA 20794 **230** **20388** 228 38907 211 21606 211
ProductLines 19571 276 19770 275 25361 272 **11995** **293**
Sequentialized 3710 44 3821 45 3200 43 **1735** **47**
**Summary** 58061 831 57478 830 70652 863 **37607** **891**
---------------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- -------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
To evaluate effects of the state slicing, we have extended the implementation of . We have taken an advantage of the internal modular structure of the tool, where each multi-state component (control-flow with memory layout, explicit variable representation and symbolic variable representation) is clearly separated and has a well-defined interface. Therefore, a new DataStore (’s terminology for a multi-state representation) was implemented and integrated. In the extended version of , user can switch between the original SMTStore and our newly implemented PartialStore, which uses the state slicing.
We also extended with a possibility to cache both emptiness and equality queries. The caching is performed before an internal formula representation is converted to the format specific for the given [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver. Therefore, caching is independent of the DataStore used during the verification.
For the evaluation, we used benchmarks from the SV-COMP [@SVCOMP] in all categories except Termination. Note that not all categories are included in results, as there are benchmarks that cannot be verified by due to the presence of dynamically allocated memory or undefined intrinsic functions. We ran in four different configurations:
1. SMTStore without caching,
2. SMTStore with caching,
3. PartialStore without caching,
4. PartialStore with caching.
Our test environment featured and Intel Xeon-5130 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cpu</span> (2.0 GHz) with 16 GB of physical <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ram</span> and an Arch Linux distribution with 4.4.8-1-lts Linux kernel. was built in the release configuration using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gcc</span> 5.4 and used the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver Z3 [@Z3] in version 4.4.1. Each verification task was restricted by a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cpu</span> time limit of 10 minutes and by 7.5 GB memory limit. All SV-COMP benchmarks were compiled with Clang 3.4 and `-O2` optimization level to obtain the bitcode.
------------------------- ----------- --- ----------- ------- --- --------- ------ --- --------- ---------
SMTStore 3110831 2356034 (76%) 0 (0%) 754797 (24%)
PartialStore 81562863 77132869 (95%) 0 (0%) 4429994 (5%)
SMTStore with cache 3620635 2785076 (77%) 136982 (4%) 698577 (19%)
PartialStore with cache 129798056 122666491 (95%) 6757205 (5%) 374360 ($<$1%)
The results are summarized in Table \[tab:summary\] and in Figure \[fig:all\]. To show only relevant results, we have excluded benchmarks with less than 10 states, because on such a small number of states the performance is the same for each DataStore. These small benchmarks are produced by the Clang optimizations; some benchmarks are easy enough to be solved by static analysis or they contain undefined behavior that Clang abuses to its benefit. This significantly reduces the benchmark set, but it better corresponds to the practice where compiler’s optimizations are used frequently.
We examined the results of each category independently to see the effects of slicing and caching on different types of input programs. To be able to explain observed time differences, we also measured the number of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver queries and number of cases in which the query was avoided completely.
In general, multi-state equality is the most expensive operation during the verification process and therefore we did not observe any significant speedup caused only by slicing of emptiness queries. On the other hand, slicing noticeably changes behavior of the equality check, as can be seen in Table \[tab:checks\], which shows counts of issued equality checks and whether they were solved by syntactic equality, cache, or an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver. Slicing of multi-states increases number of equality checks on our testing set at least by an order of magnitude. This shows that issued queries usually contain a large number of independent groups. If the caching is disabled, state slicing also usually produces larger number of queries to an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver. However, caching shows as highly effective on sliced multi-states and therefore, by enabling it, we can save roughly half of the queries issued to an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver compared to the original version of . Note that data for Table \[tab:checks\] were collected in the same manner as data for Table \[tab:summary\], i.e. it contains data from all benchmarks that were solved within the given timeout. In particular, the number of equality checks is bigger for more efficient configurations as they were able to decide more benchmarks within the given time.
Overall, slicing comes with an overhead caused by two factors:
- data dependencies have to be computed during the interpretation of the program and
- the number of potential solver queries is greater and each query has a constant overhead.
However, the overhead can be outweighed by:
- simplicity of issued queries, as the solver does not have to deal with irrelevant variables;
- syntactic equality, because the state slicing makes it easier to preserve syntactically equivalent formulas, which helps as it can quickly recognize syntactically equal formulas; and
- caching, as an equality query of sliced states is composed of many small, rarely changing queries to an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver.
The reasoning above lines up with results observed: configuration with PartialStore without cache and the configuration with SMTStore with cache rarely bring any speedup. The behavior was different only in categories Concurrency and ECA.
In Concurrency set, the difference is caused by the simplicity of the benchmarks and the presence of diamond-shapes in the state space. Diamonds in the state space of simple benchmarks tend to produce syntactically equivalent formulas and therefore can tremendously benefit from their detection. Only less than 2 % of the equality queries are handed out to an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}solver. Therefore, state slicing increases the overhead and does not pay off. Benchmarks in the ECA set are synthetically generated benchmarks with complicated data dependencies and therefore multi-states of these benchmarks are rarely sliceable.
On the other hand, our method significantly improves the performance in the DeviceDriversLinux64 category, where it managed to save 93 % of the verification time and managed to verify 57 additional benchmarks compared to the original configuration. The reason for that is as follows: these benchmarks are closest to the real-world code and contain a lot of code irrelevant to potential errors unlike benchmarks in the other categories, which are usually reduced to the bare-bone of the problem. In this environment, where multi-states are large and program interpretation changes them only locally, slicing produces large amount of syntactically equal queries and also allows for a large number of cache hits.
In sum, slicing combined with caching performs best on large benchmarks, as can be seen in Figure \[fig:all\], and can save roughly 40 % of the verification time. If we omit the category ECA, which is in our point of view not-so-relevant for real usage, the time savings go up to 60 %. Note that state slicing does not cause any significant memory usage increase as the amount of additional information is rather small compared to the whole multi-state.
[.5]{}
[.5]{}
[.5]{}
[.5]{}
[.5]{}
[.5]{}
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We believe that state slicing combined with caching is a substantial improvement to the Control-Explicit Data-Symbolic approach to automated formal verification. Our experimental measurements confirm a significant performance boost especially if the verified program is similar to the real-world code. We still see some future work that would be of much more technical and implementation nature. For example, we can imagine that an incorporation of other formula simplification methods, which are not present in Z3, could save more verification time. The same goes for storing counter examples for multi-state equality, which could be used to differentiate between two multi-states without issuing a quantified [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">smt</span>]{}query.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Bose condensation is usually a low temperature phenomenon due to a low particle number density. When the number density is kept large compared to the inverse Compton volume, Bose condensation can occur at a temperature much higher than the mass of the particle. We can then use a three dimensional effective theory to study the thermal properties. We compute the transition temperature for a complex scalar field theory with a small interaction parameter.'
---
[Bose condensation at high temperatures]{}
Hidenori SONODA[^1]\
Physics Department, Kobe University, Kobe 657-8501, Japan
February 1999
PACS numbers: 05.10.Cc, 05.70.Jk, 11.10.Wx, 11.10.Kk\
.3cm
In a previous letter [@highT] we used an effective three dimensional field theory [@Ginsparg; @AP] to compute the critical temperature of the weak coupling $\phi^4$ theory. The purpose of this letter is to extend the same technique to study theories with a chemical potential coupled to a conserved particle number. We will compute the transition temperature $T_c$ for Bose condensation and the temperature dependence of the specific heat near $T_c$.
It is the low number density of particles which makes Bose condensation a low temperature phenomenon. If the number density is large compared to the inverse Compton volume $m^3$, where $m$ is the particle mass, the transition temperature $T_c$ for Bose condensation becomes much higher than $m$ so that $T_c$ is calculable using a three dimensional effective theory.
In order to see this possibility more quantitatively, we consider a free theory of spinless particles and antiparticles of mass $m$. The particle number density $n$ (or more precisely the number density of particles minus that of antiparticles) is an increasing function of the chemical potential $\mu$. At the maximum chemical potential $\mu = m$, we obtain the maximum number density without Bose condensation. For temperature $T$ much higher than $m$, the maximum number density is approximately n + [4 m\^3 3 (4 )\^2]{} .\[nfree\] For $n$ larger than the right-hand side, Bose condensation takes place. Hence, for a given $n$, the transition temperature $T_c$ is given by T\_c\^2 ( n - [4 m\^3 3 (4)\^2]{}) .\[Tcfree\] This implies $T_c \gg m$ for $n \gg m^3$. The above result (\[Tcfree\]) is expected to be valid with a small correction in the presence of weak interactions among the bosons.
For concreteness we consider a complex scalar field theory with a global U(1) symmetry in thermal equilibrium at temperature $T$. The lagrangian density in the four dimensional euclidean space is given by Ł\_0 = \_\^\* \_+ m\^2 \^\* + [4]{} (\^\* )\^2 + ([counterterms]{}) , where $\phi$ is a complex scalar field which is periodic in the euclidean time direction: (,+ 1/T) = (, ) . The counterterms are given in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme. Hence, the renormalized parameters satisfy the renormalization group (RG) equations &=& - 5 ()\^2 + 15 ( )\^3 + ... ,\
m\^2 &=& ( 2 - 2 + [5 2]{} ()\^2 + ... ) m\^2 . We can introduce the chemical potential $\mu$ as the euclidean time component of an external U(1) gauge field: A\_= i . Note this is purely imaginary. The Ward identity protects it from renormalization. The total lagrangian density is therefore Ł= Ł\_0 - Z \^\* - \^2 Z \^\* ,\[lfour\] where $Z$ is the wave function renormalization constant. The average number density of particles, $n$, is the first order derivative of the free energy density $Y_4 (T,\mu)$ with respect to $\mu$: n = - ([Y\_4 ]{})\_T . \[number\] Our task is to find the transition temperature $T_c$ so that for $T <
T_c$ the field $\phi$ gets a non-vanishing expectation value. We will find $T_c$ first for a given chemical potential $\mu$, and then for a given number density $n$.
A naive loop expansion of $Y_4$ suffers from infrared divergences at two-loop and beyond [@Shaposhnikov]. This difficulty is best avoided by reducing the theory to a three dimensional effective theory [@Ginsparg; @AP] whose infrared properties are much better understood [@FKRS; @BN]. The effective theory is given by the following lagrangian density: Ł\_3 = g\_3 + \_\_3\^\* \_\_3 + m\_3\^2 \_3\^\* \_3 + [\_3 4]{} (\_3\^\* \_3)\^2 + ([counterterms]{}) , where the counterterms are given in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme. The higher dimensional interaction terms are negligible within our approximation. The RG equations of the parameters are given by g\_3 = 3 g\_3 + \_3\^3 ,m\_3\^2 = 2 m\_3\^2 + \_3\^2 ,\_3 = \_3 ,\[RGthree\] where = [1 (4 )\^2]{} [5 3 2\^9]{} , = - [1 (4 )\^2]{} [1 2]{} .\[AC\] The parameters of the two theories are related such that the free energy density $F_3 (g_3, m_3^2, \lambda_3)$ of the effective theory reproduces that of the original theory: Y\_4 (T, ) = T F\_3 (g\_3, m\_3\^2, \_3) .\[equivalence\] For the three dimensional reduction to be valid, the temperature must be high compared to $m$, $\mu$: T m . Then, we can choose a renormalization scale $\Lambda$ such that T/= [O]{} (N) ,m\^2 /\^2 = [O]{} (N) , \^2 /\^2 = [O]{} (N) , \[large\] where O($N$) denotes an order of $N$, a large number. We consider such a range of $T$ so that we can identify the smallness of $1/N$ with the smallness of the coupling $\lambda$: = [O]{} (1/N) .\[small\] Eqns. (\[large\],\[small\]) guarantee that we can calculate the parameters of the effective theory in powers of $\lambda$, $m^2/T^2$, and $\mu^2/T^2$ which are all of order $1/N$. Since the calculation is straightforward, we omit the detail and only state the result: \_3 && T\[lambda3\] ,\
m\_3\^2 && m\^2 - \^2 + [12]{} T\^2 +\
&& + [\^2 (4 )\^2]{} T\^2 , \[m3\]\
T g\_3 && T\^4 [(4)\^2 144]{}\
&& + [T\^2 12]{}\
&& + [1 (4 )\^2]{} ,\[g3\] where the constants are given by[^2] j\_2 &=& 4 - ,j\_3 = 4 -1 - [’ (-1) (-1)]{} ,\
j\_4 &=& 4 - [31 30]{} - 2 [’ (-1) (-1)]{} + [’(-3) (-3)]{} .\[constants\] In the above we have computed $\lambda_3, m_3^2/\Lambda^2$ to order $N^0$ and $T g_3/\Lambda^4$ to order $N^2$.
Let us determine the transition temperature $T_c$ as a function of the chemical potential $\mu$. In the effective theory the expectation value $\vev{\phi_3} \propto \vev{\phi}$ is non-vanishing if R (m\_3\^2, \_3) < R\_c , where $R(m_3^2, \lambda_3)$ is an RG invariant defined by [@highT; @Parisi] R (m\_3\^2, \_3) - \_3 . \[R\] Only a non-perturbative calculation can determine $R_c$, and we must leave it as an unknown constant here. By substituting eqns. (\[lambda3\],\[m3\]) into $R=R_c$, we obtain the transition temperature [@highT]:\
&& + , \[Tc\] where the constants $j_2, j_3$ are given by eqns. (\[constants\]). The above gives $T_c/\Lambda$ to order $N^0$. The dependence on $\ln
\lambda$ is the source of infrared divergences in the naive loop expansions.
Eqn. (\[Tc\]) gives $T_c$ as a function of the chemical potential $\mu$, but it is more convenient to express $T_c$ as a function of the number density $n$. To do this, we must express $\mu$ as a function of $n$ by inverting eqn. (\[number\]). The equivalence (\[equivalence\]) implies that we must obtain the free energy density $F_3$ of the effective theory. Since the cosmological constant $g_3$ has nothing to do with interactions, we find F\_3 (g\_3, m\_3\^2, \_3) = g\_3 + f\_3 (m\_3\^2, \_3) .\[F3\] The RG eqns. (\[RGthree\]) imply that the function $f_3$ can be written as f\_3 (m\_3\^2, \_3) = \_3\^3 ( - \_3 + (R) ) ,\[f3\] where $\tilde{A}$ is given in eqns. (\[AC\]), and $\overline{f_3}$ is a function of the RG invariant $R$ (\[R\]). The theory of critical phenomena gives the following scaling formula near $R=R_c$ [@Parisi; @exponents]: (R) = (0) + a |R-R\_c|\^[3 y\_E]{} + [O]{} ( |R-R\_c|\^[3-y’ y\_E]{}) ,\[f3bar\] where $a >0$ is a constant. The constants $y_E$ and $y'$ are the critical exponents of the three dimensional XY model: $y_E >0$ is the scale dimension of the relevant parameter, and $y'<0$ is that of the least irrelevant parameter. They are given approximately as [@exponents] y\_E 1.6 ,y’ - 0.4 . Substituting the above results into eqn. (\[number\]), we obtain the relation between $n$ and $\mu$ n = 2 T\^2 \[nvsmu\] up to terms of order $N^{3 \over 2} \Lambda^3$. Note that the derivative $\overline{f_3}'(R)$ vanishes at criticality $R=0$.
Solving eqns. (\[Tc\],\[nvsmu\]), we can obtain the critical temperature $T_c$ as a function of the number density $n$ to the order $N^0 \Lambda$. For simplicity, however, we will only present the result at the leading order which is $N \Lambda$. Eqns. (\[Tc\],\[nvsmu\]) give [1 12]{} T\_c\^2 = \^2-m\^2 ,n = [1 2]{} T\_c\^2 .\[two\] These give a cubic equation for $X \equiv {m T_c^2 \over 2 n}$: X\^3 = 1 - X\^2 , \[X\] where $\nu \equiv {\lambda n \over 6 m^3}$ is a dimensionless constant of order $N^0$. Let $X_0 (\nu)$ be the solution that lies between $0$ and $1$. (See Fig. 1.) Then, we obtain T\_c\^2 = [12 m\^2 ]{} X\_0 () ,\^2 - m\^2 = m\^2 X\_0 () . The function $\nu X_0 (\nu)$ increases as $\nu$, and it behaves as $\nu^{2 \over 3}$ for $\nu \gg 1$ and $\nu - {\nu^2 \over 2}$ for $\nu
\ll 1$. For a very small coupling such that $\nu \ll 1$, we find T\_c\^2 - [n\^2 6 m\^4]{} . Therefore, the critical temperature decreases as the coupling increases. This tendency also exists in the low temperature Bose condensation phenomena.
.3cm
=
Finally, let us compute the temperature dependence of the specific heat near the critical temperature $T_c$. Using the free energy density of the three dimensional effective theory given by eqns. (\[F3\]–\[f3bar\]), we obtain C\_(T,) && - T [\^2 Y\_4 (T,) (T)\^2]{} = - T [\^2 (T F\_3) (T)\^2]{}\
&& C\_(T\_c,) + s [T-T\_c T\_c]{} - A | [T-T\_c T\_c]{}|\^[-]{} ,\[Cmu\] where C\_(T\_c,) &=& [(4 )\^2 60]{} T\_c\^3 + [1 3]{} m\^2 T\_c ,\
s &=& [(4)\^2 20]{} T\_c\^3 ,A = [1 6\^[3y\_E]{}]{} [3 y\_E]{} ([3 y\_E]{} - 1) a T\_c\^3 , and 2 - [3 y\_E]{} - 0.01 . The above expression (\[Cmu\]) is valid for $|T-T_c|/(\lambda T_c) =
{\rm O} (N^0)$, and we have ignored the terms of order $N \Lambda^3$. By keeping only the first two terms of eqn. (\[f3bar\]), we have also ignored $\left(|T-T_c|/(\lambda T_c)\right)^{- y'/y_E} \ll 1$. The positive constant $a$ in $A$ is the unknown constant in eqn. (\[f3bar\]). In Fig. 2 we show the specific heat schematically. The specific heat at constant number density, $C_n$, differs from $C_\mu$ only by a constant up to order $N^2 \Lambda^3$: C\_n - C\_- 2 \^2 T\_c - 2 T\_c ( m\^2 + [12]{} T\_c\^2 ) . .2cm
In conclusion we have shown how to apply the method of three dimensional effective theory to understand Bose condensation at high temperatures.
.5cm
I would like to thank Prof. K. Kuboki for discussions.
[99]{} H. Sonoda, to appear in Phys. Lett. B, hep-ph/9809225. P. Ginsparg, Nucl. Phys. [**B170**]{}(1980)388. T. Appelquist and R. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. [**D23**]{}(1981)2305. For a pedagogical explanation, see M. E. Shaposhnikov, “Finite temperature effective theories”, hep-ph/9610247. K. Farakos, K. Kajantie, K. Rummukainen, and M. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. [**B425**]{}(1994)67, hep-ph/9404201. E. Braaten and A. Nieto, Phys. Rev. [**D51**]{}(1995)6990, hep-ph/9501375. P. Arnold and C. Zhai, Phys. Rev. [**D50**]{}(1994)7603, hep-ph/9408276. G. Parisi, [*Statistical Field Theory*]{} (Addison-Wesley, 1988);\
J. Stat. Phys. [**23**]{}(1980)49. For the XY model, see, for example, P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky, [*Principles of Condensed Matter Physics*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 1995) and references therein.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: The necessary integrals have been calculated by Arnold and Zhai [@AZ].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper extends the dual calculus with inductive types and coinductive types. The paper first introduces a non-deterministic dual calculus with inductive and coinductive types. Besides the same duality of the original dual calculus, it has the duality of inductive and coinductive types, that is, the duality of terms and coterms for inductive and coinductive types, and the duality of their reduction rules. Its strong normalization is also proved, which is shown by translating it into a second-order dual calculus. The strong normalization of the second-order dual calculus is proved by translating it into the second-order symmetric lambda calculus. This paper then introduces a call-by-value system and a call-by-name system of the dual calculus with inductive and coinductive types, and shows the duality of call-by-value and call-by-name, their Church-Rosser properties, and their strong normalization. Their strong normalization is proved by translating them into the non-deterministic dual calculus with inductive and coinductive types.'
address:
- 'National Institute of Informatics, 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Tokyo 101-8430, Japan'
- '-6 pt'
author:
- Daisuke Kimura
- Makoto Tatsuta
title: |
Call-by-Value and Call-by-Name Dual Calculi with\
Inductive and Coinductive Types
---
=10000
Introduction
============
Dual Calculus $\DC$ given by Wadler [@Wad03:01; @Wad05:01] is a type system which corresponds to the classical sequent calculus LK (see, for example, [@Girard87]). It represents computation induced by cut elimination in LK by using its expressions and their reduction. The dual calculus has two nice properties: computation in classical logic, and duality.
The computation of classical logic has been intensively studied, for example, [@Bar96:01; @Cur00:01; @Griffin90; @Herbelin05; @Parigot97; @Par00:01; @Sel01:01; @Wad03:01; @Wad05:01]. They all studied the Curry-Howard correspondence between classical logic and functional programming languages with sophisticated control structures like catch/throw and first-class continuations. This correspondence is an extension of the Curry-Howard correspondence between intuitionistic logic and the typed $\lambda$-calculus, which is well established.
The classical sequent calculus LK has nice duality. We have an involution that maps conjunction and disjunction to each other, and maps the left and right rules of conjunction to the right and left rules of disjunction and vice versa. This involution can be extended to the cut elimination procedure for LK.
The system $\DC$ inherits the duality of the classical sequent calculus LK. Moreover, its proof terms called terms, coterms, and statements also have duality, since they correspond to proofs in LK. This implies that its reduction relation can have duality since the reduction relation is induced by the cut elimination procedure in LK. In this framework, Wadler gave the call-by-value and call-by-name strategies in $\DC$, and showed the duality of them [@Wad03:01]. He also showed that the equational correspondence between $\DC$ and Parigot’s $\lambda\mu$-calculus [@Par92:01], and showed the duality between call-by-value and call-by-name of the $\lambda\mu$-calculus using the duality of the dual calculus [@Wad05:01]. Since then, the dual calculus has been actively studied [@Tzevelekos06; @Kim07:01; @Kimura09].
Inductive definitions are important in both mathematical logic and computer science. Inductive definitions strengthen expressiveness of logical systems (for example, See [@Buc81:01]). They are central in programming and program verification [@Paulin93; @Nordstrom90; @McDowell-Miller00] for handling recursive data structures such as lists and trees, and specification of recursive programs. Coinductive definitions are also important since they can represent streams, infinite trees, and bisimulation, for example, in [@Tat94:01].
This paper presents Dual Calculus $\DCmu$ with inductive types and coinductive types. Our calculus extends the duality of $\DC$ to inductive types and coinductive types. The involution in $\DC$ is extended so that it maps inductive types and coinductive types to each other. It also maps the left and right rules of inductive types to the right and left rules of coinductive types and vice versa. Because of the duality of the proof rules, we will have cut elimination procedure that keeps the duality of inductive types and coinductive types. This induces the duality of the reduction relations of proof terms for inductive types and coinductive types.
Our main results are: (1) the duality between inductive types and coinductive types with reduction, (2) strong normalization in $\DCmu$, (3) strong normalization in the second-order Dual Calculus $\DCtwo$, (4) the duality between the call-by-value and call-by-name $\DCmu$, and (5) the Church-Rosser property and strong normalization of the call-by-value and call-by-name $\DCmu$.
We will show strong normalization of $\DCmu$. In order for proving the strong normalization, we will first show the strong normalization of the second-order Dual Calculus $\DCtwo$ given by [@Tzevelekos06] by interpreting it in second-order symmetric lambda-calculus given in [@Par00:01]. Then strong normalization of $\DCmu$ is proved by interpreting it in $\DCtwo$ by using second-order coding of inductive and coinductive types.
We first introduce the system $\DCmu$ that does not have reduction strategies, since it is designed by the Curry-Howard correspondence for a standard cut elimination procedure in LK. The system can discuss non-deterministic aspects of computation in classical logic, since the execution of programs in $\DCmu$ is non-deterministic. It also works as a base framework for other variants of $\DCmu$ with specific reduction strategies such as call-by-value and call-by-name that will be given later.
The duality between call-by-value and call-by-name is first suggested by Filinski [@Filinski89]. The dual calculus gives a clear explanation for this duality by using the logical duality of classical logic. We will show the duality of call-by-value and call-by-name in the dual calculus extended with inductive types and coinductive types. We extend the call-by-value $\DC$ and the call-by-name $\DC$ given in [@Wad03:01] with inductive types and coinductive types, and introduce the systems $\CBVDCmu$ and $\CBNDCmu$. They are obtained from $\DCmu$ by restricting its non-deterministic reduction to the call-by-value or call-by-name strategies, and also by adding some strategy-specific reduction rules. In the same way as [@Wad03:01], we show the duality of call-by-value and call-by-name in the dual calculus with inductive types and coinductive types. We will show the Church-Rosser property as well as strong normalization for $\CBVDCmu$ and $\CBNDCmu$. The strong normalization will be shown by translating $\CBVDCmu$ and $\CBNDCmu$ into $\DCmu$.
In [@Baelde12], the duality between inductive types and coinductive types in linear logic is studied. Our system $\DCmu$ shows the duality in ordinary sequent calculus LK.
Momigliano and Tiu [@Mom03:01; @Tiu10] discussed an intuitionistic sequent calculus with inductive definitions and coinductive definitions and showed its cut elimination theorem. Our system $\DCmu$ is a classical system and our strong normalization shows the cut elimination theorem of the classical sequent calculus. Our cut elimination procedure is not closed in an intuitionistic fragment because it keeps the duality and we have the corresponding proof rule that manipulates a succedent if we have some proof rule that manipulates an antecedent. So we cannot directly compare our method and their method.
In category theory, inductive definitions are represented by initial algebras and coinductive definitions are represented by final coalgebras [@Geu92:01], and their duality in category theory is known. Our system $\DCmu$ enables us to show the duality in a clear syntactic way by using a type system.
Several papers for dual calculus investigated the duality of computation. Wadler showed the duality between values and continuations, and the duality between call-by-value computation and call-by-name computation by using the explicit duality of $\DC$ [@Wad03:01; @Wad05:01]. The first author of this paper showed the duality between the call-by-name fixed point operator and the call-by-value loop operator by extending $\DC$ [@Kim07:02]. The first author also showed the duality of reduction between call-by-value computation and call-by-name computation in $\lambda\mu$-calculus by using $\DC$ [@Kim07:01] to answer the open question presented in Wadler’s invited talk at RTA2005 [@Wad05:01], which asked whether the duality between call-by-value and call-by-name in his equation systems would be refined in reduction systems. Tzevelekos [@Tzevelekos06] investigated the dual calculus given in [@Wad03:01]. He assumed some additional conditions on reductions, and showed both Church-Rosser property and strong normalization hold under his conditions. He also investigated the relationship between $\DC$ and the symmetric $\lambda$-calculus by Barbanera and Berardi [@Bar96:01]. A second-order extension of $\DC$ is also considered in [@Tzevelekos06].
The system $\bar \mu \tilde \mu$ in [@Cur00:01] is a system with implication and subtraction, and also has duality. Their calculus with negation, conjunction, and disjunction is called $\mu \tilde\mu ^{\land_a\lor_a\neg}$ and the correspondence between it and the dual calculus is discussed in [@Herbelin05].
A semantical approach to the duality between call-by-value and call-by-name was studied by Selinger [@Sel01:01]. He gave a categorical semantics of the $\lambda\mu$-calculus, and explained the duality by using the categorical duality. This approach is extended to the duality between the fixed point operator and the loop operator by Kakutani [@Kak02:01].
Section 2 gives a definition of $\DC$ and states its duality. Section 3 introduces $\DCmu$ and shows its duality. Section 4 gives examples. In section 5, we give $\DCtwo$ and show its strong normalization. Section 6 proves strong normalization for $\DCmu$. Section 7 introduces $\CBVDCmu$ and $\CBNDCmu$ and shows their Church-Rosser properties and strong normalization.
The Dual Calculus
==================
This section defines Dual Calculus $\DC$ and states its duality. This system is obtained from the original Dual Calculus given in [@Wad03:01] by removing reduction strategies in reduction rules. This system gives us a base framework for several variants of dual calculi.
Let $X, Y, Z, \ldots$ range over type variables, $A, B, \ldots$ range over types, The symbols $x, y, z, \ldots$ range over variables, and $\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \ldots$ range over covariables. We assume an involution $(-)'$ between variables and covariables, which satisfies $x'' = x$ and $\alpha'' = \alpha$. An expression (denoted by $D, E, \ldots$) is either a term (denoted by $M, N, \ldots$), a coterm (denoted by $K, L, \ldots$), or a statement (denoted by $S, T, \ldots$). We define them as follows:
------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types $A\ \Coloneqq\ X \mid A\land A \mid A \vee A \mid \neg A$,
Expressions $D\ \Coloneqq M \mid K \mid S$,
Terms $M\ \Coloneqq\ x \mid \langle M, M\rangle \mid \langle M\rangle\Inl \mid \langle M\rangle\Inr
\mid [K]\Not \mid (S).\alpha$,
Coterms $K\ \Coloneqq\ \alpha \mid [K, K] \mid \Fst[K] \mid \Snd[K]
\mid \Not\langle M\rangle \mid x.(S)$,
Statements $S\ \Coloneqq\ M\bullet K$.
------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term $(S).\alpha$ binds the covariable $\alpha$ in $S$. The coterm $x.(S)$ binds the variable $x$ in $S$. We write ${\it FV}(D)$ for the set of free variables in $D$. We also write ${\it FCV}(D)$ for the set of free covariables in $D$. We will use $\_[\_/\_]$ for substitution. For example, the substitution $S[M/x]$ denotes the statement obtained from $S$ by replacing $x$ by $M$.
The type $A \land B$ denotes a conjunction, $A \lor B$ denotes a disjunction, and $\neg A$ denotes a negation. A variable means an ordinary variable. A covariable means an output port and gets some value after computation. A term represents an ordinary computation which becomes a value or puts values at output ports after computation. The term $\langle M,N\rangle$ means a pair. The terms $\langle M\rangle\Inl$ and $\langle M\rangle\Inr$ mean the left injection and the right injection to a disjoint sum, respectively. When $[K]\Not$ gets its input, it gives the input to $K$ and computes $K$. The term $(S).\alpha$ is an abstraction of $S$ by $\alpha$. It computes $S$ and its value is the value at the output port $\alpha$. A coterm represents continuation which puts values at output ports after computation when it gets its input. The coterm $[K,L]$ gets an input of a disjoint sum. If the input is $\< M \>\Inl$, it gives $M$ to $K$ and computes $K$. If the input is $\< M \>\Inr$, it gives $M$ to $L$ and computes $L$. The coterm $\Fst[K]$ gets an input of a pair. If the input is $\langle M,N\rangle$, then it gives $M$ to $K$ and computes $K$. The coterm $\Snd[K]$ also gets an input of a pair. If the input is $\langle M,N\rangle$, then it gives $N$ to $K$ and computes $K$. The coterm $\Not\langle M\rangle$ gets a continuation as its input. It gives $M$ to the continuation and computes the continuation. The coterm $x.(S)$ is an abstraction of $S$ by $x$. If it gets an input, it puts the input in $x$ and computes $S$. The statement $M\bullet K$ means the computation of $K$ with the input $M$ that may put values at output ports.
A typing judgment (denoted by $J$) of $\DC$ takes either the form $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M:A$, the form $K:A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta$, or the form $\Gamma \dcmid S \prove \Delta$, where $\Gamma$ denotes a context $x_1:A_1, \ldots, x_n:A_n$ that is a set of variable declarations, and $\Delta$ denotes a cocontext $\alpha_1:B_1,\ldots, \alpha_m:B_m$ that is a set of covariable declarations. We will call $M$, $K$, and $S$ a principal expression in those judgments. The domain of $\Gamma$ (denoted by ${\it dom}(\Gamma)$) is the set of variables $\{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}$ if $\Gamma$ is $x_1:A_1, \ldots, x_n:A_n$. The domain of $\Delta$ (denoted by ${\it dom}(\Delta)$) is the set of covariables $\{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_m\}$ if $\Delta$ is $\alpha_1:B_1,\ldots, \alpha_m:B_m$.
We intuitively explain the typing judgments. There can be other ways of intuitive explanation, for example, [@Tzevelekos06]. In order to give an intuitive idea in general, we assume an evaluation strategy for expressions, and a notion of values for the strategy. For example, when we take call-by-name, the values will be canonical form, and the computation will be lazy evaluation. The focus $|$ is used only for denoting which part contains a term, a coterm, or a statement in a judgment, and when we think the corresponding sequent in ordinary sequent calculus, we will erase it. The typing judgment $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n \prove \alpha_1:B_1,\ldots,\alpha_m:B_m \dcmid M:A$ means that when each $x_i$ has a value of type $A_i$, and $M$ is computed, then $M$ returns a value of type $A$ or some $\alpha_i$ gets a value of type $B_i$. The judgment $K:A \dcmid x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n \prove \alpha_1:B_1,\ldots,\alpha_m:B_m$ means that when each $x_i$ has a value of type $A_i$, an input of type $A$ is given to $K$, and $K$ is computed, then some $\alpha_i$ gets a value of type $B_i$. The judgment $x_1:A_1,\ldots,x_n:A_n \dcmid S \prove \alpha_1:B_1,\ldots,\alpha_m:B_m$ means that when each $x_i$ has a value of type $A_i$ and $S$ is computed, then some $\alpha_i$ gets a value of type $B_i$. We sometimes use the symbol $\prove_{\Duca}$ instead of the symbol $\prove$ that appears in a judgment in order to explicitly show it is a judgment of $\Duca$. That is, we write $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ for the judgment $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$. Similarly, we write $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta$ and $\Gamma \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca} \Delta$.
The typing rules are given in Figure \[Typing\_DC\]. If we erase terms, coterms, statements, and the symbol $|$, the system becomes logically equivalent to a fragment of classical sequent calculus LK, whose definition is given in, for example, [@Girard87].
------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------
$\infer[({\it AxR})]{ $\infer[({\it AxL})]{
\Gamma, x:A \prove \Delta \dcmid x:A \alpha:A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta, \alpha:A
}{}$ }{}$
\[\] $\infer[(\land R)]{ $\infer[(\vee L)]{
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid \langle M,N\rangle:A\land B [K, L]:A\vee B \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}{ }{
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M:A K:A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
& &
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid N:B L:B \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}$ }
$
\[\] $\infer[(\vee R1)]{ $\infer[(\land L1)]{
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid \langle M\rangle\Inl:A\vee B \Fst[K]:A\land B \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}{ }{
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M:A K:A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}$ }$
\[\] $\infer[(\vee R2)]{ $\infer[(\land L2)]{
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid \langle M\rangle\Inr:A\vee B \Snd[K]:A\land B \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}{ }{
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M:B K:B \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}$ }$
\[\] $\infer[(\neg R)]{ $\infer[(\neg L)]{
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid [K]\Not:\neg A \Not\langle M\rangle:\neg A\dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}{ }{
K:A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta \Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M:A
}$ }$
\[\] $\infer[({\it IR})]{ $\infer[({\it IL})]{
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid (S).\alpha:A x.(S):A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}{ }{
\Gamma \dcmid S \prove \Delta, \alpha:A \Gamma, x:A \dcmid S \prove \Delta
}$ }$
\[\]
------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reduction relation $\longrightarrow_\Duca$ is defined as the compatible closure of the following reduction rules: $$\begin{array}{ll}
(\beta\land_1)
&
\langle M,N\rangle\bullet \Fst[K] \longrightarrow_\Duca M\bullet K,
\\
(\beta\land_2)
&
\langle M,N\rangle\bullet \Snd[K] \longrightarrow_\Duca N\bullet K,
\\
(\beta\vee_1)
&
\langle M\rangle\Inl \bullet [K,L] \longrightarrow_\Duca M\bullet K,
\\
(\beta\vee_2)
&
\langle M\rangle\Inr \bullet [K,L] \longrightarrow_\Duca M\bullet L,
\\
(\beta\neg)
&
[K]\Not \bullet \Not\langle M\rangle \longrightarrow_\Duca M\bullet K,
\\
(\beta R)
&
(S).\alpha \bullet K \longrightarrow_\Duca S[K/\alpha],
\\
(\beta L)
&
M\bullet x.(S) \longrightarrow_\Duca S[M/x],
\\
(\eta R)
&
(M\bullet \alpha).\alpha \longrightarrow_\Duca M,
\\
(\eta L)
&
x.(x\bullet K) \longrightarrow_\Duca K,
\end{array}$$ where $x$ and $\alpha$ are fresh in $(\eta L)$ and $(\eta R)$, respectively.
The rules $(\eta R)$ and $(\eta L)$ are necessary to get the results of computation of terms and coterms from computation of statements inside them. We do not include the $\eta$-rules for logical connectives that are given in [@Wad05:01], since these break the confluence property for call-by-value and call-by-name systems, which we will study in Section 7. In order to study a base framework, we first consider a non-deterministic rewriting system that does not commit to either the call-by-name or call-by-value theory.
The system $\Duca$ we consider first is obtained from the original dual calculus given in [@Wad03:01] by omitting evaluation strategies, dropping $(\varsigma)$-rules that provide strong evaluation under call-by-value and call-by-name strategies, and replacing $(\eta L)$ and $(\eta R)$-expansion rules by $(\eta L)$ and $(\eta R)$-reduction rules.
The role of $(\eta L)$ and $(\eta R)$-reduction rules are to simplify logical proofs without changing any proof structure. In the last section, we also give the call-by-value and call-by-name variants of $\DCmu$. The role of these rules become clearer in that section since they are necessary to obtain a value as the result of a computation under some strategy.
The type of an expression is preserved by reduction.
\[SR\_DC\] The following claims hold.
1. If $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ and $M \longrightarrow_{\Duca} N$, then $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta \dcmid N\colon A$ holds.
2. If $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta$ and $K \longrightarrow_{\Duca} L$, then $L\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta$ holds.
3. If $\Gamma \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca} \Delta$ and $S \longrightarrow_{\Duca} T$, then $\Gamma \dcmid T \prove_{\Duca} \Delta$ holds.
This proposition is shown by induction on reduction using the following substitution lemma.
\[lem:Substitution\_DC\] The following claims hold.
1. Suppose $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta \dcmid N\colon A$ is derivable. Then we have the following.
1. If $\Gamma, x\colon A \prove_{\Duca} \Delta \dcmid M\colon B$, then $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta \dcmid M[N/x]\colon B$,
2. if $K\colon B \dcmid \Gamma, x\colon A \prove_{\Duca} \Delta$, then $K[N/x] \colon B \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta$, and
3. if $\Gamma, x\colon A \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca} \Delta$, then $\Gamma \dcmid S[N/x] \prove_{\Duca} \Delta$.
2. Suppose $L\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta$ is derivable. Then we have the following.
1. If $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta, \alpha\colon A \dcmid M\colon B$, then $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta \dcmid M[L/\alpha]\colon B$,
2. if $K\colon B \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta, \alpha\colon A$, then $K[L/\alpha] \colon B \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca} \Delta$, and
3. if $\Gamma \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca} \Delta, \alpha\colon A$, then $\Gamma \dcmid S[L/\alpha] \prove_{\Duca} \Delta$.
The claims (1a),(1b), and (1c) are shown simultaneously by induction on $M$, $K$, and $S$. The claims (2a),(2b), and (2c) are also shown simultaneously by induction on $M$, $K$, and $S$.
The following duality transformation extends the duality in the sequent calculus LK to terms, coterms, and statements.
The duality transformation $(-)^\circ$ from $\Duca$ into itself is defined for types and expressions as follows: $$\begin{array}{ll}
(X)^\circ=X,
\quad
(\neg A)^\circ=\neg (A)^\circ,
\qquad
(A\land B)^\circ=(A)^\circ \vee (B)^\circ,
\quad
(A\vee B)^\circ=(A)^\circ \land (B)^\circ, \span\\
(x)^\circ=x',
&
(\alpha)^\circ=\alpha',
\\
(\langle M,N\rangle)^\circ=[(M)^\circ, (N)^\circ],
&
([K,L])^\circ=\langle (K)^\circ, (L)^\circ\rangle,
\\
(\langle M\rangle\Inl)^\circ=\Fst[(M)^\circ],
&
(\Fst[K])^\circ=\langle (K)^\circ\rangle\Inl,
\\
(\langle M\rangle\Inr)^\circ=\Snd[(M)^\circ],
&
(\Snd[K])^\circ=\langle (K)^\circ\rangle\Inr,
\\
([K]\Not)^\circ=\Not\langle (K)^\circ\rangle,
&
(\Not\langle M\rangle)^\circ=[(M)^\circ]\Not,
\\
((S).\alpha)^\circ=\alpha'.((S)^\circ),
&
(x.(S))^\circ=((S)^\circ).x',
\\
(M\bullet K)^\circ = (K)^\circ \bullet (M)^\circ.
\span
\end{array}$$
Note that a type and a statement are mapped to themselves. A term and a coterm are mapped to each other.
We also define transformation for judgments. If $\Gamma$ is $x_1\colon A_1, \ldots, x_n\colon A_n$, then $(\Gamma)^\circ$ is defined as $(x_1)^\circ\colon (A_1)^\circ,\ldots,(x_n)^\circ\colon (A_n)^\circ$. If $\Delta$ is $\alpha_1\colon B_1,\ldots, \alpha_m\colon B_m$, then $(\Delta)^\circ$ is defined as $(\alpha_1)^\circ\colon(B_1)^\circ,\ldots, (\alpha_m)^\circ\colon (B_m)^\circ$. The judgment $(\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M\colon A)^\circ$ is defined as $(M)^\circ\colon (A)^\circ \dcmid (\Delta)^\circ \prove (\Gamma)^\circ$. The judgment $(K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta)^\circ$ is defined as $(\Delta)^\circ \prove (\Gamma)^\circ \dcmid (K)^\circ: (A)^\circ$. The judgment $(\Gamma \dcmid S \prove \Delta)^\circ$ is defined as $(\Delta)^\circ \dcmid (S)^\circ \prove (\Gamma)^\circ$.
We also define transformation for inference rule names as follows: $(AxR)^\circ = (AxL)$, $(AxL)^\circ = (AxR)$, $(\lor R1)^\circ = (\land L1)$, $(\land L1)^\circ = (\lor R1)$, $(\land R)^\circ = (\lor L)$, $(\lor L)^\circ = (\land R)$, $(\lor L2)^\circ = (\land R2)$, $(\lor R2)^\circ = (\land L2)$, $(\neg L)^\circ = (\neg R)$, $(\neg R)^\circ = (\neg L)$, $(IR)^\circ = (IL)$, $(IL)^\circ = (IR)$, and $(Cut)^\circ = (Cut)$.
This duality transformation preserves substitution of terms and coterms.
\[Lemma:Duality\_Substitution\_DC\] The following claims hold.
1. $(D[M/x])^\circ = (D)^\circ[(M)^\circ/x']$.
2. $(D[K/\alpha])^\circ = (D)^\circ[(K)^\circ/\alpha']$.
The claims (1) and (2) are shown by induction on $D$. We treat the first case of (1): the case of $D$ is $x$. $(x[M/x])^\circ = (M)^\circ = x'[(M)^\circ/x'] = (x)^\circ[(M)^\circ/x']$. The other cases are straightforwardly proved by the induction hypothesis.
This duality transformation is shown to preserve typing and reduction, and to be an involution. This transformation is a homomorphism for this system in the sense that it preserves typing and reduction. An important feature of $\Duca$ is its duality by this transformation. A term is dual to a coterm by this homomorphism.
\[prop:dual\] The followings hold.
1. If $J$ is derived from $J_1,\ldots,J_n$ ($n = 1$ or $2$) by an inference rule $R$, then $(J)^\circ$ is derived from $(J_n)^\circ,\ldots,(J_1)^\circ$ by the inference rule $(R)^\circ$.
2. $D \longrightarrow_\Duca E$ implies $(D)^\circ \longrightarrow_\Duca (E)^\circ$.
3. $((A)^\circ)^\circ = A$, $((D)^\circ)^\circ = D$, and $((J)^\circ)^\circ = J$ hold.
The claim (1) is proved by case analysis of the inference rules. The claim (2) is proved by induction on the generation of $\longrightarrow_{\Duca}$ using Lemma \[Lemma:Duality\_Substitution\_DC\]. The claim (3) is proved by induction on types and expressions.
The $(-)^\circ$ transformation maps dual reduction rules to each other. That is, if $D \longrightarrow_\Duca E$ is the reduction rules $(\beta\land_1)$, $(\beta\land_2)$, $(\beta\vee_1)$, $(\beta\vee_2)$, $(\beta\neg)$, $(\beta R)$, $(\beta L)$, $(\eta R)$, and $(\eta L)$, then $(D)^\circ \longrightarrow_\Duca (E)^\circ$ is the reduction rules $(\beta\vee_1)$, $(\beta\vee_2)$, $(\beta\land_1)$, $(\beta\land_2)$, $(\beta\neg)$, $(\beta L)$, $(\beta R)$, $(\eta L)$, and $(\eta R)$, respectively.
Implication $\supset$ can be defined by $\neg$ and $\lor$ in the same way as [@Wad03:01].
\[def:imp\] We write $A\supset B$ for $\neg A \vee B$. We also write $\lambda x.M$ for $( \langle [x.(\langle M\rangle\Inr\bullet \gamma)]\Not\rangle\Inl\bullet \gamma ).\gamma$. We also write $N@K$ for $[\Not\langle N\rangle, K]$.
The constructor $@$ simulates the application in $\lambda$-calculus together with $\bullet$. The following holds from the definition.
The following typing inference rules and reduction rule are derivable. [ $$\begin{array}{l}
\infer[(\supset R)]{
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid \lambda x.M:A\supset B
}{
\Gamma, x:A \prove \Delta \dcmid M:B
}
\qquad
\infer[(\supset L)]{
M@K:A\supset B\dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}{
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M:A
&
K:B \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
(\beta\supset)\quad
\lambda x.M\bullet (N@K) \longrightarrow_{\Duca} M[N/x]\bullet K
\end{array}$$ ]{}
The Dual Calculus with Inductive and Coinductive Types {#Sect:(co)ind_dual}
========================================================
In this section, we present $\DCmu$, which is an extension of $\Duca$ with inductive types and coinductive types. We first extend the definition of types of $\Duca$ to inductive types $\mu X.A$ and coinductive types $\nu X.A$, and then extend expressions and reduction.
In Section \[Sect:DCtwo\], we will introduce the second-order system $\DC2$. The system $\DCmu$ is worth to be studied as well as $\DC2$, since $\DCmu$ is within a first-order logic.
We first define types, their positive type variables, and their negative type variables. A positive type variable in a type does not occur negatively in the type in the usual sense. A negative type variable in a type does not occur positively in the type.
The set of type variables is written by $\Tyvars$. We define the types of $\DCmu$ (denoted by $A, B, \ldots$) and the set ${\rm Pos}(A)$ of [*positive type variables*]{} in the type $A$ and the set ${\rm Neg}(A)$ of [*negative type variables*]{} in the type $A$ as follows: $$A\ \Coloneqq\ X \mid A\land A \mid A \vee A \mid \neg A \mid \mu X.A \mid \nu X.A$$ where $\mu X.A$ and $\nu X.A$ are defined when the type variable $X$ is in ${\rm Pos}(A)$. $$\begin{array}{l}
{\rm Pos}(X)=\Tyvars, \\
{\rm Neg}(X)=\Tyvars \setminus \{X\}, \\
{\rm Pos}(A_1\land A_2)={\rm Pos}(A_1\vee A_2)={\rm Pos}(A_1) \cap {\rm Pos}(A_2), \\
{\rm Neg}(A_1\land A_2)={\rm Neg}(A_1\vee A_2)={\rm Neg}(A_1) \cap {\rm Neg}(A_2), \\
{\rm Pos}(\neg B)={\rm Neg}(B), \\
{\rm Neg}(\neg B)={\rm Pos}(B), \\
{\rm Pos}(\mu X.B)={\rm Pos}(\nu X.B)={\rm Pos}(B) \cup \{X\}, \\
{\rm Neg}(\mu X.B)={\rm Neg}(\nu X.B)={\rm Neg}(B) \cup \{X\}.\\
\end{array}$$ The types $\mu X.A$ and $\nu X.A$ bind $X$ in $A$.
When we think standard semantics of the propositional logic with inductive and coinductive definitions, $\mu X.A$ and $\nu X.A$ are interpreted by the least fixed point and the greatest fixed point of the monotone function $\mathcal{P}$ respectively, where $\mathcal{P}$ is the function which maps a set $U$ to the set $A[U/X]$. Let $\mu$ be $\mu X.A$ and $\nu$ be $\nu X.A$. They will have the following properties: (a) $A[\mu/X] \subseteq \mu$, (b) $A[B/X] \subseteq B$ implies $\mu \subseteq B$, (c) $\nu \subseteq A[\nu/X]$, and (d) $B \subseteq A[B/X]$ implies $B \subseteq \nu$. Based on this meaning, we will introduce terms, coterms, and their reduction for inductive and coinductive types in the same way as [@Mendler91].
The terms, coterms, and statements of $\DCmu$ are defined as follows: $$\begin{array}{l}
M\ \Coloneqq\ x \mid \langle M, M\rangle \mid \langle M\rangle\Inl \mid \langle M\rangle\Inr
\mid [K]\Not \mid (S).\alpha \mid \In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle\mid \Coitr^A_x\langle M, M\rangle,
\\
K\ \Coloneqq\ \alpha \mid [K, K] \mid \Fst[K] \mid \Snd[K]
\mid \Not\langle M\rangle \mid x.(S) \mid \Out^{\nu X.A}[K] \mid \Itr^A_\alpha[K,K],
\\
S\ \Coloneqq\ M\bullet K.
\end{array}$$ The term $\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]$ binds $\alpha$ in $K$. The coterm $\Coitr^A_x\langle M,N\rangle$ binds $x$ in $M$.
The expressions $\In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle$ and $\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]$ are the expressions for inductive types. The constructor $\In^{\mu X.A}$ maps a term of type $A[\mu X.A/X]$ to that of $\mu X.A$. The coterm $\Itr^B_\alpha[K,L]$ is an iterator having an input of type $\mu X.A$ where $L$ is a postprocessor after iteration. When it gets the input of type $\mu X.A$, first a value of type $A[\mu X.A/X]$ is computed according to the input, next a value of type $A[B/X]$ is computed by recursive invocation of the iterator, then it is given to $K$ and $K$ is computed to get a value of type $B$, and finally the value is given to $L$ and $L$ is computed. Dually, $\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]$ and $\Coitr^A_x\langle M, N\rangle$ are defined for coinductive types. The constructor $\Out^{\nu X.A}$ maps a coterm of type $\nu X.A$ to that of $A[\nu X.A/X]$. When the coterm $\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]$ gets the input of type $\nu X.A$, first the input is transformed into a value of type $A[\nu X.A/X]$, then the value is given to $K$, and finally $K$ is computed. The term $\Coitr^B_x\langle M,N\rangle$ is a coiterator of type $\nu X.A$. It transforms $N$ of type $B$ into a value of $\nu X.A$ according to $M$. Type annotations will be necessary for defining reduction rules.
The typing rules of $\DCmu$ are defined by those of $\Duca$ and the following rules:\
[$\infer[(\mu R)]{
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid \In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle:\mu X.A
}{
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M:A[\mu X.A/X]
}$ $\infer[(\mu L)]{
\Itr^B_\alpha[K,L]:\mu X.A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}{
K:A[B/X] \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta, \alpha:B
&
L:B \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}$\
$\infer[(\nu L)]{
\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]:\nu X.A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}{
K:A[\nu X.A/X] \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta
}$ $\infer[(\nu R)]{
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid \Coitr^B_x\langle M, N \rangle:\nu X.A
}{
\Gamma, x:B \prove \Delta \dcmid M:A[B/X]
&
\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid N:B
}$ ]{}
We sometimes use the symbol $\prove_{\Duca\mu\nu}$ instead of the symbol $\prove$ in a judgment in order to explicitly show it is a judgment of $\DCmu$. That is, we write $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ for the judgment $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$. Similarly, we write $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$ and $\Gamma \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$.
The system $\Duca\mu\nu$ satisfies the following basic lemmas.
\[lem:Weakening\_DCmu\]Let $\Gamma \subseteq \Gamma'$ and $\Delta \subseteq \Delta'$. Then
1. if $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ is provable, then $\Gamma' \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta' \dcmid M\colon A$ holds,
2. if $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$ is provable, then $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma' \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta'$ holds, and
3. if $\Gamma \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$ is provable, then $\Gamma' \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta'$ holds.
They are shown simultaneously by induction on $M$, $K$, and $S$.
\[lem:Thinning\_DCmu\] Let $\Gamma' \subseteq \Gamma$ and $\Delta' \subseteq \Delta$. Then the following claims hold in $\DCmu$.
1. If $FV(M) \subseteq dom(\Gamma')$ and $FCV(M) \subseteq dom(\Delta')$, then $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ implies $\Gamma' \prove \Delta' \dcmid M\colon A$.
2. If $FV(K) \subseteq dom(\Gamma')$ and $FCV(K) \subseteq dom(\Delta')$, then $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta$ implies $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma' \prove \Delta'$.
3. If $FV(S) \subseteq dom(\Gamma')$ and $FCV(S) \subseteq dom(\Delta')$, then $\Gamma \mid S \prove \Delta$ implies $\Gamma' \mid S \prove \Delta'$.
They are shown simultaneously by induction on $M$, $K$, and $S$.
\[lem:Substitution\_DCmu\] The following claims hold.
1. Suppose $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta \dcmid N\colon A$ is derivable. Then the following hold.
1. If $\Gamma, x\colon A \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta \dcmid M\colon B$, then $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta \dcmid M[N/x]\colon B$,
2. if $K\colon B \dcmid \Gamma, x\colon A \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$, then $K[N/x] \colon B \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$, and
3. if $\Gamma, x\colon A \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$, then $\Gamma \dcmid S[N/x] \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$.
2. Suppose $L\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$ is derivable. Then the following hold.
1. If $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta, \alpha\colon A \dcmid M\colon B$, then $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta \dcmid M[L/\alpha]\colon B$,
2. if $K\colon B \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta, \alpha\colon A$, then $K[L/\alpha] \colon B \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$, and
3. if $\Gamma \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta, \alpha\colon A$, then $\Gamma \dcmid S[L/\alpha] \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$.
The claims (1a), (1b), and (1c) are shown simultaneously by induction on $M$, $K$, and $S$. The claims (2a), (2b), and (2c) are also shown simultaneously by induction on $M$, $K$, and $S$.
The duality transformation can be extended from $\DC$ to $\DCmu$.
\[def:trans\] The duality transformation for types, terms, coterms, statements, and inference rule names of $\DCmu$ is defined by those of $\Duca$ and the following equations: $$\begin{array}{l}
(\mu X.A)^\circ =\nu X.(A)^\circ,
\qquad
(\nu X.A)^\circ=\mu X.(A)^\circ.
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
(\In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle)^\circ=\Out^{\nu X.(A)^\circ}[(M)^\circ], \\
(\Out^{\nu X.A}[K])^\circ=\In^{\mu X.(A)^\circ}\langle (K)^\circ\rangle,\\
(\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L])^\circ=\Coitr^{(A)^\circ}_{\alpha'}\langle (K)^\circ, (L)^\circ\rangle, \\
(\Coitr^A_x\langle M, N\rangle)^\circ=\Itr^{(A)^\circ}_{x'}[(M)^\circ, (N)^\circ].
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
(\mu R)^\circ = (\nu L),
\qquad
(\nu L)^\circ = (\mu R),
\qquad
(\mu L)^\circ = (\nu R),
\qquad
(\nu R)^\circ = (\mu L). \vspace{6 pt}
\end{array}$$
The above duality transformation is well-defined.
The type $(A)^\circ$ is defined, and ${\rm Pos}(A) = {\rm Pos}((A)^\circ)$ and ${\rm Neg}(A) = {\rm Neg}((A)^\circ)$ hold.
These claims are shown by induction on $A$. We consider the cases of $\mu X.B$ and $\nu X.B$. The other cases are straightforwardly proved by the induction hypothesis.
The case of $\mu X.B$: Suppose that $\mu X.B$ is defined. Then we have $X$ is in ${\rm Pos}(B)$. By the induction hypothesis, $(B)^\circ$ is defined and $X$ occurs positively in $(B)^\circ$. Therefore $\nu X.(B)^\circ$ is defined, and we have ${\rm Pos}(\mu X.B) = {\rm Pos}(\nu X.(B)^\circ)$ and ${\rm Neg}(\mu X.B) = {\rm Neg}(\nu X.(B)^\circ)$ by the induction hypothesis.
The case of $\nu X.B$ can be shown in the similar way to the case of $\mu X.B$.
This duality transformation alternates free variables and free covariables that occur in terms and coterms. Let $\mathcal{V}$ be a set of variables, and $\mathcal{C}$ be a set of covariables. Then a set of covariables $(\mathcal{V})^\circ$ is defined by $\{ x' \mid x \in \mathcal{V}\}$. A set of variables $(\mathcal{C})^\circ$ is also defined by $\{ \alpha' \mid \alpha \in \mathcal{C}\}$.
\[lem:Duality\_free\_vars\_covars\_DCmu\] Let $D$ be an expression of $\DCmu$. Then $FV((D)^\circ) = (FCV(D))^\circ$ and $FCV((D)^\circ) = (FV(D))^\circ$ hold.
The claims are shown by induction on $D$.
This duality transformation preserves substitution of types, terms, and coterms.
\[lem:Duality\_Substitution\_DCmu\] Let $A$ and $B$ be types, $D$ be an expression, $M$ be a term, and $K$ be a coterm of $\DCmu$. Then the following hold.
1. $(A[B/X])^\circ = (A)^\circ[(B)^\circ/X]$.
2. $(D[M/x])^\circ = (D)^\circ[(M)^\circ/x']$.
3. $(D[K/\alpha])^\circ = (D)^\circ[(K)^\circ/\alpha']$.
The claim (1) is shown by induction on $A$. The claims (2) and (3) are shown by induction on $D$.
The extended duality transformation preserves typing, and is an involution in $\DCmu$.
\[prop:duality\_of\_typing\_DCmu\] The following claims hold.
1. If $J$ is derived from $J_1,\ldots,J_n$ ($n = 1$ or $2$) by an inference rule $R$, then $(J)^\circ$ is derived from $(J_n)^\circ,\ldots,(J_1)^\circ$ by the inference rule $(R)^\circ$.
2. $((A)^\circ)^\circ = A$, $((D)^\circ)^\circ = D$, and $((J)^\circ)^\circ = J$ hold for any type $A$, expression $D$, and judgment $J$ of $\DCmu$.
The claim (1) is shown by case analysis of the inference rules of $\DCmu$ using Lemma \[lem:Duality\_Substitution\_DCmu\] (1). The claim (2) is shown by induction on types and expressions.
Our reduction rules for inductive and coinductive types will be defined so that they correspond to cut elimination procedures in the classical sequent calculus LK extended with inductive definitions and coinductive definitions. In the following proof figures, we will write $\mu$, $\nu$, and $A[B]$ for $\mu X.A$, $\nu X.A$, and $A[B/X]$ respectively. In the logical system, when the cut formula is an inductive type, the cut elimination procedure reduces the proof
[$\infer[(Cut)]{
\Gamma \vdash \Delta
}{
\infer[(\mu R)]{
\Gamma \vdash \Delta, \mu
}{
\infer*{
\Gamma \vdash \Delta, A[\mu]
}{}
}
&
\infer[(\mu L)]{
\mu, \Gamma \vdash \Delta
}{
\infer*{
A[B], \Gamma \vdash \Delta, B
}{}
&
\infer*{
B, \Gamma \vdash \Delta
}{}
}
}$ ]{}
to the proof
[$\infer[(Cut)]{
\Gamma \vdash \Delta
}{
\infer[(Cut)]{
\Gamma \vdash \Delta, B
}{
\infer[(Wk)]{
\Gamma \vdash \Delta, B, A[\mu]
}{
\infer*{
\Gamma \vdash \Delta, A[\mu]
}{}
}
&
\infer=[(mono)]{
A[\mu], \Gamma \vdash \Delta, B
}{
\infer[(\mu L)]{
\mu, \Gamma \vdash \Delta, B
}{
\infer*{
A[B], \Gamma \vdash \Delta, B
}{}
&
\infer{
B, \Gamma \vdash \Delta, B
}{}
}
&
\infer*{
A[B], \Gamma \vdash \Delta, B
}{}
}
}
&
\infer*{
B, \Gamma \vdash \Delta
}{}
}$ ]{}
We can intuitively understand the rule $(mono)$ as follows: $\mu \prove B$ implies $A[\mu] \prove A[B]$, so we have $A[\mu] \prove B$ by combining it with $A[B] \prove B$. This rule will be formally shown in Lemma \[lem:Map\] (2a). This reduction changes the cut formula from $\mu$ to $A[\mu]$. We do not have to count the cut formula $B$, since that cut is auxiliary. When the cut formula is a coinductive type, the cut elimination procedure reduces a proof in a dual way to the above reduction.
When we have a function $\lambda x.M$ from $A$ to $B$ and the variable $X$ is in $\Pos(C)$, we can define the function from $C[A/X]$ to $C[B/X]$ by extending $\lambda x.M$. We will use $\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}$ so that this function maps $z$ to $\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,x.M}\{z\}$. We will define $\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}$ by induction on the measure $|| C ||_X$ for a type $C$ and a type variable $X$, which is defined by induction on $C$ as follows: If $X$ is not free in $A$, then $|| A ||_X = 0$. In the other cases, we assume that some $X$ occurs in $A$ and we define $$|| X ||_X = 1, \\
|| A\land B ||_X = || A \vee B ||_X = || A ||_X + || B ||_X + 1, \\
|| \neg A ||_X = || A ||_X + 1, \\
|| \mu Y.A ||_X = || \nu Y.A ||_X = || A ||_X + || A||_Y + 1.$$ Note that if $X$ is not free in $B$ and we have $X \not= Y$, then $\|\,A\,\|_X = \|\,A[B/Y]\,\|_X$.
The number $||A||_X$ will also be used for evaluating the size of $\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}$ by using $M$, $N$, and $C$ (see Lemma \[lem:evaluation\_of\_map\]). If we replaced $|| A ||_X + || A||_Y + 1$ by $|| A ||_X + 1$ in the definition of $|| \mu Y.A ||_X$ and $|| \nu Y.A ||_X$, it would not work for this purpose.
Assume a type variable $X$ and types $A,B,C$ are given and $X$ is not free in $A$ and $B$. For a variable $x$ and terms $M$ and $N$, we define the term $\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}$ by induction on $\|\,C\,\|_X$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\Map^{X.X}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}&= (N \bullet x.(M \bullet \alpha)).\alpha,\\
\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}&= N
\qquad \hbox{($X$ does not occur in $C$)},\\
\Map^{X.C \land D}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}&
=
\langle\,
\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,x.M}\{(N\bullet \Fst[\alpha]).\alpha\}, \,
\Map^{X.D}_{A,B,x.M}\{(N\bullet \Snd[\beta]).\beta\}\,
\rangle,\\
\Map^{X.C \lor D}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}&
=
(
N\bullet
[\,
y.(
\langle
\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,x.M}\{ y\}\,
\rangle\Inl \bullet \gamma
),
z.(
\langle
\Map^{X.D}_{A,B,x.M}\{ z\}\,
\rangle\Inr \bullet \gamma
)\,
]
).\gamma,\\
\Map^{X.\neg C}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}&
=
[\,
z.(
N\bullet \Not\langle\, \Map^{X.C}_{B,A,x.M}\{z\}\,\rangle\,
)\,
]\Not,\\
\Map^{X.\mu Y.C}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}&
=
(\,
N\bullet \Itr^{\mu Y.C[B/X]}_\alpha[\,
z.(\,
\In^{\mu Y.C[B/X]}\langle\,
\Map^{X.C[\mu Y.C[B/X]/Y]}_{A,B,x.M}\{\,z\,\}\,
\rangle\bullet \alpha\,
\,),\,\beta
\,]
\,).\beta,\\
\Map^{X.\nu Y.C}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}&
=
{\Coitr^{\nu Y.C[A/X]}_z}\langle\,
\Map^{X.C[\nu Y.C[A/X]/Y]}_{A,B,x.M}\{\,
(z\bullet \Out^{\nu Y.C[A/X]}[\alpha]).\alpha\,
\}, \,N\,
\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ For a covariable $\alpha$ and coterms $K$ and $L$, we also define $$\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,\alpha.K}\{L\}
= (\Map^{X.(C)^\circ}_{(B)^\circ,(A)^\circ,\alpha'.(K)^\circ}\{(L)^\circ\})^\circ.$$
Note that $||\mu Y.C||_X > ||C[\mu Y.C[B/X]/Y]||_X$ and $||\nu Y.C||_X > ||C[\nu Y.C[A/X]/Y]||_X$ hold since $X$ is not free in $\mu Y.C[B/X]$ and $\nu Y.C[A/X]$. We cannot replace $C[\mu Y.C[B/X]/Y]$ by $C$ in the definition of $\Map^{X.\mu Y.C}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}$ because of the type annotation for $\In$. For readability, we sometimes write $\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,x}\{M, N\}$ and $\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,\alpha}\{K, L\}$ for $\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}$ and $\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,\alpha.K}\{L\}$, respectively.
The paper [@Tiu10] studied an intuitionistic logical system with strictly-positive inductive definitions, and on the other hand we study a classical logical system with positive inductive definitions. Our cut elimination for inductive types is the same as theirs, and on the other hand our cut elimination for coinductive types is different from theirs. They can avoid the use of $\Map$. However, we cannot straightforwardly compare our method and their method, since our system is strictly larger than their system.
Our method works only for classical logic and does not work for an intuitionistic logic. This is because our cut elimination procedure keeps the duality and we have the corresponding proof rule that manipulates a succedent if we have some proof rule that manipulates an antecedent. In particular, we define the operator $\Map$ for coterms as the dual of the operator $\Map$ for terms. Roughly speaking, in the proof of the next lemma, when we show the properties of $\Map$ for negation by using the derivation $$\infer{\neg B \prove \neg A}{
\infer{A,\neg B \prove}{
A \prove B
}},$$ we need the following derivation in order to show the properties of its dual: $$\infer{\neg A \prove \neg B}{
\infer{\prove A,\neg B }{
B \prove A
}}$$ which uses a non-intuitionistic sequent.
\[lem:freevar\_of\_map\] The following claims hold.
1. $FV(\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,x}\{M,N\}) \subseteq (FV(M)\setminus\{x\})\cup FV(N)$.
2. $FCV(\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,x}\{M,N\}) \subseteq FCV(M)\cup FCV(N)$.
3. $FV(\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,\alpha}\{K,L\}) \subseteq FV(K) \cup FV(L)$.
4. $FCV(\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,\alpha}\{K,L\}) \subseteq (FCV(K)\setminus\{\alpha\}) \cup FCV(L)$.
The claims (1a) and (1b) are shown by induction on $\|\,C\,\|_X$. The claims (2a) and (2b) are shown by using (1a), (2b), and Lemma \[lem:Duality\_free\_vars\_covars\_DCmu\].
\[lem:Map\] Assume $X$ is in ${\rm Pos}(C)$ and ${\rm Neg}(D)$. Then the following hold:
1. $\Gamma, x\colon A \prove \Delta \mid M\colon B$ and $\Gamma \prove \Delta \mid N\colon C[A]$ implies $\Gamma \prove \Delta \mid \Map^{X.C}_{A,B, x.M}\{N\}\colon C[B]$,
2. $\Gamma, x\colon B \prove \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ and $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid N\colon D[A]$ implies $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid \Map^{X.D}_{A,B, x.M}\{N\}\colon D[B]$,
3. $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta, \alpha\colon B$ and $L\colon C[B] \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta$ implies $\Map^{X.C}_{A,B, \alpha.K}\{L\}\colon C[A] \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta$,
4. $K\colon B \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta, \alpha\colon A$ and $L\colon D[B] \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta$, implies $\Map^{X.D}_{A,B, \alpha.K}\{L\}\colon C[A] \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta$,\
where $C[A]$ and $D[A]$ are abbreviations of $C[A/X]$ and $D[A/X]$, respectively.
The claims (1a) and (1b) are shown simultaneously by induction on $|| C ||_X$ and $|| D ||_X$. The claims (2a) and (2b) are shown by using (1a), (1b), and Proposition \[prop:duality\_of\_typing\_DCmu\].
The following proposition is obtained as a special case of the above lemma.
Assume $X$ is in ${\rm Pos}(C)$. The following are derivable: $$\begin{array}{l}
\infer{
\Gamma, z:C[A] \Dcvdash \Delta \mid \Map^{X.C}_{A,B,x.M}\{z\}:C[B]
}{
\Gamma, x:A \Dcvdash \Delta \mid M:B
}
\hspace{1cm}
\infer{
\Map^{X.C}_{A,B,\alpha.K}\{\beta\}\colon C[A] \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta, \beta\colon C[B]
}{
K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta, \alpha\colon B
}
\end{array}$$
We define the one-step reduction relation $\longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu}$ of $\DCmu$ as the compatible closure of the reduction rules of $\DC$ and the following reduction rules:\
$\begin{array}{ll}
(\beta\mu)
&
\In^{\mu X.C}\langle M\rangle \bullet \Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]
\longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu}
(M\bullet \Map^{X.C}_{\mu X.C, A,\beta}\{\, \Itr^A_\alpha[K,\beta],\, K\,\}).\alpha \bullet L,\\
%
(\beta\nu)
&
\Coitr^A_x\langle M,N\rangle \bullet \Out^{\nu X.C}[K]
\longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu}
N \bullet x.(\Map^{X.C}_{A,\nu X.C,z}\{\,\Coitr^A_x\langle M, z\rangle,\, M\,\}\bullet K).
\end{array}$
This system has subject reduction.
\[prop:SubjectReduction\_DCmu\] The following claims hold.
1. If $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ and $M \longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu} N$, then $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta \dcmid N\colon A$ holds.
2. If $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$ and $K \longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu} L$, then $L\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$ holds.
3. If $\Gamma \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$ and $S \longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu} T$, then $\Gamma \dcmid T \prove_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$ holds.
They are shown simultaneously by induction on the generation of $\longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu}$ using Lemma \[lem:Weakening\_DCmu\], \[lem:Thinning\_DCmu\], \[lem:Substitution\_DCmu\], and \[lem:Map\]. We consider the cases of $(\beta\mu)$ and $(\beta\nu)$.
Case of $(\beta\mu)$. Assume $\Gamma \dcmid \In^{\mu X.C}\langle M\rangle \bullet \Itr^A_\alpha[K,L] \prove \Delta$ is derivable in $\Duca\mu\nu$. We use $\mu$ and $C[A]$ as abbreviations of $\mu X.C$ and $C[A/X]$, respectively. The last rule of the derivation must be $(Cut)$ rule. Then $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid \In^{\mu X.C}\langle M\rangle\colon D$ and $\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]\colon D \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta$ are derivable for some type $D$. Since the last rules of these derivations must be $(\mu R)$ and $(\mu L)$, we obtain $D$ is $\mu X.C$, and the derivations of $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M \colon C[\mu]$, the judgment $K\colon C[A] \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta, \alpha\colon B$, and $L\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta, \alpha\colon B$. Hence we have $\Itr^A_\alpha[K, \beta]\colon \mu \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta, \beta\colon A$ by $(AxL)$ and $(\mu L)$ rules, and then $\Map^{X.C}_{\mu, A,\beta}\{\, \Itr^A_\alpha[K,\beta],\, K\,\} \colon C[\mu] \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta, \alpha \colon A$ is derivable by Lemma \[lem:Map\]. Therefore we have $\Gamma \dcmid (M \bullet \Map^{X.C}_{\mu, A,\beta}\{\, \Itr^A_\alpha[K,\beta],\, K\,\}).\alpha \bullet L\prove \Delta$ by using $(IR)$, $(Cut)$ rules.
The case of $(\beta\nu)$ is shown similarly to the case of $(\beta\mu)$.
The other cases are straightforwardly proved by the induction hypothesis.
The duality transformation $(-)^\circ$ preserves reduction.
\[thm:duality\_of\_DCmu\] $D \longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu} E$ implies $(D)^\circ \longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu} (E)^\circ$ for any expressions $D$ and $E$.
This is proved by induction on the generation of $\longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu}$.
\[prop:dual-reduction\] If $D \longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu} E$ is the rules $(\beta\mu)$ and $(\beta\nu)$, then $(D)^\circ \longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu} (E)^\circ$ is $(\beta\nu)$ and $(\beta\mu)$ respectively.
We have shown the duality of inductive types and coinductive types. Proposition \[prop:duality\_of\_typing\_DCmu\] and Theorem \[thm:duality\_of\_DCmu\] show that the duality transformation is a homomorphic involution. The description of a type can be defined as the set of the type itself, its terms, its coterms, and their reduction. The duality transformation maps the description of an inductive type and that of a coinductive type to each other. That is, we have the following. (1) Definition \[def:trans\] shows that the inductive type $\mu X.A$ is mapped to the coinductive type $\nu X.(A)^\circ$, the term constructed by $\In$ for the inductive type is mapped to the coterm constructed by $\Out$ for the coinductive type, and the coterm constructed by $\Itr$ for the inductive type is mapped to the term constructed by $\Coitr$ for the coinductive type. (2) Proposition \[prop:dual-reduction\] shows that the cut elimination procedure of the inductive type is mapped to the cut elimination procedure of the coinductive type. (3) the coinductive type is mapped to the inductive type in a similar way to (1) and (2).
We cannot define our typing system by using $$\infer[(\mu L')]{
\Itr^A_\alpha[K,\beta]:\mu X.C \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta, \beta:A
}{
K:C[A/X] \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta, \alpha:A
}$$ instead of the typing rule $(\mu L)$. If we used $(\mu L')$, the set of terms would not be closed under substitution, because $\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]$ would not have typing rules for it and hence it would not be a term, though it is obtained from $\Itr^A_\alpha[K,\beta]$ by substituting $L$ for $\beta$.
Examples {#Sect:applications}
========
In this section we show some examples of inductive and coinductive types in $\DCmu$. Let $X_0$ be a distinguished type variable. We use the following abbreviations: $$\begin{array}{l}
\top = \neg X_0 \vee X_0, \qquad
\bot = \neg X_0 \land X_0, \quad
\mbox{ and } \quad
* = \lambda x.x.
\end{array}$$ The type $\Nat$ of natural numbers can be represented by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Nat &= \mu X.(\top \vee X), \\
%
{\tt 0} &= \In^{\Nat}\langle\,\langle *\rangle\Inl\,\rangle,\\
%
{\tt succ}\langle M\rangle &=
\In^{\Nat}\langle\,\langle M \rangle\Inr\,\rangle, \end{aligned}$$ where ${\tt 0}$ is the zero and ${\tt succ}$ is the successor. We can prove $\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid {\tt 0}\colon \Nat$. We can also prove $\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid {\tt succ}\langle M\rangle\colon \Nat$ from $\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid M\colon \Nat$. The $n$-th natural number $\tilde n$ is represented by $\Succ \< \Succ \<\ldots \Succ \< \Zero \> \ldots \> \>$ ($n$ times of $\Succ$). We will write $M[\_/x]^n(N)$ for $M[M[ \ldots [M[N/x]/x] \ldots /x]/x]$ ($n$ times of $M$). We define a coterm ${\tt Itr}^B[F, N, K]$ of type $\Nat$ by $\Itr^B_\alpha\bigl[\, [y.(N\bullet \alpha), x.(F\bullet (x@\alpha))], K\,\bigr]$, where $y$ is not free in $N$, the term $F$ has type $B \supset B$, and $N$ and $K$ are of type $B$. When the coterm ${\tt Itr}^B[F, N, K]$ gets ${\tilde n}$ as its input, it computes $n$-time iterations of applying the function $F$ to $N$, and passes the output to $K$. This reduces ${\tilde n} \bullet {\tt Itr}^B[\lambda x.M, N, K]$ to $M[\_/x]^n(N)\bullet K$.
The type $\List(A)$ of lists of elements of type $A$ is represented by: $$\begin{aligned}
\List(A) &= \mu X.(\top \vee (A\land X)), \\
%
\Nil &= \In^{\List(A)}\langle\,\langle *\rangle\Inl\,\rangle,\\
%
M::Nl &=
\In^{\List(A)}\langle\,\langle\,\langle M,Nl\rangle\,\rangle\Inr\,\rangle. \end{aligned}$$
The term $\Nil$ is the empty list and $(::)$ is the list constructor. In $\DCmu$, the judgment $\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid \Nil\colon \List(A)$ is provable. The judgment $\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid M::Nl \colon \List(A)$ is also provable from $\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ and $\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid Nl\colon \List(A)$.
We note that the above examples can be considered under the call-by-value setting (section \[CbvCbnDCmu\]) if we restrict terms in the above examples to values.
We can also define the type $\Stream(A)$ of streams of elements of type $A$ by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Stream(A) &= \nu X.(A \land X), \\
%
{\tt cons}\langle M, {\it Ns}\rangle &=
\Coitr^{A \land \Stream(A)}_x\langle\,\langle \pi_1(x), (\pi_2(x)\bullet \Out^{\Stream(A)}[\alpha]).\alpha\rangle, \langle M, {\it Ns}\rangle \,\rangle, \\
%
{\tt hd}[K] &= \Out^{\texttt{Stream}(A)}[\,\Fst[K]\,], \\
%
{\tt tl}[L] &= \Out^{\texttt{Stream}(A)}[\,\Snd[L]\,], \end{aligned}$$ where $\pi_1(M)$ is the first projection of $M$ defined by $(M\bullet \Fst[\alpha]).\alpha$, and $\pi_2(M)$ is the second projection of $M$ defined by $(M\bullet \Snd[\alpha]).\alpha$. The term ${\tt cons}\langle M, {\it Ns}\rangle$ constructs a new stream from a given element $M$ and a given stream ${\it Ns}$. The coterm ${\tt hd}[K]$ receives the first element from a given stream and gives it to $K$. The coterm ${\tt tl}[L]$ removes the first element from a given stream and gives the resulting stream to $L$. We can prove $\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid {\tt cons}\langle M, {\it Ns} \rangle\colon \Stream(A)$ from $\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ and $\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid {\it Ns}\colon \Stream(A)$. We can also prove ${\tt hd}[K]\colon \Stream(A) \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta$ from $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta$. We can also prove ${\tt tl}[L]\colon \Stream(A) \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta$ from $L\colon \Stream(A) \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta$. This reduces ${\tt cons}\langle M, {\it Ns}\rangle\bullet {\tt hd}[K]$ to $M\bullet K$. We also reduce ${\tt cons}\langle M, {\it Ns}\rangle \bullet {\tt tl}^{n+1}[{\tt hd}[K]]$ to ${\it Ns} \bullet {\tt tl}^n[{\tt hd}[K]]$, where ${\tt tl}^n[{\tt hd}[K]]$ is defined by ${\tt tl}[{\tt tl}[\ldots{\tt tl}[\,{\tt hd}[K]\,]\ldots]]$($n$ times of ${\tt tl}$). Hence the coterm ${\tt tl}^n[{\tt hd}[K]]$ receives the $n$-th element of a given stream and gives it to $K$. Let $M$ be a term of type $A$. The stream of infinite number of $M$ is represented by $\Coitr^\top_x\< \<M, x\>, *\>$, where $x$ is a fresh variable. We will write ${\tt stream}(M)$ for $\Coitr^\top_x\< \<M, x\>, *\>$. Indeed, the statement ${\tt stream}(M) \bullet {\tt tl}^n[{\tt hd}[K]]$ is reduced to $M$ for any $n$. This means that any $n$-th element of ${\tt stream}(M)$ is $M$.
We note that this stream example can be considered under the call-by-name setting (section \[CbvCbnDCmu\]) if we restrict coterms in the above example to covalues.
$\Nat$ is dual to $\Stream(\bot)$, that is, $(\Nat)^\circ = \Stream(\bot)$, $({\tt 0})^\circ = {\tt hd}[(*)^\circ]$, and $({\tt succ}\langle M\rangle)^\circ = {\tt tl}[(M)^\circ]$ hold.
If $\Stream(\bot)$ is considered under the call-by-name setting and $\Nat$ is considered under the call-by-value setting, then the duality of the above proposition can be understood as follows. The type $\top$ means the singleton set $\{ * \}$. The type $\bottom$ means the type of a program that returns some answer after computation with the input $*$ since $\bottom$ is equivalent to $\neg \top$. The type $\Nat$ means the infinite disjoint sum $\top + \top + \top + \ldots$. The type $\Stream(\bottom)$ means the infinite cartesian product $\bottom \times \bottom \times \bottom \times \ldots$. Since a term in $\Stream(\bottom)$ is equivalent to a coterm in $\Nat$, when the term gets some natural number and is computed, it returns some answer. When the term gets the natural number ${\tilde n}$, since ${\tilde n}$ is $*$ in the $n$-th $\top$ in $\top + \top + \ldots$, the term in the $n$-th $\bottom$ in $\bottom \times \bottom \times \ldots$ is given the input $*$ and it is computed to give some answer.
Here we can also consider examples that include non-deterministic choices. Let $M$ and $N$ be terms of same type, $x$ be a fresh variable, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be fresh covariables. We define the non-deterministic choice $\<M\mid N\>$ by $$\<M\mid N\> = ((M\bullet \alpha).\beta\bullet x.(N\bullet \alpha)).\alpha,$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are fresh covariables. This term has both $(\beta_L)$ and $(\beta_R)$-redexes. It is reduced to $M$ if the $(\beta_R)$-redex is chosen, and is reduced to $N$ if the $(\beta_L)$-redex is chosen. Thus, $\<M\mid N\>$ can be considered as a non-deterministic choice of either $M$ or $N$. This non-deterministic choice $\<M\mid N\>$ is forced to choose $M$ under the call-by-value strategy, and is forced to choose $N$ under the call-by-name strategy.
An example of non-deterministic computation is the list insertion function. This function gets a list as its input data, and non-deterministically chooses one arbitrary place in the list. Then it returns a new list that is obtained by inserting a given element at the place.
Let $M$ be a term of type $A$, and $K'$ be a coterm of type $\List(A)\land\List(A)$. Then we define ${\tt ins}_M[K']$ of type $\List(A)$ by\
$\begin{array}{l}
{\tt ins}_M[K'] = \Itr^{\List(A)\land\List(A)}_\alpha[[L_1(\alpha),L_2(\alpha)], K'], \\
%
L_1(\alpha) = x.(\<M::\Nil, \Nil\>\bullet \alpha), \\
%
L_2(\alpha) = z.(\<\,\<\pi_1(z)::\pi_1\pi_2(z), \pi_1(z)::\pi_2\pi_2(z)\>\mid \<M::\pi_1(z)::\pi_2\pi_2(z), \pi_1(z)::\pi_1\pi_2(z)\>\,\>\bullet \alpha)
\end{array}$\
where $x$ occurs in $L_1(\alpha)$ is a fresh variable of type $\top$, and $z$ occurs in $L_2(\alpha)$ is a fresh variable of type $A\land (\List(A)\land\List(A))$. Then if $Nl$ is a list and $Nl'$ is a list obtained by inserting $M$ in some place of $Nl$, then the statement $Nl \bullet {\tt ins}_M[K']$ can be reduced to $\<Nl', Nl\>\bullet K'$. We can show this by induction on the length of $Nl$. If $Nl$ is $\Nil$, then $Nl'$ is $M::\Nil$. The statement $\Nil \bullet {\tt ins}_M[K']$ is reduced to $\<M::\Nil,\Nil\>\bullet K'$. If $Nl$ is $N::Nl_0$, then $Nl'$ is either $N::Nl'_0$ or $M::N::Nl_0$, where $Nl_0'$ is an inserted list obtained from $Nl_0$. The statement $(N::Nl_0) \bullet {\tt ins}_M[K']$ is reduced to $(\<N, (Nl_0\bullet {\tt ins}_M[\gamma]).\gamma\>\bullet L_2(\alpha)).\alpha\bullet K'$. Then this statement is reduced to $(\<N, \<Nl_0, Nl'_0\>\>\bullet L_2(\alpha)).\alpha\bullet K'$ by the induction hypothesis. We have $\<\,\<N::Nl'_0, Nl\> \mid \<M::N::Nl_0, Nl\>\,\>\bullet K'$. Hence we can obtain $\<M::N::Nl_0, Nl\> \bullet K'$ or $\<M::N::Nl_0, Nl\>\bullet K'$.
Let $K$ be a coterm of type $\List(A)$. Here we define $${\tt insert}_M[K] = {\tt ins}_M[\Fst[K]].$$ Then the statement $Nl \bullet {\tt insert}_M[K]$ is reduced to $Nl' \bullet K$ for any inserted list $Nl'$ obtained from $Nl$.
The Second-Order Dual Calculus {#Sect:DCtwo}
===============================
We consider the second-order extension $\DCtwo$ of $\Duca$ given by Tzevelekos [@Tzevelekos06]. He showed the basic properties of $\DCtwo$, such as the substitution lemma and subject reduction. Without formal discussion, he also mentioned that his translation from $\DC$ into the symmetric $\lambda$-calculus can be extended to the second-order case. In this section, we give a formal definition of the second-order translation from $\DCtwo$ into the second-order symmetric $\lambda$-calculus, and show the strong normalization of $\DCtwo$ by using this translation. For this purpose we will use the strong normalization result of the second-order symmetric $\lambda$-calculus given in [@Par00:01].
An expression is defined to be strongly normalizing if there does not exist any infinite reduction sequence starting from the expression.
First, we define a second-order extension $\DCtwo$ of $\DC$.
The types, terms, coterms, and statements of $\DCtwo$ are defined by:
------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types $A \Coloneqq X \mid A\land A \mid A \vee A \mid \neg A \mid \forall X.A \mid \exists X.A$,
Terms $M \Coloneqq x \mid \langle M, M\rangle \mid \langle M\rangle\Inl \mid \langle M\rangle\Inr
\mid [K]\Not \mid (S).\alpha \mid \langle M\rangle\A \mid \langle M\rangle\E$,
Coterms $K \Coloneqq \alpha \mid [K, K] \mid \Fst[K] \mid \Snd[K]
\mid \Not\langle M\rangle \mid x.(S) \mid \A[K] \mid \E[K]$,
Statements $S \Coloneqq M\bullet K$.
------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The typing rules and reduction rules (denoted by $\longrightarrow_{\Duca 2}$) of $\DCtwo$ are defined by extending the rules of $\Duca$ with the following rules: $$\begin{array}{c@{\qquad}c}
\infer[(\forall R)]{
\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid \langle M\rangle\A:\forall Z.A
}{
\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid M:A
}
&
\infer[(\forall L)]{
\A[K]:\forall X.A \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta
}{
K:A[B/X] \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta
}\\[\VSKIP]
%
\infer[(\exists R)]{
\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid \langle M\rangle\E:\exists X.A
}{
\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid M:A[B/X]
}
&
\infer[(\exists L)]{
\E[K]:\exists Z.A \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta
}{
K:A \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta
}
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{ll}
(\beta\forall)
&
\langle M\rangle\A \bullet \A[K] \longrightarrow_{\Duca 2} M\bullet K,\\[\VSKIP]
(\beta\exists)
&
\langle M\rangle\E \bullet \E[K]
\longrightarrow_{\Duca 2}
M\bullet K,
\end{array}$$ where $Z$ is not free in $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$ in $(\forall R)$ and $(\exists L)$. We write $\longrightarrow_{\Duca 2}^+$ to denote the transitive closure of $\longrightarrow_{\Duca 2}$.
We have the new constructors $\A$ and $\E$, which are trivial witnesses for the quantifiers at the level of expressions, so that the system has subject reduction. We choose our $\DC2$ so that it does not contain type information in expressions, since our purpose is to show strong normalization of the second-order dual calculus, and in general the strong normalization of the system with type information is implied by the strong normalization of the system without type information.
We sometimes use the symbol $\prove_{\Duca 2}$ instead of the symbol $\prove$ that appears in a judgment in order to explicitly show it is a judgment of $\DCtwo$. That is, we write $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ for the judgment $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$. Similarly, we write $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$ and $\Gamma \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$.
We write $\Gamma[B/X]$ for $x_1\colon C_1[B/X], \ldots, x_n\colon C_n[B/X]$ if $\Gamma$ is $x_1\colon C_1, \ldots, x_n\colon C_n$. We also write $\Delta[B/X]]$ for $\alpha_1\colon D_1[B/X], \ldots, \alpha_m\colon D_m[B/X]$ if $\Delta$ is $\alpha_1\colon D_1, \ldots, \alpha_m\colon D_n$.
\[lem:type\_substitution\_DC2\] The following claims hold.
1. If $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$, then $\Gamma[B/X] \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta[B/X] \dcmid M\colon A[B/X]$ holds.
2. If $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$, then $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma[B/X] \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta[B/X]$ holds.
3. If $\Gamma \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$, then $\Gamma[B/X] \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta[B/X]$ holds.
They are shown simultaneously by induction on expressions.
The basic lemmas for $\DC$ and $\DCmu$ are also shown in $\DCtwo$. We use Lemma \[lem:type\_substitution\_DC2\] to show weakening lemma.
\[lem:Weakening\_DC2\] Let $\Gamma \subseteq \Gamma'$ and $\Delta \subseteq \Delta'$. Then the following hold in $\DCtwo$.
1. If $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ is provable, then $\Gamma' \prove \Delta' \dcmid M\colon A$ holds.
2. If $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta$ is provable, then $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma' \prove \Delta'$ holds.
3. If $\Gamma \dcmid S \prove \Delta$ is provable, then $\Gamma' \dcmid S \prove \Delta'$ holds.
They are shown simultaneously by induction on $M$, $K$, and $S$. We use Lemma \[lem:type\_substitution\_DC2\] when we show the cases of $\langle M\rangle\A$ and $\E[K]$. We consider these cases.
The case of $\langle M \rangle\A$. Assume $\Gamma \subseteq \Gamma'$, $\Delta \subseteq \Delta'$, and $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid \langle M\rangle\A\colon A$ is derivable. Since the last rule of the derivation must be $(\forall R)$, we have $A$ is $\forall X.B$ for some $B$, the variable $X$ is not free in $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$, and $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M\colon B$ is derivable. Then we have $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M\colon B[Z/X]$ for a fresh type variable $Z$ by using Lemma \[lem:type\_substitution\_DC2\]. By the induction hypothesis, $\Gamma' \prove \Delta' \dcmid M\colon B[Z/X]$ holds. Therefore we obtain $\Gamma' \prove \Delta' \dcmid \langle M\rangle\A\colon \forall Z.(B[Z/X])$ by $(\forall R)$ rule, since $Z$ is not free in $\Gamma'$ and $\Delta'$.
The case of $\E[K]$ is shown similar to the case of $\langle M \rangle\A$.
The other cases are straightforwardly proved by the induction hypothesis.
\[lem:thinning\_DC2\] Let $\Gamma' \subseteq \Gamma$ and $\Delta' \subseteq \Delta$. Then the following hold in $\DCtwo$.
1. If $FV(M) \subseteq dom(\Gamma')$ and $FCV(M) \subseteq dom(\Delta')$, then $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ implies $\Gamma' \prove \Delta' \dcmid M\colon A$.
2. If $FV(K) \subseteq dom(\Gamma')$ and $FCV(K) \subseteq dom(\Delta')$, then $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta$ implies $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma' \prove \Delta'$.
3. If $FV(S) \subseteq dom(\Gamma')$ and $FCV(S) \subseteq dom(\Delta')$, then $\Gamma \mid S \prove \Delta$ implies $\Gamma' \mid S \prove \Delta'$.
They are shown simultaneously by induction on $M$, $K$, and $S$.
\[lem:Substitution\_DC2\] The following claims hold.
1. Suppose $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta \dcmid N\colon A$ is derivable. Then the following hold.
1. If $\Gamma, x\colon A \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta \dcmid M\colon B$, then $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta \dcmid M[N/x]\colon B$.
2. If $K\colon B \dcmid \Gamma, x\colon A \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$, then $K[N/x] \colon B \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$.
3. If $\Gamma, x\colon A \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$, then $\Gamma \dcmid S[N/x] \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$.
2. Suppose $L\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$ is derivable. Then the following hold.
1. If $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta, \alpha\colon A \dcmid M\colon B$, then $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta \dcmid M[L/\alpha]\colon B$.
2. If $K\colon B \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta, \alpha\colon A$, then $K[L/\alpha] \colon B \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$.
3. If $\Gamma \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta, \alpha\colon A$, then $\Gamma \dcmid S[L/\alpha] \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$.
The claims (1a),(1b), and (1c) are shown simultaneously by induction on $M$, $K$, and $S$. The claims (2a),(2b), and (2c) are also shown simultaneously by induction on $M$, $K$, and $S$.
This system has subject reduction.
\[SR\_DC2\] The following claims hold.
1. If $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ and $M \longrightarrow_{\Duca 2} N$, then $\Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta \dcmid N\colon A$ holds.
2. If $K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$ and $K \longrightarrow_{\Duca 2} L$, then $L\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$ holds.
3. If $\Gamma \dcmid S \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$ and $S \longrightarrow_{\Duca 2} T$, then $\Gamma \dcmid T \prove_{\Duca 2} \Delta$ holds.
They are shown simultaneously by induction on the generation of $\longrightarrow_{\Duca 2}$ using Lemma \[lem:type\_substitution\_DC2\], \[lem:Weakening\_DC2\], \[lem:thinning\_DC2\], and \[lem:Substitution\_DC2\]. We show the cases of $(\beta\forall)$ and $(\beta\exists)$.
The case of $(\beta\forall)$. Suppose $\Gamma \dcmid \langle M \rangle\A\bullet \A[K] \prove \Delta$ is derivable. Then $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid \langle M \rangle\A\colon C$ and $\A[K]\colon C \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta$ are derivable for some type $C$. Since the last rules of these derivation must be $(\forall R)$ and $(\forall L)$, we have $C$ is $\forall X.A$ for some $A$, $X$ is not free in both $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$, and $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M\colon A$ and $K\colon A[B/X] \dcmid \Gamma \prove \Delta$ are derivable for some $B$. Then we can obtain $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M\colon A[B/X]$ by Lemma \[lem:type\_substitution\_DC2\]. Therefore $\Gamma \dcmid M\bullet K\prove \Delta$ can be derived by $(Cut)$ rule.
The case of $(\beta\exists)$ is shown similar to the case of $(\beta\forall)$.
The other cases are straightforwardly proved by the induction hypothesis.
The trivial witnesses $\A$ and $\E$ are necessary for the subject reduction. If we did not have these constructors, the subject reduction would fail. If we chose the following $(\forall R')$ and $(\forall L')$ instead of $(\forall R)$ and $(\forall L)$, $$\begin{array}{l}
\infer[(\forall R')]{
\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid M:\forall Z.A
}{
\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid M:A
}
\qquad
\infer[(\forall L')]{
K:\forall X.A \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta
}{
K:A[B/X] \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta
}
\end{array}$$ then the following would be a counter-example: we would have $\Gamma \dcmid (x\bullet \Fst[\alpha]).\alpha\bullet \beta \Dcvdash \Delta$ where $\Gamma$ is $x\colon X\land Y$, the sequence $\Delta$ is $\beta\colon \forall Z.X$, and $Z \not= X, Y$, but would not have $\Gamma \dcmid x\bullet \Fst[\beta]\vdash \Delta$, though $(x\bullet \Fst[\alpha]).\alpha\bullet \beta$ is reduced to $x\bullet \Fst[\beta]$.
In $\lambda$-calculus the constructor $\A$ is not necessary for subject reduction while the constructor $\E$ is necessary for it [@Tatsuta07]. In our system, since $\forall$ and $\exists$ are dual, the constructor $\A$ is also needed.
The duality transformation can be extended from $\DC$ to $\DCtwo$.
\[def:duality\_trans\_DC2\] The duality transformation for types, expressions, and inference rule names of $\Duca 2$ is defined by those of $\Duca$ and the following equations: $$\begin{array}{l}
(\forall X.A)^\circ =\exists X.(A)^\circ,
\qquad
(\exists X.A)^\circ=\forall X.(A)^\circ,
\\
(\langle M\rangle\A)^\circ=\E[(M)^\circ],
\qquad
(\E[K])^\circ = \langle (K)^\circ\rangle\A,
\\
(\langle M\rangle\E)^\circ=\A[(M)^\circ],
\qquad
(\A[K])^\circ = \langle (K)^\circ\rangle\E,
\\
(\forall R)^\circ = (\exists L),
\qquad
(\exists L)^\circ = (\forall R),
\qquad
(\forall L)^\circ = (\exists R),
\qquad
(\exists R)^\circ = (\forall L).\vspace{6 pt}
\end{array}$$
This duality transformation preserves substitution of types, terms, and coterms.
\[Lemma:Duality\_Substitution\_DC2\] Let $A$ and $B$ be types, $D$ be an expression, $M$ be a term, and $K$ be a coterm of $\DCtwo$. Then the following hold.
1. $(A[B/X])^\circ = (A)^\circ[(B)^\circ/X]$.
2. $(D[M/x])^\circ = (D)^\circ[(M)^\circ/x']$.
3. $(D[K/\alpha])^\circ = (D)^\circ[(K)^\circ/\alpha']$.
The claim (1) is shown by induction on $A$. The claims (2) and (3) are shown by induction on $D$.
The extended duality transformation preserves typing and reduction. It is an involution in $\DCtwo$.
\[prop:dual\_DC2\] The following claims hold.
1. If $J$ is derived from $J_1,\ldots,J_n$ ($n = 1$ or $2$) by an inference rule $R$, then $(J)^\circ$ is derived from $(J_n)^\circ,\ldots,(J_1)^\circ$ by the inference rule $(R)^\circ$.
2. $D \longrightarrow_{\Duca 2} E$ implies $(D)^\circ \longrightarrow_{\Duca 2} (E)^\circ$.
3. $((A)^\circ)^\circ = A$, $((D)^\circ)^\circ = D$, and $((J)^\circ)^\circ = J$ hold.
The claim (1) is proved by case analysis of the inference rules of $\DCtwo$. The claim (2) is proved by induction of the generation of $\longrightarrow_{\Duca 2}$ using Lemma \[Lemma:Duality\_Substitution\_DC2\]. The claim (3) is proved by induction on types and expressions.
Next we give a definition of the second-order symmetric $\lambda$-calculus $\SL2$. The symmetric $\lambda$-calculus is introduced by Barbanera and Berardi [@Bar96:01] as a classical extension of the $\lambda$-calculus. The strong normalization of its second-order extension $\SL2$ is proved by Parigot [@Par00:01] using the reducibility method. The particular system we consider here is an extension of Parigot’s system with two additional rules ($\eta_r$ and $\eta_l$). As discussed in ibid., Parigot’s proof works with this variant without problem.
We define the second-order symmetric $\lambda$-calculus $\SL2$. The types of $\SL2$ are either the special type $\bot$ or m-types (denoted by $\tau, \sigma, \ldots$) given by: $$\tau \Coloneqq X \cmid X^\bot \cmid \tau \times \tau \cmid \tau + \tau
\cmid \forall X.\tau \cmid \exists X.\tau$$ where $X, Y, \ldots$ range over type variables. The types $\forall X.\tau$ and $\exists X.\tau$ bind $X$ in $\tau$. The negation $(\tau)^\bot$ of $\tau$ is defined by: $$\begin{array}{ll}
(X)^\bot=X^\bot, &
(X^\bot)^\bot=X,
\\
(\tau \times \sigma)^\bot=(\tau)^\bot + (\sigma)^\bot, &
(\tau + \sigma)^\bot=(\tau)^\bot \times (\sigma)^\bot,
\\
(\forall X.\tau)^\bot=\exists X.(\tau)^\bot, &
(\exists X.\tau)^\bot=\forall X.(\tau)^\bot.
\end{array}$$ The symbols $x, y, \ldots$, $\alpha,\beta,\ldots$ range over variables. The terms of $\SL2$, denoted by $t, u, \ldots$, are defined by $$t \Coloneqq
x \cmid \Inj_1(t) \cmid \Inj_2(t) \cmid \langle t,t\rangle \cmid t*t \cmid \lambda x.t
\cmid \A(t) \cmid \E(t).$$
The one-step reduction relation $\longrightarrow_{\SL2}$ of $\SL2$ is defined as the compatible closure of the following rules:
---------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------- ---------------------------- -------------------------------------- -----------
$(\beta_r)$ $(\lambda x.t)*u$ $t[u/x]$, $(\beta_l)$ $u*(\lambda x.t)$ $t[u/x]$,
$(\beta_{\times+}1)$ $\langle t_1,t_2\rangle * \Inj_1(u)$ $t_1*u$, $(\beta_{+\times}1)$ $\Inj_1(u) * \langle t_1,t_2\rangle$ $u*t_1$,
$(\beta_{\times+}2)$ $\langle t_1,t_2\rangle * \Inj_2(u)$ $t_2*u$, $(\beta_{+\times}2)$ $\Inj_2(u) * \langle t_1,t_2\rangle$ $u*t_2$,
$(\beta_{\forall\exists})$ $\A(t) * \E(u)$ $t*u$, $(\beta_{\exists\forall})$ $\E(u) * \A(t)$ $u*t$,
$(\eta_r)$ $\lambda y.(y*t)$ $t$, $(\eta_l)$ $\lambda y.(t*y)$ $t$,
---------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------- ---------------------------- -------------------------------------- -----------
where $y$ is not free in $t$ in $(\eta_l)$ and $(\eta_r)$.
A typing context (denoted by $\Gamma$, $\Delta$) is a finite set and of the form $x_1\colon \tau_1,\ldots,x_n\colon \tau_n$. A judgment of $\SL2$ takes either the form $\Gamma \vdash t:\tau$ or $\Gamma \vdash t:\bot$. The typing rules of $\SL2$ are defined as follows: $$\begin{array}{c}
\infer[({\rm Ax})]{
\Gamma, x:\tau \vdash x:\tau
}{}
\qquad
\infer[({\rm abs})]{
\Gamma \vdash \lambda x.t:(\tau)^\bot
}{
\Gamma, x:\tau \vdash t:\bot
}
\qquad
\infer[({\rm app})]{
\Gamma \vdash t*u:\bot
}{
\Gamma \vdash t:(\tau)^\bot
&
\Gamma \vdash u:\tau
}
\\[\VSKIP]
\infer[(+_i)]{
\Gamma \vdash \Inj_i(t):\tau_1+\tau_2
}{
\Gamma \vdash t:\tau_i
}
\hbox{\ $(i=1,2)$}
\qquad
\infer[(\times)]{
\Gamma \vdash \langle t,u\rangle:\tau\times \sigma
}{
\Gamma \vdash t:\tau
&
\Gamma \vdash u:\sigma
}
\\[\VSKIP]
\infer[(\forall)]{
\Gamma \vdash \A(t):\forall X.\tau
}{
\Gamma \vdash t:\tau
}
\quad
\hbox{($X$ is not free in $\Gamma$)}
\qquad
\infer[(\exists)]{
\Gamma \vdash \E(t):\exists X.\tau
}{
\Gamma \vdash t:\tau[\sigma/X]
}
\end{array}$$
\[thm:Parigot\] Every typable term is strongly normalizing in $\SL2$.
We will give a reduction-preserving and type-preserving translation from $\DCtwo$ into $\SL2$. Our translation is a second-order extension of the translation from $\Duca$ into the symmetric $\lambda$-calculus given by Tzevelekos [@Tzevelekos06].
Let $A$ be a type of $\DCtwo$. The type $(A)^\SDCtoSSL$ of $\SL2$ is defined as follows: $$\begin{array}{lll}
(X)^\dag =X,
&
(A \land B)^\dag=(A)^\dag \times (B)^\dag,
&
(A \vee B)^\dag=(A)^\dag + (B)^\dag,
\\
(\neg A)^\dag=((A)^\dag)^\bot,
&
(\forall X.A)^\dag=\forall X.(A)^\dag,
&
(\exists X.A)^\dag=\exists X.(A)^\dag.
\end{array}$$
Let $D$ be an expression of $\DCtwo$. The term $(D)^\dag$ of $\SL2$ is defined by: $$\begin{array}{l@{\qquad}l}
(x)^\dag = x,
&
(\alpha)^\dag=\alpha,
\\
((S).\alpha)^\dag = \lambda \alpha.(S)^\dag,
&
(x.(S))^\dag=\lambda x.(S)^\dag,
\\
(\langle M \rangle\A)^\dag=\A((M)^\dag),
&
(\langle M \rangle\E)^\dag=\E((M)^\dag),
\\
(\E[K])^\dag=\A((K)^\dag),
&
(\A[K])^\dag=\E((K)^\dag),
\\
(\langle M\rangle\Inl)^\dag=\Inj_1((M)^\dag),
&
(\Fst[K])^\dag=\Inj_1((K)^\dag),
\\
(\langle M\rangle\Inr)^\dag=\Inj_2((M)^\dag),
&
(\Snd[K])^\dag=\Inj_2((K)^\dag),
\\
(\langle M, N\rangle)^\dag=\langle (M)^\dag, (N)^\dag \rangle,
&
([K, L])^\dag=\langle (K)^\dag, (L)^\dag \rangle,
\\
([K]\Not)^\dag= \lambda x.(x * (K)^\dag),
&
(\Not\langle M\rangle)^\dag=(M)^\dag,
\\
(M\bullet K)^\dag = (M)^\dag * (K)^\dag.
\span
\end{array}$$ We define the translation of $[K]\Not$ by using $\eta$-expansion, so that all reductions in $\DCtwo$ are strictly simulated in $\SL2$.
$(\Gamma)^\dag$ and $((\Delta)^\dag)^\bot$ are defined as $x_1\colon (A_1)^\dag, \ldots, x_n\colon (A_n)^\dag$ and $\alpha_1\colon ((B_1)^\dag)^\bot, \ldots, \alpha_m\colon ((B_m)^\dag)^\bot$ respectively if $\Gamma$ is $x_1\colon A_1, \ldots, x_n\colon A_n$, and $\Delta$ is $\alpha_1\colon B_1, \ldots, \alpha_m\colon B_m$. For a judgment $J$ of $\DCtwo$, the judgment $(J)^\dag$ of $\SL2$ is defined as follows: The judgment $(\Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta \dcmid M\colon A)^\dag$ is defined as $(\Gamma)^\dag, ((\Delta)^\dag)^\bot \vdash (M)^\dag\colon (A)^\dag$. The judgment $(K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \Dcvdash \Delta)^\dag$ is defined as $(\Gamma)^\dag, ((\Delta)^\dag)^\bot \vdash (K)^\dag\colon ((A)^\dag)^\bot$. The judgment $(\Gamma \dcmid S \Dcvdash \Delta)^\dag$ is defined as $(\Gamma)^\dag, ((\Delta)^\dag)^\bot \vdash (S)^\dag\colon \bot$.
This translation preserves provability and one-step reductions.
\[prop:soundness\_dag\] The following claims hold.
1. If $J$ is provable in $\DCtwo$, then $(J)^\dag$ is provable in $\SL2$.
2. $D \longrightarrow_{\Duca 2} E$ implies $(D)^\dag \longrightarrow_{\SL2} (E)^\dag$.
The claim (1) is shown by induction on the proof of $J$. The claim (2) is shown by induction on the definition of $\longrightarrow_{\Duca 2}$.
We can obtain strong normalization of $\DCtwo$ from the above proposition.
\[thm:SN\_DCtwo\] Every typable expression is strongly normalizing in $\DCtwo$.
Assume there is an infinite reduction sequence $$D = D_0\longrightarrow_{\Duca 2} D_1 \longrightarrow_{\Duca 2} \ldots$$ starting from $D$. From Proposition \[prop:soundness\_dag\], the expression $(D)^\dag$ is typable in $\SL2$, and $$(D)^\dag \longrightarrow_{\SL2} (D_1)^\dag \longrightarrow_{\SL2} \ldots$$ is an infinite reduction sequence. This contradicts Theorem \[thm:Parigot\].
Tzevelekos [@Tzevelekos06] also gave a back translation $(-)^p$ from the symmetric $\lambda$-calculus into $\Duca$. As noted in his paper (Section 3, Note 3.5), this translation cannot extend to the second-order case since it does not preserve typing judgments for existential quantification. This is because the translation $(-)^p$ does not preserve type substitution: $(A[B/X])^p \neq (A)^p[(B)^p/X]$. The same argument applies to ours.
Strong Normalization
=====================
In this section, we prove strong normalization in $\DCmu$. We will give a translation from $\DCmu$ into $\DCtwo$ that is based on the second-order encoding of inductive and coinductive types. Our proof of strong normalization will be done by showing the fact that one-step reduction in $\DCmu$ is translated to one or more steps reduction in $\DCtwo$.
We use the following degree of expressions in $\DCmu$ for defining the second-order coding of inductive and coinductive types.
When we try to prove some properties of expressions by induction on expressions, that induction sometimes does not work, since the expression contains $\Map^{X,C}_{A,B,x.M}\{N\}$ that is defined by using induction on $||C||_X$. In order for solving this, we will introduce the pair of the summation of $||C||_X$ and the size of an expression as a measure.
Let $D$ be an expression in $\DCmu$. The number $||D||$ is defined by: $$\begin{array}{l}
|| x ||=|| \alpha || = 0,
\\
|| \langle M, N \rangle ||=|| \Coitr^A_x\langle M, N \rangle || = \Max(|| M ||, || N ||),
\\
|| M\bullet K ||=\Max(|| M ||, || K ||),
\\
|| [K, L] ||=|| \Itr^A_\alpha[K,L] || = \Max(|| K ||, || L ||),
\\
|| (S).\alpha ||=|| x.(S) || = || S ||,
\\
|| \langle M\rangle\Inl ||=|| \langle M\rangle\Inr || = || \Not\langle M\rangle || = || M ||,
\\
|| \In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle ||=|| M || + || A ||_X + 1,
\\
|| \Fst[K] ||=|| \Snd[K] || = || [K]\Not || = || K ||,
\\
|| \Out^{\nu X.A}[K] ||=|| K || + || A ||_X + 1.
\end{array}$$
The number $|D|$ is defined by: $$\begin{array}{l}
| x |=| \alpha | = 0,
\\
| \langle M, N \rangle |=| \Coitr^A_x\langle M, N \rangle | = | M | + | N | + 1,
\\
| M\bullet K |=| M | + | K | + 1,
\\
| [K, L] |=| \Itr^A_\alpha[K,L] | = | K | + | L | + 1,
\\
| (S).\alpha |=| x.(S) | = | S | + 1,
\\
| \langle M\rangle\Inl |=| \langle M\rangle\Inr |= | \Not\langle M\rangle | = | \In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle | = | M | + 1,
\\
| \Fst[K] |=
| \Snd[K] |
= | [K]\Not |
= | \Out^{\nu X.A}[K] |
= | K | + 1.
\end{array}$$ The degree $\Deg(D)$ of the expression $D$ is defined as the pair $(|| D ||, |D|)$. We also define the order of the degrees by the lexicographic order.
The number $|D|$ is the number of constructors in the expression $D$. The number $||D||$ is the maximum summation of $(||A||_X+1)$ for $\In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle$ and $\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]$ in paths in $D$. For example, $\Deg(\In^{\mu X.\neg X \lor X}\langle
( \langle [x.(\langle x\rangle\Inr\bullet \gamma)]\Not\rangle\Inl\bullet \gamma ).\gamma
\rangle) = (4,7)$. We have $||E|| \le ||D||$ and $|E| < |D|$ when the expression $E$ is a proper subexpression of $D$. The degree satisfies the following properties.
\[lem:evaluation\_of\_map\] The following claims hold.
1. $|| D || = || (D)^\circ ||$ and $| D | = | (D)^\circ | $ hold.
2. $||\,\Map^{X.A}_{B,C,x}\{M, N\}\,|| \le || M || + || N || + || A ||_X$ holds.
3. $\Deg(\In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle) >
\Deg(\, \Map^{X.A}_{\mu X.A,Y,\alpha}\{\, x.(y\bullet (x@\alpha)), \beta \,\})$ holds.
The claims of (1) are shown by induction on $D$. The claim (2) is shown by induction on $|| A ||_X$. The claim (3) is proved by using (2).
We present the second-order encoding for $\DCmu$. We will write $\lambda(x,\alpha).S$ for $\lambda x.((S).\alpha)$. Then $(\lambda(x,\alpha).S)\bullet (N@K)$ is reduced to $S[N/x][K/\alpha]$.
Let $A$ be a type of $\DCmu$. The type $\overline{A}$ of $\DCtwo$ is defined as follows: $$\overline{X} =X,
\qquad
\overline{A \land B} =\overline{A} \land \overline{B},
\qquad
\overline{\neg A} =\neg\overline{A},
\qquad
\overline{A \vee B} =\overline{A} \vee \overline{B},$$ $$\overline{\mu X.A} =\forall X.((\overline{A}\supset X)\supset X),
\qquad
\overline{\nu X.A} =\exists X.( \neg( \neg\overline{A} \land X) \land X),$$ where $\supset$ is defined in Definition \[def:imp\]. For an expression $D$ of $\DCmu$, the expression $\overline{D}$ of $\DCtwo$ is defined by induction on $\Deg(D)$ as follows. For the expressions $D$ of the same degree, we first define $\overline D$ for $D$ such that $D$ is not of the form $\overline{\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]}$ or $\overline{\Coitr^A_x\langle M,N\rangle}$, and we next define $\overline D$ for $D$ such that $D$ is of the form $\overline{\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]}$ or $\overline{\Coitr^A_x\langle M,N\rangle}$. $$\begin{array}{c@{\qquad\qquad}c}
\overline{x}=x,
&
\overline{\alpha}=\alpha,
\\
\overline{(S).\alpha}=(\overline{S}).\alpha,
&
\overline{x.(S)}=x.(\overline{S}),
\\
\overline{\langle M,N\rangle}=\langle \overline{M}, \overline{N}\rangle,
&
\overline{[K, L]}=[\overline{K}, \overline{L}],
\\
\overline{\langle M\rangle\Inl}=\langle\overline{M}\rangle\Inl,
&
\overline{\Fst[K]}=\Fst[\overline{K}],
\\
\overline{\langle M\rangle\Inr}=\langle\overline{M}\rangle\Inr,
&
\overline{\Snd[K]}=\Snd[\overline{K}],
\\
\overline{[K]\Not}=[\overline{K}]\Not,
&
\overline{\Not\langle M\rangle}=\Not\langle\overline{M}\rangle,
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{M\bullet K} &= \overline{M}\bullet \overline{K},
\\
\overline{\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]}
&=
\A[\,(\,\lambda (x,\alpha).(x\bullet \overline{K})\,)@\overline{L}\,],
\\
\overline{\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]}
&=
(
\overline{
\In^{\mu X.(A)^\circ}\langle (K)^\circ \rangle
}
)^\circ,
\\
\overline{\In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle}
&=
\langle\,
\lambda (y,\beta).
(
y\bullet
(\,
({\mathcal Q}_Y[X.A]\bullet{\mathcal R}_M\{y, \gamma\}).\gamma@\beta
\,)
)
\,\rangle\A,
\\
\overline{\Coitr^A_x\langle M,N\rangle}
&=
(
\overline{
\Itr^{(A)^\circ}_{x'}[(M)^\circ, (N)^\circ]
}
)^\circ, \end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal Q}_Y[X.A]$ is defined as $\lambda y.\lambda(z,\beta).
(\,
z\bullet \overline{
\Map^{X.A}_{\mu X.A,Y,\alpha}\{\,
x.(y\bullet (x@\alpha)), \beta
\,\}
}
\,)$, and ${\mathcal R}_M\{N, K\}$ is defined as $(\,
\lambda(x,\alpha).(x\bullet \A[N@\alpha])
\,)@(\overline{M}@K)$.
We also define the translation of judgments. The context $\overline{\Gamma}$ is defined as $x_1\colon\overline{A_1},\ldots, x_n\colon\overline{A_n}$ if $\Gamma$ is $x_1\colon A_1,\ldots, x_n\colon A_n$. The cocontext $\overline{\Delta}$ is defined as $\alpha_1\colon\overline{B_1},\ldots, \alpha_m\colon\overline{B_m}$ if $\Delta$ is $\alpha_1\colon B_1,\ldots, \alpha_m\colon B_m$. The judgment $\overline{\Gamma \vdash \Delta \dcmid M\colon A}$ is defined as $\overline{\Gamma} \vdash \overline{\Delta} \dcmid \overline{M}\colon \overline{A}$. The judgment $\overline{K\colon A \dcmid \Gamma \vdash \Delta}$ is defined as $\overline{K}\colon \overline{A} \dcmid \overline{\Gamma} \vdash \overline{\Delta}$. The judgment $\overline{\Gamma \dcmid S \vdash \Delta}$ is defined as $\overline{\Gamma} \dcmid \overline{S} \vdash \overline{\Delta}$.
The next lemma shows that this translation commutes with $(-)^\circ$.
\[lemma:commute\] $(\,\overline{A}\,)^\circ = \overline{(A)^\circ}$, $(\,\overline{D}\,)^\circ = \overline{(D)^\circ}$, and $(\,\overline{J}\,)^\circ = \overline{(J)^\circ}$ hold.
The claim for $A$ is proved by induction on $A$.
The claim for $D$ is proved by induction on $D$. The cases of $\In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle$, $\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]$, $\Itr^A_\alpha[K, L]$, and $\Coitr^A_x\langle M, N \rangle$ are shown by the definition of the translation and the dualities of $\DCmu$ and $\DCtwo$. The case of $\In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle$ is shown as follows: $(\overline{\In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle})^\circ =
(\overline{\In^{\mu X.((A)^\circ)^\circ}\langle ((M)^\circ)^\circ\rangle})^\circ =
\overline{\Out^{\nu X.(A)^\circ}[(M)^\circ]} =
\overline{\,(\In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle)^\circ\,}$. We can show the cases $\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]$, $\Itr^A_\alpha[K, L]$, and $\Coitr^A_x\langle M, N \rangle$ similarly. The other cases are straightforwardly proved by the induction hypothesis.
The claim for $J$ is proved by using the claims for $A$ and $D$.
The translation $\overline{(-)}$ preserves substitution.
\[lemma:subst\_term\] $\overline{A[B/X]} = \overline{A}[\overline{B}/X]$, $\overline{D[N/x]} = \overline{D}[\overline{N}/x]$, and $\overline{D[L/\alpha]} = \overline{D}[\overline{L}/\alpha]$ hold.
The first claim is shown by induction on $A$. The second and the third claims are shown simultaneously by induction on $\Deg(D)$. For the expressions $D$ of the same degree, we first show the claims for $D$ such that $D$ is not of the form $\overline{\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]}$ or $\overline{\Coitr^A_x\langle M,N\rangle}$, and we next show the claims for $D$ such that $D$ is of the form $\overline{\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]}$ or $\overline{\Coitr^A_x\langle M,N\rangle}$.
We consider the cases of $\In^{\mu X.A}\<M\>$, $\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]$, $\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]$ and $\Coitr^A_x\langle M, N \rangle$. The other cases are straightforwardly proved by the induction hypothesis.
The second claim of the case $\In^{\mu X.A}\<M\>$ is shown in the following way. By the induction hypothesis, we have $\overline{\Map^{X.A}_{\mu X.A,Y,\alpha}\{\, x.(y\bullet (x@\alpha)), \beta \,\}}[\overline{N}/x] =
\overline{\Map^{X.A}_{\mu X.A,Y,\alpha}\{\, x.(y\bullet (x@\alpha)), \beta \,\}[N/x]}$ since $\Deg(\, \Map^{X.A}_{\mu X.A,Y,\alpha}\{\, x.(y\bullet (x@\alpha)), \beta \,\})
< \Deg(\In^{\mu X.A}\<M\>) $ by Lemma \[lem:evaluation\_of\_map\] (3). By Lemma \[lem:freevar\_of\_map\] (2a), $\overline{\Map^{X.A}_{\mu X.A,Y,\alpha}\{\, x.(y\bullet (x@\alpha)), \beta \,\}[N/x]} =
\overline{\Map^{X.A}_{\mu X.A,Y,\alpha}\{\, x.(y\bullet (x@\alpha)), \beta \,\}}$. Hence we have $({\mathcal Q}_Y[X.A])[\overline{N}/x] = {\mathcal Q}_Y[X.A]$. By the induction hypothesis, we have ${\mathcal R}_M\{y, \gamma\}[\overline{N}/x] = {\mathcal R}_{M[N/x]}\{y, \gamma\}$ since $\Deg(M) < \Deg(\In^{\mu X.A}\<M\>)$. Therefore, $\overline{\In^{\mu X.A}\<M\>}[\overline{N}/x]$ is equal to $\langle\,
\lambda (y,\beta).
(
y\bullet
(\,
(({\mathcal Q}_Y[X.A])[\overline{N}/x]\bullet({\mathcal R}_M\{y, \gamma\})[\overline{N}/x]).\gamma@\beta
\,)
)
\,\rangle\A$. Then it is equal to $\langle\,
\lambda (y,\beta).
(
y\bullet
(\,
({\mathcal Q}_Y[X.A]\bullet{\mathcal R}_{M[N/x]}\{y, \gamma\}.\gamma@\beta
\,)
)
\,\rangle\A$. The last term is equal to $\overline{(\In^{\mu X.A}\<M\>)[N/x]}$ by the definition of $\overline{(-)}$.
The second claim of the case $\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]$ is shown in the following way. The coterm $\overline{\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]}[\overline{N}/x]$ is equal to $\A[\,(\,\lambda (y,\alpha).(y\bullet \overline{K}[\overline{N}/x])\,)@\overline{L}[\overline{N}/x]\,]$. By the induction hypothesis, it is equal to $\A[\,(\,\lambda (y,\alpha).(y\bullet \overline{K[N/x]})\,)@\overline{L[N/x]}\,]$. Hence it is equal to $\overline{(\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L])[N/x]}$ by the definition of $\overline{(-)}$.
The second claim of the case $\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]$ is shown in the following way. Since $||K|| = ||(K)^\circ||$ and $|K| = |(K)^\circ|$ by Lemma \[lem:evaluation\_of\_map\] (1), we have $\Deg(\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]) = \Deg(\In^{\mu X.(A)^\circ}\langle (K)^\circ \rangle)$. Hence $\overline{\In^{\mu X.(A)^\circ}\langle (K[N/x])^\circ \rangle}
=
\overline{\In^{\mu X.(A)^\circ}\<(K)^\circ\>}[\overline{(N)^\circ}/x']$ holds by Lemma \[lem:Duality\_Substitution\_DCmu\], since the third claim for $\In^{\mu X.(A)^\circ}\langle (K)^\circ \rangle$ is already shown before this case. Then we can obtain the claim of this case as follows:
$\overline{(\Out^{\nu X.A}[K])[N/x]}
=
(\,\overline{\In^{\mu X.(A)^\circ}\<(K[N/x])^\circ \>}\,)^\circ
=
(\,\overline{\In^{\mu X.(A)^\circ}\<(K)^\circ\>}[\overline{(N)^\circ}/x']\,)^\circ
=
(\,\overline{\In^{\mu X.(A)^\circ}\<(K)^\circ\>}\,)^\circ[(\overline{(N)^\circ})^\circ/x]
=
\overline{\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]}[((\overline{N})^\circ)^\circ/x]
=
\overline{\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]}[\overline{N}/x]
$.
The third claim of this case is shown similarly.
The second and third claims of the case $\Coitr^A_x\langle M, N\rangle$ is shown in the similar way to the case of $\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]$.
Note that the second and third claims of the above lemma cannot be proved straightforwardly by induction on $D$. For example, for proving the case of $\In^{\mu X.A}\<M\>$ in the second claim, we need induction hypothesis for $\Map^{X.A}_{\mu X.A,Y,\alpha}\{\,
x.(y\bullet (x@\alpha)), \beta
\,\}
$ but it is not a subterm of $\In^{\mu X.A}\<M\>$.
The next proposition says the translation $\overline{(-)}$ preserves provability.
\[prop:DCMUtoSDC\_provability\] If $J$ is provable in $\DCmu$, then $\overline{J}$ is provable in $\DCtwo$.
This is shown by induction on the degree of the principal expression in $J$. We show the cases of $\In^{\mu X.A}\langle M \rangle$, $\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]$, $\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]$, and $\Coitr^A_x\langle M, N \rangle$.
The case of $\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]$ is shown by the induction hypothesis and Lemma \[lemma:subst\_term\]. The cases of $\Coitr^A_x\langle M, N \rangle$ and $\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]$ are shown by the induction hypothesis and the dualities of $\DCmu$ and $\DCtwo$.
We prove the case of $\In^{\mu}\langle M \rangle$. We write $\mu$, $A[B]$, and $\overline{A}[C]$ as abbreviations of $\mu X.A$, $A[B/X]$, and $\overline{A}[C/X]$ respectively. This case is shown by the following three steps: (a) we show $\mathcal{R}_M\{y,\gamma\}\colon (\overline{\mu}\supset Y)\supset \overline{A}[\overline{\mu}] \supset \overline{A}[Y] \dcmid \overline{\Gamma}, y\colon \overline{A}[Y]\supset Y \prove \overline{\Delta}, \gamma\colon \overline{A}[Y]$ is derivable, where $\mathcal{R}_M\{y,\gamma\}$ is $(\lambda(x,\alpha).(x\bullet \A[y@\alpha])\,)@(\overline{M}@\gamma)$. Next, (b) we show $\quad \prove \quad \dcmid \mathcal{Q}_Y[X.A]\colon (\overline{\mu}\supset Y) \supset \overline{A}[\overline{\mu}] \supset \overline{A}[Y]$ is derivable, where ${\mathcal Q}_Y[X.A]$ is $\lambda y.\lambda(z,\beta).
(\,
z\bullet \overline{
\Map^{X.A}_{\mu X.A,Y,\alpha}\{\,
x.(y\bullet (x@\alpha)), \beta
\,\}
}
\,)$. Finally, (c) we can easily show $\overline{\Gamma} \prove \overline{\Delta} \dcmid \In^{\mu}\langle M\rangle\colon \mu$ from (a) and (b).
The claim (a) is shown in the following way. Suppose $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid \In^{\mu}\langle M \rangle\colon \mu$ is derivable. Then we have the derivation of $\Gamma \prove \Delta \dcmid M\colon A[\mu]$. By the induction hypothesis and Lemma \[lemma:subst\_term\], we obtain $\overline{\Gamma} \prove \overline{\Delta} \dcmid \overline{M}\colon \overline{A}[\overline{\mu}]$. Then we have a derivation of $\overline{M}@\gamma\colon \overline{A}[\overline{\mu}] \supset \overline{A}[Y] \dcmid \overline{\Gamma} \prove \overline{\Delta}, \gamma\colon \overline{A}[Y]$ by $(\supset L)$ rule. On the other hand, we can show $y\colon \overline{A}[Y]\supset Y \prove \quad \dcmid \lambda(x,\alpha).(x\bullet \A[y@\alpha])\colon \overline{\mu} \supset Y$. Then we have $\mathcal{R}_M\{y,\gamma\}\colon (\overline{\mu}\supset Y)\supset \overline{A}[\overline{\mu}] \supset \overline{A}[Y] \dcmid \overline{\Gamma}, y\colon \overline{A}[Y]\supset Y \prove \overline{\Delta}, \gamma\colon \overline{A}[Y]$.
The claim (b) is shown as follows. We can show $\Map^{X.A}_{\mu,Y,\alpha}\{\,x.(y\bullet (x@\alpha)), \beta\,\}\colon A[\mu] \dcmid y\colon \mu\supset Y \prove \beta\colon A[Y]$ in $\DCmu$ by using Lemma \[lem:Map\], the judgment $x.(y\bullet (x@\alpha))\colon \mu \dcmid y\colon \mu\supset Y \prove \alpha\colon Y, \beta\colon A[Y]$, and $\beta \colon A[\mu] \dcmid y\colon \mu\supset Y \prove \beta\colon A[Y]$. By Lemma \[lem:evaluation\_of\_map\] (3), we have $\Deg(\In^{\mu X.A}\langle M \rangle) > \Deg(\Map^{X.A}_{\mu,Y,\alpha}\{\,x.(y\bullet (x@\alpha)), \beta\,\})$. Hence $\overline{\Map^{X.A}_{\mu,Y,\alpha}\{\,x.(y\bullet (x@\alpha)), \beta\,\}}\colon \overline{A}[\overline{\mu}] \dcmid y\colon \overline{\mu}\supset Y \prove \beta\colon \overline{A}[Y]$ is derivable by induction hypothesis and Lemma \[lemma:subst\_term\]. Therefore we obtain $\ \prove \quad \dcmid \mathcal{Q}_Y[X.A]\colon (\overline{\mu}\supset Y) \supset \overline{A}[\overline{\mu}] \supset \overline{A}[Y]$.
The other cases are straightforwardly proved by the induction hypothesis.
The translation $\overline{(-)}$ maps one-step reduction to one or more steps of reduction.
\[prop:DCMUtoSDC\_reduction\] For expressions $D$ and $E$ of $\DCmu$, the relation $D \longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu} E$ implies $\overline{D} \longrightarrow^+_{\Duca 2} \overline{E}$.
First we show the claim without $(\beta \mu)$ nor $(\beta\nu)$ by induction on $\longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu}$ with Lemma \[lemma:subst\_term\]. Next, by using this and Lemma \[lemma:subst\_term\], we show the claim of this proposition by induction on $\longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu}$. We consider cases according to the reduction rule.
The case of $(\beta\mu)$ is shown as follows: Suppose we have $\overline{\In^{\mu X.A}\langle M\rangle\bullet \Itr^B_\alpha[K,L]}$. This is equal to $\langle
\lambda (y,\beta).
(
y\bullet
(
(\mathcal{Q}_Y[X.A]\bullet\mathcal{R}_M\{y, \gamma\}).\gamma@\beta
)
)
\rangle\A
\bullet
\A[ ( \lambda (x.\alpha).(x\bullet \overline{K}) )@\overline{L} ]$. It is reduced to $(
\lambda (y,\beta).
(
y\bullet
(
(\mathcal{Q}_Y[X.A]\bullet\mathcal{R}_M\{y, \gamma\}).\gamma@\beta
)
)
)
\bullet
( ( \lambda (x.\alpha).(x\bullet \overline{K}) )@\overline{L} )$, and then we have $(
\lambda (x.\alpha).(x\bullet \overline{K})
)
\bullet
(
(
\mathcal{Q}_Y[X.A]\bullet\mathcal{R}_M\{
\lambda (x.\alpha).(x\bullet \overline{K}) , \gamma
\}
).\gamma@\overline{L}
)$ by more than one step reduction. Since $\lambda (x.\alpha).(x\bullet \overline{K})$ equals $\lambda x.((x\bullet \overline{K}).\alpha)$, we have $
((
\mathcal{Q}_Y[X.A]\bullet\mathcal{R}_M\{
\lambda (x.\alpha).(x\bullet \overline{K}) , \gamma
\}
).\gamma
\bullet
\overline{K}).\alpha \bullet \overline{L}$ by $(\beta\supset)$. This is reduced to $((
\mathcal{Q}_Y[X.A]\bullet\mathcal{R}_M\{
\lambda (x.\alpha).(x\bullet \overline{K}) , \overline{K}
\}).\alpha \bullet \overline{L}$ by $(\beta R)$. Here $\mathcal{R}_M\{
\lambda (x.\alpha).(x\bullet \overline{K}) , \overline{K}
\}$ is equal to $(
\overline{\lambda(y,\beta).(y\bullet \Itr^B_\alpha[K, \beta])}@(\overline{M}@\overline{K})
)$. Hence we can reduce $\mathcal{Q}_Y[X.A]
\bullet
\mathcal{R}_M\{
\lambda (x.\alpha).(x\bullet \overline{K}) , \overline{K}
\}$ to $\overline{M} \bullet \overline{\Map^{X.A}_{\mu, Y, \alpha}\{\Itr^B_\alpha[K,\beta], K\}}$ by using Lemma \[lemma:subst\_term\] and the first claim. Therefore the previously obtained expression $((
\mathcal{Q}_Y[X.A]\bullet\mathcal{R}_M\{
\lambda (x.\alpha).(x\bullet \overline{K}) , \overline{K}
\}).\alpha \bullet \overline{L}$ is reduced to $(
\overline{M} \bullet \overline{\Map^{X.A}_{\mu X.A, Y, \alpha}\{\Itr^B_\alpha[K,\beta], K\}}
).\alpha \bullet \overline{L}$. This is equal to $\overline{
(M
\bullet
\Map^{X.A}_{\mu X.A,Y,\beta}\{
\Itr^B_\alpha[K,\beta], K
\}).\alpha \bullet L
}$.
The case of $(\beta\nu)$ is shown by using the duality of $(\beta\nu)$ and $(\beta\mu)$, the duality of $\DCtwo$, and Lemma \[lemma:commute\].
Other cases are shown straightforwardly.
Finally, we complete a proof of strong normalization of $\DCmu$.
\[thm:SN\_iDuca\] Every typable expression of $\DCmu$ is strongly normalizing.
Assume that $D$ is typable in $\DCmu$ and there is an infinite reduction sequence $$D \longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu} D_1 \longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu} \ldots$$ starting from $D$. Then $\overline{D}$ is typable in $\DCtwo$ by Proposition \[prop:DCMUtoSDC\_provability\] and $$\overline{D} \longrightarrow^+_{\Duca 2} \overline{D_1} \longrightarrow^+_{\Duca 2} \ldots$$ is an infinite reduction sequence starting from $\overline D$ by Proposition \[prop:DCMUtoSDC\_reduction\]. This contradicts Theorem \[thm:SN\_DCtwo\].
The call-by-value and call-by-name Dual Calculus with inductive and coinductive types {#CbvCbnDCmu}
=======================================================================================
The motivation for introducing the dual calculus in [@Wad03:01] was to show the duality between call-by-value and call-by-name. In this section, we follow this motivation. That is, we will extend the duality to inductive and coinductive types by introducing the call-by-value and call-by-name variants of $\DCmu$. These variants also satisfy the important properties such as strong normalization and the Church-Rosser property.
We recall the definition of the call-by-value and call-by-name $\DC$. The call-by-value and call-by-name dual calculus use the notion of values and covalues. They are defined as follows.
The values (denoted by $V, W,\ldots$) and covalues (denoted by $P, Q, \ldots$) of $\DC$ are defined by the following grammar: $$\begin{array}{l}
V ::= x \mid \langle V,V\rangle \mid \langle V\rangle\Inl \mid \langle V\rangle\Inr \mid [K]\Not,
\\
P ::= \alpha \mid [P,P] \mid \Fst[P] \mid \Snd[P] \mid \Not\<M\>,
\end{array}$$ where $M$ is a term and $K$ is a coterm of $\DC$.
The types, expressions, and typing rules of the call-by-value and call-by-name $\DC$ are the same as them of $\DC$. The call-by-value reduction relation of $\DC$ is defined as follows.
The call-by-value reduction relation $\longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC}$ of $\DC$ is defined from the following rules. $$\begin{array}{ll}
(\beta\land_1) _v&
\langle V,W\rangle\bullet \Fst[K] \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} V\bullet K, \\
(\beta\land_2)_ v&
\langle V,W\rangle\bullet \Snd[K] \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} W\bullet K, \\
(\beta\vee_1)_v&
\langle V\rangle\Inl \bullet [K,L] \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} V\bullet K, \\
(\beta\vee_2)_v&
\langle W\rangle\Inr \bullet [K,L] \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} W\bullet L, \\
(\beta\neg)_v&
[K]\Not \bullet \Not\langle M\rangle \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} M\bullet K,\\
(\beta R)_v&
(S).\alpha \bullet K \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} S[K/\alpha],\\
(\beta L)_v&
V \bullet x.(S) \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} S[V/x],\\
(\varsigma \land_1)_v&
\<\nvalue,N\> \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} (\nvalue\bullet x.(\<x,N\>\bullet \alpha)).\alpha, \\
(\varsigma \land_2)_v&
\<V, \nvalue\> \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} (\nvalue\bullet x.(\<V,x\>\bullet \alpha)).\alpha, \\
(\varsigma \vee_1)_v&
\<\nvalue\>\Inl \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} (\nvalue\bullet x.(\<x\>\Inl\bullet \alpha)).\alpha, \\
(\varsigma \vee_2)_v&
\<\nvalue\>\Inr \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} (\nvalue\bullet x.(\<x\>\Inr\bullet \alpha)).\alpha, \\
(\eta R)^+_v&
M \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} (M\bullet \alpha).\alpha,\quad \mbox{and}\\
(\eta L)^+_v&
K \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} x.(x\bullet K),
\end{array}$$ where $\nvalue$ is not a value, and $x$ and $\alpha$ in $(\varsigma\land_1)_v$, $(\varsigma\land_2)_v$, $(\varsigma\vee_1)_v$, $(\varsigma\vee_2)_v$, $(\eta L)^+_v$ and $(\eta R)^+_v$ are fresh.
An example of use of $\varsigma$-rules is $$\<(S).\alpha\>\Inl \red^v_\Duca ((S).\alpha \bullet x.(\<x\>\Inl \bullet \beta)).\beta \red^v_\Duca (S[x.(\<x\>\Inl \bullet \beta)/\alpha]).\beta.$$ This system is obtained from the call-by-value dual calculus given in [@Wad03:01] by removing the implication.
We note that the original system in [@Wad03:01] includes implication types, values for implication, and a call-by-value $\beta$-rule for implication. However, as mentioned in [@Wad03:01], an implication $A \supset B$ can be defined as $\neg(A\land \neg B)$ under call-by-value. Hence each value for implication can be replaced a value in terms of other connectives, and the reduction rule for implication can be simulated by the other $\beta$-rules.
The rules $(\varsigma\land_1)_v$, $(\varsigma\land_2)_v$, $(\varsigma\vee_1)_v$, and $(\varsigma\vee_2)_v$ are the separated forms of the rule $(\varsigma)$ given in [@Wad03:01], and our rules are equivalent to his rule. However, we prefer this separated form since this form is easy to add $\varsigma$-rules for inductive and coinductive types later.
The symbol $+$ used in $(\eta L)^+_v$ and $(\eta R)^+_v$ means $\eta$-expansion rules. When we extend call-by-value and call-by-name calculi with inductive and coinductive types later in this section, we will use the reduction $(\eta R)$ and $(\eta L)$ instead of the above expansion $(\eta R)_v^+$ and $(\eta L)_v^+$ for the following reasons. In [@Wad03:01], $\eta$-rules requires side conditions to avoid infinite reduction sequence: “expansions $(\eta L)$ and $(\eta R)$ should be applied only to a term $M$ or coterm $K$ that is not the immediate subject of a cut”. However, two problems still remain about $\eta$-expansion rules. One problem is that a value becomes non-value by the $\eta$-expansion: For example, a value $x$ is expanded to a non-value $(x\bullet \alpha).\alpha$ by $(\eta R)^+_v$-rule. The second problem is that infinite reduction sequences occur with $\varsigma$-rule: For example, $\<x\>\Inl \bullet \beta$ is reduced to $\<(x\bullet \alpha).\alpha\>\Inl\bullet \beta$ by $(\eta R)^+_v$. Since $(x\bullet \alpha).\alpha$ is not a value, it can be reduced to $((x\bullet \alpha).\alpha \bullet y.(\<y\>\Inl\bullet \gamma)).\gamma \bullet \beta$ by $(\varsigma\vee_1)_v$. Then, we have $\<x\>\Inl \bullet \beta$ again by $(\beta L)_v$ and $(\beta R)_v$-rules. Tzevelekos [@Tzevelekos06] assumed additional conditions on $\eta$-expansion rules, and showed strong normalization and the Church-Rosser properties of the call-by-value and call-by-name $\DC$ under his conditions. However, his approach does not solve the first problem. One simple solution for the both problems is to replace $\eta$-expansion by $\eta$-reduction. For this reason, we will adopt $\eta$-reduction in our call-by-value and call-by-name systems.
The dual calculus considered in [@Wad05:01] has $\eta$-rules for conjunction, disjunction, and negation. These rules could be defined naturally because the system in [@Wad05:01] was based on equations. However, we cannot define these $\eta$-rules naively in the call-by-value and call-by-name reduction systems of $\DC$ since these rules break the Church-Rosser property: The call-by-value $(\eta\vee)$-rule defined in [@Wad05:01] is $[x.(\<x\>\Inl\bullet K), y.(\<y\>\Inr\bullet K)] = K$, where $K$ has type $A\vee B$. Suppose that we add $(\eta\vee)$-reduction rule $[x_1.(\<x_1\>\Inl\bullet K), x_2.(\<x_2\>\Inr\bullet K)] \to^v_{\Duca} K$ to the call-by-value $\DC$. Then the statement $[x_1.(\<x_1\>\Inl\bullet y.(z\bullet \alpha)), x_2.(\<x_2\>\Inr\bullet y.(z\bullet \alpha))]$ has two normal forms $[x_1.(z\bullet \alpha), x_2.(z\bullet \alpha)]$ and $y.(z\bullet \alpha)$. Suppose that we add $(\eta\vee)$-expansion rule $K \to^v_{\Duca} [x_1.(\<x_1\>\Inl\bullet K), x_2.(\<x_2\>\Inr\bullet K)]$ to the call-by-value $\DC$. The statement $x\bullet y.(z\bullet \alpha)$ (the variable $z$ and the covariable $\alpha$ have type $X$, and the variables $x$ and $y$ have type $A\vee B$) is reduced to $z\bullet \alpha$ by $(\beta_L)$-rule. The statement $x\bullet y.(z\bullet \alpha)$ is also expanded to $x\bullet [x_1.(\<x_1\>\Inl\bullet y.(z\bullet \alpha)), x_2.(\<x_2\>\Inr\bullet y.(z\bullet \alpha))]$ by $(\eta\vee)$-rule, and then it is reduced to $x\bullet [x_1.(z\bullet \alpha), x_2.(z\bullet \alpha)]$ by $(\beta_L)_v$-rule. These two results are never confluent since the first one $z\bullet \alpha$ cannot produce a coterm of the form $[K,L]$, and the bracket $[..]$ in the second one $x\bullet [x_1.(z\bullet \alpha), x_2.(z\bullet \alpha)]$ cannot be eliminated.
The call-by-name reduction relation of $\DC$ is defined as follows.
The call-by-name reduction relation $\longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC}$ of $\DC$ is defined from the following rules. $$\begin{array}{ll}
(\beta\land_1) _n&
\langle M,N\rangle\bullet \Fst[P] \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} M\bullet P, \\
(\beta\land_2)_ n&
\langle M,N\rangle\bullet \Snd[P] \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} N\bullet P, \\
(\beta\vee_1)_n&
\langle M\rangle\Inl \bullet [P,Q] \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} M\bullet P, \\
(\beta\vee_2)_n&
\langle M\rangle\Inr \bullet [P,Q] \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} M\bullet Q, \\
(\beta\neg)_n&
[K]\Not \bullet \Not\langle M\rangle \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} M\bullet K,\\
(\beta R)_n&
(S).\alpha \bullet P \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} S[P/\alpha],\\
(\beta L)_n&
M \bullet x.(S) \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} S[M/x],\\
(\varsigma \land_1)_n&
\Fst[\ncovalue] \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} x.((x\bullet \Fst[\alpha]).\alpha \bullet \ncovalue), \\
(\varsigma \land_2)_n&
\Snd[\ncovalue] \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} x.((x\bullet \Snd[\alpha]).\alpha \bullet \ncovalue), \\
(\varsigma \vee_1)_n&
[\ncovalue,L] \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} x.((x\bullet [\alpha,L]).\alpha \bullet \ncovalue), \\
(\varsigma \vee_2)_n&
[P,\ncovalue] \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} x.((x\bullet [P,\alpha]).\alpha \bullet \ncovalue), \\
(\eta R)^+_n&
M \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} (M\bullet \alpha).\alpha,\quad \mbox{and}\\
(\eta L)^+_n&
K \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} x.(x\bullet K),
\end{array}$$ where $\ncovalue$ is not a covalue, and $x$ and $\alpha$ in $(\varsigma\land_1)_n$, $(\varsigma\land_2)_n$, $(\varsigma\vee_1)_n$, $(\varsigma\vee_2)_n$, $(\eta L)^+_n$ and $(\eta R)^+_n$ are fresh.
This system is obtained from the call-by-name dual calculus given in [@Wad03:01] by removing the implication.
As mentioned in [@Wad03:01], an implication $A \supset B$ can be defined as $\neg A\vee B$ under call-by-name. Hence, covalues for implication, and a call-by-name reduction rules for implication given in the original system can be replaced in terms of other connectives.
The call-by-value reduction and the call-by-name reduction are dual strategies in $\DC$.
Let $D$ and $E$ be expressions of $\DC$. Then, $D \longrightarrow^v_{\tt DC} E$ iff $(D)^\circ \longrightarrow^n_{\tt DC} (E)^\circ$, where $(-)^\circ$ is the duality transformation defined in the section 2.
Now we will introduce the call-by-value and call-by-name variants of $\DCmu$. We first consider a call-by-value restriction of $\DCmu$ (called [*weak call-by-value $\DCmu$*]{}) which is given by simply restricting the reduction rules of $\DCmu$. This restricted system satisfies both strong normalization and the Church-Rosser properties. However, this system is rather weak since it lacks the $\varsigma$-rules. The call-by-value $\DCmu$ (denoted by ${\tt CBV}$ $\Duca\mu\nu$) is obtained by adding the $\varsigma$-rules to the weak call-by-value $\DCmu$. The weak call-by-name $\DCmu$ and the call-by-name $\DCmu$ (denoted by ${\tt CBN}$ $\Duca\mu\nu$) are also considered. The call-by-name $\DCmu$ is the dual system of the call-by-value $\DCmu$.
We first define the notion of values and covalues in $\DCmu$.
The values (denoted by $V, W, \ldots$) and the covalues (denoted by $P, Q, \ldots$) of $\DCmu$ are defined by the following grammar: $$\begin{array}{l}
V ::= x \mid \langle V,V\rangle \mid \langle V\rangle\Inl \mid \langle V\rangle\Inr \mid [K]\Not
\mid \In^{\mu X.A}\langle V\rangle \mid \Coitr^A_x\langle M,V\rangle,
\\
P ::= \alpha \mid [P,P] \mid \Fst[P] \mid \Snd[P] \mid \Not\<M\>
\mid \Out^{\nu X.A}[P] \mid \Itr^A_\alpha[K,P],
\end{array}$$ where $M$ is a term and $K$ is a coterm of $\DCmu$.
The set of values of $\DCmu$ is a subset of terms of $\DCmu$. The set of covalues of $\DCmu$ is a subset of coterms of $\DCmu$. Note that the above definition is a straightforward extension of the definition of values and covalues in $\DC$.
The set of values and covalues are closed under substitution of values and covalues, respectively.
\[lem:subst\_value\] Let $V$ and $W$ be values, and $P$ and $Q$ be covalues of $\DCmu$. The following claims hold.
1. $V[W/x]$ is a value of $\DCmu$.
2. $P[Q/\alpha]$ is a covalue of $\DCmu$.
They are straightforwardly proved by induction on $V$ and $P$.
The types, expressions, and typing rules of the weak call-by-value and the weak call-by-name $\DCmu$ are the same as them of $\DCmu$. The reduction relation of the weak call-by-value $\DCmu$ is given as follows.
The reduction relation $\wCBVred$ of the weak call-by-value $\DCmu$ is defined as the compatible closure of the reduction rules $(\beta\land_1)_v$, $(\beta\land_2)_v$, $(\beta\vee_1)_v$, $(\beta\vee_2)_v$, $(\beta\neg)_v$, $(\beta R)_v$, $(\beta L)_v$, and the following reduction rules:\
$\begin{array}{ll}
(\beta\mu)_v&
\In^{\mu X.C}\langle V\rangle \bullet \Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]
\wCBVred
(V\bullet \Map^{X.C}_{\mu X.C, A,\beta}\{\, \Itr^A_\alpha[K,\beta],\, K\,\}).\alpha \bullet L,
\\
(\beta\nu)_v&
\Coitr^A_x\langle M,V\rangle \bullet \Out^{\nu X.C}[K]
\wCBVred
V \bullet x.(\Map^{X.C}_{A,\nu X.C,z}\{\,\Coitr^A_x\langle M, z\rangle,\, M\,\}\bullet K),
\\
(\eta R)_v&
(M\bullet \alpha).\alpha \wCBVred M,
\\
(\eta L)_v&
x.(x\bullet K) \wCBVred K,
\end{array}$\
where $x$ and $\alpha$ are fresh in $(\eta L)_v$ and $(\eta R)_v$, respectively.
The reduction relation of the weak call-by-name $\DCmu$ is given as follows.
The reduction relation $\wCBNred$ of the weak call-by-name $\DCmu$ is defined as the compatible closure of the reduction rules $(\beta\land_1)_n$, $(\beta\land_2)_n$, $(\beta\vee_1)_n$, $(\beta\vee_2)_n$, $(\beta\neg)_n$, $(\beta R)_n$, $(\beta L)_n$, and the following reduction rules:\
$\begin{array}{ll}
(\beta\mu)_n&
\In^{\mu X.C}\langle M\rangle \bullet \Itr^A_\alpha[K,P]
\wCBNred
(M\bullet
\Map^{X.C}_{\mu X.C, A,\beta}\{\, \Itr^A_\alpha[K,\beta],\, K\,\}).\alpha \bullet P,\\
(\beta\nu)_n&
\Coitr^A_x\langle M,N\rangle \bullet \Out^{\nu X.C}[P]
\wCBNred
M \bullet
x.(\Map^{X.C}_{A,\nu X.C,z}\{\,\Coitr^A_x\langle M, z\rangle,\, M\,\} \bullet P), \\
(\eta R)_n&
(M\bullet \alpha).\alpha \wCBNred M, \\
(\eta L)_n&
x.(x\bullet K) \wCBNred K,
\end{array}$\
where $x$ and $\alpha$ are fresh in $(\eta L)_n$ and $(\eta R)_n$, respectively.
The weak call-by-value reduction and the weak call-by-name reduction are dual strategies.
\[prop:dual\_wCBVwCBN\] Let $D$ and $E$ be expressions of $\DCmu$. Then, $D \wCBVred E$ iff $(D)^\circ \wCBNred (E)^\circ$, where $(-)^\circ$ is the duality transformation of $\DCmu$ defined in the section 3.
The rules $(\beta\neg)_v$, $(\beta R)_v$, $(\eta L)_v$, and $(\eta R)_v$ are the same as $(\beta\neg)$, $(\beta R)$, $(\eta L)$, and $(\eta R)$-rules of $\DCmu$, respectively. The rules $(\beta\land_1)_v$, $(\beta\land_2)_v$, $(\beta\vee_1)_v$, $(\beta\vee_2)_v$, $(\beta L)_v$, $(\beta\mu)_v$, and $(\beta\nu)_v$ are just restrictions of the rules $(\beta\land_1)$, $(\beta\land_2)$, $(\beta\vee_1)$, $(\beta\vee_2)$, $(\beta L)$, $(\beta\mu)$, and $(\beta\nu)$, respectively. The situation of the call-by-name case is similar to the call-by-value case. Hence, we can easily obtain the following proposition.
Let $D$ and $E$ be expressions in $\DCmu$. Then the following claims hold.
1. If $D \wCBVred E$, then $D \longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu} E$.
2. If $D \wCBNred E$, then $D \longrightarrow_{\Duca\mu\nu} E$.
From the above proposition and the strong normalization result of $\DCmu$ (Theorem \[thm:SN\_iDuca\]), we have the strong normalization of the weak call-by-value and the weak call-by-name reduction relations.
\[prop:SN\_wCBVwCBN\] We have the following.
1. Every typable expression is strongly normalizing in the weak call-by-value $\DCmu$.
2. Every typable expression is strongly normalizing in the weak call-by-name $\DCmu$.
The reduction relations $\wCBVred$ and $\wCBNred$ of $\DCmu$ satisfy the Church-Rosser property. We first recall the definition of the Church-Rosser property.
Let $A$ be a set and $\rightarrow$ be a reduction relation on $A$. We write $b \leftarrow a \rightarrow c$ if both $a \rightarrow b$ and $a \rightarrow c$ hold. We also write $b \rightarrow a \leftarrow c$ if both $b \rightarrow a$ and $c \rightarrow a$ hold.
(1) The reduction relation $\to$ satisfies the diamond property if, for all $a, b, c \in A$, the relation $b \leftarrow a \rightarrow c$ implies that there exists $d \in A$ such that $b \rightarrow d \leftarrow c$.
(2) The reduction relation $\to$ satisfies the Church-Rosser property if $\to^*$ satisfies the diamond property, where $\to^*$ is the reflexive transitive closure of $\to$.
From now on, we concentrate to show the Church-Rosser property of $\wCBVred$. The Church-Rosser property of $\wCBNred$ can be obtained from the result of $\wCBVred$ and the duality (Proposition \[prop:dual\_wCBVwCBN\]). In order to show the Church-Rosser property of $\wCBVred$, we will use the parallel reduction technique. The definition of the parallel reduction relation is given as follows.
The parallel reduction relation (denoted by $\pared$) of the weak call-by-value $\DCmu$ is defined inductively from the following rules.
$x \pared x$ and $\alpha \pared \alpha$ for any variable $x$ and covariable $\alpha$.
$\< M,N\> \pared \<M',N'\>$ if $M \pared M'$ and $N \pared N'$.
$[K,L] \pared [K',L']$ if $K \pared K'$ and $L \pared L'$.
$\< M\>\Inl \pared \<M'\>\Inl$, $\< M\>\Inr \pared \<M'\>\Inr$, and $\Not\<M\> \pared \Not\<M'\>$ if $M \pared M'$.
$\Fst[K] \pared \Fst[K']$, $\Snd[K] \pared \Snd[K']$, and $[K]\Not \pared [K']\Not$ if $K \pared K'$.
$\In^{\mu X.A}\< M\> \pared \In^{\mu X.A}\<M'\>$if $M \pared M'$.
$\Out^{\nu X.A}[K] \pared \Out^{\nu X.A}[K']$if $K \pared K'$.
$\Coitr^A_x\< M,N\> \pared \Coitr^A_x\<M',N'\>$if $M \pared M'$ and $N \pared N'$.
$\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L] \pared \Itr^A_\alpha[K',L']$if $K \pared K'$ and $L \pared L'$.
$M\bullet K \pared M'\bullet K'$if $M \pared M'$ and $K \pared K'$.
$(S).\alpha \pared (S').\alpha$ and $x.(S) \pared x.(S')$if $S \pared S'$.
$M\bullet x.(S) \pared S'[V/x]$if $M \pared V$ and $S \pared S'$.
$(S).\alpha\bullet K \pared S'[K'/\alpha]$if $K \pared K'$ and $S \pared S'$.
$\<M,N\>\bullet \Fst[K] \pared V\bullet K'$if $M \pared V$, $N \pared W$, and $K \pared K'$.
$\<M,N\>\bullet \Snd[K] \pared W\bullet K'$if $M \pared V$, $N \pared W$, and $K \pared K'$.
$\<M\>\Inl\bullet [K,L] \pared V\bullet K'$if $M \pared V$, $K \pared K'$.
$\<M\>\Inl\bullet [K,L] \pared V\bullet L'$if $M \pared V$, $L \pared L'$.
$[K]\Not\bullet \Not\<M\> \pared M'\bullet K'$if $M \pared M'$ and $K \pared K'$.
$\In^{\mu X.C}\langle M\rangle \bullet \Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]
\pared
(V\bullet \Map^{X.C}_{\mu X.C, A,\beta}\{\, \Itr^A_\alpha[K',\beta],\, K'\,\}).\alpha \bullet L'$if $M \pared V$, $K \pared K'$, and $L \pared L'$.
$\Coitr^A_x\langle M,N\rangle \bullet \Out^{\nu X.C}[K]
\pared
V \bullet x.(\Map^{X.C}_{A,\nu X.C,z}\{\,\Coitr^A_x\langle M', z\rangle,\, M'\,\}\bullet K')$if $M \pared M'$, $N \pared V$, and $K \pared K'$.
$(M\bullet \alpha).\alpha \pared M'$if $M \pared M'$ and $\alpha$ is not free in $M$.
$x.(x\bullet K) \pared K'$if $K \pared K'$ and $x$ is not free in $K$.
The parallel reduction of the weak call-by-value $\DCmu$ satisfies the following basic properties.
\[lem:pared\_basic\] Let $M$ be a term, $V$ and $V'$ be values, $K$ and $K'$ be coterms, and $D$ and $D'$ be expressions of $\DCmu$. Then the following hold.
1. Suppose $D \pared E$. If $D$ is a term, then $E$ is also a term. If $D$ is a coterm, then $E$ is also a coterm. If $D$ is a statement, then $E$ is also a statement. If $D$ is a value, then $E$ is also a value.
2. $D \pared D$.
3. If $M \pared V$ and $D \pared D'$, then $D[M/x] \pared D'[V/x]$.
4. If $K \pared K'$ and $D \pared D'$, then $D[K/\alpha] \pared D'[K'/\alpha]$.
The claim (1) is shown by induction on the definition of $\pared$. The claim (2) is shown by induction on $D$.
The claim (3) is shown by induction on $D \pared D'$ with Lemma \[lem:subst\_value\]. We show the case that $N_0\bullet y.(T_0) \pared T_1[W/y]$ is derived from $N_0 \pared W$ and $T_0\pared T_1$. By the induction hypothesis, we have $N_0[M/x] \pared W[V/x]$ and $T_0[M/x] \pared T_1[V/x]$. By Lemma \[lem:subst\_value\], $W[V/x]$ is a value. Hence we have $(N_0\bullet y.(T_0))[M/x] = (N_0[M/x])\bullet y.(T_0[M/x])
\pared T_1[V/x][W[V/x]/y] = T_1[W/y][V/x]$. The other cases are straightforwardly proved by the induction hypothesis.
The claim (4) is shown by induction on $D \pared D'$.
\[lem:pared\_CR\] Let $D$ and $D'$ be expressions of $\DCmu$. Then the following claims hold.
1. If $D \wCBVred E$, then $D \pared E$.
2. If $D \pared E$, then $D \wCBVred^* E$.
3. The parallel reduction relation $\pared$ satisfies the diamond property, that is, if the relation $D_1 \Leftarrow D \pared D_2$ holds, then there exists $E$ such that $D_1 \pared E \Leftarrow D_2$.
The claim (1) is shown by induction on the definition of $\wCBVred$. The claim (2) is shown by induction on the definition of $\pared$.
The claim (3) is shown by induction on $D$. We show the case that $D$ is the shape of $(S).\alpha\bullet x.(T)$, $D_1$ is $S'[L/\alpha]$, and $D_2$ is $T'[V/x]$ with the conditions $S \pared S'$, $T \pared T'$, $x.T \pared L$, and $(S).\alpha \pared V$. Recall that a critical pair in $\DCmu$ occurs in this shape. This case is most important to see that this critical pair is avoided in the weak call-by-value $\DCmu$ .
From the definition of the parallel reduction and $(S).\alpha \pared V$, we have $S = M\bullet \alpha$, $M \pared V$, and $\alpha$ is not free in $M$. Then, from $M\bullet \alpha = S \pared S'$, we have the following two cases: (i) $S' = M'\bullet \alpha$ and $M \pared M'$ for some $M'$, or (ii) $M = (S_0).\beta$, $S' = {S_0}'[\alpha/\beta]$, and $S_0 \pared {S_0}'$ for some $S_0$ and ${S_0}'$. From the condition $x.(T) \pared L$, we also have the following two cases: (a) $T = x\bullet K$, $x$ is not free in $K$, and $K \pared L$ for some $K$ and $L$, or (b) $L = x.(T'')$ and $T \pared T''$ for some $T''$.
The case of (i). We have $D_1 = (S')[L/\alpha] = (M'\bullet \alpha)[L/\alpha] = M'\bullet L$. By the induction hypothesis and $V \Leftarrow M \Rightarrow M'$, there exists a term $W$ such that $V \Rightarrow W \Leftarrow M'$. From Lemma \[lem:pared\_basic\] (1), $W$ is a value. We then consider the subcases (a) and (b).
The subcase of (a). From the condition $K \Rightarrow L$ and $T = x\bullet K$, we have $(x\bullet L) \Leftarrow T \Rightarrow T'$. By the induction hypothesis, there exists a statement $\tilde{T}$ such that $(x\bullet L) \Rightarrow \tilde{T} \Leftarrow T'$. Hence we have $D_1 = (x\bullet L)[M'/x] \Rightarrow \tilde{T}[W/x] \Leftarrow T'[V/x] = D_2$ from $M' \Rightarrow W \Leftarrow V$ and Lemma \[lem:pared\_basic\] (3).
The subcase of (b). By the induction hypothesis and $T' \Leftarrow T \Rightarrow T''$, there exists $\tilde{T}$ such that $T' \Rightarrow \tilde{T} \Leftarrow T''$. Hence we have $D_2 = T'[V/x] \Rightarrow \tilde{T}[W/x]$ by Lemma \[lem:pared\_basic\] (3) and $V \Rightarrow W$. We also have $D_1 = M'\bullet L = M'\bullet x.(T'') \Rightarrow \tilde{T}[W/x]$ from $M'\Rightarrow W$ and $T''\Rightarrow \tilde{T}$. Therefore $D_1 \Rightarrow \tilde{T}[W/x] \Leftarrow D_2$ holds.
The case of (ii). We first claim that, for any $S$ and $V$, if $(S).\alpha \pared V$, then there is some $M$ such that $S = M \bullet \alpha$, $M\pared V$, and $\alpha$ is not free in $M$. This claim is easily obtained from the definition of the parallel reduction. In this case, we have $V \Leftarrow M = (S_0).\beta \Rightarrow ({S_0}').\beta$. By the induction hypothesis and Lemma \[lem:pared\_basic\] (1), there is a value $W$ such that $V \Rightarrow W \Leftarrow ({S_0}').\beta$. Then, there exists a $N$ such that ${S_0}' = N\bullet \beta$, $N \Rightarrow W$, and $\beta$ is not free in $N$ from the above claim. Hence we have $D_1 = S'[L/\alpha] = {S_0}'[\alpha/\beta][L/\alpha] = {S_0}'[L/\beta] = (N\bullet \beta)[L/\beta]
= N\bullet L$. We then consider the subcases (a) and (b).
The subcase of (a). By the induction hypothesis, there exists a statement $\tilde{T}$ such that $(x\bullet L) \Rightarrow \tilde{T} \Leftarrow T'$. Hence we have $D_1 = (x\bullet L)[N/x] \Rightarrow \tilde{T}[W/x] \Leftarrow T'[V/x] = D_2$ from $N \Rightarrow W \Leftarrow V$ and Lemma \[lem:pared\_basic\] (3).
The subcase of (b). By the induction hypothesis and $T' \Leftarrow T \Rightarrow T''$, there exists $\tilde{T}$ such that $T' \Rightarrow \tilde{T} \Leftarrow T''$. Hence we have $D_2 = T'[V/x] \Rightarrow \tilde{T}[W/x]$ by Lemma \[lem:pared\_basic\] (3) and $V \Rightarrow W$. We also have $D_1 = N\bullet L = N\bullet x.(T'') \Rightarrow \tilde{T}[W/x]$ from $N\Rightarrow W$ and $T''\Rightarrow \tilde{T}$. Therefore $D_1 \Rightarrow \tilde{T}[W/x] \Leftarrow D_2$ holds.
The other cases are also proved by the induction hypothesis.
From Lemma \[lem:pared\_CR\], we can obtain the Church-Rosser property of the weak call-by-value $\DCmu$.
The reduction relations $\wCBVred$ and $\wCBNred$ of $\DCmuV0$ satisfy the Church-Rosser property.
We first show the Church-Rosser property of $\wCBVred$. Suppose that $D \wCBVred^* D'$ and $D \wCBVred^* D''$ hold. We will show that there exists some $E$ such that $D' \wCBVred^* E$ and $D'' \wCBVred^* E$. We have $D = D_{00} \wCBVred D_{01}
\wCBVred \ldots \wCBVred D_{0n} = D'$ and $D \wCBVred D_{10} \wCBVred \ldots \wCBVred D_{1m} = D''$ for some $n, m\ge 0$. By Lemma \[lem:pared\_CR\] (1), $D \pared D_{01} \pared \ldots \pared D_{0n} = D'$ and $D \pared D''_{10} \pared \ldots \pared D''_{1m} = D''$ hold. By the diamond property of $\pared$, there exists $D_{(i+1)(j+1)}$ such that $D_{i(j+1)} \Rightarrow D_{(i+1)(j+1)} \Leftarrow D_{(i+1)j}$ for each $0 \le i \le n-1$ and $0 \le j \le m-1$. Hence we have $D' = D_{0n} \pared D_{1n} \pared \ldots\pared D_{mn}$ and $D'' = D_{m0} \pared D_{m1} \pared \ldots \pared D_{mn}$. By Lemma \[lem:pared\_CR\] (2), we can replace $\pared$ by $\wCBVred^*$. Therefore, we have $D' \wCBVred^* D_{mn}$ and $D'' \wCBVred^* D_{mn}$.
The Church-Rosser property of $\wCBNred$ is shown by the former result and the duality between $\wCBVred$ and $\wCBNred$ (Proposition \[prop:dual\_wCBVwCBN\]).
We will next define the call-by-value and the call-by-name $\DCmu$, which we call $\CBVDCmu$ and $\CBNDCmu$. The types, expressions, and typing rules of $\CBVDCmu$ and $\CBNDCmu$ are the same as them of $\DCmu$.
The reduction relation of $\CBVDCmu$ is obtained by adding $\varsigma$-rules to the weak call-by-value $\DCmu$.
The reduction relation $\CBVred$ of $\CBVDCmu$ is defined by the compatible closure of the reduction rules of the weak call-by-value $\DCmu$ and $(\varsigma \land_1)_v$, $(\varsigma \land_2)_v$, $(\varsigma \vee_1)_v$, $(\varsigma \vee_2)_v$, and the following reduction rules: $$\begin{array}{ll}
(\varsigma\mu)_v&
\In^{\mu X.C}\<\nvalue\>
\CBVred
(\nvalue \bullet x.(\In^{\mu X.C}\<x\>\bullet \alpha)).\alpha,\\
(\varsigma\nu)_v&
\Coitr^A_y\langle M,\nvalue\rangle
\CBVred
(\nvalue \bullet x.(\Coitr^A_y\langle M,x\rangle \bullet \alpha)).\alpha,
\end{array}$$ where $\nvalue$ is not a value of $\DCmu$, and the variable $x$ and the covariable $\alpha$ in $(\varsigma\mu)_v$, $(\varsigma\nu)_v$ are fresh.
We sometimes write $(\beta)_v$ to mean $(\beta\land_1)_v$, $(\beta\land_2)_v$, $(\beta\vee_1)_v$, $(\beta\vee_2)_v$, $(\beta\neg)_v$, $(\beta\mu)_v$, $(\beta\nu)_v$, $(\beta L)_v$, or $(\beta R)_v$-rule. We write $(\eta)_v$ to mean $(\eta L)_v$ or $(\eta L)_v$-rule. We also write $(\varsigma)_v$ to mean $(\varsigma\land_1)_v$, $(\varsigma\land_2)_v$, $(\varsigma\vee_1)_v$, $(\varsigma\vee_2)_v$, $(\varsigma\mu)_v$, or $(\varsigma\nu)_v$-rule.
The reduction relation of $\CBNDCmu$ is obtained by adding $\varsigma$-rules to the weak call-by-name $\DCmu$.
The reduction relation $\CBNred$ of $\CBNDCmu$ is defined by the compatible closure of the reduction rules of the weak call-by-name $\DCmu$ and $(\varsigma \land_1)_n$, $(\varsigma \land_2)_n$, $(\varsigma \vee_1)_n$, $(\varsigma \vee_2)_n$, and the following reduction rules: $$\begin{array}{ll}
(\varsigma\mu)_n&
\Itr^A_\beta[K,\ncovalue]
\CBNred
x.((x \bullet \Itr^A_\beta[K,\alpha]).\alpha \bullet \ncovalue),\\
(\varsigma\nu)_n&
\Out^{\nu X.C}[\ncovalue]
\CBNred
x.((x \bullet \Out^{\nu X.C}[\alpha]).\alpha\bullet \ncovalue),
\end{array}$$ where $\ncovalue$ is not a covalue of $\DCmu$, and the variable $x$ and the covariable $\alpha$ in $(\varsigma\mu)_n$, $(\varsigma\nu)_n$ are fresh.
From the above definitions, $\CBVDCmu$ includes the weak call-by-value $\DCmu$, and $\CBNDCmu$ includes the weak call-by-name $\DCmu$. That is, the following lemma holds.
\[lem:wCBVinCBV\] Let $D$ and $E$ be expressions of $\DCmu$. Then, the following claims hold.
1. If $D \wCBVred E$, then $D \CBVred E$.
2. If $D \wCBNred E$, then $D \CBNred E$.
The call-by-value $\DCmu$ is dual to the call-by-name $\DCmu$.
\[prop:dual\_CBVCBN\] Let $D$ and $E$ be expressions of $\DCmu$. Then, $D \CBVred E$ iff $(D)^\circ \CBNred (E)^\circ$, where $(-)^\circ$ is the duality transformation of $\DCmu$ defined in the section 3.
The call-by-value and call-by-name $\DCmu$ satisfy both the Church-Rosser and strong normalization properties. We will concentrate to show these properties of $\CBVDCmu$. The proof will be performed by giving a transformation from $\CBVDCmu$ into the weak call-by-value $\DCmu$. The transformation $(-)^\snow$ given as follows.
Let $D$ be a expression of $\DCmu$. The expression $(D)^\snow$ of $\DCmu$ is defined inductively as follows. $$\begin{array}{l}
(x)^\snow = x, \\
(\<V,W\>)^\snow = \<(V)^\snow, (W)^\snow\>, \\
(\<V,\nvalueb\>)^\snow = ((\nvalueb)^\snow \bullet y.(\<(V)^\snow, y\>\bullet \alpha)).\alpha, \\
(\<\nvalue,W\>)^\snow = ((\nvalue)^\snow \bullet x.(\<x,(W)^\snow\>\bullet \alpha)).\alpha, \\
(\<\nvalue,\nvalueb\>)^\snow
=
\Bigl((\nvalue)^\snow\bullet x.\bigl(((\nvalueb)^\snow\bullet y.(\<x,y\>\bullet \beta)).\beta\bullet \alpha\bigr)\Bigr).\alpha, \\
(\<V\>\Inl)^\snow = \<(V)^\snow\>\Inl, \\
(\<\nvalue\>\Inl)^\snow = ((\nvalue)^\snow \bullet x.(\<x\>\Inl\bullet \alpha)).\alpha, \\
(\<V\>\Inr)^\snow = \<(V)^\snow\>\Inr, \\
(\<\nvalue\>\Inr)^\snow = ((\nvalue)^\snow \bullet x.(\<x\>\Inr\bullet \alpha)).\alpha, \\
([K]\Not)^\snow = [(K)^\snow]\Not, \\
(\In^{\mu X.A}\<\nvalue\>)^\snow = ((\nvalue)^\snow \bullet x.(\In^{\mu X.A}\<x\>\bullet \alpha)).\alpha, \\
(\In^{\mu X.A}\<V\>)^\snow = \In^{\mu X.A}\<(V)^\snow\>, \\
(\Coitr^A_z\<M,V\>)^\snow = \Coitr^A_z\<(M)^\snow, (V)^\snow\>, \\
(\Coitr^A_z\<M,\nvalueb\>)^\snow
= ((\nvalueb)^\snow \bullet y.(\Coitr^A_z\<(M)^\snow, y\>\bullet \alpha)).\alpha, \\
((S).\alpha)^\snow = ((S)^\snow).\alpha, \\
(\alpha)^\snow = \alpha, \\
([K,L])^\snow = [(K)^\snow, (L)^\snow], \\
(\Fst[K])^\snow = \Fst[(K)^\snow], \\
(\Snd[K])^\snow = \Snd[(K)^\snow], \\
(\Not\<M\>)^\snow = \Not\<(M)^\snow\>, \\
(\Out^{\nu X.A}[K])^\snow = \Out^{\nu X.A}[(K)^\snow], \\
(\Itr^A_\gamma[K,L])^\snow = \Itr^A_\gamma[(K)^\snow, (L)^\snow], \\
(x.(S))^\snow = x.((S)^\snow), \quad\mbox{and}\\
(M\bullet K)^\snow = (M)^\snow\bullet (K)^\snow,
\end{array}$$ where $V$ and $W$ are values, $\nvalue$ and $\nvalueb$ are not values, and $x$, $y$, $\alpha$, $\beta$ are fresh.
We need the redundant definition of $(\<\nvalue,\nvalueb\>)^\snow$ for a technical reason, and it is necessary in order to show Proposition \[prop:transCBV\].
The transformation $(-)^\snow$ preserves typing.
\[prop:transCBV\_typing\] Let $M$ be a term, $K$ be a coterm, and $S$ be a statement of $\DCmu$. The following claims hold.
1. If $\Gamma \vdash_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta \mid M:A$ is provable, then $\Gamma \vdash_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta \mid (M)^\snow:A$ holds.
2. If $K:A \mid \Gamma \vdash_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$ is provable, then $(K)^\snow:A \mid \Gamma \vdash_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$ holds.
3. If $\Gamma \mid S \vdash_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$ is provable, then $\Gamma \mid (S)^\snow \vdash_{\Duca\mu\nu} \Delta$ holds.
They are shown simultaneously by induction on $M$, $K$, and $S$.
The transformation $(-)^\snow$ satisfies the following basic properties.
\[lem:transCBV\_basic\] Let $V$ be a value, $M$ and $N$ be terms, $D$ be an expression of $\DCmu$. Then the following claims hold.
1. $M$ is a value iff $(M)^\snow$ is a value.
2. $\<(M)^\snow, (N)^\snow\> \wCBVred^* (\<M,N\>)^\snow$.
3. $\<(M)^\snow\>\Inl \wCBVred^* (\<M\>\Inl)^\snow$, and $\<(M)^\snow\>\Inr \wCBVred^* (\<M\>\Inr)^\snow$.
4. $\In^{\mu X.A}\<(M)^\snow\> \wCBVred^* (\In^{\mu X.A}\<M\>)^\snow$.
5. $\Coitr^A_z\<(M)^\snow,(N)^\snow\> \wCBVred (\Coitr^A_z\<M,N\>)^\snow$.
6. $\Map^{X.A}_{B,C,x}\{(M)^\snow, (N)^\snow\} \wCBVred^* (\Map^{X.A}_{B,C,x}\{M, N\})^\snow$.
7. $\Map^{X.A}_{B,C,\alpha}\{(K)^\snow, (L)^\snow\} \wCBVred^* (\Map^{X.A}_{B,C,\alpha}\{K, L\})^\snow$.
8. $D \CBVred^* (D)^\snow$.
The claim (1) is shown by the definition of $(-)^\snow$. The claims (2a), (2b), (2c), and (2d) are shown by (1) and $\varsigma$-rules. The claims (3a) and (3b) are shown by induction on $||C||_X$ using (2a), (2b), (2c), and (2d). The claim (4) is shown by induction on $D$.
The transformation $(-)^\snow$ preserves substitution of a value for a variable, and of a coterm for a covariable.
\[lem:transCBV\_subst\] $(D[V/x])^\snow = (D)^\snow[(V)^\snow/x]$ and $(D[K/\alpha])^\snow = (D)^\snow[(K)^\snow/\alpha]$.
The former claim is shown by induction on $D$ using Lemma \[lem:transCBV\_basic\] (1). The latter one is shown by induction on $D$.
The transformation $(-)^\snow$ translates one step reduction of $\CBVred$ into zero or more steps reduction of $\wCBVred$.
\[prop:transCBV\] $D \CBVred E$ implies $(D)^\snow \wCBVred^* (E)^\snow$. In particular, if $D \CBVred E$ by $(\beta)_v$ or $(\eta)_v$, then $(D)^\snow \wCBVred^+ (E)^\snow$ holds.
The claim is shown by induction on the definition of $\CBVred$. We show the cases of $(\beta L)_v$, $(\beta\mu)_v$, and $(\varsigma\land_1)_v$.
The case of $(\beta L)_v$ is proved by Lemma \[lem:transCBV\_subst\]. We have $(V\bullet x.(S))^\snow = (V)^\snow \bullet x.((S)^\snow) \wCBVred (S)^\snow[(V)^\snow/x]$. By Lemma \[lem:transCBV\_subst\], the last statement is $(S[V/x])^\snow$.
The case of $(\beta\mu)_v$ is proved by Lemma \[lem:transCBV\_basic\] (3b). We have $(\In^{\mu X.C}\langle V\rangle \bullet \Itr^A_\alpha[K,L])^\snow
=
\In^{\mu X.C}\langle (V)^\snow \rangle \bullet \Itr^A_\alpha[(K)^\snow,(L)^\snow]
\wCBVred
((V)^\snow \bullet \Map^{X.C}_{\mu X.C, A,\beta}\{\, \Itr^A_\alpha[(K)^\snow,\beta],\, (K)^\snow\,\}).\alpha \bullet (L)^\snow
=
((V)^\snow \bullet \Map^{X.C}_{\mu X.C, A,\beta}\{\, (\Itr^A_\alpha[K,\beta])^\snow,\, (K)^\snow\,\}).\alpha \bullet (L)^\snow$. By Lemma \[lem:transCBV\_basic\] (3b), the last statement is reduced to $((V)^\snow \bullet (\Map^{X.C}_{\mu X.C, A,\beta}\{\, \Itr^A_\alpha[K,\beta],\, K\,\})^\snow).\alpha \bullet (L)^\snow$ by $\wCBVred^*$. Therefore this statement is $((V \bullet \Map^{X.C}_{\mu X.C, A,\beta}\{\, \Itr^A_\alpha[K,\beta],\, K\,\}).\alpha \bullet L)^\snow$.
The case of $(\varsigma\land_1)_v$ is proved by the definition of $(-)^\snow$. We consider the subcase of $\<\nvalue,\nvalueb\> \CBVred (\nvalue\bullet x.(\<x,\nvalueb\>\bullet \alpha)).\alpha$, where $\nvalue$ and $\nvalueb$ are not values. Hence we have $(\<\nvalue,\nvalueb\>)^\snow
=
\Bigl((\nvalue)^\snow\bullet x.\bigl(((\nvalueb)^\snow\bullet y.(\<x,y\>\bullet \beta)).\beta\bullet \alpha\bigr)\Bigr).\alpha
=
\bigl((\nvalue)^\snow\bullet x.\bigl((\<x,\nvalueb\>)^\snow\bullet \alpha\bigr)\bigr).\alpha
=
\bigl(\nvalue\bullet x.\bigl(\<x,\nvalueb\>\bullet \alpha\bigr)\bigr).\alpha\bigr)^\snow $. The other subcase of $(\varsigma\land_1)_v$ for $\<{\cal N},V\>$ with a non-value $\cal N$ is shown in the similar way.
The other cases are also shown by the induction hypothesis.
Then we can show the Church-Rosser property of $\CBVred$ and $\CBNred$.
The reduction relations $\CBVred$ of $\CBVDCmu$ and $\CBNred$ of $\CBNDCmu$ satisfy the Church-Rosser property.
We first show the Church-Rosser property of $\CBVred$.
Assume that $D \CBVred^* D'$ and $D \CBVred^* D''$ hold. By Proposition \[prop:transCBV\], we have $(D)^\snow \wCBVred^* (D')^\snow$ and $(D)^\snow \wCBVred^* (D'')^\snow$. By the Church-Rosser property of $\wCBVred$, there exists $E$ such that $(D')^\snow \wCBVred^* E$ and $(D'')^\snow \wCBVred^* E$. Therefore, by Lemma \[lem:wCBVinCBV\] (1) and Lemma \[lem:transCBV\_basic\] (4), we have $D' \CBVred^* (D')^\snow \CBVred^* E$ and $D'' \CBVred^* (D'')^\snow \CBVred^* E$.
The Church-Rosser property of $\CBNred$ is shown by the former result and the duality between $\CBVred$ and $\CBNred$ (Prop \[prop:dual\_CBVCBN\]).
We will prove strong normalization of $\CBVDCmu$ and $\CBNDCmu$. This property is shown by using the strong normalization result of the weak call-by-value and the weak call-by-name $\DCmu$ (Proposition \[prop:SN\_wCBVwCBN\]).
We define the following rank of expressions in $\DCmu$. This rank is used to show that there is no infinite sequence of $\varsigma$-rules.
Let $D$ be an expression in $\DCmu$. The rank $r(D)$ of $D$ is defined by: $$\begin{array}{l}
r(x) = r(\alpha) = 0, \\
r([K]\Not) = r(\Fst[K]) = r(\Snd[K]) = r(\Out^{\nu X.A}[K]) = r(K), \\
r([K,L]) = r(\Itr^A_\alpha[K,L]) = r(K)+r(L), \\
r(\Not\<M\>) = r(M), \\
r(\<\nvalue,\nvalueb\>) = r(\nvalue)+r(\nvalueb)+2, \\
r(\<\nvalue,V\>) = r(\<V,\nvalue\>) = r(\nvalue)+r(V) + 1, \\
r(\<V,W\>) = r(V) + r(W), \\
r(\<\nvalue\>\Inl) = r(\<\nvalue\>\Inr) = r(\In^{\mu X.A}\<\nvalue\>) = r(\nvalue) + 1, \\
r(\<V\>\Inl) = r(\<V\>\Inr) = r(\In^{\mu X.A}\<V\>) = r(V), \\
r(\Coitr^A_x\<M,\nvalueb\>) = r(M) + r(\nvalueb) + 1, \\
r(\Coitr^A_x\<M,V\>) = r(M) + r(V), \\
r(x.(S)) = r((S).\alpha) = r(S), \quad \mbox{and}\\
r(M\bullet K) = r(M) + r(K),
\end{array}$$ where $V$ and $W$ are values, and $\nvalue$ and $\nvalueb$ are not values.
The rank $r(D)$ counts the number of redexes of $(\varsigma\land_1)_v$, $(\varsigma\land_2)_v$, $(\varsigma\vee_1)_v$, $(\varsigma\vee_2)_v$, $(\varsigma\mu)_v$, and $(\varsigma\nu)_v$-rules. We write $D \longrightarrow_{\varsigma_v} E$ when $D$ is reduced to $E$ by one step $(\varsigma)_v$-reduction.
\[lem:varsigma\] Let $D$ and $E$ be expressions of $\DCmu$. Then, the following claims hold.
1. If $D \longrightarrow_{\varsigma_v} E$, then $r(D) > r(E)$.
2. There is no infinite sequence of $(\varsigma)_v$-reduction.
The claim (1) is shown by induction on $D$. The claim (2) is shown by (1).
We then show strong normalization of $\CBVDCmu$ and $\CBNDCmu$.
The following claims hold.
1. Every typable expression is strongly normalizing in $\CBVDCmu$.
2. Every typable expression is strongly normalizing in $\CBNDCmu$.
We first show the call-by-value case. Assume that $D$ is typable in $\DCmu$ and there is an infinite reduction sequence $$D \CBVred D_1 \CBVred \ldots$$ starting from $D$. Then $(D)^\snow$ is typable by Proposition \[prop:transCBV\_typing\], and we have $$(D)^\snow \wCBVred^* (D_1)^\snow \wCBVred^* \ldots$$ by Proposition \[prop:transCBV\]. From the strong normalization result of the weak call-by-value $\DCmu$ (Proposition \[prop:SN\_wCBVwCBN\]), there is some $D_k$ such that $$(D_k)^\snow = (D_{k+1})^\snow = \ldots.$$ By the latter part of Proposition \[prop:transCBV\], we have the following infinite sequence of $(\varsigma)_v$-reduction: $$D_k \longrightarrow_{\varsigma_v} D_{k+1}\longrightarrow_{\varsigma_v} \ldots.$$ This contradicts Lemma \[lem:varsigma\] (2).
The call-by-name case is proved by strong normalization of $\CBVDCmu$ and the duality between $\CBVDCmu$ and $\CBNDCmu$ (Proposition \[prop:dual\_CBVCBN\]).
Conclusion
==========
We have introduced the non-deterministic system $\DCmu$ by extending the dual calculus given in [@Wad03:01] with inductive types and coinductive types. Besides the same duality of the original dual calculus, we have shown the duality of inductive and coinductive types, by giving the involution that maps terms and coterms for inductive types to coterms and terms of coinductive types respectively and vice versa, and maps their reduction rules to each other. We have proved its strong normalization by translating it into the second-order dual calculus $\DC2$.
The second-order dual calculus $\DC2$ also have been introduced. Its strong normalization have been shown by translating it into the second-order symmetric lambda calculus.
We have finally introduced the call-by-value system $\CBVDCmu$ and the call-by-name system $\CBNDCmu$ of the dual calculus with inductive and coinductive types. We have shown the duality of call-by-value and call-by-name with inductive and coinductive types, their Church-Rosser property, and their strong normalization. Their strong normalization have been shown by translating them into $\DCmu$.
The first author introduced the call-by-value and call-by-name dual calculi with recursive types [@Kim07:02 section 4.2]. In these systems, a recursive type ${\tt rec}\ X.A$ can be defined for any type $A$. If we assume that ${\tt rec}\ X.A$ can be defined only if every $X$ positively occurs in $A$, then we can define two provability-preserving transformations from the dual calculi with recursive types into $\DCmu$. The one translates a recursive type to an inductive type, and the other translates a recursive type to a coinductive type. We could not straightforwardly show that these transformations preserve reductions (or equations) since some additional rules such as $\eta$-rules for connectives seem to be required. This problem would be future work.
The duality of call-by-value and call-by-name in $\lambda\mu$-calculus is shown by using the dual calculi in [@Wad05:01]. Since our systems $\CBVDCmu$ and $\CBNDCmu$ are extensions of his dual calculi, we could show the duality of call-by-value and call-by-name in $\lambda\mu$-calculus with inductive and coinductive definitions, by using our systems $\CBVDCmu$ and $\CBNDCmu$. It would be future work.
A reduction-based duality between call-by-value and call-by-name in the $\lambda\mu$-calculi was presented in [@Kim07:01], by refining Wadler’s result [@Wad05:01]. Extending the result given in [@Kim07:01] with inductive and coinductive types would be future work.
Our systems use the iteration for inductive types. An extension of the iteration to primitive recursion would be future work.
A CPS translation from the dual calculus to $\lambda$-calculus was given in [@Wad03:01]. Extending this CPS translation to the systems with inductive and coinductive types would be future work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The octant of the leptonic mixing angle $\theta_{23}$ and the CP phase $\delta_{CP}$ are the two major unknowns (apart from neutrino mass hierarchy) in neutrino oscillation physics. It is well known that the precise determination of octant and $\delta_{CP}$ is interlinked through the octant-${\delta_{CP}}$ degeneracy. In this paper we study the proficiency of the DUNE experiment to determine these parameters scrutinizing, in particular, the role played by the antineutrinos, the broadband nature of the beam and the matter effect. It is well known that for $P_{\mu e}$ and $P_{\bar{\mu} \bar{e}}$ the octant-$\delta_{CP}$ degeneracy occurs at different values of $\delta_{CP}$, combination of neutrino and antineutrino runs help to resolve this. However, in regions where neutrinos do not have octant degeneracy adding antineutrino data is expected to decrease the sensitivity because of the degeneracy and reduced statistics. However we find that in case of DUNE baseline, the antineutrino runs help even in parameter space where the antineutrino probabilities suffer from degeneracies. We explore this point in detail and point out that this happens because of the (i) broad-band nature of the beam so that even if there is degeneracy at a particular energy bin, over the whole spectrum the degeneracy may not be there; (ii) the enhanced matter effect due to the comparatively longer baseline which creates an increased tension between the neutrino and the antineutrino probabilities which raises the overall $\chi^2$ in case of combined runs. This feature is more prominent for IH since the antineutrino probabilities in this case are much higher than the neutrino probabilities due to matter effects. The main role of antineutrinos in enhancing CP sensitivity is their ability to remove the octant-$\delta_{CP}$ degeneracy. However even if one assumes octant to be known the addition of antineutrinos can give enhanced CP sensitivity in some parameter regions due to the tension between the neutrino and antineutrino $\chi^2$s.'
author:
- Newton Nath
- Monojit Ghosh
- Srubabati Goswami
bibliography:
- 'neutosc\_new.bib'
title: 'The physics of antineutrinos in DUNE and determination of octant and ${\delta_{CP}}$ '
---
Introduction
============
The discovery of a non-zero value of the 1-3 leptonic mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ by the reactor experiments have established the paradigm of oscillations of the neutrinos amongst three flavours on a firm footing. The parameters involved are: two mass squared differences – $\Delta m^2_{21}$, $\Delta m^2_{31}$, three mixing angles $\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{13}$ and the CP violating phase $\delta_{CP}$. Among these $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $\theta_{12}$ are measured by the solar neutrino and the KamLAND reactor neutrino experiments [@kamland]. The information on $\Delta m^2_{31}$ and $\theta_{23}$ has come from Super-Kamiokande (SK) [@sk_2010] atmospheric neutrino data, as well as from the data of the beam based experiments MINOS [@minos_latest] and T2K [@Abe:2014tzr]. The best-fit values and $3\sigma$ ranges of these parameters are given in [@Gonzalez-Garcia:2015qrr; @Capozzi:2016rtj] by analyzing the global neutrino data. The remaining unknown oscillation parameters are (i) the sign of $|\Delta m^2_{31}|$ or the neutrino mass ordering. If we assume the neutrinos to be hierarchical then there can be two types of ordering – the normal hierarchy (NH) corresponding to $m_1 \ll m_2 \ll m_3$ and $\Delta m^2_{31} > 0$ and the inverted hierarchy (IH) corresponding to $m_2 \approx m_1 \gg m_3$ and $\Delta m^2_{31} <0$, (ii) the octant of $\theta_{23}$ – with $\theta_{23} < 45^\circ$ corresponding to lower octant (LO) and $\theta_{23} > 45^\circ$ corresponding to higher octant (HO) and (iii) the CP violating phase ${\delta_{CP}}$ for which the full range from $-180^\circ< {\delta_{CP}}< 180^\circ$ is still allowed at $3 \sigma$ C.L. [@Gonzalez-Garcia:2015qrr; @Capozzi:2016rtj]. Information on these parameters can come from the currently running superbeam experiments T2K [@t2k_dcphierocthint] and [NO$\nu$A ]{}[@Adamson:2016tbq; @Adamson:2016xxw]. However this is possible only for favourable values of parameters. The main problem which these experiments can face is due to parameter degeneracies by which it is meant that same parameters giving equally good fit to the data. With $\theta_{13}$ unknown, an eight-fold degeneracy was identified which would make the precise determination of parameters difficult [@barger]. These were intrinsic $\theta_{13}$ degeneracy [@degeneracy3], hierarchy-${\delta_{CP}}$ degeneracy [@degeneracy2] and octant degeneracy [@lisidegen]. With the precise determination of $\theta_{13}$ [@t2k_t13_jun2011; @dchooz_latest; @An:2015rpe; @reno_t13] and inclusion of spectral information the intrinsic degeneracy is now solved. However the lack of knowledge of hierarchy, octant and ${\delta_{CP}}$ can still give rise to degenerate solutions which can affect the sensitivities of these experiments towards these parameters [@novat2k; @suprabhoctant; @minakata_cp; @Coloma:2014kca; @Ghosh:2015ena].
In this paper our focus is on the determination of the octant of $\theta_{23}$ and the CP phase ${\delta_{CP}}$. Currently the most precise measurements of the parameter $\theta_{23}$ comes from the T2K experiment. The primary channel for this is the survival probability $P_{\mu \mu}$. For baselines shorter than $1000$ km this probability is a function of $\sin^2 2\theta_{23}$ to the leading order and suffers from an intrinsic octant degeneracy which refers to the same value of probability for $\theta_{23}$ and $\pi/2 - \theta_{23}$. The leading order term of the appearance channel probability $P_{\mu e}$ depends on the combination $\sin^2 \theta_{23} \sin^2 2\theta_{13}$. Although this does not exhibit intrinsic octant degeneracy, there can be uncertainties due to the $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ factor. It was shown in [@hubercpv; @cpcombo_sugiyama] that combining the reactor measurement of $\theta_{13}$ with the accelerator data will be helpful for extraction of information on octant from this channel. Thus, the precise measurement of $\theta_{13}$ from the reactor experiments is expected to enhance the octant sensitivity coming from this channel. The combination of the disappearance and appearance channel measurements in long baseline experiments can also be helpful in resolving octant degeneracy because of the different functional dependence of the two probabilities on $\theta_{23}$. This creates a synergistic effect so that the octant sensitivity of both channels combined is higher [@octant_atmos; @suprabhoctant; @Coloma:2014kca]. T2K collaboration has performed a full three flavour analysis using information from both ($\nu_\mu - \nu_\mu$) and ($\nu_\mu - \nu_e$) channels. They obtain best-fit $\sin^2 \theta_{23} \sim 0.52$ with a preference for NH [@t2k_dcphierocthint]. MINOS collaboration has also completed their combined analysis of disappearance and appearance data and have also included atmospheric neutrino data in their analysis [@minos_latest]. They get a best-fit at $\sin^2 \theta_{23} = 0.41$ for IH. The first [NO$\nu$A ]{}disappearance results with $2.74 \times 10^{20}$ protons on target, give best-fit of $\sin^2\theta_{23} = 0.43 \oplus 0.60$ [@Adamson:2016xxw]. The latest analysis of Super Kamiokande atmospheric neutrino data shows a weak preference for NH-HO [@sk3gen]. Global analysis of neutrino data including all the different information gives the best-fit in LO for NH and in HO for IH [@Gonzalez-Garcia:2015qrr; @Capozzi:2016rtj]. Thus it is clear from the above discussion that at present the situation regarding octant of $\theta_{23}$ is quite intriguing.
There have been studies on the possibility of determining the octant from combined study of the experiments T2K and [NO$\nu$A ]{}using their full projected exposure [@suprabhoctant; @octant_atmos]. It was observed that the main problem in octant resolution arises due to the unknown value of ${\delta_{CP}}$ in the subleading terms of $P_{\mu e}$ which gives rise to octant-${\delta_{CP}}$ degeneracy. Also, the lack of knowledge about hierarchy can create further problem with the occurrence of wrong hierarchy - wrong octant solutions [@Ghosh:2015ena]. Recently it was pointed out in [@suprabhoctant; @Coloma:2014kca] that equal neutrino and antineutrino runs can help in resolving octant-${\delta_{CP}}$ degeneracy. The reason being the octant-${\delta_{CP}}$ combination suffering from degeneracy in neutrino probabilities are not degenerate for the antineutrino probabilities. It was shown for instance in [@suprabhoctant] that combining T2K and [NO$\nu$A ]{}running in equal neutrino and antineutrino mode for 2.5 years each and 3 years each respectively can identify the correct octant at $2\sigma$ C.L. irrespective of hierarchy and ${\delta_{CP}}$ if $\theta_{23} \leq 41^\circ$ or $\geq 49.5^\circ$.
The degeneracies can also be alleviated if neutrinos pass through large distances in matter so that resonant matter effects develop. This is the case of the atmospheric neutrinos passing through matter. In this case the leading order term in $P_{\mu e}$ goes as $\sin^2 \theta_{23} \sin^2 2\theta_{13}^m$. However, since at resonance $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}^m \approx 1$, the octant degeneracy is resolved. Further, the $P_{\mu \mu}$ channel also contains an octant sensitive term $\sin^4 \theta_{23} \sin^2 2\theta_{13}^m$ which enhances the sensitivity [@Choubey:2003yp]. Octant sensitivity can also come from the $\Delta m^2_{21}$ dependent term which gives rise to an excess of sub-GeV electron like events for the atmospheric neutrinos [@atmosoctant; @GonzalezGarcia:2004cu]. In addition the antineutrino component in atmospheric neutrino flux can also help in resolving octant ambiguity. It was shown that combined analysis of T2K and [NO$\nu$A ]{}with atmospheric neutrino data can give enhanced octant sensitivity [@octant_atmos]. The effect was found to be larger in multi-megaton water detectors like PINGU [@Choubey:2013xqa] or a LArTPC detector, sensitive to both muon and electron events [@octant_atmos]. The current best-fit value for ${\delta_{CP}}$ is close to $-\pi/2$ although at $3\sigma$ C.L. the whole range of $[0,2\pi]$ remains allowed [@Capozzi:2016rtj; @Gonzalez-Garcia:2015qrr]. The ${\delta_{CP}}$ sensitivity of an experiment is often understood in terms of the CP asymmetry between the neutrinos and antineutrinos. $$A_{cp} = \frac{P_{\mu e} - P_{\overline{\mu} \overline{e}}}{P_{\mu e} + P_{\overline{\mu} \overline{e}}}
\sim \frac{\sin\delta_{CP} }{\sin\theta_{13}}$$ However the diagnostics used for probing CP violation is the sum total of the $\chi^2$ contribution of the neutrinos and antineutrinos: $\chi^2_{total} = \chi^2_{\nu} + \chi^2_{\bar{\nu}}$ which does not show the above dependence [@ourlongcp]. Hence one needs to understand the actual role played by antineutrinos, if any, for determination of CP violation. Indeed one already has a hint for non-zero ${\delta_{CP}}$ from only neutrino runs of T2K and [NO$\nu$A ]{}. Whereas the confirmation of CP violation independently from antineutrino runs in these experiments cannot be undermined, it has already been observed in the case of T2K that unless the parameter space contains octant degeneracy the antineutrinos do not play any role for discovery of CP violation [@Ghosh:2015tan; @jara_15]. However for the [NO$\nu$A ]{}experiments antineutrinos seem to be playing some role even when there is no octant degeneracy [@Ghosh:2015tan]. In this work, it is one of our goals to understand the role of antineutrinos for enhancing CP sensitivity for the DUNE baseline. In particular we explore whether the antineutrino runs can play any non-trivial contribution to the total $\chi^2$ if octant and hierarchy are assumed to be known and if so then what are the physics issues involved.
The current generation superbeam experiments T2K and [NO$\nu$A ]{}are off-axis experiments using narrow band beams to reduce the backgrounds at the high energy tail. However the future generation high statistics accelerator experiments plan to use on-axis configurations and high intensity wide band beams enabling them to explore oscillations over a larger energy range. The examples for this are the European initiative LBNO and LBNE which was proposed in US using the FermiLab beamline. In 2014 it was proposed to combine these activities in a coherent international long-baseline neutrino program hosted at Fermilab with the detector at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in South Dakota. On Jan. 30, 2015 the LBNE collaboration was officially dissolved, the new collaboration selected the name Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE). The baseline is 1300 km and the proposed detector is a 40 kt (or 34 kt) modular Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber (LArTPC) with the first phase being a 10 kt detector. There are several studies of the physics prospects of a 1300 km baseline LArTPC using a wide band beam [@lbne]. In particular octant and/or CP sensitivity of such a set-up has been considered in [@suprabhlbnelbno; @sushant-lbne; @Bora:2014zwa; @raj_lbne1; @raj_lbne2; @Deepthi:2014iya]. In [@suprabhlbnelbno] the octant and CP sensitivity reach of a 10 kt LArTPC detector for LBNE combined with T2K and [NO$\nu$A ]{}was studied. In [@sushant-lbne] the minimum exposure for DUNE in conjunction with T2K, [NO$\nu$A ]{}and ICAL@INO experiment was computed for giving a octant sensitivity with $\Delta \chi^2 = 25$ and a CP sensitivity with $\Delta \chi^2=9$ for 40% and $\sim$ 70% coverage of ${\delta_{CP}}$. In [@Bora:2014zwa] the octant sensitivity of a 10 kt and 35 kt detector was studied with and without the near detector and also the role of precise knowledge of $\theta_{13}$ coming from reactor experiments, in improving the sensitivities were studied. In [@raj_lbne1] octant and CP sensitivity results were presented for a 10 kt detector and effect of including a near detector as well as the role of atmospheric neutrinos were considered. In [@raj_lbne2] octant and CP sensitivity of a 35 kt detector, with and without magnetization, was studied. All these papers considered equal neutrino and antineutrino run for the octant sensitivity. Variation of proportion of neutrino and antineutrino run was studied in [@sushant-lbne] for only IH and $\theta_{23}=39^\circ$ for octant sensitivity and NH and $\theta_{23} = 51^\circ$ for CP sensitivity. This issue was also discussed in [@incremental] for a setup with a baseline of 1540 km where they concluded that for true hierarchy as NH equal neutrino and antineutrino run is better whereas for true hierarchy as IH 30% antineutrino run is optimal. These conclusions were drawn for true $\theta_{23} = 45^\circ$ and the results were presented in terms of fraction of ${\delta_{CP}}$ for which a $3\sigma$ signal of CP violation can be obtained.
In this work, our main goal to understand the role of antineutrinos for enhancing octant and CP sensitivity for the DUNE baseline. In particular, we study the impact of the broadband nature of the beam and the role of enhanced matter effects as compared to the currently running beam-based experiments T2K and [NO$\nu$A ]{}which have shorter baselines and hence less matter effects. To the best of our knowledge these features have not been emphasized earlier in the literature. In particular, a deeper understanding of the role played by antineutrinos will help in optimizing the amount of antineutrino run. We present the results of the octant sensitivity using different combinations of neutrino-antineutrino run (i) as a function of true ${\delta_{CP}}$ for fixed values of true $\theta_{23}$ (ii) as a function of true $\theta_{23}$ for fixed values of true ${\delta_{CP}}$ and (iii) also in the true ($\theta_{23}$ - ${\delta_{CP}}$) plane. These three kinds of plots allow us to study the dependendence of octant-sensitivity on these two parameters in an exhaustive manner. In addition we present the allowed regions in the true-$\theta_{23}$ - test $\theta_{23}$ plane for both hierarchies and for true ${\delta_{CP}}= \pm 90^\circ$. These plots give the precision of $\theta_{23}$ at these values of ${\delta_{CP}}$. It is worthwhile to mention here that one of the main aims of the DUNE collaboration is to measure the parameter ${\delta_{CP}}$ which underscores the importance of combining neutrino and antineutrino runs. However the main role that the antineutrinos play in the determination of ${\delta_{CP}}$ is the removal of octant degeneracy and thus both issues are intimately connected. To emphasize this point we also present the figures showing the CP discovery potential of DUNE for the cases when octant is assumed to be known and unknown. In particular we explore whether the antineutrino runs can play any non-trivial contribution to the total $\chi^2$ if octant and hierarchy are assumed to be known and if so then what are the physics issues involved. We study how much fraction of antineutrino run is optimum for values of $\theta_{23}$ in lower and upper octants and in addition to the CP fractions, also show explicitly which are the CP values for which antineutrino run can be important. Note that most of the earlier works in literature have considered equal neutrino and antineutrino run for determination of octant and ${\delta_{CP}}$ in DUNE. We present the the results by varying the antineutrino component in the run. This constitutes another new feature of our study.
The plan of the paper goes as follows: in the next section we give the experimental and simulation details of DUNE that have been taken into consideration. In Section (\[sec3\]) we discuss the physics of the octant and CP sensitivity of the DUNE experiment in detail. In Section (\[sec4\]) we present our results. Section (\[sec4a\]) contains the results for octant sensitivity and Section (\[sec4b\]) is devoted for the discussions on CP sensitivity and role of antineutrinos in DUNE. Finally we summarize and conclude in Section (\[sec5\]).
Experimental and Simulation Details
=====================================
In this paper we have simulated the DUNE experiment using the GLoBES package [@globes1; @globes2]. In our simulation, we have considered a 10 kt configuration of the detector. This experiment is based on the existing Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) beamline design and the beam flux peaks at 2.5 GeV. Far detector will be located 4,850 feet underground. One of the options for DUNE is to have an initial beam power of 1.2 MW which will be increased to 2.3 MW later [@Acciarri:2015uup]. In our simulation we consider neutrino flux [@cherdack] corresponding to 1.2 MW beam power which gives $ 10^{21} $ protons on target (POT) per year. This corresponds to a proton energy of 120 GeV. In Table \[param\_values\] we list the representative values for the neutrino oscillation parameters that we have used in our numerical simulation. These values are consistent with the results obtained from global-fit of world neutrino data. [@Gonzalez-Garcia:2014bfa; @global_fogli; @global_valle]. Systematic errors are taken into account using the method of pulls [@pulls_gg; @pull_lisi] as outlined in [@ushier]. We have also added $5\%$ prior on sin$^{2}2\theta_{13} $ in our numerical simulation. The systematic errors and efficiencies corresponding to signal and background are taken from [@lbne]. Note that the values of these quantities given in [@Acciarri:2015uup] are somewhat different. Using these may change our numerical results to some extent though the main physics issues addressed in this work will not be altered.
$ \sin^{2}2 \theta_{13} $ $ \sin^{2}\theta_{12} $ $ \theta_{23} $ $\Delta m^2_{21}(eV^{2}) $ $\Delta m^2_{31}(eV^{2}) $ $ \delta_{CP} $
------------- --------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
True Values 0.1 0.31 $35^\circ-55^\circ$ 7.60 $ \times 10^{-5} $ 2.40 $ \times 10^{-3} $ $ -180^\circ $ to $ +180^\circ $
Test Values 0.085 – 0.115 Fixed $35^\circ-55^\circ$ Fixed (2.15 – 2.65) $ \times 10^{-3} $ $ -180^\circ $ to $ +180^\circ $
Physics of octant sensitivity for a 1300 km baseline {#sec3}
=====================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --
Octant Degeneracy $ \nu $ $\overline{ \nu } $
------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
LHP, LO degenerate with UHP, HO no degeneracy
UHP, LO no degeneracy degenerate with LHP,HO
LHP, HO no degeneracy degenerate with UHP, LO
UHP, HO degenerate with LHP,LO no degeneracy
The probabilities that are relevant for the DUNE experiment are $P_{\mu e}$ and $P_{\mu \mu}$ and the corresponding probabilities for the antineutrinos. In presence of matter, the relevant oscillation probabilities can be expanded perturbatively in terms of small parameters $ \alpha(\equiv \Delta m^{2}_{21}/ \Delta m^{2}_{31}) $ and $ \theta_{13} $ as follows, [@akhmedov; @cervera; @freund]
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{p_mu_e}
P_{\mu e} &=&\underbrace{4 s^{2}_{13}s^{2}_{23}\frac{\sin^{2} (A-1)\Delta}{(A-1)^2}}_{\mathcal{O}_{o}}
+\underbrace{ \alpha^{2} \cos^{2}\theta_{23} \sin^{2}2 \theta_{12} \frac{\sin^{2} A\Delta}{A^2}}_{\mathcal{O}_{2}} \\ \nonumber
&+& \underbrace{\alpha s_{13} \sin 2\theta_{12} \sin 2\theta_{23}\cos(\Delta+\delta_{cp}) \frac{\sin (A-1)\Delta}{(A-1)}\frac{\sin A\Delta}{A}}_{\mathcal{O}_{1}} \\
P_{\mu\mu} &=& 1 - \sin^2 2\theta_{23} \sin^2\Delta + \mathcal{O}( \alpha , s_{13}) \label{p_mu_mu}
$$
where, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta &\equiv& \frac{\Delta m^{2}_{31} L}{4E},
A \equiv \frac{2EV}{\Delta m^{2}_{31} } \equiv \frac{VL}{2 \Delta},
{\rm and} ~ V = \pm \sqrt{2} G_F n_e \end{aligned}$$
These expressions are derived assuming constant matter density approximation. Similar expressions for antineutrino probabilities can be obtained by replacing $\delta_{CP} \rightarrow - \delta_{CP} $ and $ V \rightarrow - V $. The ’$ + $($ - $)’ sign here represents neutrino (antineutrino). For NH, $ \Delta m^{2}_{31} $ is positive and for IH, $ \Delta m^{2}_{31} $ is negative. Hence, in the neutrino oscillation probability $A$ is positive for NH and negative for IH. For antineutrinos, the sign of $A$ gets reversed.
It is clear from the above expressions that to leading order $P_{\mu \mu}$ suffers from intrinsic octant degeneracy between $\theta_{23}$ and $\pi/2 - \theta_{23}$. $P_{\mu e}$ does not suffer from intrinsic degeneracy and the octant sensitivity comes mainly from this channel. However since $P_{\mu e}$ depends on $\sin^2\theta_{23}$, the $\chi^2$ is an increasing function of $\theta_{23}$ for this case and the wrong octant minima from this channel always occurs for $45^\circ$. On the other hand $P_{\mu \mu}$ forces the minima to $\sim \pi/2- \theta_{23}$, where the appearance channel has a large octant sensitive contribution.
However although $P_{\mu e}$ does not suffer from intrinsic degeneracy it is possible to have $$P_{\mu e}(\Delta, \theta_{23}^{tr}, \delta_{CP}^{tr})
= P_{\mu e}( \Delta,\theta_{23}^{wr},\delta_{CP}^{wr}),
\label{eq:rh-wo-wcp}$$ where the suffix ${tr}$ (${wr}$) denotes the true (wrong) values of the parameters. The above equation implies that apart from the true solution one can also get duplicate solutions with right hierarchy - wrong octant - wrong ${\delta_{CP}}$ (RH - WO - W${\delta_{CP}}$). Note that unlike in the case of $P_{\mu \mu}$, for $P_{\mu e}$ one needs to consider the variation of $\theta_{23}$ over the whole of the opposite octant in order to identify the degenerate solution. Apart from this, if the hierarchy is unknown then one can also have $$P_{\mu e}(\Delta,\theta_{23}^{tr},\delta_{CP}^{tr}) = P_{\mu e}(-\Delta, \theta_{23}^{wr}, \delta_{CP}^{wr}).
\label{eq:wh-wo-wcp}$$ This corresponds to solutions with wrong hierarchy - wrong octant - wrong ${\delta_{CP}}$ (WH - WO - W${\delta_{CP}}$). As pointed out in [@Ghosh:2015ena] the most generalized case assuming $\theta_{13}$ as fixed, gives rise to total eight possibilities corresponding to different combinations of right (wrong) hierarchy and/or octant and/or ${\delta_{CP}}$. From Fig. \[oct\_prob\_deg\] one can see that for the DUNE baseline degenerate solutions with right-${\delta_{CP}}$ do not come unlike the case of the experiments T2K and [NO$\nu$A ]{}[@Ghosh:2015ena]. This is because due to matter effects the bands for NH and IH are much more well separated and hence the intersection at right ${\delta_{CP}}$ do not occur. In this work we show how the octant sensitivity is affected by the wrong solutions defined in Eqs. \[eq:rh-wo-wcp\] and \[eq:wh-wo-wcp\]. We also discuss how the ${\delta_{CP}}$ sensitivity is affected by the occurrence of wrong octant solutions. We put emphasis on the role of antineutrinos and point out some unexpected behaviour due to matter effects.
Fig. \[oct\_prob\_deg\] describes the oscillation probability in presence of earth matter for $\mathrm{L=1300~km}$ and $E = 2~{\rm GeV}$. The bands are due to the variation of $\theta_{23}$ (see figure caption for details). The neutrino oscillation probability for NH gets significant enhancement in presence of earth’s matter as compared to IH as shown in the left panel. It is seen that the maximum probability for NH can become more than 3-times than that of IH. But in the case of antineutrinos the scenario gets reversed as $A$ and $\delta_{CP}$ changes their sign, as can be observed in the right panel. This can be understood from Eq. \[p\_mu\_e\] that the $ {\mathcal{O}_{o}} $ term is $ \Delta $ dependent which enhances the probability value for the given set of oscillation parameters for NH as compared to IH for neutrino and ($ {\mathcal{O}_{1}}, {\mathcal{O}_{2}} $) terms are $ \alpha $ and $ \alpha^2 $ suppressed respectively.
Note that for vacuum oscillation maxima, $\Delta$ corresponds to $90^\circ$. Thus in the appearance channel probability (cf. Eq. \[p\_mu\_e\]), ${\delta_{CP}}=-90^\circ$($+90^\circ$) correspond to maximum (minimum) point in the probability for neutrinos. For antineutrinos it is the opposite. Thus, for these values of ${\delta_{CP}}$, octant sensitivity is expected to be maximum if there is no degeneracy. Note that with the inclusion of matter effect, the appearance channel probability maxima does not coincide with the vacuum maxima and in that case the maximum and minimum points in the probability do not come exactly at $\pm 90^\circ$ but gets slightly shifted. This can be seen from Fig \[oct\_prob\_deg\]. However for illustration, we will take ${\delta_{CP}}=\pm 90^\circ$ as the reference points to describe the physics of octant in DUNE.
It is to be observed that, if we draw a horizontal line at particular probability value then the different intersection points with the given band lead to different degenerate solutions. The occurrence of octant degeneracies that can be inferred from these plots are summarized in Table \[table:octantdeg\]. From the above discussions as well as from earlier studies it is clear that the nature of octant - ${\delta_{CP}}$ degeneracy is different for neutrinos and antineutrinos and therefore combined neutrino-antineutrino run is helpful for resolving the octant degeneracy [@suprabhoctant; @suprabhlbnelbno; @Coloma:2014kca]. Also note that the behaviour of octant-${\delta_{CP}}$ degeneracy in neutrinos and antineutrinos is same for both NH and IH.
The probability plot as given in Fig. \[oct\_prob\_deg\] is done for an energy of 2 GeV. However it is possible that because of the broad-band nature of the beam the occurrence of degeneracy at a particular energy may not be true over the whole energy range. Thus for DUNE, one can still get some amount of octant sensitivity, even in the degenerate parameter space outlined in Table \[table:octantdeg\], when integrated over all the energy bins.
It is to be noted that Fig. \[oct\_prob\_deg\] does not demonstrate any hierarchy degeneracy since the two bands corresponding to NH and IH remain non-overlapping. However conclusions drawn at probability level need to be substantiated by a proper $\chi^2$ analysis to determine with what significance the hierarchy degeneracy is actually resolved by DUNE. Therefore we will present the results of octant sensitivity either for both cases – right and wrong hierarchy or by marginalizing over the hierarchy.
Results {#sec4}
========
------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --
Octant discovery $ \chi^{2} $ for a 10 kt detector {#sec4a}
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
{height="6cm" width="8cm"} {height="6cm" width="8cm"} {height="6cm" width="8cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
In this section we discuss the octant sensitivity of DUNE for a 10 kt detector volume which is the projected detector volume for DUNE in the first phase. The statistical $\chi^2$ for octant sensitivity is calculated by taking the correct octant in the true spectrum and the wrong octant in the test spectrum in the following formula $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^2_{{\rm stat}} = \sum_i 2 \bigg[N_i^{{\rm test}} - N_i^{{\rm true}} - N_i^{{\rm true}} \log\bigg(\frac{N_i^{{\rm test}}}{N_i^{{\rm true}}}\bigg) \bigg],\end{aligned}$$ where $N_i$ is the number of events in the $i^{\rm th}$ energy bin. In Fig. \[oct\_discovery\] we show the $\chi^2$ for octant discovery which is the combined sensitivity coming from appearance channel, disappearance channel and $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ prior i.e., $$\chi^2 = \chi^2_{ap} + \chi^2_{disap} + \chi^2_{prior}$$ as a function of true ${\delta_{CP}}$. We consider the representative true values of $ \theta_{23} = 39^\circ$ for LO and $ \theta_{23} = 51^\circ$ for HO. $\chi^2$ is marginalized over test values of $ \theta_{23} $ over opposite octant. We give the plots separately for true and false hierarchy. This shows for what parameters and to what extent the octant sensitivity is affected by the lack of knowledge of hierarchy. Depending on the true parameters, we get four combinations of (hierarchy$ - $octant): NH-LO, NH-HO, IH-LO, IH-HO. For all the plots in the upper row of Fig. \[oct\_discovery\], dark-blue curves are for True(NH)-Test(NH) and magenta curves are for True(NH)-Test(IH) while for the lower row dark-blue curves correspond to True(IH)-Test(IH) and magenta curves correspond to True(IH)-Test(NH). Below we discuss the results for each true combination.
- **NH-LO ($\theta_{23}^{\mathrm{true}} = 39^\circ$):** The figure for true NH-LO shows that for values of ${\delta_{CP}}$ in the lower half plane, a 10 year neutrino run of DUNE can resolve the octant degeneracy at 3$ \sigma $ C.L. The inclusion of antineutrino run helps in enhancing the octant sensitivity for ${\delta_{CP}}$ in LHP ($-180^\circ < {\delta_{CP}}< 0^\circ$) and $\theta_{23}$ in LO since the antineutrino probability is devoid of octant degeneracy. Note that in this case though pure neutrino run suffers from octant degeneracy, still we get $\chi^2$ around 10. This is one of the unique features of the broad-band beam where the degeneracy does not exist over the entire energy range and one can still have some octant sensitivity from the neutrino channel. For the UHP ($0^\circ < {\delta_{CP}}< 180^\circ$) on the other hand the neutrino data gives a better octant sensitivity since antineutrinos are plagued with degeneracies for LO, as shown by the blue curves. However the scenario changes if we assume the hierarchy is not known. In that case the antineutrino run is seen to help to remove wrong hierarchy-wrong octant solutions in-spite of having degeneracies, as is seen from the magenta curves. In order to understand this point we have plotted the appearance channel probability vs energy in Fig. \[broadband\_39\_51\]. The left panel is for neutrinos and the right panel is for antineutrinos. In the left panel we see that the orange curve(${\delta_{CP}}=+90^\circ$) is well separated from the dotted blue curve(${\delta_{CP}}=-90^\circ$) near the oscillation maxima for $\theta_{23}=39^\circ$. But when marginalized over $\theta_{23}$, the dashed blue curve which corresponds to ${\delta_{CP}}=-90^\circ$ and $\theta_{23}=51^\circ$, overlaps with the orange curve to give WH-WO-W${\delta_{CP}}$ solution[^1]. On the other hand in the right panel we see that due the marginalization of $\theta_{23}$ the dashed blue curve moves far away from the orange curve resolving the degeneracy. Note that if we marginalize over hierarchy then for UHP the minimum will come at the WH solution with only neutrino data and hence octant degeneracy is not resolved at $3\sigma$ for $9^\circ < {\delta_{CP}}<90^\circ$ belonging to the UHP. However with 7+3 years run the octant degeneracy is resolved with a $\chi^2 > 25$ even without the knowledge of the true hierarchy for all values of ${\delta_{CP}}$. With 5+5 year run in most part of UHP the minima occurs with the RH solution. But for $45^\circ < {\delta_{CP}}<115^\circ$, the WH minima is below the one with RH.
- **NH-HO ($\theta_{23} = 51^\circ$)** For this case from Fig. \[oct\_prob\_deg\] it is seen that for ($ 51^\circ $, -90$ ^\circ $, NH) no octant degeneracy prevails at the probability level for neutrinos whereas antineutrinos have octant degeneracy. Also, antineutrinos have less statistics. Thus we expect that only neutrino run should give a better sensitivity. But, we notice from the top right figure of Fig. \[oct\_discovery\], that addition of antineutrino gives higher $ \chi^{2} $ value as compared to only neutrino mode \[10+0\]. In order to understand this feature in the first panel of Fig. \[fig:nuanu\] we plot the $\chi^2$ vs test ${\delta_{CP}}$.
The curve for only antineutrinos indeed confirm the occurrence of degeneracies close to ${\delta_{CP}}\sim 90^\circ$. However at that point the neutrino $\chi^2$ is very high. Thus, when the neutrino and antineutrino data are combined the overall minima is governed by the neutrinos and so comes close to the true value of ${\delta_{CP}}= -90^\circ$. At this point both neutrinos and antineutrinos have octant sensitive contribution. This is shown in Table \[table:appdisapp\_nh\] where we illustrate the contributions from the neutrinos and antineutrinos separately for the appearance channel. It is evident that as we increase the antineutrino component the contribution from neutrino channel reduces whereas that from the antineutrino channel increases. Thus although the antineutrino channel has degeneracy the minima does not come at the point of degeneracy as it is governed by the neutrinos. Even then the total $\chi^2(= \chi^2_{ap, \nu} + \chi^2_{ap, \overline{\nu}})$ from appearance channel (11.13, 10.19), corresponding to $[7+3]$ and $[5+5]$ respectively, is less than the pure neutrino run. However, the total $\chi^2$ for the mixed run is higher.
To understand this point we list the contribution from the disappearance $\chi^2$ and it is seen that although for pure neutrino run the disappearance channel does not have any octant sensitive contribution to the total $\chi^2$ for mixed runs this channel also provide some octant sensitivity. This arises because due to matter effects the neutrino and antineutrino probabilities are different and hence the $\chi^2$ minima comes at different places.
($ \nu + \overline{\nu} $) Test parameters $ \chi^{2}_{ap,\nu} $ $ \chi^{2}_{ap,\overline{\nu}} $ $ \chi^{2}_{disap,(\nu+\overline{\nu})} $ Prior Total
---------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------ -------------
(8+0) $ \theta_{23} $=41.5$ ^{0} $(41$ ^{0} $) 11.5(6.65) 0 0.5(0.35) 9(1.44) 21.05(8.44)
$ \sin^{2}2\theta_{13} =0.115(0.106)$
(5+3) same as \[10+0\](8+0) 9.14(4.28) 1.99(1.44) 1.97(0.37) 9(1.44) 22.46(7.18)
(4+4) same as \[10+0\](8+0) 7.21(3.46) 2.98(1.44) 3.34(0.37) 9(1.44) 22.52(6.72)
\[10+0\](8+0) $ \theta_{23} $=40$ ^{0} $(41$ ^{0} $),$ \delta_{CP}=- 105^{0} (-90^{0})$ 10.86(5.23) 0 0.09(1.47) 5.76(1.44) 16.71(8.14)
$ \sin^{2}2\theta_{13} =0.112(0.106)$
(5+3) same as \[10+0\](8+0) 8.22(3.36) 8.10(1.33) 1.62(0.96) 5.76(1.44) 23.71(7.09)
(4+4) $ \theta_{23} $=40.5$ ^{0}(41 ^{0}) $,$ \delta_{CP}=- 120^{0}(-90^{0}) $ 6.46(3.37) 9.78(2.08) 2.14(0.84) 5.76(0.36) 24.15(6.66)
$ \sin^{2}2\theta_{13} =0.112(0.103)$
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When one combines neutrino and antineutrino run then this creates a synergy and hence some octant sensitivity arises from the disappearance channel also. Due to this reason when one combines appearance and disappearance channels then addition of antineutrino runs actually gives a slight increase in $\chi^2$. In the UHP on the other hand the octant sensitivity increases with antineutrino run. This is clear since for $P_{\mu e}$ the neutrino channel suffers from octant degeneracy whereas the antineutrino channel does not and the addition of antineutrinos help to overcome the degeneracy. To illustrate this point further in the middle panel of Fig. \[fig:nuanu\] we plot the $\chi^2$ vs test ${\delta_{CP}}$ for true values ($51^\circ$, $90^\circ$). In this case the pure neutrino run gives the minima in the LHP close to ${\delta_{CP}}\sim -45^\circ$ whereas pure antineutrino gives minima near the true value. However when we combine neutrino and antineutrino runs then the overall minima comes in between and moves towards the antineutrino minima as the $\bar{\nu}$ component is increased. At this point there is octant sensitive contribution from both neutrinos and antineutrinos. Thus the antineutrino data helps in this case by trying to shift the minima away from the degenerate point. We also compare the $\chi^2$ for DUNE with that of T2K, given in parentheses in Table \[table:appdisapp\_nh\], to understand the role of broadband beam and enhanced matter effect. It is seen from the last column that for T2K the $\chi^2$ reduces with increasing antineutrinos as is expected. Note that this is in contrast to DUNE due to its broadband nature and enhanced matter effect.
- **IH-LO ($\theta_{23} = 39^\circ$) :** In this case for LHP the antineutrino run enhances the sensitivity because they do not suffer from octant degeneracy as can be seen from Table. \[table:octantdeg\]. But for the UHP the antineutrino probability has octant degeneracy. Thus again we expect that in UHP adding antineutrino data should reduce the sensitivity. But the figure shows a slight enhancement. This can again be explained by similar reasoning as for the NH, $51^\circ$ and $-90^\circ$ case. There is also the finite contribution from the disappearance channel enhancing the octant sensitivity when the neutrino and antineutrino runs are combined. These combinations of hierarchy$ - $octant can resolve octant degeneracy at 5$ \sigma $ C.L. with \[5+5\] years of \[$ \nu + \overline{\nu} $\] run for any value of true $ \delta_{CP} $ as shown in Fig. \[oct\_discovery\].
- **IH-HO:($\theta_{23} = 51^\circ$)** For this case, for ${\delta_{CP}}$ in LHP the octant sensitivity with pure neutrino run is seen to be above $\chi^2=9$ in the interval $-180^\circ < {\delta_{CP}}< -45^\circ$. Adding antineutrino data helps to raise the $\chi^2$ for octant sensitivity. As before we ask the question how antineutrino data is helpful despite the presence of degeneracies in this channel. This can be explained again similar to the NH-HO case. The third panel of Fig. \[fig:nuanu\] shows that for pure antineutrinos, there is very small octant sensitivity and the minima comes in the UHP between $90^\circ$ and $135^\circ$. However at the point, in the LHP, where the pure neutrino $\chi^2$ is minimum, antineutrino $\chi^2$ has a large non-zero value and for combined runs the minima is still governed by the neutrinos. Thus the contributions from the antineutrinos are also being added up in-spite of having degeneracy. The neutrino and antineutrino contributions from the appearance channel are shown in Table \[table:appdisapp\_nh\]. It is seen that for IH, because of the enhancement of the antineutrino probability due to matter effect, a large octant sensitive contribution to the $\chi^2$ is obtained. The disappearance channel also gives a small contribution but the contribution from the antineutrino channel is almost comparable or larger than the neutrino channel. It is also to be noted that if hierarchy is not known then for some values of ${\delta_{CP}}$ the minima comes in the wrong hierarchy region for pure neutrino run and the sensitivity is further reduced. Addition of antineutrinos resolves the hierarchy with $\chi^2 \geq 25$ and so the minima does not occur anymore for wrong hierarchy solution. For the UHP the only neutrino run has very poor sensitivity due to degeneracies with ${\delta_{CP}}$ and addition of antineutrino runs help. The UHP is more favourable for resolution of hierarchy-${\delta_{CP}}$ degeneracy and even with only neutrino run hierarchy is resolved at $3\sigma$ for all values of ${\delta_{CP}}$. Overall, close to $\chi^2=25$ sensitivity is achieved for this combination of hierarchy and $\theta_{23}$ with 7+3 or 5+5 combination for the whole range of ${\delta_{CP}}$. For this case also in Table \[table:appdisapp\_nh\] the T2K $\chi^2$ values are given in parentheses. It is seen from the last column that the overall $\chi^2$ for T2K decreases with enhanced antineutrinos unlike that in DUNE. If one compares the appearance $\chi^2$ values for the antineutrino channel for DUNE and T2K then it is seen that the contribution of this channel for DUNE is quite high and comparable or even greater than the neutrino contribution. This is due to the enhanced matter effect associated with IH and HO for the longer baseline of DUNE.
After discussing the role of antineutrinos and disappearance channel in octant sensitivity for DUNE, in Fig. \[oct\_sensitivity\_10kt\] we present the octant $\chi^2$ as a function of true $\theta_{23}$ for maximal CP violation. Depending on if the true hierarchy is NH or IH and true ${\delta_{CP}}$ is $ \pm 90^\circ $ we get 4 possible combinations. From these figures one can read off the range of $\theta_{23}$ for which octant can be determined for ${\delta_{CP}}=\pm 90^\circ$ at a specified C.L. We see for all the four cases of Fig. \[oct\_sensitivity\_10kt\] that with 7+3 years of ($\nu +\bar{\nu}$) run octant can be determined at $3\sigma$($4\sigma$) for ${\delta_{CP}}= \pm 90^\circ$ excepting for the range $41.5^\circ < \theta_{23} < 49^\circ$($40.5^\circ < \theta_{23} < 50.7^\circ$). From the figures we also see that 7+3 and 5+5 combinations give almost same sensitivity. However for the pure neutrino run the ranges are different and also vary depending on the true values of ${\delta_{CP}}$ and hierarchy. In Table \[range10\] we give the ranges of $\theta_{23}$ for which octant can be resolved at $3\sigma$ and $4\sigma$ with pure neutrino run.
True Parameter $\theta_{23}$ range for $3\sigma$($4\sigma$)
------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
NH, ${\delta_{CP}}=-90^\circ$ $<39^\circ$($37.4^\circ$) and $> 49^\circ$($50.6^\circ$)
NH, ${\delta_{CP}}=90^\circ$ $<43^\circ$($35.7$) and $> 53^\circ$($54^\circ$)
IH, ${\delta_{CP}}=-90^\circ$ $<37^\circ$($35.7$) and $> 49^\circ$($55^\circ$)
IH, ${\delta_{CP}}=90^\circ$ $<42^\circ$($40$) and $> 54^\circ$($55^\circ$)
So far we have focused on the cases for which either true $\theta_{23}$ was fixed or true ${\delta_{CP}}$ was fixed. In Fig.\[oct\_lo\_ho\] we give the 3$ \sigma $ exclusion plots in true($ \theta_{23}- \delta_{CP}$) plane. We consider all possible true values of $ \delta_{CP} $ from ($ -180^\circ $ to $ + 180^\circ$) and $\theta_{23}$ in lower octant from $35^\circ - 45^\circ$ and higher octant from $45^\circ - 55^\circ$. This figure shows the role of antineutrino run in the full range of allowed ${\delta_{CP}}$ and $\theta_{23}$ parameter space. The allowed region for the left (right) panel is the R.H.S (L.H.S) of each curve of the true($ \theta_{23}- \delta_{CP}$) plane [^2]. We observe by comparing the left and the right panels that DUNE can provide better constraints on $ \theta_{23} $ parameter space in case of LO as compared to HO. For NH-LO the antineutrino run is necessary for the LHP and part of UHP. Only in the range $90^\circ < {\delta_{CP}}< 135^\circ$ the only neutrino run i.e., the \[10+0\] configuration gives a slightly better sensitivity. On the other hand for NH-HO the antineutrinos play a more prominent role for ${\delta_{CP}}$ in the UHP. For IH-LO the antineutrino run is again important apart from near ${\delta_{CP}}\sim 90^\circ$, for which the improvement in sensitivity by adding antineutrinos is not very significant. For IH-HO the antineutrinos play important role in the full parameter space. Also the exclusion plots show that if true $\theta_{23}$ lies between (43$^\circ - $49$^\circ$) then it is not possible to resolve octant degeneracy at $3 \sigma$ C.L. by DUNE using 10 kt detector. Overall one can say that antineutrino runs are necessary for most of the parameter region and 7+3 and 5+5 give similar sensitivities. Note that in the context of LBNO 75% - 25% ($ \nu - \overline{\nu} $) was recommended in [@Das:2014fja].
Finally in Fig. \[pre\] we plot the $3 \sigma$ precision contours in the true $\theta_{23}$-test $\theta_{23}$ plane for ${\delta_{CP}}=\pm 90^\circ$. These figures reflect the relation between octant degeneracy and precision of $\theta_{23}$. The upper panels are for normal hierarchy and the lower panels are for inverted hierarchy. From these plots we see that for pure neutrino run there are other allowed values of $\theta_{23}$ apart from the true value, if $\theta_{23} \in$ LO (HO) at ${\delta_{CP}}=-90^\circ (+90^\circ)$ . This happens because of the octant degeneracy. As we have already seen, for ${\delta_{CP}}=-90^\circ (+90^\circ)$, neutrinos suffer from octant degeneracy in LO (HO) in both the hierarchies and this in turn affects the precision of $\theta_{23}$ which is clearly seen from the figures. Adding antineutrinos help to improve the precision and both 7+3 and 5+5 give almost similar precision of $\theta_{23}$. But as one approaches the maximal value of $\theta_{23}$, the precision becomes worse due to the difficulty in determining the octant around those values of $\theta_{23}$.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="56.00000%"} {width="56.00000%"}
{width="56.00000%"} {width="56.00000%"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Antineutrinos, Octant Degeneracy and CP discovery potential of DUNE {#sec4b}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we present the CP discovery $\chi^2$ of DUNE as a function of true ${\delta_{CP}}$. CP violation discovery potential of an experiment is defined by its capability of distinguishing a true value of ${\delta_{CP}}$ other than $0^\circ$ and $180^\circ$. We present these figures for the case where hierarchy and octant are assumed to be unknown and known. The main aim of this section is to elucidate the role of antineutrinos in discovering ${\delta_{CP}}$ and the interconnection with the octant degeneracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The figure \[dune\_cp\_1\] plots the CP discovery $\chi^2$ as function of true ${\delta_{CP}}$ for the case when hierarchy and octant are assumed to be unknown. From the different panels it is seen that:
- The antineutrino runs play an important role for (i) LO near true ${\delta_{CP}}= -90^\circ$ and (ii) HO near true ${\delta_{CP}}= +90^\circ$. This is true for both NH and IH. Note from Table \[table:octantdeg\] that these are the regions where neutrino probabilities exhibit octant degeneracy. Since antineutrino probabilities do not possess this degeneracy, addition of these helps in the removal of the degeneracy and enhancement of CP sensitivity.
- For true hierarchy as NH , +90$ ^\circ $-LO and -90$ ^\circ $-HO do not have octant degeneracy for neutrinos whereas antineutrinos have degeneracy (see Table \[table:octantdeg\]). Even then 7+3 gives almost same result as 10+0 notwithstanding the loss of statistics. In both cases this happens due to tension between the neutrino and antineutrino $\chi^2$s.
- For +90$ ^\circ $-LO the minima for 10+0 comes at ${\delta_{CP}}= 180^\circ$ whereas replacing 3 years of neutrino run by antineutrino run shifts the $\chi^2_{min}$ at ${\delta_{CP}}= 0^\circ$ where the neutrino contribution is higher and thus 7+3 becomes comparable to 10+0.
- For the case of -90$ ^\circ $-HO and neutrinos the CPV $\chi^2$ is a falling function of $\theta_{13}$, and the minima comes at 0.109 while for 7+3 it comes at 0.106. The neutrino contribution at $\sin^2\theta_{13} = 0.106$ being higher the overall $\chi^2$ for 7+3 becomes greater.
- Similarly, for true hierarchy IH, +90$ ^\circ $-LO and -90$ ^\circ $-HO are free from octant degeneracy for neutrinos. But still the CP sensitivity for these cases are slightly better for combined neutrino-antineutrino run (for both 7+3 and 5+5 case) as compared to pure neutrino run. This happens because due to matter effects the $P_{\overline{\mu} \overline{e}}$ is higher than $P_{\mu e}$ for IH (see Fig. \[oct\_prob\_deg\]). Thus addition of antineutrinos enhances the appearance $\chi^2$.
In figure \[dune\_cp\_2\] we present the same plots as that of Fig. \[dune\_cp\_1\] but assuming the hierarchy and octant to be known.
- Comparing with the plots in Fig. \[dune\_cp\_1\] we see that the CP sensitivity for -90$^\circ$-LO improves for the 10+0 case, for both the hierarchies. In fact for -90$^\circ$-LO-NH, 10+0 gives the best sensitivity if the octant is known. This establishes the fact that, the antineutrino run was instrumental for removing the wrong octant solutions.
- For +90$^\circ$-NH-HO although there is some improvement for the 10+0 case as compared to the case of unknown octant, the CP sensitivity of 7+3 and 5+5 are still better than 10+0. This implies that though octant is known, antineutrinos play some role in enhancing the CP sensitivity.
- To understand the above point in more detail in Fig. \[dune\_cp\_3\] we plot the CPV discovery $\chi^2$ for different channels vs test $\theta_{23}$ in the correct octant (since octant is assumed to be known) for a particular value of true ${\delta_{CP}}$. The top left panel of Fig. \[dune\_cp\_3\] shows that, for neutrinos and true value of +90$^\circ$-NH-48$^\circ$, the CP sensitivity of the appearance channel is an increasing function of test $\theta_{23}$. But as the precision of $\theta_{23}$ (which comes from the disappearance channel) is poor near the maximal value, the combined $\chi^2$ minimum does not occur at the true $\theta_{23}$ value ( which is $\theta_{23}=48^\circ$) but occurs at $\theta_{23}=45^\circ$.For antineutrinos (top right panel), the nature of the disappearance channel $\chi^2$ is same as that of neutrinos but the appearance $\chi^2$ decreases as test $\theta_{23}$ increases. Because of this opposite behaviour when antineutrinos are combined with neutrinos, the $\chi^2$ minima shifts to the correct value of $\theta_{23}$ and the overall CP sensitivity at the true point is enhanced. The poor $\theta_{23}$ precision of $+90^\circ$-HO-NH in neutrinos arise due to the higher matter effect. Due to which the subleading matter terms start to contribute in the disappearance channel which affect the $\theta_{23}$ precision. Note that this does not happen for $-90^\circ$-NH-HO (despite matter is high) because even though the precision of $\theta_{23}$ is poor near the maximal value of $\theta_{23}$ for ${\delta_{CP}}=-90^\circ$ the appearance channel sensitivity is a decreasing function of test $\theta_{23}$ and this causes the overall minima to occur at the correct value of $\theta_{23}$. This can be seen from the right panel of the middle row of Fig. \[dune\_cp\_3\]
- Also note that for true $+90^\circ$-NH 42$^\circ$ (left panel of middle row of Fig. \[dune\_cp\_3\]), the precision of $\theta_{23}$ near the maximal value is quite good as compared to $\theta_{23}=48^\circ$. This is because for lower octant, the denominator in the $\chi^2$ is smaller as compared to that in HO and thus a better $\theta_{23}$ precision is obtained.
- For true hierarchy IH, even $\theta_{23}=48^\circ$ has a good precision near the maximal value for neutrinos (bottom left panel of Fig. \[dune\_cp\_3\]). This is because for IH the matter effect is less for neutrinos and thus $\theta_{23}$ precision measurement capability of the disappearance channel is better as can be seen comparing the top and bottom left panels of Fig. \[dune\_cp\_3\]. But since the matter effect is more for antineutrinos, the precision of $\theta_{23}$ for IH and antineutrinos is poor (bottom right panel).
- Similarly for $+90^\circ$-HO-IH although the octant is known the antineutrino run gives an enhanced $\chi^2$. This is due to matter effects in antineutrinos for IH which makes $P_{\bar{\mu} \bar{e}}$ higher than the corresponding neutrino probabilities (see Fig. \[oct\_prob\_deg\]). This increases the appearance $\chi^2$ in presence of antineutrinos. For similar reasons the $\chi^2$ for 7+3 is slightly higher than 10+0 for $-90^\circ$-LO-IH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![CP violation discovery $ \chi^{2}$ at 3$ \sigma $ C.L. for DUNE\[6+4\] for all true $ \theta_{23} $ when hierarchy and octant are unknown. []{data-label="dune_frac_th23"}](fract_anti-nu_unknown_oct_hier_vs_th23.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
In the first and second panels of figure \[dune\_cpv\_frac\], we plot the percentage of antineutrino run vs percentage of ${\delta_{CP}}$ values for which CP violated can be discovered at $3 \sigma$ C.L in DUNE for four cases encompassing both hierarchies and octants. The first (second) panel represent when octant and hierarchy are known (unknown). From both plots it is seen that with dominant antineutrino or neutrino run a lesser CP fraction is reached. Overall 40% antineutrino run seems to be optimum in all cases. Comparing these two plots it is seen that when octant is known then greater percentage of CP fraction can be probed with less antineutrino component. The maximum CP coverage can be achieved for IH-HO and minimum for NH-HO.
In the third panel of figure \[dune\_cpv\_frac\] the same is plotted by combining [NO$\nu$A ]{}and T2K with DUNE. From the figure we can see that the percentage of ${\delta_{CP}}$ that can be probed is enhanced in all cases. The curves are now much flatter implying that even with pure neutrino or antineutrino runs considerable CP coverage can be obtained. This is due to the contribution from [NO$\nu$A ]{}and T2K. In figure \[dune\_frac\_th23\] we show the dependence of percentage of ${\delta_{CP}}$ that can be probed as a function $\theta_{23}$. This figure is drawn assuming 60% neutrino and 40% antineutrino run which is the optimal configuration as seen in Fig. \[dune\_cpv\_frac\]. The coverage of ${\delta_{CP}}$ for which CP violation can be discovered at $3 \sigma$ C.L is better for IH. For NH specially close to $45^\circ$ the coverage is less due to the poor precision of $\theta_{23}$ as discussed earlier.
Summary and Conclusions {#sec5}
========================
In this paper we perform a detailed investigation of the octant and ${\delta_{CP}}$ sensitivity of the future generation superbeam experiment DUNE which has a baseline of 1300 km. We analyze in detail the physics of the antineutrinos for the DUNE baseline and what kind of synergy can be offered by the addition of antineutrinos to pure neutrino runs. In the context of the long baseline experiments with source-detector distance $<1000$ km it is well known that the octant sensitivity comes mainly from the combination of $P_{\mu e}$ and $P_{\mu \mu}$ channels. For $P_{\mu e}$ channel the $\chi^2$ is a rising function of $\theta_{23}$ and consequently the minima in the wrong octant always comes at $45^\circ$. On the other hand $P_{\mu \mu}$ being governed by $\sin^2 2\theta_{23}$, the minima comes close to $\pi/2 - \theta_{23}$ with no octant sensitivity. When both channels are combined then the global minima comes closer to $\pi/2 - \theta_{23}$ where the appearance channel contributes a large octant sensitive $\chi^2$. However the appearance channel is also affected by the occurrence of octant-${\delta_{CP}}$ degeneracy which can lead to spurious solutions. The nature of this degeneracy is the same for both the hierarchies but has a complementary nature for neutrinos and antineutrinos i.e., the ${\delta_{CP}}$ and octant combination for which there is degeneracy in neutrinos is devoid of this for antineutrinos. The upshot is that the combination of neutrino and antineutrino runs helps to solve this degeneracy. On the other hand the statistics is more for neutrinos. This leads to the question of what is the optimal combination of neutrino and antineutrino run for giving the maximum benefit for octant determination. This issue has been addressed in this work in the context of the DUNE experiment. We also discuss to what extent the broad-band nature of the beam and enhanced matter effect influences the octant sensitivity and if any new features emerge as compared to the previous narrow-band off-axis experiments with baseline $<1000~ \mathrm{km}$. We find that for the DUNE baseline addition of antineutrinos are helpful in general. This statement holds true even when there may be some degeneracy associated with the antineutrino channel and one expects the pure neutrino run to give the best results. This occurs because of opposing tendencies of neutrino and antineutrino $\chi^2$s. We find that when $ \bar{\nu} $ is combined with $\nu$ then the overall $ \chi^{2} $ minimum is still governed by the neutrinos because of higher statistics. At this point the antineutrino contribution to $\chi^2$ is higher and hence adding these enhances octant sensitivity inspite of the associated octant degeneracy. One should also note that due to the broadband nature of the beam the degeneracy may be limited for few energy bins only. Note that, due to the broad-band nature of the beam, the octant sensitivity coming from pure neutrino run is also quite high at the true values where neutrino probabilities are themselves degenerate. The antineutrino contribution can be more for IH since due to enhanced matter effects the corresponding probabilities can be much higher than the neutrino probabilities. Thus even if the main octant sensitivity comes from the neutrinos, the broad-band nature compounded with the higher matter effect leads to some octant sensitivity coming from antineutrino channels in case of IH. In addition we find that a small octant sensitive contribution comes from the disappearance channel when neutrino and antineutrino runs are combined although pure neutrino or pure antineutrino runs do not have this sensitivity. This happens because, due to matter effect the neutrino and antineutrino probabilities are slightly different and hence the minima comes at slightly different position for each case. When combined, there is a tension between these two which gives rise to a small octant sensitive $\chi^2$ contribution. Note that these features arising due to matter effects have not been highlighted in the literature earlier.
Taking two representative values of $\theta_{23}$ in the lower octant ($39^\circ$) and higher octant ($51^\circ$) we study the behaviour of $\chi^2$ with ${\delta_{CP}}$ for both NH and IH. We find that for a 10 kt mass of the detector although for some ${\delta_{CP}}$ values $(3-4)\sigma$ sensitivity can be achieved with only neutrino run, overall adding antineutrinos is helpful. For a 7+3 year ($\nu + \bar{\nu}$) run, close to $4\sigma$ sensitivity can be achieved over all values of ${\delta_{CP}}$. It is found that 7+3 and 5+5 do not give significantly different results. We compute the $\chi^2$ as a function of true $\theta_{23}$ for maximum CP violation. From this study we find that with 7+3 years option octant degeneracy can be resolved at $3\sigma$ excepting the range $ 41.5^\circ < \theta_{23} < 49^\circ$. Increasing the antineutrino component and making runtime 5+5 does not make any discernible difference to the results. Finally we also study the octant sensitivity in the true($\theta_{23} - {\delta_{CP}}$) plane which checks the validity of the conclusions drawn earlier over the whole parameter range. We find that for 10 kt year mass the antineutrino run enhances the range of $\theta_{23}$ over which octant sensitivity can be achieved. Including antineutrino runs, octant sensitivity can be obtained at $3\sigma$ excepting the range $ 43^\circ < \theta_{23} < 49^\circ$ not only for maximal violation of ${\delta_{CP}}$ but over the whole range. In this case with only neutrino run octant remains undetermined over a large parameter space. We also present the 3$\sigma$ precision contours in the true $\theta_{23}$-test $\theta_{23}$ plane. These plots show that adding antineutrino runs also help in obtaining improved precision on $\theta_{23}$.
We also present results on the CP violation discovery potential of DUNE emphasizing the role played by the antineutrinos. The CP sensitivity of any long-baseline experiment is affected by the occurrence of the wrong-hierarchy-wrong octant-wrong ${\delta_{CP}}$ solutions. Since the antineutrinos help in removing these solutions, one of the main role of the antineutrinos in enhancing CP sensitivity is to remove these wrong solutions. We present results for cases where hierarchy and octant are unknown and known and compare the role of the antineutrinos in both situations. We find that when octant is not known then in parameter spaces where octant degeneracy is manifest the antineutrino component increases CP sensitivity by removing wrong octant solutions. This is the case for instance for LO, ${\delta_{CP}}\sim -90^\circ$ and HO, ${\delta_{CP}}\sim +90^\circ$ for both hierarchies. However even when the octant is known addition of antineutrinos can improve the result because of the tension between the two $\chi^2$s which raises the overall $\chi^2$. The contribution from the antineutrino channel is higher for IH since due to matter effects the antineutrino probability is higher than the corresponding neutrino probability. At ${\delta_{CP}}= \pm 90^\circ$, a greater than $3\sigma$ sensitivity is achieved in all cases. We have also explored how addition of antineutrinos affects the fraction of ${\delta_{CP}}$ values for which CP sensitivity can be probed at $3\sigma$ level. We find that when octant is known, same sensitivity can be achieved with a lesser fraction of antineutrinos for both hierarchies. The maximum CP fraction is achieved for IH-LO. Overall the best result comes with 60% neutrino and 40% antineutrino runs for all the four cases.
In conclusion, we have explored the role of antineutrinos in enhancing octant and CP sensitivity for a 1300 km experiment with a broad-band beam as is planned by the DUNE collaboration. We emphasize on the importance of antineutrino run in resolving octant ambiguity and increasing CP sensitivity. Although for some specific parameters only neutrino run can give $3\sigma$ octant sensitivity for a 10 kt detector mass of DUNE, overall a balanced neutrino-antineutrino run gives better sensitivity. For the case of ${\delta_{CP}}$ discovery also in most of the parameter space antineutrinos play an important role due to synergistic effects between neutrinos and antineutrinos even under the assumption of octant to be known.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors would like to thank Sushant K. Raut for his help in GLoBES and also for many useful discussions regarding DUNE.
[^1]: Due to the presence of $P_{\mu \mu}$ channel, the wrong octant minima comes around $\theta_{23}=51^\circ$ for true $\theta_{23}=39^\circ$.
[^2]: For NH-LO, DUNE\[10+0\] (top left panel of Fig. \[oct\_lo\_ho\]), the area enclosed by the blue curve also corresponds to the allowed region.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe the structure of the irreducible representations of crossed products of unital C\*-algebras by actions of finite groups in terms of irreducible representations of the C\*-algebras on which the groups act. We then apply this description to derive a characterization of irreducible representations of crossed-products by finite cyclic groups in terms of representations of the C\*-algebra and its fixed point subalgebra. These results are applied to crossed-products by the permutation group on three elements and illustrated by various examples.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Denver\
Denver CO 80208
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Denver\
Denver CO 80208
author:
- Alvaro Arias
- Frédéric Latrémolière
date: 'February 10, 2010'
title: 'Irreducible Representations of C\*-crossed products by Finite Groups'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
What is the structure of irreducible representations of C\*-crossed-products $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ of an action $\alpha $ of a finite group $G$ on a unital C\*-algebra $A$? Actions by finite groups provide interesting examples, such as quantum spheres [@Bratteli91; @Bratteli92] and actions on the free group C\*-algebras [@CLat06], among many examples, and have interesting general properties, as those found for instance in [Rieffel80]{}. Thus, understanding the irreducible representations of their crossed-products is a natural inquiry, which we undertake in this paper.
After we wrote this paper, we are shown [@Takesaki67] where Takesaki provides in a detailed description of the irreducible representations of $A\rtimes G$ when $G$ is a locally group acting on a type I C\*-algebra $A$ and the action is assumed [*smooth*]{}, as defined in [@Takesaki67 Section 6]. Our paper takes a different road, though with some important intersections we were not aware of originally. Both our paper and [@Takesaki67] make use of the Mackey machinery and the structure of the commutant of the image of irreducible representations of the crossed-products. However, since our C\*-algebras are not assumed to be type I, and in general the restriction of an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes G$ to $A$ does not lead to an irreducible representation of $A$, we need a different approach than [@Takesaki67]. The main tool we use for this purpose is the impressive result proven in [@Hoegh-Krohn81] that for ergodic actions of compact groups on unital C\*-algebras, spectral subspaces are finite dimensional. As a consequence, we can analyze irreducible representations of finite group crossed-products on arbitrary unital C\*-algebras with no condition on the action of the group on the spectrum of the C\*-algebra. More formally, we restrict the assumption on the group and relax it completely on the C\*-algebra and the action compared to [@Takesaki67 Theorem 7.2].
Our research on this topic was initiated in a paper of Choi and the second author [@Latremoliere06] in the case where $G=\mathbb{Z}_{2},$ i.e. for the action of an order two automorphism $\sigma $ on a C\*-algebra $A $. In this situation, all irreducible representations of $A\rtimes
_{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ are either *minimal*, in the sense that their restriction to $A$ is already irreducible, or are regular, i.e. induced by a single irreducible representation $\pi $ of $A$ such that $\pi $ and $\pi
\circ \sigma $ are not equivalent. In this paper, we shall answer the question raised at the beginning of this introduction for any finite group $G $. Thus, we suppose given any action $\alpha $ of $G$ on a unital C\*-algebra $A$. In this general situation, we show that for any irreducible representation $\Pi $ of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ on some Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, the group $G$ acts ergodically on the commutant $\Pi
(A)^{\prime }$ of $\Pi (A)$, and thus, by a theorem of Hoegh-Krohn, Landstad and Stormer [@Hoegh-Krohn81], we prove that $\Pi (A)^{\prime }$ is finite dimensional. We can thus deduce that there is a subgroup $H$ of $G$ such that $\Pi $ is constructed from an irreducible representation $\Psi $ of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }H$, with the additional property that the restriction of $\Psi $ to $A$ is the direct sum of finitely many representations all equivalent to an irreducible representation $\pi $ of $A$. In addition, the group $H$ is exactly the group of elements $h$ in $G$ such that $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{h}$ are equivalent. The canonical unitaries of $A\rtimes
_{\alpha }G$ are mapped by $\Pi $ to generalized permutation operators for some decomposition of $\mathcal{H}$. This main result is the matter of the third section of this paper.
When $G$ is a finite cyclic group, then we show that the representation $\Psi $ is in fact minimal and obtain a full characterization of irreducible representations of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$. This result can not be extended to more generic finite groups, as we illustrate with some examples. In addition, the fixed point C\*-subalgebra of $A$ for $\alpha $ plays a very interesting role in the description of minimal representations when $G$ is cyclic. We investigate the finite cyclic case in the fourth section of this paper.
We then apply our work to the case where $G$ is the permutation group $\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ on three elements $\left\{ 1,2,3\right\} $. It is possible again to fully describe all irreducible representations of any crossed-product $A\rtimes _{\alpha }\mathfrak{S}_{3}$, and we illustrate all the cases we can encounter by examples. This matter is discussed in the last section of this paper.
We start our paper with a section on generalities on crossed-products of C\*-algebras by finite groups, including a result on a characterization of irreducible regular representations. This section also allows us to set some of our notations. We now fix some other notations which we will use recurrently in this paper. Given a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ which we decompose as a direct sum $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus
\ldots \oplus \mathcal{H}_{m}$ of Hilbert subspaces, we shall write an operator $T$ on $\mathcal{H}$ as an $m\times m$ matrix whose $(i,j)$-entry is the operator $p_{i}Tp_{j}$ where $p_{1},\ldots ,p_{m}$ are the orthogonal projections from $\mathcal{H}$ onto respectively $\mathcal{H}_{1},\ldots ,\mathcal{H}_{m}$. If $t_{1},\ldots ,t_{m}$ are operators on, respectively, $\mathcal{H}_{1},\ldots ,\mathcal{H}_{m}$, then the diagonal operator with entries $t_{1},\ldots ,t_{m}$ will be denoted by $t_{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus
t_{m}$, i.e. $\oplus _{j=1}^{m}t_{j}\left( \xi _{1},\ldots ,\xi _{m}\right)
=\left( t_{1}\xi _{1},\ldots ,t_{m}\xi _{m}\right) $ for all $\left( \xi
_{1},\ldots ,\xi _{i}\right) \in \mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus
\mathcal{H}_{m}$. If $\pi _{1},\ldots ,\pi _{m}$ are representations of some C\*-algebra $A$ acting respectively on $\mathcal{H}_{1},\ldots ,\mathcal{H}_{m}$, then the representation $\pi _{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus \pi _{m}$ of $A$ on $\mathcal{H}$ is defined by $\left( \pi _{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus \pi
_{m}\right) (a)=\pi _{1}(a)\oplus \ldots \oplus \pi _{m}(a)$ for all $a\in A$. The identity operator of $\mathcal{H}$ will be denoted by $1_{\mathcal{H}}$ or simply $1$ when no confusion may occur. More generally, when an operator $t$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ is a scalar multiple $\lambda 1_{\mathcal{H}}$ ($\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$) of the identity of $\mathcal{H}$ we shall simply denote it by $\lambda $ and omit the symbol $1_{\mathcal{H}}$ when appropriate.
We shall denote by $f_{|E_{0}}$ the restriction of any function $f:E\longrightarrow F$ to a subset $E_{0}$ of $E$. The set $\mathbb{T}$ is the unitary group of $\mathbb{C}$, i.e. the set of complex numbers of modulus 1.
Crossed-Product By Finite Groups
================================
In this paper, we let $A$ be a unital C\*-algebra and $\alpha $ an action on $A$ of a finite group $G$ by \*-automorphisms. A covariant representation of $\left( A,\alpha ,G\right) $ on a unital C\*-algebra $B$ is a pair $\left( \pi ,V\right) $ where $\pi $ is a \*-homomorphism from $A$ into $B$ and $V$ is a group homomorphism from $G$ into the unitary group of $B$ such that for all $g\in G$ and $a\in A$ we have $V(g)\pi (a)V\left(
g^{-1}\right) =\pi \circ \alpha _{g}(a)$. The crossed-product C\*-algebra $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ is the universal C\*-algebra among all the C\*-algebras generated by some covariant representation of $\left( A,\alpha ,G\right) $. In particular, $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ is generated by a copy of $A$ and unitaries $U^{g}$ for $g\in G$ such that $U^{gh}=U^{g}U^{h}$, $U^{g^{-1}}=\left( U^{g}\right) ^{\ast }$ and $U^{g}aU^{g^{-1}}=\alpha
_{g}(a) $ for all $g,h\in G$ and $a\in A$. The construction of $A\rtimes
_{\alpha }G$ can be found in [@Pedersen79] and is due originally to [Zeller-Meier68]{}.
By universality, crossed-products by finite groups have a very simple form which we now describe.
\[Presentation\]Let $G$ be a finite group of order $n$ and write $G=\left\{ g_{0},\ldots ,g_{n-1}\right\} $ with $g_{0}$ the neutral element of $G$. Let $\sigma $ be the embedding of $G$ in the permutation group of $\left\{ 0,\ldots ,n-1\right\} $ given by $\sigma _{g}(i)=j$ if and only if $gg_{i}=g_{j}$ for all $i,j\in \left\{ 0,\ldots ,n-1\right\} $ and $g\in G$. We now define $V_{g}$ to be the matrix in $M_{n}(A)$ whose $(i,j)$ entry is given by $1_{A}$ if $\sigma _{g}(i)=j$ and $0$ otherwise, i.e. the tensor product of the permutation matrix for $\sigma _{g}$ and $1_{M_{n}}(A)$. Let $\psi :A\longrightarrow M_{n}(A)$ be the \*-monomorphism:$$\psi :a\in A\longmapsto \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
a & & & \\
& \alpha _{g_{1}}(a) & & \\
& & \ddots & \\
& & & \alpha _{g_{n-1}}(a)\end{array}\right] \text{.}$$Then $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ is \*-isomorphic to $\oplus _{g\in G}\psi
(A)V_{g} $. In particular: $$\dbigoplus_{g\in G}AU^{g}=A\rtimes _{\alpha }G\text{.}$$
The embedding of $G$ into permutations of $G$ is of course the standard Cayley Theorem. We simply fix our notations more precisely so as to properly define our embedding $\psi $. A change of indexing of $G$ simply correspond to a permutation of the elements in the diagonal of $\psi $ and we shall work modulo this observation in this proof. For $b\in M_{n}(A)$ we denote by $b_{i,i^{\prime }}$ its $(i,i^{\prime })$-entry for $i,i^{\prime }\in
\left\{ 1,\ldots ,n\right\} $.
An easy computation shows that:$$V_{g}\psi (a)V_{g^{-1}}=\psi \left( \alpha _{g}(a)\right)$$and $V_{g}V_{h}=V_{gh}$ for all $g,h\in G$ and $a\in A$. Therefore, by universality of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$, there exists a (unique) \*-epimorphism $\eta :A\rtimes _{\alpha }G\twoheadrightarrow \oplus _{g\in
G}\psi (A)V_{g}$ such that $\eta _{|A}=\psi $ and $\eta (U^{g})=V_{g}$ for $g\in G$. Our goal is to prove that $\eta $ is a \*-isomorphism.
First, we show that $\oplus _{g\in G}AU^{g}$ is closed in $A\rtimes _{\alpha
}G$.
Let $\left( a_{m}^{0},\ldots ,a_{m}^{n-1}\right) _{m\in \mathbb{N}}$ in $A^{n}$ such that $\left( \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}a_{m}^{j}U^{g_{j}}\right) _{m\in
\mathbb{N}}$ is a convergent sequence in $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$. Now:$$\eta \left( \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}a_{m}^{j}U^{g_{j}}\right) =\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\psi
(a_{m}^{j})V_{g}\text{.}$$By definition, we have $\sigma _{g_{j}}(0)=i$ for all $i\in \left\{ 0,\ldots
,n-1\right\} $. Let $j\in \left\{ 0,\ldots ,n-1\right\} $. Then $V_{j+1,1}^{g_{j}}=1_{A}$ and $V_{j+1,1}^{g_{i}}=0$ for all $i\in \left\{
0,\ldots ,n-1\right\} \backslash \left\{ j\right\} $. Hence, $\left( \eta
\left( \sum_{j=1}^{n}a_{m}^{j}U^{g_{j}}\right) \right) _{1,j+1}=a_{m}^{j}$ for all $m\in \mathbb{N}$. Since $\eta $ is continuous, and so is the canonical projection $b\in M_{n}(A)\longrightarrow b_{1,j+1}\in A$, we conclude that $\left( a_{m}^{j}\right) _{m\in \mathbb{N}}$ converges in $A$. Let $a^{j}\in A$ be its limit. Then $\left( a_{m}^{0},\ldots
,a_{m}^{n-1}\right) _{m\in \mathbb{N}}$ converges in $A^{n}$ to $\left(
a^{0},\ldots ,a^{n-1}\right) $. Thus, $\left(
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}a_{m}^{j}U^{g_{j}}\right) _{m\in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to $\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}a^{j}U^{g_{j}}\in \oplus _{g\in G}AU^{g}$ and thus $\oplus
_{g\in G}AU^{g}$ is closed in $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$. Since $\oplus _{g\in
G}AU^{g}$ is dense in $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ by construction, we conclude that $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G=\oplus _{g\in G}AU^{g}$.
Now, we show that $\eta $ is injective. Let $c\in A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ such that $\eta (c)=0$. Then there exists $a_{0},\ldots ,a_{n-1}\in A$ such that $c=\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}a_{j}U^{g_{j}}$. Let $j\in \left\{ 0,\ldots ,n-1\right\} $. Then $\eta (c)=0$ implies that $\eta (c)_{j+1,1}=a_{j}=0$ for all $j\in
\left\{ 0,\ldots ,n-1\right\} $ and thus $c=0$. So $\eta $ is a \*-isomorphism and our proof is concluded.
As we will focus our attention on the crossed-products by finite cyclic groups in the fourth section of this paper and Proposition ([Presentation]{}) is particularly explicit in this case, we include the following corollary:
Let $\sigma $ be an automorphism of order $n$ of a unital C\*-algebra $A$. Then $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ is \*-isomorphic to:$$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
a_{1} & a_{2} & a_{3} & \cdots & a_{n} \\
\sigma (a_{n}) & \sigma (a_{1}) & \sigma (a_{2}) & \sigma (a_{3}) & \\
\sigma ^{2}(a_{n-1)} & \sigma ^{2}(a_{n}) & \sigma ^{2}(a_{1}) & \ddots &
\ddots \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \sigma ^{n-2}(a_{2}) \\
\sigma ^{n-1}(a_{2}) & \sigma ^{n-1}(a_{3}) & \cdots & \sigma ^{n-1}(a_{n})
& \sigma ^{n-1}(a_{1})\end{array}\right] \in M_{n}(A) \\
a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n}\in A\end{array}\right\}$$where $U^{1}$ mapped to $\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & & 0 \\
\vdots & 0 & \ddots & \\
0 & \vdots & \ddots & 1 \\
1 & 0 & \cdots & 0\end{array}\right] $ and $A$ is embedded diagonally as $a\in A\mapsto \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
a & & & \\
& \sigma (a) & & \\
& & \ddots & \\
& & & \sigma ^{n-1}(a)\end{array}\right] $. In particular, $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}=A\oplus
AU^{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus AU^{n-1}$.
Simply write $\mathbb{Z}_{n}=\left\{ 0,\ldots ,n-1\right\} $ so that: $$V_{1}= \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & & 0 \\
\vdots & 0 & \ddots & \\
0 & \vdots & \ddots & 1 \\
1 & 0 & \cdots & 0\end{array}
\right] \text{.}$$ The result is a direct computation of $\oplus _{k=0}^{n-1}\psi (A)\left(
V_{1}\right) ^{k}$.
We now turn our attention to the irreducible representations of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$. Proposition (\[Presentation\]) suggests that we construct some representations from one representation of $A$ and the left regular representation of $G$. Of particular interest is to decide when such representations are irreducible. We will use many times the following lemma [@Dixmier 2.3.4 p. 30], whose proof is included for the reader’s convenience:
\[Schur\]Let $\pi _{1}$ and $\pi _{2}$ be two irreducible representations of a C\*-algebra $A$ acting respectively on Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{2}$. Then $\pi _{1}$ and $\pi _{2}$ are unitarily equivalent if and only if there exists a nonzero operator $T:\mathcal{H}_{2}\longrightarrow \mathcal{H}_{1}$ such that for all $a\in A$ we have $T\pi _{1}(a)=\pi _{2}(a)T$. Moreover, if there exists such a nonzero intertwining operator, then it is unique up to a nonzero scalar multiple.
If $\pi _{1}$ and $\pi _{2}$ are unitarily equivalent then there exists a unitary $T$ such that for all $a\in A$ we have $T\pi _{1}(a)=\pi _{2}(a)T$. In particular, $T\not=0$. Moreover, assume that there exists $T^{\prime }$ such that $T^{\prime }\pi _{1}=\pi _{2}T^{\prime }$. Then $T^{\ast
}T^{\prime }\pi _{1}=T^{\ast }\pi _{2}T^{\prime }=\pi _{1}T^{\ast }T^{\prime
}$. Hence since $\pi _{1}$ is irreducible, there exists $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$ such that $T^{\prime }=\lambda T$.
Conversely, assume that there exists a nonzero operator $T:\mathcal{H}_{2}\longrightarrow \mathcal{H}_{1}$ such that for all $a\in A$ we have:$$T\pi _{1}(a)=\pi _{2}(a)T\text{.} \label{UnitaryEq}$$Then for all $a\in A$:$$T^{\ast }T\pi _{1}(a)=T^{\ast }\pi _{2}(a)T\text{.}$$In particular $T^{\ast }T\pi _{1}(a^{\ast })=T^{\ast }\pi _{2}(a^{\ast })T$ for all $a\in A$. Applying the adjoint operation to this equality leads to $\pi _{1}(a)T^{\ast }T=T^{\ast }\pi _{2}(a)T$ and thus:$$T^{\ast }T\pi _{1}(a)=\pi _{1}(a)T^{\ast }T\text{.}$$Since $\pi _{1}$ is irreducible, there exists $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$ such that $T^{\ast }T=\lambda 1_{\mathcal{H}_{2}}$. Since $T\not=0$ we have $\lambda \not=0$. Up to replacing $T$ by $\frac{1}{\mu }T$ where $\mu
^{2}=\left\vert \lambda \right\vert $ and $\mu \in \mathbb{R}$ we thus get $T^{\ast }T=1_{\mathcal{H}_{2}}$. Thus $T$ is an isometry. In particular, $TT^{\ast }$ is a nonzero projection.
Similarly, we get $\pi _{2}(a)TT^{\ast }=TT^{\ast }\pi _{2}(a)$ and thus $TT^{\ast }$ is scalar as well. Hence $TT^{\ast }$ is the identity again (As the only nonzero scalar projection) and thus $T$ is a unitary operator. Hence by (\[UnitaryEq\]), $\pi _{1}$ and $\pi _{2}$ are unitarily equivalent.
Given a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, the C\*-algebra of all bounded linear operators on $\mathcal{H}$ is denoted by $\mathcal{B}\left( \mathcal{H}\right) $.
\[RegularIrred\]Let $G$ be a finite group with neutral element $e$ and $\alpha $ an action of $G$ on a unital C\*-algebra $A$. Let $\pi :A\rightarrow
\mathcal{B}\left( \mathcal{H}\right) $ be a representation of $A$ and let $\lambda $ be the left regular representation of $G$ on $\ell _{2}(G)$. Let $\delta _{g}$ be the function in $\ell _{2}(G)$ which is $1$ at $g\in G$ and $0$ otherwise. Define $\Pi :A\rtimes _{\alpha }G\rightarrow \mathcal{B}\left(
\ell _{2}\left( G\right) \otimes \mathcal{H}\right) $ by$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi \left( a\right) \left( \delta _{g}\otimes \xi \right) &=&\delta
_{g}\otimes \pi \left( \alpha _{g^{-1}}\left( a\right) \right) \xi ,\text{
and} \\
\Pi \left( g\right) &=&\lambda \left( g\right) \otimes 1_{\mathcal{H}}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$Then $\Pi $ is irreducible if and only if $\pi $ is irreducible and $\pi $ is not unitarily equivalent to $\pi \circ \alpha _{g}$ for any $g\in
G\setminus \left\{ e\right\} $.
Assume now that $\pi $ is irreducible and not unitarily equivalent to $\pi
\circ \alpha _{g}$ whenever $g\in G\setminus \left\{ e\right\} $. Suppose that $\Pi $ is reducible. Then there exists a non-scalar operator $\Omega $ in the commutant of $\Pi \left( A\rtimes _{\alpha }G\right) $. Now, we observe that the commutant of $\left\{ \lambda \left( g\right) \otimes 1_{\mathcal{H}}:g\in G\right\} $ is $\rho \left( G\right) \otimes \mathcal{B}\left( \mathcal{H}\right) $, where $\rho $ is the right regular representation of $G$. Hence, there exist an operator $T_{g}$ on $\mathcal{H}
$ for all $g\in G$ such that $\Omega =\sum_{g\in G}$ $\rho \left( g\right)
\otimes T_{g}$. For every $\xi \in \mathcal{H}$ and $a\in A$, we have$$\begin{aligned}
\left( \sum_{g\in G}\rho \left( g\right) \otimes T_{g}\right) \Pi \left(
a\right) \left( \delta _{0}\otimes \xi \right) &=&\left( \sum_{g\in G}\rho
\left( g\right) \otimes T_{g}\right) \left( \delta _{0}\otimes \pi \left(
a\right) \xi \right) \\
&=&\sum_{g\in G}\delta _{g}\otimes T_{g}\pi \left( a\right) \xi\end{aligned}$$
and$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi \left( a\right) \left( \sum_{g\in G}\rho \left( g\right) \otimes
T_{g}\right) \left( \delta _{0}\otimes \xi \right) &=&\Pi \left( a\right)
\left( \sum_{g\in G}\delta _{g}\otimes T_{g}\xi \right) \\
&=&\sum_{g\in G}\delta _{g}\otimes \pi \left( \alpha _{g^{-1}}(a)\right)
T_{g}\xi \text{.}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, for every $g\in G$ and for all $a\in A$:$$\pi \left( \alpha _{g^{-1}}(a)\right) T_{g}=T_{g}\pi \left( a\right) \text{.}
\label{RegularIrred1}$$
Since $\Omega $ is non scalar, there exists $g_{0}\in G\setminus \left\{
e\right\} $ such that $T_{g_{0}}\not=0$. By Lemma (\[Schur\]), Equality (\[RegularIrred1\]) for $g_{0}$ implies that $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha
_{g_{0}}$, which are irreducible, are also unitarily equivalent since $T_{g_{0}}\not=0$. This is a contradiction. So $\Pi $ is irreducible.
We now show the converse. First, note that if $\pi $ is reducible then there exists a projection $p$ on $\mathcal{H}$ which is neither $0$ or $1$ such that $p$ commutes with the range of $\pi $. It is then immediate that $1\otimes p$ commutes with the range of $\Pi $ and thus $\Pi $ is reducible.
Assume now that there exists $g\in G\setminus \left\{ e\right\} $ such that $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{g}$ are unitarily equivalent. Then there exists a unitary $V$ such that for every $a\in A$: $$\pi \left( a\right) =V\pi \left( \alpha _{g}\left( a\right) \right) V^{\ast }\text{.}$$Let us show that $\rho \left( g\right) \otimes V$ is in the commutant of $\Pi \left( A\rtimes _{\alpha }G\right) .$ We only need to check that it commutes with $\Pi \left( a\right) $ for $a\in A$.$$\begin{aligned}
\left( \rho \left( g\right) \otimes V\right) \Pi \left( a\right) \left(
\delta _{h}\otimes \xi \right) &=&\delta _{hg}\otimes V\pi \left( \alpha
_{h^{-1}}\left( a\right) \right) \xi \text{, and} \\
\Pi \left( a\right) \left( \rho \left( g\right) \otimes V\right) \left(
\delta _{h}\otimes \xi \right) &=&\delta _{hg}\otimes \pi \left( \alpha
_{g^{-1}}\alpha _{h^{-1}}\left( a\right) \right) V\xi \text{.}\end{aligned}$$Since $V\pi \left( \alpha _{h^{-1}}\left( a\right) \right) =\pi \left(
\alpha _{g^{-1}}\alpha _{h^{-1}}\left( a\right) \right) V,$ we conclude that the two quantities are equal, and that $\Pi $ is reducible.
Hence, if $\Pi $ is irreducible, then $\pi $ is irreducible and not equivalent to $\pi \circ \alpha _{g}$ for any $g\in G\setminus \left\{
e\right\} $.
Theorem (\[RegularIrred\]) provides us with a possible family of irreducible representations of the crossed-product. The representations given in Theorem (\[RegularIrred\]) are called *regular representations* of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$, whether or not they are irreducible.
However, we shall see that there are many irreducible representations of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ which are not regular. Easy examples are provided by actions of finite cyclic groups by inner automorphisms on full matrix algebras, where the identity representation is in fact the only irreducible representation of the crossed-product. More generally, the conditions that $\pi $ is irreducible and $\pi \circ \alpha
_{g}$ are not equivalent for $g\in G\backslash \{e\}$ are not necessary. These observations will be placed into a more general context as we now address the question raised at the start of this paper in the next section.
Actions of Finite Groups
========================
This section is concerned with establishing results describing the irreducible representations of crossed-products by finite groups. The main tool for our study is to understand such actions from the perspective of the spectrum of the C\*-algebra. In this paper, the spectrum $\widehat{A}$ of a C\*-algebra $A$ is the set of unitary equivalence classes of irreducible representations of $A$.
We start by two simple observations. Let $\alpha $ be the action of a finite group $G$ on some unital C\*-algebra $A$. Let $\pi _{1}$ and $\pi _{2}$ be two equivalent irreducible representations of $A$, so that there exists a unitary $u$ such that $u\pi _{1}u^{\ast }=\pi _{2}$. Then trivially $u\left(
\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g^{-1}}\right) u^{\ast }=\pi _{2}\circ \alpha
_{g^{-1}}$ for all $g\in G$. Moreover, $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g^{-1}}$ has the same range as $\pi _{1}$ and thus is irreducible as well. These two remarks show that for all $g\in G$ there exists a map $\widehat{\alpha _{g}}$ of $G$ on $\widehat{A}$ defined by mapping the class of an irreducible representation $\pi $ of $A$ to the class of $\pi \circ \alpha _{g^{-1}}$. Since $\left( \pi \circ \alpha _{g^{-1}}\right) \circ \alpha _{h^{-1}}=\pi
\circ \alpha _{\left( hg\right) ^{-1}}$, we have $\widehat{\alpha }_{h}\circ
\widehat{\alpha }_{g}=\widehat{\alpha }_{hg}$, and trivially $\widehat{\alpha }_{e}$ is the identity on $\widehat{A}$. Thus $\widehat{\alpha }$ is an action of $G$ on $\widehat{A}$.
Given a representation $\Pi $ of the crossed-product $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$, we define the support of $\Pi $ as the subset $\Sigma $ of $\widehat{A}$ of all classes of irreducible representations of $A$ weakly contained in $\Pi
_{|A}$. Our main interest are in the support of irreducible representations of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ which we now prove are always finite.
Finiteness of irreducible supports
----------------------------------
Let $G$ be a finite group of neutral element $e$. Let $\widehat{G}$ be the dual of $G$ i.e. the set of unitary equivalence classes of irreducible representations of $G$. By [@Dixmier 15.4.1, p. 291], the cardinal of $\widehat{G}$ is given by the number of conjugacy classes of $G$, so $\widehat{G}$ is a finite set. Let $\rho \in \widehat{G}$ and $\lambda $ be any irreducible representation of $G$ of class $\rho $ acting on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Then $\overline{\lambda }$ is the (irreducible)representation $g\in G\mapsto \lambda (g)$ acting on the conjugate Hilbert space $\overline{\mathcal{H}}$ [@Dixmier 13.1.5, p. 250]. We define $\overline{\rho }$ as the class of representations unitarily equivalent to $\overline{\lambda }$.
Let $B$ be a unital C\*-algebra and $\alpha $ an action of $G$ on $B$ by \*-automorphisms. We now recall from [@Hoegh-Krohn81] the definition and elementary properties of the spectral subspaces of $B$ for the action $\alpha $ of $G$. Let $\rho \in \widehat{G}$. The character of $\rho $ is denoted by $\chi _{\rho }$. All irreducible representations of $G$ whose class in $\widehat{G}$ is $\rho $ act on vector spaces of the same dimension which we denote by $\dim \rho $. We recall from [Dixmier]{} that for any $\rho ,\rho ^{\prime }\in \widehat{G}$ we have:$$\chi _{\rho }(e)=\dim \rho$$and:$$\chi _{\rho }\ast \chi _{\rho ^{\prime }}(g)=\sum_{h\in G}\chi _{\rho
}(h)\chi _{\rho ^{\prime }}(gh^{-1})=\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \text{if} & \rho \not=\rho ^{\prime }\text{,} \\
\left( \dim \rho \right) ^{-1}\chi _{\rho }(g) & \text{if} & \rho =\rho
^{\prime }\text{.}\end{array}\right.$$
The spectral subspace of $B$ for $\alpha $ associated to $\rho \in \widehat{G}$ is the space $B_{\rho }$ defined by:$$B_{\rho }=\left\{ \frac{\dim \left( \rho \right) }{\left\vert G\right\vert }\sum_{g\in G}\chi _{\overline{\rho }}(g)\alpha _{g}(b):b\in B\right\} \text{,}$$i.e. the range of the Banach space operator on $B$ defined by: $$P_{\rho }:b\in B\mapsto \frac{\dim \left( \rho \right) }{\left\vert
G\right\vert }\sum_{g\in G}\chi _{\overline{\rho }}(g)\alpha _{g}(b)\text{.}
\label{SpectralProjDef}$$In particular, the spectral subspace associated to the trivial representation is the fixed point C\*-subalgebra $B_{1}$ of $B$ for the action $\alpha $ of $G$. Now, we have:$$\begin{aligned}
P_{\rho }\left( P_{\rho ^{\prime }}(a)\right) &=&\frac{\dim \left( \rho
\right) }{\left\vert G\right\vert }\frac{\dim \left( \rho ^{\prime }\right)
}{\left\vert G\right\vert }\sum_{g\in G}\sum_{h\in G}\chi _{\overline{\rho }}(g)\chi _{\overline{\rho ^{\prime }}}(h)\alpha _{gh}(a) \notag \\
&=&\frac{\dim \left( \rho \right) }{\left\vert G\right\vert }\frac{\dim
\left( \rho ^{\prime }\right) }{\left\vert G\right\vert }\sum_{g\in G}\left(
\sum_{h\in G}\chi _{\overline{\rho }}(gh^{-1})\chi _{\overline{\rho ^{\prime
}}}(h)\right) \alpha _{g}(a) \notag \\
&=&\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \text{if} & \rho \not=\rho ^{\prime } \\
\frac{\dim \left( \rho \right) }{\left\vert G\right\vert }\sum_{g\in G}\chi
_{\overline{\rho }}(g)\alpha _{g}(a) & \text{if} & \rho =\rho ^{\prime }\text{.}\end{array}\right. \label{SpectralOrthogonal}\end{aligned}$$Hence $P_{\rho }^{2}=P_{\rho }$ so $P_{\rho }$ is a Banach space projection and $P_{\rho }P_{\rho ^{\prime }}=0$ for all $\rho ^{\prime }\not=\rho $ so these projections are pairwise orthogonal.
Moreover, for any $g,h\in G$, from [@Dixmier 15.4.2 (2) p. 292]:$$\sum_{\rho \in \widehat{G}}\chi _{\rho }(g)\overline{\chi _{\rho }(h)}=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\left\vert G\right\vert }{C(g)} & \text{if }g\text{ is conjugated with
}h\text{,} \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}\end{array}\right. \label{Sumation2}$$where for $g\in G$ the quantity $C(g)$ is the number of elements in $G$ conjugated to $g$. In particular, note that since $g\in G\backslash \left\{
e\right\} $ is not conjugated to $e$, we have by Equality (\[Sumation2\])that:$$\sum_{\rho \in \widehat{G}}\chi _{\rho }(g)\dim \rho =\sum_{\rho \in
\widehat{G}}\chi _{\rho }(g)\overline{\chi _{\rho }(e)}=0\text{.}
\label{NullSum}$$
Furthermore, because each irreducible representation $\rho $ of $G$ appears with multiplicity $\dim \rho $ in the left regular representation of $G$ one can show [@Dixmier 15.4.1, p. 291] that:$$\sum_{\rho \in \widehat{G}}\left( \dim \rho \right) ^{2}=\left\vert
G\right\vert \text{.} \label{RegularMul}$$
Hence for all $b\in B$:$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\rho \in \widehat{G}}P_{\rho }(b) &=&\sum_{\rho \in \widehat{G}}\frac{\dim \left( \rho \right) }{\left\vert G\right\vert }\sum_{g\in G}\chi _{\rho
}(g)\alpha _{g}(b) \notag \\
&=&\frac{1}{\left\vert G\right\vert }\sum_{g\in G}\left( \sum_{\rho \in
\widehat{G}}\dim \left( \rho \right) \chi _{\rho }(g)\right) \alpha _{g}(b)
\notag \\
&=&\frac{1}{\left\vert G\right\vert }\left( \sum_{\rho \in \widehat{G}}\dim
\left( \rho \right) \chi (e)\right) \alpha _{e}(b)\text{ by Equality (\ref{NullSum})} \notag \\
&=&\left( \frac{1}{\left\vert G\right\vert }\sum_{\rho \in \widehat{G}}\dim
(\rho )^{2}\right) b=b\text{ by Equality (\ref{RegularMul}).}
\label{ProjectionSummation}\end{aligned}$$Hence $\sum_{\rho \in \widehat{G}}P_{\rho }=\limfunc{Id}_{B}$. Thus by ([SpectralOrthogonal]{}) and (\[ProjectionSummation\]) we have:$$B=\dbigoplus\limits_{\rho \in \widehat{G}}B_{\rho }\text{.}
\label{SpectralSummation}$$
We now establish that the restriction of any irreducible representation of a crossed-product of some unital C\*-algebra $A$ by $G$ is the direct sum of finitely many irreducible representations of $A$.
\[FiniteRep\]Let $G$ be a finite group and $A$ a unital C\*-algebra. Let $\alpha $ be an action of $G$ by \*-automorphism on $A$. Let $\Pi $ be an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ on some Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. We denote by $U^{g}$ the canonical unitary in $A\rtimes
_{\alpha }G$ corresponding to $g\in G$. Then:
- The action $g\mapsto \limfunc{Ad}\Pi (U^{g})$ on $\mathcal{B}\left(
\mathcal{H}\right) $ leaves the commutant $\Pi \left( A\right) ^{\prime }$ of $\Pi (A)$ invariant, and thus defines an action $\beta $ of $G$ on $\Pi
\left( A\right) ^{\prime }$,
- The action $\beta $ is ergodic on $\Pi \left( A\right) ^{\prime }$,
- The Von Neumann algebra $\Pi \left( A\right) ^{\prime }$ is finite dimensional,
- The representation $\Pi _{|A}$ of $A$ is equivalent to the direct sum of finitely many irreducible representations of $A$.
Let $\mathfrak{M}=\Pi (A)^{\prime }$. Denote $U_{\Pi }^{g}=\Pi (U^{g})$ for all $g\in G$. Let $T\in \mathfrak{M}$. Let $a\in A$ and $g\in G$. Then:$$\begin{aligned}
U_{\Pi }^{g}TU_{\Pi }^{g\ast }\Pi (a) &=&U_{\Pi }^{g}TU_{\Pi }^{g\ast }\Pi
(a)U_{\Pi }^{g}U_{\Pi }^{g\ast } \\
&=&U_{\Pi }^{g}T\Pi \left( \alpha _{g^{-1}}(a)\right) U_{\Pi }^{g\ast } \\
&=&U_{\Pi }^{g}\Pi \left( \alpha _{g^{-1}}(a)\right) TU_{\Pi }^{g\ast } \\
&=&U_{\Pi }^{g}U_{\Pi }^{g\ast }\Pi (a)U_{\Pi }^{g}TU_{\Pi }^{g\ast } \\
&=&\Pi (a)U_{\Pi }^{g}TU_{\Pi }^{g\ast }\text{.}\end{aligned}$$Hence $U_{\Pi }^{g}TU_{\Pi }^{g\ast }\in \mathfrak{M}$ for all $g\in G$ and $T\in \mathfrak{M}$. Define $\beta _{g}(T)=U_{\Pi }^{g}TU_{\Pi }^{g\ast }$ for all $g\in G$ and $T\in \mathfrak{M}$. Then $g\in G\mapsto \beta _{g}$ is an action of $G$ on $\mathfrak{M}$.
Let now $T\in \mathfrak{M}$ such that $\beta _{g}(T)=T$ for all $g\in G$. Then $T$ commutes with $U_{\Pi }^{g}$ for all $g\in G$. Moreover by definition of $\mathfrak{M}$, the operator $T$ commutes with $\Pi (A)$. Hence $T$ commutes with $\Pi $ which is irreducible, so $T$ is scalar. Hence $\beta $ is ergodic.
Let $\rho $ be an irreducible representation of $G$ (since $G$ is finite, $\rho $ is finite dimensional). By [@Hoegh-Krohn81 Proposition 2.1], the spectral subspace $\mathfrak{M}_{\rho }$ of $\mathfrak{M}$ for $\beta $ associated to $\rho $ is finite dimensional. Since $\mathfrak{M}=\oplus
_{\rho \in \widehat{G}}\mathfrak{M}_{\rho }$ by Equality ([SpectralSummation]{}) and since $\widehat{G}$ is finite by [@Dixmier 15.4.1, p. 291] we conclude that $\mathfrak{M}$ is finite dimensional.
Denote $\Pi _{|A}$ by $\pi _{A}$. Let $p_{1},\ldots ,p_{k}$ be projections in $\mathfrak{M}$, all minimal and such that $\sum_{i=1}^{k}p_{i}=1$. Let $i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,k\right\} $. Then by definition of $\mathfrak{M}$, the projection $p_{i}$ commutes with $\pi _{A}$. Hence $p_{i}\pi _{A}p_{i}$ is a representation of $A$. Let $q$ be a projection of $p_{i}\mathcal{H}$ such that $p_{i}$ commutes with $p_{i}\pi _{A}p_{i}$. Then $q\leq p_{i}$ and $q\in \mathfrak{M}$, so $q\in \left\{ 0,p_{i}\right\} $ since $p_{i}$ is minimal. Hence $p_{i}\pi _{A}p_{i}$ is an irreducible representation of $A$. Therefore:$$\begin{aligned}
\pi _{A} &=&\left( \sum_{i=1}^{k}p_{i}\right) \pi _{A}\text{ since }\sum_{i=1}^{k}p_{i}=1\text{,} \\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^{k}p_{i}\pi _{A}p_{i}\text{ since }p_{i}=p_{i}^{2}\in
\mathfrak{M}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$Hence $\pi _{A}$ is the direct sum of finitely many irreducible representations of $A$.
Minimality of the irreducible supports
--------------------------------------
The following is our key observation which will drive the proofs in this section:
\[Observation\]Let $\Pi $ be an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes
_{\alpha }G$ and let $\pi _{A}=\Pi _{|A}$. Then for each $g\in G$ the representations $\pi _{A}$ and $\pi _{A}\circ \alpha _{g}$ are unitarily equivalent. Hence, the decompositions in direct sums of irreducible representations of $A$ for $\pi _{A}$ and $\pi _{A}\circ \alpha _{g}$ are the same.
This observation is the basis of the next lemma, which is instrumental in the proof of the theorem to follow.
\[LemmaCycle\]Let $\alpha $ be an action of a finite group $G$ on a unital C\*-algebra $A$. Let $\Pi $ be an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ and let $\pi _{A}$ be the restriction of $\Pi $ to $A$. Then there exists a finite subset $\Sigma $ of the spectrum $\widehat{A}$ of $A$ such that all irreducible subrepresentations of $\pi _{A}$ are in $\Sigma $. Moreover, all the elements of $\Sigma $ in a given orbit for $\widehat{\alpha }$ have the same multiplicity in $\pi _{A}$.
Let $\Sigma $ be the subset of the spectrum $\widehat{A}$ of $A$ consisting of all classes of irreducible representations weakly contained in $\pi _{A}$. By Theorem (\[FiniteRep\]), since $\Pi $ is irreducible, $\pi _{A}$ is a finite direct sum of irreducible representations of $A$ so $\Sigma $ is nonempty and finite.
Let $g\in G$. Now, by Observation (\[Observation\]), since $\pi _{A}\circ
\alpha _{g^{-1}}$ is unitarily equivalent to $\pi _{A}$, its decomposition in irreducible representations is the same as the one for $\pi _{A}$. Thus, if $\eta \in \Sigma $ then $\widehat{\alpha }_{g}\left( \eta \right) \in
\Sigma $. Since $\widehat{\alpha }_{g}$ is a bijection on $\widehat{A}$ and thus is injective, and since $\Sigma $ is finite, $\widehat{\alpha }_{g}$ is a permutation of $\Sigma $.
Let $\Sigma _{\alpha }$ be the orbit of $\varphi \in \Sigma $ under $\widehat{\alpha }$ and write $\pi _{A}=\pi _{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus \pi _{k}$ using Theorem (\[FiniteRep\]), where $\pi _{1},\ldots ,\pi _{k}$ are irreducible representations of $A$, with the class of $\pi _{1}$ being $\varphi $. Now, for $g\in G$, let $n_{1,g},\ldots ,n_{m(g),g}$ be the integers between $1$ and $k$ such that $\pi _{n_{i,g}}$ is equivalent to $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g}$. In particular, $m(g)$ is the multiplicity of $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g}$ in $\pi _{A}$. Then $\left( \pi _{n_{1,e}}\oplus
\ldots \oplus \pi _{n_{m(1),e}}\right) \circ \alpha _{g}$ must be the subrepresentation $\pi _{n_{1,g}}\oplus \ldots \oplus \pi _{n_{m(g),g}}$ of $\pi _{A}$. So $m(g)=m(e)$ by uniqueness of the decomposition. Hence for all $g$ the multiplicity of $\widehat{\alpha }_{g}(\varphi )$ is the same as the multiplicity of $\varphi $.
We now establish the main theorem of this paper, describing the structure of irreducible representations of crossed-products by finite groups. A *unitary projective representation* of $G$ is a map $\Lambda $ from $G$ into the group of unitaries on some Hilbert space such that there exists a complex valued 2-cocycle $\sigma $ on $G$ satisfying for all $g,h\in G$ the identity $\Lambda _{gh}=\sigma (g,h)\Lambda _{g}\Lambda _{h}$.
\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]Let $G$ be a finite group and $\alpha $ be an action of $G$ on a unital C\*-algebra $A$ by \*-automorphisms. Let $\Pi $ be an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ on some Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Then there exists a subgroup $H$ of $G$ and a representation $\pi $ of $A$ on some Hilbert space $\mathcal{J}$ such that, up to conjugating $\Pi $ by some fixed unitary, and denoting the index of $H$ in $G$ by $m=G:H$ we have the following:
For any subset $\left\{ g_{1},\ldots ,g_{m}\right\} $ of $G$ such that $g_{1} $ is the neutral element of $G$ and $Hg_{j}\cap Hg_{i}=\left\{
g_{1}\right\} $ for $i\not=j$ while $G=\cup _{j=1}^{m}Hg_{j}$, we have:
1. The representations $\pi \circ \alpha _{g_{i}}$ and $\pi \circ \alpha
_{g_{j}}$ are disjoint for $i,j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,m\right\} $ and $i\not=j $ (so in particular, they are not unitarily equivalent),
2. There exists an irreducible representation $\pi _{1}$ of $A$ on a Hilbert subspace $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ of $\mathcal{J}$ and some integer $r$ such that $\mathcal{J}=\mathbb{C}^{r}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{1}$ and $\pi =1_{
\mathbb{C}^{r}}\otimes \pi _{1}$,
3. For any $h\in H$ there exists a unitary $V^{h}$ on $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ such that $V^{h}\pi _{1}\left( V^{h}\right) ^{\ast }=\pi _{1}\circ \alpha
_{h}$, and $h\in H\mapsto V^{h}$ is a unitary projective representation of $H $ on $\mathcal{H}_{1}$,
4. We have $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{J}_{g_{1}}\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal{J}_{g_{m}}$ where for all $i=1,\ldots ,m$ the space $\mathcal{J}_{g_{i}}$ is an isometric copy of $\mathcal{J}$,
5. In this decomposition of $\mathcal{H}$ we have for all $a\in A$ that:$$\Pi (a)=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
\pi (a) & & & \\
& \pi \circ \alpha _{g_{2}}(a) & & \\
& & \ddots & \\
& & & \pi \circ \alpha _{g_{m}}(a)\end{array}\right] \label{PIA}$$
6. In this same decomposition, for every $g$ there exists a permutation $\sigma ^{g}$ of $\left\{ 1,\ldots ,m\right\} $ and unitaries $U_{i}^{g}:\mathcal{J}_{g_{i}}\longrightarrow \mathcal{J}_{\sigma ^{g}(g_{i})}$ such that:$$\Pi (U^{g})=\left[ U_{j}^{g}\delta _{i}^{\sigma ^{g}(j)}\right]
_{i,j=1,\ldots ,m}$$where $\delta $ is the Kronecker symbol:$$\delta _{a}^{b}=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \text{if }a=b\text{,} \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}\end{array}\right. \label{Kronecker}$$Moreover:$$H=\left\{ g\in G:\sigma ^{g}(1)=1\right\} \text{.}$$
7. The representation $\Psi $ of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }H$ on $\mathcal{J}$ defined by $\Psi (a)=\pi (a)$ for all $a\in A$ and $\Psi (U^{h})=U_{1}^{h}$ for $h\in H$ is irreducible. Moreover, there exists an irreducible unitary projective representation $\Lambda $ of $G$ on $\mathbb{C}^{r}$ such that on $\mathcal{J}=\mathbb{C}^{r}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{1}$, while $\Psi (a)=1_{\mathbb{C}^{r}}\otimes \pi _{1}(a)$, we also have $\Psi
(U^{h})=U_{1}^{h}=\Lambda _{h}\otimes V^{h}$.
Let $\Pi $ be an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$. Denote $\Pi _{|A}$ by $\pi _{A}$. By Theorem (\[FiniteRep\]), there exists a nonzero natural integer $k$ and irreducible representations $\pi
_{1},\ldots ,\pi _{k}$ of $A$, acting respectively on Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}_{1},\ldots ,\mathcal{H}_{k}$ such that up to a unitary conjugation of $\Pi $, we have $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus \ldots
\oplus \mathcal{H}_{k}$ and in this decomposition, for all $a\in A$:$$\pi _{A}(a)=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
\pi _{1}(a) & & & \\
& \pi _{2}(a) & & \\
& & \ddots & \\
& & & \pi _{k}(a)\end{array}\right] \text{.}$$
At this stage, the indexing of the irreducible subrepresentations of $\pi
_{A}$ is only defined up to a permutation of $\left\{ 1,\ldots ,k\right\} $. We start our proof by making a careful choice of such an indexing. To do so, first choose $\pi _{1}$ arbitrarily among all irreducible subrepresentations of $\pi _{A}$. Our next step is to set:$$H=\left\{ g\in G:\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g}\text{ is equivalent to }\pi
_{1}\right\} \text{.}$$We now show that $H$ is a subgroup of $G$. For all $h\in H$ we denote by $V^{h}$ the (unique, up to a scalar multiple) unitary such that $V^{h}\pi
_{1}\left( V^{h}\right) ^{\ast }=\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{h}$. Then if $g,h\in
H$ we have:$$\begin{aligned}
\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{gh^{-1}} &=&\left( \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g}\right)
\circ \alpha _{h^{-1}}=V^{g}\left( \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{h^{-1}}\right)
V^{g^{-1}} \\
&=&V^{g}V^{h^{-1}}\pi _{1}V^{h}V^{g^{-1}}\end{aligned}$$so $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{gh^{-1}}$ is unitarily equivalent to $\pi _{1}$ and thus $gh^{-1}\in H$ by definition. Since $H$ trivially contains the neutral element of $G$, we conclude that $H$ is a subgroup of $G$.
Let $\left\{ g_{1},\ldots ,g_{m}\right\} $ a family of right coset representatives such that $g_{1}$ is the neutral element of $G$ [Robinson82]{}, i.e. such that for $i\not=j$ we have $Hg_{j}\cap
Hg_{i}=\left\{ g_{1}\right\} $ while $G=\cup _{j=1}^{m}Hg_{j}$. In particular, for $i\in \left\{ 2,\ldots ,m\right\} $ we have $g_{1}\not=g_{i}$ and by definition of $H$ this implies that $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g_{i}}$ is not equivalent to $\pi _{1}$.
Then let $\pi _{2},\ldots ,\pi _{n_{1}}$ be all the representations equivalent to $\pi _{1}$. We then choose $\pi _{n_{1}+1}$ to be a subrepresentation of $\pi _{A}$ equivalent to $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g_{1}}$. Again, we let $\pi _{n_{1}+1},\ldots ,\pi _{n_{2}}$ be all the representations which are equivalent to $\pi _{n_{1}+1}$. More generally, we let $\pi _{n_{j}+1},\ldots ,\pi _{n_{j+1}}$ be all the subrepresentations of $\pi _{A}$ equivalent to $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g_{j}}$ for all $j\in
\{1,\ldots ,m\}$. All other irreducible subrepresentations of $\pi _{A}$ left, if any, are indexed from $n_{m}+1$ to $k$ and we denote their direct sum by $\Lambda $.
Note that $\Lambda $ contains no subrepresentation equivalent to any representation $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g}$ for any $g\in G$. Indeed, if $g\in G$ then there exists $h\in H$ and a unique $j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots
,m\right\} $ such that $g=hg_{j}$. Thus:$$\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g}=\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{h}\circ \alpha
_{g_{j}}=V^{h}\left( \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g_{j}}\right) V^{-h}$$and thus $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g}$ is equivalent to one of the representations $\pi _{1},\ldots ,\pi _{n_{m}}$ by construction. Also note that if $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g_{i}}$ is equivalent to $\pi _{1}\circ
\alpha _{g_{j}}$ then $g_{i}g_{j}^{-1}\in H$ which contradicts our choice of $\left\{ g_{1},\ldots ,g_{m}\right\} $ unless $i=j$. Hence, for $i\not=j$ the representations $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g_{j}}$ and $\pi _{1}\circ
\alpha _{g_{i}}$ are not equivalent.
Now, if $\varphi _{1},\ldots ,\varphi _{m}$ represent the unitary-equivalence classes of the representations $\pi _{1},\pi _{1}\circ
\alpha _{g_{1}},\ldots ,\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g_{m}}$ then $\Sigma
_{1}=\left\{ \varphi _{1},\ldots ,\varphi _{m}\right\} $ is the orbit of $\varphi _{1}$ for the action $\widehat{\alpha }$ of $G$ on $\widehat{A}$. Therefore, there exists $r\geq 1$ such that $n_{j}=jr+1$ for all $j=1,\ldots
,m$ by Lemma (\[LemmaCycle\]), i.e. all the representations $\pi _{1}\circ
\alpha _{g_{i}}$ ($i=1,\ldots ,m$) have multiplicity $r$ in $\pi _{A}$.
Thus, (up to equivalence on $\Pi $) and writing $\mathcal{H}=\oplus
_{i=1}^{k}\mathcal{H}_{i}$ and in this decomposition:$$\begin{aligned}
\pi _{A} &=&\underset{\text{each equivalent to }\pi _{1}}{\underbrace{\pi
_{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus \pi _{r}}}\oplus \underset{\text{each equivalent to
}\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g_{1}}}{\underbrace{\pi _{r+1}\oplus \ldots \oplus
\pi _{2r}}}\oplus \cdots \label{DecompositionLambda} \\
&&\ldots \oplus \pi _{mr}\oplus \underset{\Lambda }{\underbrace{\pi
_{mr+1}\oplus \ldots \oplus \pi _{k}}} \notag \\
&=&\underset{\text{disjoint from }\Lambda \text{.}}{\underbrace{\pi
_{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus \pi _{n_{m}}}}\oplus \Lambda \text{.} \notag\end{aligned}$$
Let $g\in G$. Still in the decomposition $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus
\ldots \oplus \mathcal{H}_{k}$ with our choice of indexing, let us write:$$\Pi \left( U^{g}\right) =U_{\Pi }^{g}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
a_{11}^{g} & a_{12}^{g} & \cdots & a_{1k}^{g} \\
a_{21}^{g} & a_{22}^{g} & \cdots & a_{2k}^{g} \\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{k1}^{g} & a_{k2}^{g} & \cdots & a_{kk}^{g}\end{array}\right]$$for some operators $a_{ij}^{g}$ from $\mathcal{H}_{j}$ to $\mathcal{H}_{i}$ with $i,j=1,\ldots ,k$.
Since $U_{\Pi }^{g}\pi _{A}(a)=\pi _{A}(\alpha _{g}(a))U_{\Pi }^{g}$, we can write:$$\begin{aligned}
&&\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
a_{11}^{g}\pi _{1} & a_{12}^{g}\pi _{2} & \cdots & a_{1k}^{g}\pi _{k} \\
a_{21}^{g}\pi _{1} & a_{22}^{g}\pi _{2} & \cdots & a_{2k}^{g}\pi _{k} \\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{k1}^{g}\pi _{1} & a_{k2}^{g}\pi _{2} & \cdots & a_{kk}^{g}\pi _{k}\end{array}\right] \label{MainEquality} \\
&=&\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
\left( \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g}\right) a_{11}^{g} & \left( \pi _{1}\circ
\alpha _{g}\right) a_{12}^{g} & \cdots & \left( \pi _{1}\circ \alpha
_{g}\right) a_{1k}^{g} \\
\left( \pi _{2}\circ \alpha _{g}\right) a_{21}^{g} & \left( \pi _{2}\circ
\alpha _{g}\right) a_{22}^{g} & \cdots & \left( \pi _{2}\circ \alpha
_{g}\right) a_{2k}^{g} \\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
\left( \pi _{k}\circ \alpha _{g}\right) a_{k1}^{g} & \left( \pi _{k}\circ
\alpha _{g}\right) a_{k2}^{g} & \cdots & \left( \pi _{k}\circ \alpha
_{g}\right) a_{kk}^{g}\end{array}\right] \text{.} \notag\end{aligned}$$As a consequence of Equality (\[MainEquality\]), we observe that for all $i,j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,k\right\} $ we have:$$a_{ij}^{g}\pi _{j}=\left( \pi _{i}\circ \alpha _{g}\right) a_{ij}^{g}\text{.}
\label{SchurEquality}$$
First, let $i>mr$. Then the equivalence class of $\pi _{i}$ is not in the orbit $\Sigma _{1}$ of $\varphi _{1}$ for $\widehat{\alpha }$ by construction. Hence $\pi _{i}\circ \alpha _{g}$ is not unitarily equivalent to $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\gamma }$ for any $\gamma \in G$. On the other hand, let $j\leq mr$. The representation $\pi _{j}$ is equivalent to $\pi
_{1}\circ \alpha _{g_{l}}$ for some $l\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,m\right\} $ by our choice of indexing. Therefore, $\pi _{i}\circ \alpha _{g}$ and $\pi _{j}$ are not unitarily equivalent, yet they both are irreducible representations of $A$. Hence by Lemma (\[Schur\]) applied to Equality (\[SchurEquality\]) we conclude that $a_{ij}^{g}=0$. Similarly, $\pi _{i}$ and $\pi _{j}\circ
\alpha _{g}$ are not equivalent so $a_{ji}^{g}=0$ as well.
Hence:$$U_{\Pi }^{g}=\left[
\begin{array}{cccccc}
a_{11}^{g} & \cdots & a_{1mr}^{g} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
a_{mr1}^{g} & \cdots & a_{mr,mr}^{g} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & \cdots & 0 & a_{mr+1,mr+1}^{g} & \cdots & a_{mr+1,k}^{g} \\
\vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & \cdots & 0 & a_{k,mr+1}^{g} & \cdots & a_{kk}^{g}\end{array}\right] \text{.}$$If we assume that $n_{m}=mr<k$ then for all $g\in G$ the unitary $U_{\Pi
}^{g}$ commutes with the nontrivial projection $\underset{mr\text{ times}}{\underbrace{0\oplus \ldots \oplus 0}}\oplus \underset{k-mr\text{ times}}{\underbrace{1\oplus \ldots \oplus 1}}$ of $\mathcal{H}$, and so does $\pi
_{A}$. Yet $\Pi $ is irreducible, so this is not possible and thus $n_{m}=k$. Thus $\Sigma =\Sigma _{1}$ is an orbit of a single $\varphi \in \widehat{A}
$ for $\widehat{\alpha }$ and there is no $\Lambda $ left in Equality ([DecompositionLambda]{}). In particular, the cardinal of $\Sigma _{1}$ is $m$.
Since by construction $\pi _{jr+z}$ is unitarily equivalent to $\pi
_{1}\circ \alpha _{g_{z}}$ for all $j=0,\ldots ,m-1$ and $z=1,\ldots ,r$, there exists a unitary $\omega _{jr+z}$ from $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ onto $\mathcal{H}_{jr+z}$ such that $\omega _{jr+z}\left( \pi _{1}\circ \alpha
_{g_{z}}\right) \omega _{jr+z}^{\ast }=\pi _{jr+z}$ (note that we can choose $\omega _{1}=1$). We define on $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus \ldots
\oplus \mathcal{H}_{k}$ the diagonal unitary:$$\Omega =\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\omega _{1}^{\ast } & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & \omega _{k}^{\ast }\end{array}\right] \text{.}$$Denote by $\limfunc{Ad}\Omega $ is the \*-automorphism on the C\*-algebra of bounded operators on $\mathcal{H}$ defined by $T\mapsto \Omega T\Omega
^{\ast }$. Then up to replacing $\Pi $ by $\limfunc{Ad}\Omega \circ \Pi $, we can assume that $\pi _{jr+z}=\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g_{z}}$ for all $j\in
\left\{ 1,\ldots ,m\right\} $ and $z\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,r\right\} $. Given an irreducible representation $\eta $ of $A$ and any nonzero natural integer $z$ we shall denote by $z\cdot \eta $ the representation $\underset{z\text{
times}}{\underbrace{\eta \oplus \ldots \oplus \eta }}$. Thus, if we set $\pi
=r\cdot \pi _{1}$ we see that $\pi _{A}$ can be written as in Equality ([PIA]{}) with $\pi \circ \alpha _{g_{i}}$ disjoint from $\pi \circ \alpha
_{g_{j}}$ for $i,j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,m\right\} $ and $i\not=j$.
Let again $g\in G$. We now use the same type of argument to show that $U_{\Pi }^{g}$ is a unitary-permutation shift. Let $j\in \left\{ 0,\ldots ,m-1\right\} $. Let $q\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,m\right\} $ such that $g_{j}g\in Hg_{q}$ — by our choice of $g_{1},\ldots ,g_{m}$ there is a unique such $q$. Let $i\in
\left\{ 0,\ldots ,m-1\right\} \backslash \left\{ q\right\} $ and $z,h\in
\left\{ 1,\ldots ,r\right\} $. By construction, the representation $\left(
r\cdot \pi _{rj+h}\right) \circ \alpha _{g}$ is unitarily equivalent to $r\cdot \pi _{rq+h}$ and disjoint from $r\cdot \pi _{ri+z}$. Yet by Equality (\[SchurEquality\]) we have again that:$$a_{ri+z,rj+h}^{g}\pi _{ri+z}=\left( \pi _{rj+h}\circ \alpha _{g}\right)
a_{ri+z,rj+h}^{g}\text{.}$$Thus $a_{ri+z,rj+h}^{g}=0$ by Lemma (\[Schur\]) since $\pi _{ri+z}$ and $\pi _{rj+h}\circ \alpha _{g}$ are not equivalent yet irreducible. Thus, if for all $z\in \left\{ 0,\ldots ,m-1\right\} $ we define the Hilbert subspace $\mathcal{J}_{z}=\mathcal{H}_{zr+1}\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal{H}_{(z+1)r}$ of $\mathcal{H}$ then we conclude that $U_{\Pi }^{g}\left( \mathcal{J}_{j}\right) \subseteq \mathcal{J}_{q}$ and $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{J}_{0}\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal{J}_{m-1}$. Moreover, by uniqueness of $q$ we also obtain that:$$U_{\Pi }^{g^{-1}}\left( \mathcal{J}_{q}\right) \subseteq \mathcal{J}_{j}
\label{InverseSubset}$$and thus $U_{\Pi }^{g}\left( \mathcal{J}_{j}\right) =\mathcal{J}_{q}$. Define $\sigma ^{g}(j)=q$. Then $\sigma ^{g}$ is a surjection of the finite set $\left\{ 1,\ldots ,m\right\} $ by (\[InverseSubset\]), so $\sigma ^{g}$ is a permutation. If $\delta $ is defined as in Equality (\[Kronecker\]) then, if we set $U_{j}^{g}=U_{\Pi |\mathcal{J}_{j}}^{g}$ then:$$\left( r\cdot \left( \pi _{j}\circ \alpha _{g}\right) \right)
U_{i}^{g}=U_{i}^{g}\left( r\cdot \pi _{q}\right)$$and $$U_{\Pi }^{g}=\left[ U_{j}^{g}\delta _{i}^{\sigma ^{g}(j)}\right] _{i,j}$$ for all $i=1,\ldots ,m$.
Since $U_{\Pi }$ is unitary, so are the operators $U_{1},\ldots ,U_{m}$. In particular, $\mathcal{J}_{j}$ and $\mathcal{J}_{0}$ are isometric Hilbert spaces for all $j=0,\ldots ,m-1$. Note that $\left( r\cdot \pi _{1}\right)
\circ \alpha _{g_{i}}$ acts on $\mathcal{J}_{i-1}$ for $i=1,\ldots ,m$ by construction. We now denote $r\cdot \pi _{1}$ by $\pi $ and $\mathcal{J}=\mathcal{J}_{0}$.
Now, by construction $\sigma ^{g}(1)=1$ if and only if there exists an operator $W$ on $\mathcal{J}_{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal{J}_{m-1}$ such that $U_{\Pi }^{g}=U_{1}^{g}\oplus W$, which is equivalent to $U_{1}^{g}\pi
_{1}=\left( \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{g}\right) U_{1}^{g}$. By construction, this is possible if and only if $g\in H$.
Let now $h\in H$. Hence $U_{1}^{h}\pi U_{1}^{h^{-1}}=\pi \circ \alpha _{h}$. If we set $\Psi (a)=\pi (a)$ and $\Psi (U^{h})=U_{1}^{h}$, we thus define a representation of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }H$ on $\mathcal{J}_{0}$. Let $b\in
A\rtimes _{\alpha }H$. Then there exists $g\in G\mapsto a_{g}$ such that $b=\sum_{g\in G}a_{g}U^{g}$. Hence $\Pi (b)=\sum_{g\in G}\pi
_{A}(a_{g})U_{\Pi }^{g}$. Let $Q$ be the projection of $\mathcal{H}$ on $\mathcal{J}_{0}$. Then:$$\begin{aligned}
Q\Pi (b)Q &=&\sum_{g\in G}\pi (a_{g})QU_{\Pi }^{g}Q \notag \\
&=&\sum_{h\in H}\pi (a_{h})U_{1}^{h}=\Psi \left( \sum_{h\in
H}a_{h}U^{h}\right) \text{.} \label{PsiRange}\end{aligned}$$Since $\Pi $ is irreducible, the range of $\Pi $ is $\limfunc{WOT}$ dense by the double commutant theorem. Hence, since the multiplication on the left and right by a fixed operator is $\limfunc{WOT}$ continuous, we conclude that $Q\Pi Q$ is $\limfunc{WOT}$ dense in $\mathcal{B}\left( Q\mathcal{H}\right) $. Therefore, by Equality (\[PsiRange\]), we conclude by the double commutant Theorem again that $\Psi $ is an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }H$.
Last, note that since $\pi _{1}$ is irreducible, if $h,g\in H$ then since:$$V^{h^{-1}}V^{g^{-1}}V^{gh}\pi _{1}=\pi _{1}V^{h^{-1}}V^{g^{-1}}V^{gh}$$there exists $\lambda _{g,h}\in \mathbb{T}$ such that $V^{gh}=\lambda
_{g,h}V^{g}V^{h}$. Hence $g\in H\mapsto V^{g}$ is a projective representation of $H$ on $\mathcal{H}_{1}$. Note that although the unitaries $V^{h}$ are only defined up to a scalar, there is no apparent reason why one could choose $\lambda $ to be the trivial cocycle unless the second cohomology group of $H$ is trivial. We now note that $\mathcal{J}_{0}=\mathcal{J}=\mathbb{C}^{r}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{1}$ by construction. Now, for all $h\in H$ we set $\upsilon _{h}=1_{\mathbb{C}^{r}}\otimes V^{h}$. Again, $\upsilon _{h}$ is a projective representation of $H$. Moreover, for $h\in H$:$$U_{1}^{h}\upsilon _{h}^{\ast }\pi =\pi U_{1}^{h}\upsilon _{h}^{\ast }\text{.}$$Since $\pi =r\cdot \pi _{1}$, Lemma (\[Schur\]) implies that there exist a unitary $\Lambda _{h}\in M_{r}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ such that $U_{1}^{h}\upsilon _{h}^{\ast }=\Lambda _{h}\otimes 1_{\mathcal{H}_{1}}$. Hence $U_{1}^{h}=\Lambda _{h}\otimes V^{h}$. Now, for $h,g\in H$ we have $U_{1}^{h}U_{1}^{g}=U_{1}^{hg}$ which implies that:$$\left( \Lambda _{h}\otimes V^{h}\right) \left( \Lambda _{g}\otimes
V^{g}\right) =\Lambda _{h}\Lambda _{g}\otimes V^{h}V^{g}=\Lambda
_{hg}\otimes V^{hg}\text{.}$$Hence $h\mapsto \Lambda _{h}$ is a unitary projective representation of $H$ on $\mathbb{C}^{r}$ with cocycle $\overline{\lambda }$. Moreover, if $T$ commutes with the range of $\Lambda $ then $T\otimes 1$ commutes with the range of $\Psi $, which contradicts the irreducibility of $\Psi $. Hence $\Lambda $ is irreducible. This completes the description of the representation $\Psi $.
For generic groups, the representation $\Psi $ of Theorem ([FiniteGroupConclusion]{}) may not be minimal, i.e. its restriction to $A$ may be reducible. The simplest way to see this is by consider a finite group $G$ admitting a representation $\Lambda $ on $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ for some $n\in
\mathbb{N}$. Then $\Lambda $ extends to an irreducible representation $\Pi $ of the crossed-product $\mathbb{C}\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ where $\alpha $ is the trivial action. Thus, $\Pi _{|\mathbb{C}}$, which decomposes into a direct sum of irreducible representations of $\mathbb{C}$, must in fact be the direct sum of $n$ copies of the (unique) identity representation of $\mathbb{C}$. Note that in this case $\Pi =\Psi $ using the notations of Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]). Thus, for any $n\in \mathbb{N}$ one can find an example where $\Psi $ is irreducible yet not minimal. This situation will be illustrated with a much less trivial example in Example (\[ExPermutation1\]) where $G$ will be permutation group on three elements. However, the representation $\Psi $ must be minimal when the group $G$ is chosen to be a finite cyclic group. We develop the theory for these groups in the next section.
Because the representation $\Psi $ of Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]) is of central interest in the decomposition of $\Pi $, we establish the following criterion for irreducibility for such representations. Note that the next theorem also describes the situation where the commutant of $\Pi $ is a factor.
\[Homogeneous\]Let $H$ be a discrete group. Let $\Psi $ be a representation of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }H$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and assume there exists an irreducible representation $\pi _{1}$ of $A$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ such that $\mathcal{H}=\mathbb{C}^{r}\otimes
\mathcal{H}_{1}$, $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{h}$ is equivalent to $\pi _{1}$ for all $h\in H$ and $\Psi (a)=1_{\mathbb{C}^{r}}\otimes \pi (a)$ for all $a\in A$. Then there exist two unitary projective representations $\Lambda $ and $V$ of $H$ on $\mathbb{C}^{r}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ respectively such that $\Psi (U^{h})=\Lambda _{h}\otimes V^{h}$. Moreover, the following are equivalent:
1. $\Psi $ is irreducible,
2. The representation $\Lambda $ is irreducible.
By assumption, for $h\in H$ there exists a unitary $V^{h}$ such that $V^{h}\pi _{1}\left( V^{h}\right) ^{\ast }=\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{h}$ and this unitary is unique up to a constant by Lemma (\[Schur\]). From the last section of the proof of Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]), we get that $h\in H\mapsto V^{h}$ is a projective representation of $H$ for some 2-cocycle $\lambda $ and, since $\pi _{1}$ is irreducible, there exists a projective representation $\Lambda $ of $H$ on $\mathbb{C}^{r}$ such that $\Psi (U^{h})=\Lambda _{h}\otimes V^{h}$, and moreover if $\Psi $ is irreducible then so is $\Lambda $.
Suppose now $\Lambda $ is irreducible. Let $T\in \left[ \Psi \left( A\rtimes
_{\alpha }H\right) \right] ^{\prime }.$ Since $T$ commutes with $\Psi \left(
A\right) =1_{\mathbb{C}^{r}}\otimes \pi _{1}\left( A\right) $, it follows that $T=D\otimes 1_{\mathcal{H}_{1}}$ for some $D\in M_{r}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $. Now $T$ commutes with $\Psi (U^{h})$ for all $h\in H$, so $D$ commutes with $\Lambda _{g}$ for all $g\in H$. Hence $D$ is scalar and $\Psi
$ is irreducible.
We also note that the group $H$ is not a priori a normal subgroup of $G$. It is easy to check that the following two assertions are equivalent:
1. $H$ is a normal subgroup of $G$,
2. For all $g\in G$, the unitary $U_{\Pi }^{g}$ is block-diagonal in the decomposition $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{J}_{0}\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal{J}_{m-1}$ if and only if $g\in H$.
In particular, when $G$ is Abelian then for $g\in G$ we have $\sigma
^{g}(1)=1$ if and only if $\sigma ^{g}=\limfunc{Id}$.
We conclude by observing that the representation $\Psi $ involves projective representations of $H$. We now offer an example to illustrate this situation and shows that this phenomenon occurs even when $G$ is Abelian. We shall see in the next section that finite cyclic groups have the remarkable property that such unitary projective representations do not occur.
Let $p,q$ be two relatively prime integers. Let $\lambda =\exp \left( 2i\pi
\frac{p}{q}\right) $. Denote by $\mathbb{U}_{q}$ the group of $q^{\text{th}}$ roots of unity in $\mathbb{C}$. Let $\alpha $ be the action of $\mathbb{Z}_{q}$ on $C\left( \mathbb{U}_{q}\right) $ defined by $\alpha
_{1}(f)(z)=f\left( \lambda z\right) $. Then the crossed-product $A=C(\mathbb{U}_{q})\rtimes _{\alpha }\mathbb{Z}_{q}$ is isomorphic to $M_{q}(\mathbb{C})$. The canonical unitary is identified under this isomorphism with:$$U=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & & & 1 \\
1 & 0 & \cdots & 0\end{array}\right]$$while the generator $z\in \mathbb{U}_{q}\mapsto z$ of $C\left( \mathbb{U}_{q}\right) $ is mapped to:$$V=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & & & \\
& \lambda & & \\
& & \ddots & \\
& & & \lambda ^{q-1}\end{array}\right] \text{.}$$The dual action $\gamma $ of the Abelian group $G=\mathbb{Z}_{q}\times
\mathbb{Z}_{q}$ on $C(\mathbb{U}_{q})\rtimes _{\alpha }\mathbb{Z}_{q}$ can thus be described by:$$\gamma _{z,z^{\prime }}\left( U\right) =\exp \left( 2i\pi \frac{pz}{q}\right) U\text{ and }\gamma _{z,z^{\prime }}(V)=\exp \left( 2i\pi \frac{pz^{\prime }}{q}\right) V$$for all $\left( z,z^{\prime }\right) \in G$. Now, for $(z,z^{\prime })\in G$ we set $\Lambda (z,z^{\prime })=\lambda ^{zz^{\prime }}U^{z}V^{z^{\prime }}$. Note that $G$ is generated by $\zeta =\left( 1,0\right) $ and $\xi =\left(
0,1\right) $ and $\Lambda (\zeta )=U$ while $\Lambda (\xi )=V$. Since $VU=\lambda UV$, the map $\Lambda $ is a unitary projective representation of $G$ on $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ associated to the group cohomology class of $\exp
\left( i\pi \sigma \right) $ where $\sigma $ is defined by:$$\sigma (\left( z,z^{\prime }\right) ,\left( y,y^{\prime }\right) )=\frac{p}{q}\left( zy^{\prime }-z^{\prime }y\right) \text{.}$$Moreover, the dual action is of course an inner action, and more precisely:$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma _{z,z^{\prime }}\left( a\right) &=&U^{z}V^{z^{\prime
}}aV^{-z^{\prime }}U^{-z} \\
&=&\Lambda (z,z^{\prime })a\Lambda \left( z,z^{\prime }\right) ^{\ast }\text{.}\end{aligned}$$We let $\Lambda ^{\prime }:z,z^{\prime }\in G\mapsto \Lambda (z^{\prime },z)$. Then an easy computation shows that $\Lambda ^{\prime }$ is a unitary projective representation of $G$ on $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ associated to the cocycle defined by $\exp \left( -i\pi \sigma \right) $, and $\Lambda
^{\prime }(\zeta )=V$ and $\Lambda ^{\prime }(\xi )=U$.
Let $B=A\rtimes _{\gamma }G$. Let us define the representation $\Psi $ of $B$ on $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes \mathbb{C}^{2}$ by:$$\begin{aligned}
\Psi (a) &=&1\otimes a\text{,} \\
\Psi (U^{\zeta }) &=&V\otimes U\text{,} \\
\Psi (U^{\xi }) &=&U\otimes V\text{.}\end{aligned}$$First, we observe that:$$\begin{aligned}
\Psi (U^{\zeta })\Psi (a)\Psi (U^{\zeta })^{\ast } &=&1\otimes UaU^{\ast
}=\Psi (\gamma _{\zeta }(a))\text{,} \\
\Psi (U^{\xi })\Psi (a)\Psi (U^{\xi })^{\ast } &=&1\otimes VaV^{\ast }=\Psi
(\gamma _{\xi }(a))\text{.}\end{aligned}$$Therefore $\Psi $ is indeed defining a representation of $B$. Moreover: $$\Psi (U^{g})=\Lambda ^{\prime }(g)\otimes \Lambda (g)$$ for $g\in G$. Since $\Lambda ^{\prime }$ is irreducible, $\Psi $ is irreducible as well by Theorem (\[Homogeneous\]). Last, the commutant of $\Psi (A)$ is $M_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $, i.e. the restriction of $\Psi
$ to $A$ is the direct sum of two copies of the identity representation of $A
$.
We now turn to the special case of cyclic groups where the representation $\Psi $ of Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]) is always minimal, i.e. its restriction to $A$ is always an irreducible representation of $A$. We shall characterize such minimal representations in terms of the fixed point C\*-subalgebra $A_{1}$ of $A$.
Actions of Finite Cyclic Groups
===============================
Let $A$ be a unital C\*-algebra and $\sigma $ be a \*-automorphism of $A$ of period $n$, for $n\in \mathbb{N}$, i.e. $\sigma ^{n}=\limfunc{Id}_{A}$. We shall not assume that $n$ is the smallest such natural integer, i.e. $\sigma $ may be of an order dividing $n$. The automorphism $\sigma $ naturally generates an action of $\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ on $A$ by letting $\alpha
_{z}(a)=\sigma ^{k}(a)$ for all $z\in \mathbb{Z}_{n}$ and $k\in \mathbb{Z}$ of class $z$ modulo $n$. The crossed-product $A\rtimes _{\alpha }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ will be simply denoted by $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$, and the canonical unitary $U^{1}\in A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ corresponding to $1\in \mathbb{Z}_{n}$ will simply be denoted by $U$. The C\*-algebra $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ is universal among all C\*-algebras generated by a copy of $A$ and a unitary $u$ such that $u^{n}=1$ and $uau^{\ast }=\sigma (a)$.
Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]) already provides much information about the structure of irreducible representations of $A\rtimes
_{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$. Yet we shall see it is possible in this case to characterize these representations in terms of irreducible representations of $A$ and of the fixed point C\*-subalgebra $A_{1}$ of $A$ for $\sigma $. Of central importance in this characterization are minimal representations of $A
$ for $\sigma $ and their relation to irreducible representations of $A_{1}$. We start this section with the exploration of this connection. Next, we propose a full characterization of irreducible representations of $A\rtimes
_{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$.
Minimal Representations
-----------------------
An extreme case of irreducible representation for crossed-products is given by:
Let $\Pi $ be an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ is called minimal when its restriction to $A$ is irreducible. Moreover, if $\pi
$ is an irreducible representation of $A$ such that there exists some irreducible representation $\Pi $ of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$ whose restriction to $A$ is $\pi $, then we say that $\pi $ is minimal for the action $\alpha $ of $G$.
Such representations play a central role in the description of irreducible representations of $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ when $\sigma $ is an automorphism of period $n$. We propose to characterize them in term of the fixed point C\*-subalgebra $A_{1}$ of $A$. The set $\widehat{\mathbb{Z}_{n}}$ of irreducible representations of $\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ is the Pontryagin dual of $\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ which we naturally identify with the group $\mathbb{U}_{n}$ of $n^{\text{th}}$ roots of the unit in $\mathbb{C}$. Let $\lambda \in
\mathbb{U}_{n}$. Thus $k\in \mathbb{Z}_{n}\mapsto \lambda ^{n}$ is an irreducible representation of $\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ and the spectral subspace $A_{\lambda }$ of $A$ for $\lambda $ is given by $\left\{ a:\sigma
(a)=\lambda a\right\} $. Indeed, $A_{\lambda }$ is by definition the range of the projection $P_{\lambda }:a\in A\mapsto \frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\lambda ^{-k}\sigma ^{k}(a)$ by Equality (\[SpectralProjDef\]), and it is easy to check that $P_{\lambda }(a)=a\iff \sigma (a)=\lambda a$ from the definition of $P_{\lambda }$.
\[Rep\]Let $\sigma $ be a \*-automorphism of a unital C\*-algebra $A$ of period $n$. Let $\Pi $ be an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes
_{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and let $\pi _{A}$ be its restriction to $A$. Let $\Sigma $ be the spectrum of $U_{\Pi }:=\pi
(U)$. Now, $\Sigma $ is a subset of $\mathbb{U}_{n}$; let us write $\Sigma
=\left\{ \lambda _{1},\ldots ,\lambda _{p}\right\} $ and denote the spectral subspace of $U_{\Pi }$ associated to $\lambda _{j}$ by $\mathcal{H}_{j}$. With the decomposition $\mathcal{H}=\oplus _{k=1}^{p}\mathcal{H}_{k}$, we write, for all $a\in A$:$$\pi _{A}(a)=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
\alpha _{11}(a) & \alpha _{12}(a) & \cdots & \alpha _{1p}(a) \\
\alpha _{21}(a) & \alpha _{22}(a) & & \alpha _{2p}(a) \\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
\alpha _{p1}(a) & \alpha _{p2}(a) & \cdots & \alpha _{nn}(a)\end{array}\right] \text{.} \label{RepAlphaDec}$$Then for $k,j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $ the map $\alpha _{jk}$ is a linear map on $A_{\lambda _{j}\overline{\lambda _{k}}}$ and null on $\oplus
_{\mu \not=\lambda _{j}\overline{\lambda _{k}}}A_{\mu }$. Moreover, the maps $\alpha _{kk}$ are irreducible \*-representations of the fixed point C\*-algebra $A_{1}$.
Furthermore, the following are equivalent:
- The representation $\pi _{A}$ of $A$ is irreducible, i.e. $\Pi $ is minimal,
- The \*-representations $\alpha _{11},\ldots ,\alpha _{pp}$ are pairwise not unitarily equivalent, i.e. for all $i\not=j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots
,p\right\} $ the representation $\alpha _{ii}$ is not equivalent to $\alpha
_{jj}$.
Since $U_{\Pi }^{n}=1$, the spectrum of the unitary $U_{\Pi }$ is a subset $\Sigma =\left\{ \lambda _{1},\ldots ,\lambda _{p}\right\} $ of $\mathbb{U}_{n}$ for some $p\in \mathbb{N}$. We write $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal{H}_{p}$ where $\mathcal{H}_{i}$ is the spectral subspace of $U_{\Pi }$ for the eigenvalue $\lambda _{i}$ for $i=1,\ldots ,p$, so that $U_{\Pi }=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda _{1} & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & \lambda _{p}\end{array}\right] $. Let $i,j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $ and let $\alpha _{ij}$ be the map defined by Identity (\[RepAlphaDec\]). First, it is immediate that $\alpha _{ij}$ is linear. Now, a simple computation shows that:$$\begin{aligned}
&&U_{\Pi }\pi (a)U_{\Pi }^{\ast }= \\
&=&\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda _{1} & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & \lambda _{p}\end{array}\right] \left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha _{11}(a) & \cdots & \alpha _{1p}(a) \\
\vdots & & \vdots \\
\alpha _{p1}(a) & \cdots & \alpha _{pp}(a)\end{array}\right] \left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{\lambda _{1}} & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & \overline{\lambda _{p}}\end{array}\right] \\
&=&\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
\alpha _{11}(a) & \lambda _{1}\overline{\lambda _{2}}\alpha _{12}(a) & \cdots
& \lambda _{1}\overline{\lambda _{p}}\alpha _{1p}(a) \\
\lambda _{2}\overline{\lambda _{1}}\alpha _{21}(a) & \alpha _{22}(a) & &
\lambda _{2}\overline{\lambda _{p}}\alpha _{2p}(a) \\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
\lambda _{p}\overline{\lambda _{1}}\alpha _{p1}(a) & \lambda _{p}\overline{\lambda _{2}}\alpha _{p2}(a) & \cdots & \alpha _{pp}(a)\end{array}\right] =\pi \left( \sigma (a)\right) \text{.}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore for all $i,j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $ we have that $\alpha
_{ij}(\sigma (a))=\lambda _{i}\overline{\lambda _{j}}\alpha _{ij}(a)$. Let $a\in A_{\mu }$ for $\mu \in \mathbb{U}_{n}$, i.e. $\sigma (a)=\mu a$. Then $\alpha _{ij}(\sigma (a))=\mu \alpha _{ij}(a)$. Therefore either $\alpha
_{ij}(a)=0$ or $\mu =\lambda _{i}\overline{\lambda _{j}}$.
In particular, $\alpha _{jj}$ is a representation of $A_{1}$ for all $j\in
\left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $. Indeed, if $a\in A_{1}$ then $\alpha
_{jk}(a)=0$ if $j\not=k$ and thus $\pi _{A}(a)$ is diagonal. Since $\pi _{A}$ is a representation of $A$, it follows from easy computations that $\alpha
_{jj}$ are representations of $A_{1}$.
Now, since $A\oplus AU\oplus \ldots \oplus AU^{n-1}=A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$, every element of the range of $\Pi $ is of the form $\oplus
_{j=0}^{n-1}\pi _{A}(a_{j})U_{\Pi }^{j}$ for $a_{0},\ldots ,a_{n-1}\in A$. Now, let $i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $. We observe that the $(i,i)$ entry of $\oplus _{j=0}^{n-1}\pi _{A}(a_{i})U_{\Pi }^{j}$ in the decomposition $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal{H}_{p}$ is given by $\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\lambda _{i}^{j}\alpha
_{ii}(a_{j})=\alpha _{ii}\left( \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\lambda _{i}^{j}a_{j}\right)
$. Hence, the $(i,i)$ entries of operators in the range of $\Pi $ are exactly given by the operators in the range of $\alpha _{ii}$. Now, let $T$ be any operator acting on $\mathcal{H}$. Since $\Pi $ is irreducible, by the Von Neumann double commutant Theorem [@Davidson Theorem 1.7.1], $T$ is the limit, in the weak operator topology ($\limfunc{WOT}$), of elements in the range of $\Pi $. In particular, the $(i,i)$ entry of $T$ in the decomposition $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal{H}_{p}$ is itself a $\limfunc{WOT}$ limit of elements in the range of $\alpha
_{ii}$ since the left and right multiplications by a fixed operator are $\limfunc{WOT}$ continuous [@Davidson p. 16]. Therefore, the range of $\alpha _{ii}$ is $\limfunc{WOT}$ dense in $\mathcal{H}_{i}$. Thus, by the double commutant theorem again, $\alpha _{ii}$ is irreducible.
We now turn to characterizing minimal representations. We first establish a necessary condition.
Suppose that there exists $i,j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $ with $i\not=j $ and a unitary $u$ such that $u\alpha _{ii}u^{\ast }=\alpha _{jj}$. In the decomposition $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus
\mathcal{H}_{p}$, define the block-diagonal unitary $$D_{u}^{i}=\underset{i-1\text{ times}}{\underbrace{1\oplus \ldots \oplus 1}}\oplus u\oplus \underset{p-i\text{ times}}{\underbrace{1\oplus \ldots \oplus
1}}\text{.}$$
Then by conjugating $\pi _{A}$ by $D_{u}^{i}$, we see that we may as well assume $\alpha _{ii}=\alpha _{jj}$. Yet, this implies that in the $\limfunc{WOT}$-closure of the range of $\pi _{A}$, every operator has the same $(i,i)$ and $(j,j)$ entry in the decomposition $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus
\ldots \oplus \mathcal{H}_{p}$. Hence the range of $\pi _{A}$ is not $\limfunc{WOT}$-dense and thus $\pi _{A}$ is reducible, so $\Pi $ is not minimal.
We now prove that our necessary condition is also sufficient. Assume that $\alpha _{11},\ldots ,\alpha _{pp}$ are pairwise not unitary equivalent. The claim is that $\pi _{A}$ is irreducible.
Let $T\in \left( \pi \left( A\right) \right) ^{\prime }.$ Decompose $T=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
T_{11} & \cdots & T_{1p} \\
\vdots & & \vdots \\
T_{p1} & \cdots & T_{pp}\end{array}\right] $ with respect to the decomposition $\mathcal{H}=\oplus _{i=1}^{p}\mathcal{H}_{i}$. Let $i\neq j.$ First, note that if $a\in A_{1}$ then $\alpha _{ij}(a)=0$. Second, since $T$ commutes with $\pi _{A}(a)$ for $a\in
A_{1}$, we have:$$\alpha _{ii}\left( a\right) T_{ij}=T_{ij}\alpha _{jj}\left( a\right) \text{
for }a\in A_{1}\text{.} \label{Rep1}$$
By Lemma (\[Schur\]), since $\alpha _{ii}$ and $\alpha _{jj}$ are irreducible and not unitarily equivalent for $i\not=j$, we conclude that $T_{ij}=0$. Moreover, for all $i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $ and $a\in
A_{1}$ we have $\alpha _{ii}\left( a\right) T_{ii}=T_{ii}\alpha _{ii}\left(
a\right) $. Since $\alpha _{ii}$ is irreducible, we conclude that $T_{ii}$ is a scalar. Therefore, the operator $T$ commutes with the operator $U_{\Pi
} $. Since $\Pi $ is irreducible, we conclude that $T$ itself is a scalar. Therefore, $\pi _{A}$ is an irreducible representation of $A$ and thus $\Pi $ is minimal.
Together with Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]), Theorem ([Rep]{}) will allow us to now develop further the description of arbitrary irreducible representations of crossed-products by finite cyclic groups. It is interesting to look at a few very simple examples to get some intuition as to what could be a more complete structure theory for irreducible representations of crossed-products by $\mathbb{Z}_{n}$. First of all, one should not expect in general that the spectrum of $U_{\Pi }$ is a coset of $\mathbb{Z}_{n}$, as the simple action of $\sigma =\limfunc{Ad}\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
i & \\
& e^{i\frac{3\pi }{4}}\end{array}\right] $ on $M_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ shows. In this case, the identity is the only irreducible representation of the crossed-product $M_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) \rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{4}=M_{2}\left(
\mathbb{C}\right) $ and clearly $\left\{ i,e^{i\frac{3\pi }{4}}\right\} $ is not a coset of $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$. Of course, this is an example of a minimal representation.
In [@Latremoliere06], we showed that all irreducible representations of $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ where regular or minimal. The following example shows that we can not expect the same in the general case.
\[CuteExample\]Let $A=M_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) \oplus M_{2}\left(
\mathbb{C}\right) $ and define $\sigma (M\oplus N)=WNW^{\ast }\oplus M$ with $W=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0\end{array}\right] $. Then $\sigma ^{4}=\limfunc{Id}_{A}$ and $\sigma ^{2}(M\oplus
N)=WMW^{\ast }\oplus WNW^{\ast }$. Now, let $\pi _{i}:M_{1}\oplus M_{2}\in
A\mapsto M_{i}$ with $i=1,2$. Of course, $\pi _{1},\pi _{2}$ are the only two irreducible representations of $A$ up to equivalence, and they are not equivalent to each other (since they have complementary kernels). Now, we consider the following representation $\Pi $ of $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{4}$. It acts on $\mathbb{C}^{4}$. We set:$$\pi _{A}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\pi _{1} & 0 \\
0 & \pi _{2}\end{array}\right]$$and:$$U_{\Pi }=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
W & 0\end{array}\right] \text{.}$$First, observe that $\Pi $ thus defined is irreducible. Indeed, $M$ commutes with $\pi _{A}$ if and only if $M=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\lambda & b \\
c & \mu\end{array}\right] $ with $\lambda ,\mu \in \mathbb{C}$ and $b\pi _{2}(a)=\pi _{1}(a)c$ with $a\in A$. Now, $M$ commutes with $U_{\Pi }$ if and only if $\lambda
=\mu $ and $Wb=c$. Now, let $a\in M_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ be arbitrary; then $b\pi _{2}\left( a\oplus Wa\right) =\pi _{1}\left( a\oplus
Wa\right) c$ i.e.$$bWa=abW\text{.}$$Hence $bW$ is scalar. So $b=\lambda W$. Thus $b$ commutes with $W$. But then for an arbitrary $a$ we have $b\pi _{2}\left( aW\oplus a\right) =\pi
_{1}\left( aW\oplus a\right) bW$ i.e. $ba=aWbW=ab$ so $b$ commutes with $M_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ and thus is scalar. Hence $b=0$. So $M=\lambda 1$ for $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$ as needed.
Moreover, the restriction of $\Pi $ to $A$ is $\pi _{A}=\pi _{1}\oplus \pi
_{2}$. Thus, $\pi _{A}$ is reducible. Now, the fixed point C\*-algebra $A_{1}$ is the C\*-algebra $\left\{ M\oplus M:M=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
b & a\end{array}\right] ;a,b\in \mathbb{C}\right\} $. Thus, $A_{1}$ has two irreducible representations which are not equivalent:$$\varphi _{1}:\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
b & a\end{array}\right] \in A_{1}\mapsto a+b$$and$$\varphi _{2}:\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
b & a\end{array}\right] \in A_{1}\mapsto a-b\text{.}$$
We note that for $i=1,2$ we have $\pi _{i}$ restricted to $A_{1}$ is $\varphi _{1}\oplus \varphi _{2}$.
Now, using the notations of Example (\[CuteExample\]), $\Pi $ is not regular, since the restriction of any irreducible regular representation to the fixed point algebra $A_{1}$ is given by the sum of several copies of the same irreducible representation of $A_{1}$. Trivially, $\Pi $ is not minimal either since $\Pi _{|A}=\pi _{1}\oplus \pi _{2}$. However, both $\pi _{1}$ and $\pi _{2}$ are minimal for the action of $\sigma ^{2}$. Moreover, both $\pi _{1}$ and $\pi _{2}$ restricted to $A_{1}$ are the same representation $\alpha _{1}\oplus \alpha _{2}$. We shall see in the next section that this pattern is in fact general.
Characterization of Irreducible Representations
-----------------------------------------------
We now present the main result of this paper concerning crossed products by finite cyclic groups. In this context, one can go further than Theorem ([FiniteGroupConclusion]{}) to obtain a characterization of irreducible representations of the crossed-products in term of the C\*-algebras $A$ and $A_{1}$. The next lemma is the sufficient condition for this characterization.
\[SufficientCyclic\]Let $\pi _{1}$ be an irreducible representation of $A $ acting on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{J}$. Assume that there exists a unitary $V$ on $\mathcal{J}$ such that for some $m,k\in \left\{ 1,\ldots
,n\right\} $ with $n=mk$ we have $\pi _{1}\circ \sigma ^{m}=V\pi _{1}V^{\ast
}$ and $V^{k}=1$, and that $m$ is the smallest such nonzero natural integer, i.e. $\pi _{1}\circ \sigma ^{j}$ is not unitarily equivalent to $\pi _{1}$ for $j\in \left\{ 2,\ldots ,m-1\right\} $. Then define the following operators on the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}=\underset{m\text{ times}}{\underbrace{\mathcal{J}\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal{J}}\text{:}}$$$\Pi \left( U\right) =\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & & 1 & & \vdots \\
\vdots & & & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 1 \\
V & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0\end{array}\right]$$and for all $a\in A$:$$\pi _{A}(a)=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
\pi _{1}(a) & & & \\
& \pi _{1}\circ \sigma (a) & & \\
& & \ddots & \\
& & & \pi _{1}\circ \sigma ^{m-1}(a)\end{array}\right] \text{.}$$Then the unique extension of $\Pi $ to $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ is an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$.
An easy computation shows that $\Pi $ thus defined is a representation of $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ on $\mathcal{H}=\underset{m\text{ times}}{\underbrace{\mathcal{J}\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal{J}}}$. Write $\pi
_{i}=\pi _{1}\circ \sigma ^{i-1}$ for $i=1,\ldots ,m$. Let $T$ be an operator which commutes with the range of $\Pi $. Then $T$ commutes with $\pi _{A}:=\Pi _{|A}$. Writing $T$ in the decomposition $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{J}\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal{J}$ as:$$T=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
T_{11} & \cdots & T_{1m} \\
\vdots & & \vdots \\
T_{m1} & \cdots & T_{mm}\end{array}\right]$$Let $i,j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,m\right\} $. Since $T\pi _{A}(a)=\pi _{A}(a)T$ for all $a\in A$, we conclude that $\pi _{i}(a)T_{ij}=T_{ij}\pi _{j}(a)$. By Lemma (\[Schur\]), since $\pi _{i}$ and $\pi _{j}$ are irreducible and not unitarily equivalent, we conclude that $T_{ij}=0$. Moreover, $T_{ii}$ commutes with $\pi _{i}$ which is irreducible, so we conclude that:$$T=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda _{1} & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & \lambda _{m}\end{array}\right]$$for $\lambda _{1},\ldots ,\lambda _{m}\in \mathbb{C}$. Since $T$ commutes with $U_{\Pi }$ we conclude that $\lambda _{1}=\lambda _{i}$ for all $i\in
\left\{ 1,\ldots ,m\right\} $. Hence $\Pi $ is irreducible.
We now are ready to describe in detail the structure of irreducible representations of crossed-products by finite cyclic groups in terms of irreducible representations of $A$ and $A_{1}$.
\[CyclicConclusion\]Let $\sigma $ be a \*-automorphism of period $n$ of a unital C\*-algebra $A$. Then the following are equivalent:
1. $\Pi $ is an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$,
2. There exists $k,m\in \mathbb{N}$ with $km=n$, an irreducible representation $\pi _{1}$ of $A$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{J}$ and a unitary $V$ on $\mathcal{J}$ such that $V^{k}=1$ and $V\pi _{1}\left( \cdot
\right) V=\pi _{1}\circ \sigma ^{m}\left( \cdot \right) $ such that:$$\Pi (U)=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \\
& & 0 & 1 \\
V & & & 0\end{array}\right]$$and for all $a\in A$:$$\Pi (a)=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
\pi _{1}(a) & & & \\
& \pi _{1}\circ \sigma (a) & & \\
& & \ddots & \\
& & & \pi _{1}\circ \sigma ^{m-1}(a)\end{array}\right]$$where for any $i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,m-1\right\} $ the representations $\pi
_{1}$ and $\pi _{1}\circ \sigma ^{i}$ are not equivalent.
Moreover, if (2) holds then the representation $\psi $ of $A\rtimes _{\sigma
^{m}}\mathbb{Z}_{k}$ on $\mathcal{J}$ defined by $\psi (a)=\pi _{1}(a)$ for $a\in A$ and $\psi (U)=V$ is a minimal representation of $A\rtimes _{\sigma
^{m}}\mathbb{Z}_{k}$. Let $\eta $ be the cardinal of the spectrum of $V$. The restriction of $\pi _{1}$ to $A_{1}$ is therefore the sum of $\eta $ irreducible representations $\varphi _{1},\ldots ,\varphi _{\eta }$ of $A_{1} $ which are not pairwise equivalent. Last, the restriction of $\pi
_{1}\circ \sigma ^{i}$ to $A_{1}$ is unitarily equivalent to $\varphi
_{1}\oplus \ldots \oplus \varphi _{\eta }=\pi _{1|A_{1}}$ for all $i\in
\left\{ 0,\ldots ,m-1\right\} $.
By Lemma (\[SufficientCyclic\]), (2) implies (1). We now turn to the proof of (1) implies (2). Let $\Pi $ be an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$. By Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]), there exists $m\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $m$ divides $n$, an irreducible representation $\pi _{1}$ of $A$ on some space $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ and $r\in
\mathbb{N}$ with $r>0$ such that, if $\pi =r\cdot \pi _{1}$ then up to conjugating $\Pi $ by some unitary:
- For all $i=1,\ldots ,m-1$ the representation $\pi \circ \sigma ^{i}$ is not equivalent to $\pi $,
- The representation $\pi \circ \sigma ^{m}$ is equivalent to $\pi $,
- We have the decomposition $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{J}_{0}\oplus \ldots
\oplus \mathcal{J}_{m-1}$ where $\mathcal{J}_{i}$ is the space on which $\left( r\cdot \pi \right) \circ \sigma ^{i}$ acts for $i\in \left\{ 0,\ldots
,m\right\} $ and is isometrically isomorphic to $\mathcal{J}$,
- In the decomposition, $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{J}_{0}\oplus \ldots \oplus
\mathcal{J}_{m-1}$ there exists unitaries $U_{1},\ldots ,U_{m}$ such that:$$U_{\Pi }=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & U_{1} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & U_{2} & 0 & \vdots \\
\vdots & & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\
0 & & & 0 & U_{m-1} \\
U_{m} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0\end{array}\right]$$with $\left( \pi _{i}\circ \sigma \right) U_{i}=U_{i}\pi _{i+1}$ and $U_{i}:\mathcal{H}_{i+1}\longrightarrow \mathcal{H}_{i}$ for all $i\in \mathbb{Z}_{m}$.
Indeed, if $G=\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ in Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]) then $H$, as a subgroup of $G$, is of the form $\left( m\mathbb{Z}\right) /n\mathbb{Z}$ with $m$ dividing $n$, and if we let $g_{1}=0$, $g_{2}=1$, …, $g_{m}=m-1$ then we can check that this choice satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]). With this choice, the permutation $\sigma ^{1}$ is then easily seen to be given by the cycle $\left( 1~2~\ldots ~m\right) $.
We will find it convenient to introduce some notation for the rest of the proof. By Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]), for $i\in \left\{ 0,\ldots
,m-1\right\} $, after possibly conjugating $\Pi $ by some unitary, we can decompose $\mathcal{J}_{i}$ as $\mathcal{H}_{ri+1}\oplus \ldots \oplus
\mathcal{H}_{r(i+1)}$, where $\mathcal{H}_{ri+j}$ is isometrically isomorphic to $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ for all $j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,r\right\} $, so that the restriction of $\Pi _{|A}$ to the space $\mathcal{J}_{i}$ is written $\left( \underset{r\text{ times}}{\underbrace{\pi _{1}\oplus \ldots
\oplus \pi _{1}}}\right) \circ \sigma ^{i}$ in this decomposition.
We now show how to conjugate $\Pi $ by a unitary to simplify its expression further.
If we define the unitary $\Upsilon $ from $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{J}_{0}\oplus
\ldots \oplus \mathcal{J}_{m-1}$ onto $\oplus _{1}^{m}\mathcal{J}_{m-1}$ by: $$\Upsilon =\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
U_{m}^{\ast }U_{m-1}^{\ast }\cdots U_{1}^{\ast } & & & \\
& U_{m}^{\ast }\cdots U_{2}^{\ast } & & \\
& & \ddots & \\
& & & U_{m}^{\ast }\end{array}\right]$$then the unitary $\limfunc{Ad}\left( \Upsilon \right) \circ \Pi \left(
U\right) $ of $\oplus _{1}^{m}\mathcal{J}_{m-1}$ is of the simpler form$$\limfunc{Ad}\Upsilon \circ \Pi \left( U\right) =\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & \ddots & \vdots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 1 \\
V & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] \label{UnitaryShift}$$for some unitary $V$ of $\mathcal{J}_{m-1}$. Moreover, if we write $\rho
_{1}=\limfunc{Ad}\left( U_{i}^{\ast }\ldots U_{1}^{\ast }\right) \circ \pi
_{1}$, then:$$\limfunc{Ad}\Upsilon \circ \pi _{A}=\dbigoplus\limits_{j=1}^{m}\left(
\underset{r\text{ times}}{\underbrace{\rho _{1}\circ \sigma ^{j-1}\oplus
\ldots \oplus \rho _{1}\circ \sigma ^{j-1}}}\right)$$and $\rho _{1}$ is by definition an irreducible representation of $A$ unitarily equivalent to $\pi _{1}$.
To simplify notations, we shall henceforth drop the notation $\limfunc{Ad}\Upsilon $ and simply write $\Pi $ for $\limfunc{Ad}\Upsilon \circ \Pi $. In other words, we replace $\Pi $ by $\limfunc{Ad}\Upsilon \circ \Pi $ and we shall use the notations introduced to study $\Pi $ henceforth, with the understanding that for all $j=0,\ldots ,m-1$ and $k=1,\ldots ,r$ we have that $\pi _{rj+k}=\pi _{1}\circ \sigma ^{j}$, that $\mathcal{J}_{j}$ is an isometric copy of $\mathcal{J}_{0}$ and that $\mathcal{H}$ $=\mathcal{J}_{0}\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal{J}_{m-1}$ with $\mathcal{J}_{j}=\mathcal{H}_{rj+1}\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathcal{H}_{r(j+1)}$ where $\pi _{rj+k}$ acts on $\mathcal{H}_{rj+k}$ which is an isometric copy of $\mathcal{H}_{1}$. Moreover, $U_{\Pi }$ is given by Equality (\[UnitaryShift\]) for some unitary $V$ of $\mathcal{J}_{0}$.
We are left to show that each irreducible subrepresentation of $\pi _{A}$ is of multiplicity one, i.e. $r=1$. We recall that we have shown above that $H=\left( m\mathbb{Z}\right) /n\mathbb{Z}$ with $n=mk$ and $k\in \mathbb{N}$. Using the notations of Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]), the representation $\Psi $ defined by $\Psi (a)=\pi (a)$ for all $a\in A$ and $\Psi (U^{m})=V$ is an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }H$. Now $A\rtimes _{\alpha }H$ is \*-isomorphic to $A\rtimes _{\alpha ^{m}}\mathbb{Z}_{k}$ by universality of the C\*-crossed-product, and we now identify these two C\*-algebras. The image of $U^{m}\in A\rtimes _{\alpha }H$ in the crossed-product $A\rtimes _{\alpha ^{m}}\mathbb{Z}_{k}$ is denoted by $\upsilon $ and is the canonical unitary of $A\rtimes _{\alpha ^{m}}\mathbb{Z}_{k}$. Thus by Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]) $\Psi $ is an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\alpha ^{m}}\mathbb{Z}_{k}$ which (up to conjugacy) acts on the space $\mathbb{C}^{r}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{1}$ and is of the form $\Psi (a)=1_{\mathbb{C}^{r}}\otimes \pi _{1}(a)$ for $a\in A$ and $\Psi (\upsilon ^{z})=\Omega (z)\otimes W(z)$ for $z\in \mathbb{Z}_{k}$ where $\Omega $ and $W$ are some unitary projective representations of $\mathbb{Z}_{k}$ on $\mathbb{C}^{r}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ respectively, with $\Omega $ being irreducible. Since $\mathbb{Z}_{k}$ is cyclic, the range of the projective representation $\Omega $ is contained in the C\*-algebra $C^{\ast }\left( \Omega (1)\right) $ which is Abelian since $\Omega (1)$ is a unitary. Hence, since $\Omega $ is irreducible, $C^{\ast
}\left( \Omega (1)\right) $ is an irreducible Abelian C\*-algebra of operators acting on $\mathbb{C}^{r}$. Hence $r=1$ and $\mathcal{J}=\mathcal{H}_{1}$. Moreover, since $U_{\Pi }^{m}=V\oplus \ldots \oplus V$ then $U_{\Pi
}^{n}=V^{k}\oplus \ldots \oplus V^{k}=1_{\mathcal{H}}$ and thus $V^{k}=1_{\mathcal{J}}$. Therefore, (2) holds as claimed.
Last, we also observed that $V\pi _{1}V=\pi _{1}\circ \sigma ^{k}$ by construction (since $U_{\Pi }^{k}=V\oplus \ldots \oplus V$). Hence by definition, since $\pi _{1}$ is irreducible, the representation $\psi $ of $A\rtimes _{\sigma ^{k}}\mathbb{Z}_{\mu }$ defined by $\psi (a)=\pi _{1}(a)$ for $a\in A$ and $\psi (U)=V$ is minimal. Hence, by Theorem (\[Rep\]), the restriction of $\pi _{1}$ to the fixed point C\*-algebra $A_{1}$ is the direct sum of $\eta $ irreducible representations $\varphi _{1},\ldots
,\varphi _{\eta }$ of $A_{1}$ such that $\varphi _{i}$ and $\varphi _{j}$ are not unitarily equivalent for $i\not=j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,\eta \right\}
$, where $\eta $ is the cardinal of the spectrum of $V$. Moreover, since $\pi _{i}=\pi _{1}\circ \sigma ^{i}$ it is immediate that $\pi _{i}$ restricted to $A_{1}$ equals to $\pi _{1}$ restricted to $A_{1}$. This concludes our proof.
Let $\Pi $ be an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$. The following are equivalent:
1. Up to unitary equivalence, $\Pi $ is an irreducible regular representation of $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$, i.e. it is induced by a unique irreducible representation $\pi $ of $A$ and:$$U_{\Pi }=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & & \\
& 0 & \ddots & \\
& & \ddots & 1 \\
1 & & & 0\end{array}\right]$$while $\pi _{A}=\oplus _{i=0}^{n-1}\pi \circ \sigma ^{i}$ and $\pi \circ
\sigma ^{i}$ is not equivalent to $\pi \circ \sigma ^{j}$ for $i,j=1,\ldots
,n-1$ with $i\not=j$,
2. There exists an irreducible subrepresentation $\pi $ of $\Pi _{|A}$ such that $\pi \circ \sigma ^{i}$ is not equivalent to $\pi $ for $i=1,\ldots ,n-1$,
3. There exists a unique irreducible representation $\varphi $ of $A_{1}$ such that $\Pi _{|A_{1}}$ is equivalent to $n\cdot \varphi $,
4. There is no $k\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,n-1\right\} $ such that the C\*-algebra generated by $\Pi (A)$ and $U_{\Pi }^{k}$ is reducible.
It is a direct application of Theorem (\[CyclicConclusion\]).
We thus have concluded that all irreducible representations of crossed products by finite cyclic groups have a structure which is a composite of the two cases found in [@Latremoliere06]. Indeed, such representations cycle through a collection of minimal representations, which all share the same restriction to the fixed point algebra. The later is a finite sum of irreducible mutually disjoint representations of the fixed point algebra.
Let $\sigma $ be an order $n$ automorphism of a unital C\*-algebra $A$ and let $\Pi $ be an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}
$. We recall [@Zeller-Meier68] that $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}$ is generated by $A$ and a unitary $U$ such that $UaU^{\ast }=\sigma (a)$ for all $a\in A$ and is universal for these commutation relations. We denote $\Pi (U)$ by $U_{\Pi }$ and $\Pi (a)$ by $\pi (a)$ for all $a\in A$. Now, note that $U_{\Pi }^{n}$ commutes with $\pi $ since $\sigma ^{n}=\limfunc{Id}_{A}$ and of course $U_{\Pi }^{n}$ commutes with $U_{\Pi }$ so, since $\Pi $ is irreducible, there exists $\lambda \in \mathbb{T}$ such that $U_{\Pi
}^{n}=\lambda $. Now, define $V_{\Pi }=\overline{\mu }U_{\Pi }$ for any $\mu
\in \mathbb{T}$ such that $\mu ^{n}=\lambda $. Then $V_{\Pi }^{n}=1$ and thus $\left( \pi ,V_{\Pi }\right) $ is an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\sigma }\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ which is then fully described by Theorem (\[CyclicConclusion\]).
In the last section of this paper, we give a necessary condition on irreducible representations of crossed-products by the group $\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ of permutations of $\left\{ 1,2,3\right\} $. This last example illustrates some of the behavior which distinguish the conclusion of Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]) from the one of Theorem (\[CyclicConclusion\]).
Application: Crossed-Products by the permutation group on $\left\{
1,2,3\right\} $
==================================================================
As an application, we derive the structure of the irreducible representations of crossed-products by the group $\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ of permutations of $\left\{ 1,2,3\right\} $. This group is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_{3}\rtimes _{\gamma }\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ where $\gamma $ is defined as follows: if $\eta $ and $\tau $ are the respective images of $1\in
\mathbb{Z}$ in the groups $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ and $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ then the action $\gamma $ of $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ on $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ is given by $\gamma
_{\tau }(\eta )=\eta ^{2}$. Thus in $\mathbb{Z}_{3}\rtimes _{\gamma }\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ we have $\tau \eta \tau =\eta ^{2}$, $\tau ^{2}=1$ and $\eta ^{3}=1$ (using the multiplicative notation for the group law). An isomorphism between $\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ and $\mathbb{Z}_{3}\rtimes _{\gamma }\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ is given by sending the transposition $\left( 1~2\right) $ to $\tau $ and the $3$-cycle $\left( 1~2~3\right) $ to $\eta $. From now on we shall identify these two groups implicitly using this isomorphism.
\[Permutation3\]Let $\alpha $ be an action of $\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ on $A$. Let $\Pi $ be an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }\mathfrak{S}_{3}$. We denote by $\tau $ and $\eta $ the permutations $\left(
1~2\right) $ and $\left( 1~2~3\right) $. The set $\left\{ \tau ,\eta
\right\} $ is a generator set of $\mathfrak{S}_{3}$. We denote by $U_{\tau }$ and $U_{\eta }$ the canonical unitaries in $A\rtimes _{\alpha }\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ corresponding respectively to $\tau $ and $\eta $. Then either (up to a unitary conjugation of $\Pi $):
- $\Pi $ is minimal, i.e. $\Pi _{|A}$ is irreducible,
- There exists an irreducible representation $\pi _{1}$ on $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ of $A$ such that $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus \mathcal{H}_{1}$ with $\pi _{A}=\pi _{1}\oplus \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\tau }$. Then $\Pi
(U_{\tau })=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0\end{array}\right] $ in this decomposition. *Observe that* $\pi _{1}$ *may or not be equivalent to* $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\tau }$. Moreover, $\pi _{1}$ and $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\tau }$ are minimal for the action of $\eta $.
- There exists an irreducible representation $\pi _{1}$ on $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ of $A$ such that $\pi _{1}$ and $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\eta ^{i}}$ are non equivalent for $i=1,2$ and such that $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus \mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus \mathcal{H}_{1}$ with $\pi _{A}=\pi
_{1}\oplus \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\eta }\oplus \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\eta
^{2}}$. Then $\Pi (U_{\eta })=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] $ in this decomposition.
- Last, there exists an irreducible representation $\pi _{1}$ on $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ of $A$ such that $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\sigma }$ is not equivalent to $\pi _{1}$ for $\sigma \in \mathfrak{S}_{3}\backslash \left\{
\limfunc{Id}\right\} $ and $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}^{\oplus 6}$ with:$$\pi _{A}=\pi _{1}\oplus \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\eta }\oplus \pi _{1}\circ
\alpha _{\eta ^{2}}\oplus \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\tau }\oplus \pi _{1}\circ
\alpha _{\eta \tau }\oplus \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\eta ^{2}\tau }$$and$$\Pi \left( U_{\eta }\right) =\left[
\begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\end{array}\right] \text{,}$$while$$\Pi \left( U_{\tau }\right) =\left[
\begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] \text{.}$$
The C\*-algebra $A\rtimes _{\alpha }\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ is generated by a copy of $A$ and two unitaries $U_{\tau }$ and $U_{\eta }$ that satisfy $U_{\tau
}^{2}=U_{\eta }^{3}=1$, $U_{\tau }U_{\eta }U_{\tau }=U_{\eta }^{2}$ and for all $a\in A$ we have $U_{\tau }aU_{\tau }^{\ast }=\alpha _{\tau }(a)$ and $U_{\eta }aU_{\eta }^{\ast }=\alpha _{\eta }(a)$. Notice that $\mathfrak{S}_{3}=\mathbb{Z}_{3}\rtimes _{\gamma }\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ with $\gamma _{\tau
}\left( \eta \right) =\tau \eta \tau $. So we have $A\rtimes _{\alpha }\mathfrak{S}_{3}=\left( A\rtimes _{\alpha _{\eta }}\mathbb{Z}_{3}\right)
\rtimes _{\beta }\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ where $\beta :a\in A\mapsto \alpha _{\tau
}(a)$ and $\beta (U_{\eta })=U_{\tau \eta \tau }=U_{\eta }^{2}$. Since $A\rtimes _{\alpha _{\eta }}\mathbb{Z}_{3}=A+AU_{\eta }+AU_{\eta }^{2}$, the relation between $\beta $ and $\alpha _{\eta }$ is given by:$$\beta \left( x_{1}+x_{2}U_{\eta }+x_{3}U_{\eta }^{2}\right) =\alpha _{\tau
}(x_{1})+\alpha _{\tau }(x_{3})U_{\eta }+\alpha _{\tau }(x_{2})U_{\eta }^{2}$$for all $x_{1}$,$x_{2}$ and $x_{3}\in A$. We now proceed with a careful analysis of $\beta $ and $\alpha _{\eta }$ to describe all irreducible representations of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }\mathfrak{S}_{3}$.
Let $\Pi $ be an irreducible representation of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ on some Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Thus $\Pi $ is an irreducible representation of $\left[ A\rtimes _{\alpha _{\eta }}\mathbb{Z}_{3}\right]
\rtimes _{\beta }\mathbb{Z}_{2}$. We now have two cases: either $\Pi
_{|A\rtimes _{\alpha _{\eta }}\mathbb{Z}_{3}}$ is irreducible or it is reducible.
Case 1: $\Pi _{|A\rtimes _{\protect\alpha _{\protect\eta }}\mathbb{Z}_{3}}$ is irreducible.
: Hence $\Pi $ is minimal for the action $\beta $ of $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$. This case splits in two cases.
Case 1a: $\protect\pi _{A}$ is irreducible
: Then $\Pi $ is minimal for the action $\alpha $ of $\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ by definition.
Case 1b: $\protect\pi _{A}$ is reducible
: By Theorem ([CyclicConclusion]{}), there exists an irreducible representation $\pi _{1}$ of $A$ on some Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ such that $\pi _{1}$, $\pi
_{1}\circ \alpha _{\eta }$ and $\pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\eta }^{2}$ are not unitarily equivalent, $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus \mathcal{H}_{1}\oplus \mathcal{H}_{1}$ and:$$\Pi (U_{\eta })=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] \text{ and\ }\Pi \left( a\right) =\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\pi _{1}(a) & & \\
& \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\eta }(a) & \\
& & \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\eta ^{2}}(a)\end{array}\right] \text{.}$$
Case 2: $\Pi _{|A\rtimes _{\protect\beta }\mathbb{Z}_{3}}$ is reducible.
: From Theorem (\[CyclicConclusion\]), or alternatively [Latremoliere06]{}, there exists an irreducible representation $\pi _{1}$ of $A\rtimes _{\alpha _{\eta }}\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ such that for all $z\in A\rtimes
_{\alpha _{\eta }}\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ we have:$$\Pi (a)=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\pi _{1}(z) & 0 \\
0 & \pi _{1}\circ \beta (z)\end{array}\right] \text{ and }\Pi \left( U_{\tau }\right) =\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0\end{array}\right] \label{Case2-1}$$where $\pi _{1}$ and $\pi _{1}\circ \beta $ are not unitarily equivalent.
This case splits again in two cases:
Case 2a: $\protect\pi _{1|A}$ is irreducible
: Thus $\pi _{1}$ is a minimal representation of $A\rtimes _{\alpha _{\eta }}\mathbb{Z}_{3}$. In particular: $$\pi _{A}(a)=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\pi _{1}(a) & 0 \\
0 & \pi _{1}\circ \alpha _{\tau }(a)\end{array}\right]$$and $\Pi \left( U_{\eta }\right) $ is a block-diagonal unitary in this decomposition. However, we can not conclude that $\pi _{1|A}$ and $\pi
_{1|A}\circ \alpha _{\tau }$ are equivalent or non-equivalent. Examples ([ExPermutation2]{}) and (\[ExPermutation1\]) illustrate that both possibilities occur.
Case 2b: $\protect\pi _{1|A}$ is reducible
: Then $\Pi _{|A\rtimes
_{\alpha _{\eta }}\mathbb{Z}_{3}}$ is described by Theorem ([CyclicConclusion]{}). Since $3$ is prime, only one possibility occurs: there exists an irreducible representation $\pi $ of $A$ such that $\pi \circ
\alpha _{\eta }$ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\eta }^{2}$ are not equivalent and:$$\Pi (a)=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\pi (a) & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \pi (\alpha _{\eta }(a)) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \pi \left( \alpha _{\eta ^{2}}(a)\right)\end{array}\right]$$and $\Pi \left( U_{\eta }\right) =\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] $. Note that:$$\Pi \left( \beta (U_{\Pi }\right) )=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0\end{array}\right] \text{.}$$ Together with (\[Case2-1\]), we get that $\mathcal{H}$ splits into the direct sum of six copies of the Hilbert space on which $\pi $ acts and:$$\Pi (a)=\left[
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\pi (a) & & & & & \\
& \pi (\alpha _{\eta }(a)) & & & & \\
& & \pi (\alpha _{\eta ^{2}}(a)) & & & \\
& & & \pi \left( \alpha _{\tau }(a)\right) & & \\
& & & & \pi \left( \alpha _{\eta \tau }(a)\right) & \\
& & & & & \pi \left( \alpha _{\eta ^{2}\tau (a)}\right)\end{array}\right]$$and$$\Pi (U_{\eta })=\left[
\begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\end{array}\right]$$while$$\Pi \left( U_{\tau }\right) =\left[
\begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right] \text{.}$$Thus $\Pi $ is regular induced by $\pi $, and therefore, as $\Pi $ is irreducible, $\pi \circ \alpha _{\sigma }$ is not equivalent to $\pi $ for any $\sigma \in \mathfrak{S}_{3}\backslash \{\limfunc{Id}\}$ by Theorem ([RegularIrred]{}).
This concludes our proof.
We show that all four possibilities above do occur in a nontrivial manner. We use the generators $\tau $ and $\eta $ as defined in Theorem ([Permutation3]{}). Denote by $e$ the identity of $\left\{ 1,2,3\right\} $. Notice that $\tau ^{2}=\eta ^{3}=e$ and $\tau \eta \tau =\eta ^{2}$ and $\tau \eta ^{2}\tau =\tau $, while:$$\mathfrak{S}_{3}=\left\{ e,\eta ,\eta ^{2},\tau ,\eta \tau ,\eta ^{2}\tau
\right\} \text{.}$$In particular, $\left\{ 1,\eta ,\eta ^{2}\right\} $ is a normal subgroup of $\mathfrak{S}_{3}$. Now, consider the universal C\*-algebra of the free group on three generators $A=C^{\ast }\left( \mathbb{F}_{3}\right) $ and denote by $U_{1},U_{2}$ and $U_{3}$ its three canonical unitary generators. Then we define the action $\alpha $ of $\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ on $A$ by setting $\alpha
_{\sigma }\left( U_{i}\right) =U_{\sigma (i)}$ for any $\sigma \in \mathfrak{S}_{3}$. We now show that this simple example admits in a nontrivial way all types of representations described in Theorem (\[Permutation3\]).
There exists a nontrivial irreducible representation $\pi :C^{\ast }\left(
\mathbb{F}_{3}\right) \rightarrow M_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ such that $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\tau }$ are unitarily equivalent, but $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\eta }$ are not. Indeed, set:$$\pi \left( U_{1}\right) =\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0\end{bmatrix}\qquad \pi \left( U_{2}\right) =\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -1 \\
-1 & 0\end{bmatrix}\qquad \pi \left( U_{3}\right) =\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1\end{bmatrix}.$$We check easily that $\pi $ is an irreducible $\ast $-representation. Since$$\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1\end{bmatrix}\left[ \pi \circ \alpha _{\tau }\right]
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1\end{bmatrix}=\pi ,$$$\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\tau }$ are unitarily equivalent. To see that $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\eta }$ are not unitarily equivalent, notice that $\pi \left( U_{1}U_{2}-U_{2}U_{1}\right) =0$ but that:$$\pi \left( U_{2}U_{3}-U_{3}U_{2}\right) =\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 2 \\
-2 & 0\end{bmatrix}\text{.}$$
\[Minimal\]There exists a non trivial irreducible representation $\pi
:C^{\ast }\left( \mathbb{F}_{3}\right) \rightarrow M_{3}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ such that $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\tau }$ are unitarily equivalent and $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\eta }$ are also unitarily equivalent. Let $\lambda =\exp \left( \frac{1}{3}2i\pi \right) $. Define $$\pi \left( U_{1}\right) =\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \lambda \\
\lambda ^{2} & 0\end{array}\right] ,\ \ \ \pi \left( U_{2}\right) =\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \lambda ^{2} \\
\lambda & 0\end{array}\right] \text{ and }\pi \left( U_{3}\right) =\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0\end{array}\right] \text{.}$$Let $V=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \lambda ^{2}\end{array}\right] $. We check that $V\pi \left( U_{i}\right) V^{\ast }=\pi \left(
U_{\left( i+1\right) \func{mod}3}\right) .$ Then let $W=\pi (U_{3})$. Then $W\pi \left( U_{1}\right) W^{\ast }=\pi \left( U_{2}\right) $, $W\pi \left(
U_{2}\right) W^{\ast }=\pi \left( U_{1}\right) $, and $W\pi \left(
U_{3}\right) W^{\ast }=\pi \left( U_{3}\right) $. Thus $\pi $ is a minimal representation of $C^{\ast }\left( \mathbb{F}_{3}\right) $ for the action $\alpha $ of $\mathfrak{S}_{3}$.
\[ExPermutation2\]There exists an irreducible representation $\pi
:C^{\ast }\left( \mathbb{F}_{3}\right) \rightarrow M_{3}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ such that $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\eta }$ are unitarily equivalent, but $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\tau }$ are not: Let $\lambda
=\exp \left( \frac{1}{3}2\pi i\right) $ and define unitaries $T$ and $V$ by $$T=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -\frac{4}{5} & {\Large -}\frac{3}{5} \\
\frac{4}{5} & -\frac{9}{25} & \frac{12}{25} \\
\frac{3}{5} & \frac{12}{25} & -\frac{16}{25}\end{bmatrix}
\text{ \ \ \ and}\ \ \ V=\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \lambda & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \lambda ^{2}\end{bmatrix}$$
Define $$\pi \left( U_{1}\right) =VTV^{2}\qquad \pi \left( U_{2}\right)
=V^{2}TV\qquad \pi \left( U_{3}\right) =T\text{.}$$
It is clear that $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\eta }$ are unitarily equivalent. We will show that $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\tau }$ are not unitarily equivalent. Suppose on the contrary that they are. Then there exists a unitary $W$ such that $W=W^{\ast }=W^{-1}$ and $$WTW=T,\qquad W\left( VTV^{2}\right) W=V^{2}TV\qquad W\left( V^{2}TV\right)
W=VTV^{2}.$$From here we conclude that $VWV$ performs the same transformations, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\left( VWV\right) T\left( VWV\right) ^{\ast } &=&T, \\
\left( VWV\right) \left[ VTV^{2}\right] \left( VWV\right) ^{\ast }
&=&V^{2}TV, \\
\left( VWV\right) \left[ V^{2}TV\right] \left( VWV\right) ^{\ast }
&=&VTV^{2}.\end{aligned}$$Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
W\left( VTV^{2}\right) W &=&V^{2}TV\text{ so} \\
V\left[ W\left( VTV^{2}\right) W\right] &=&V\left[ V^{2}TV\right] =TV\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Then we multiply both sides by $V^{2}$ from the right to get $$VWVTV^{2}WV^{2}=T \text{.}$$ Since $$\left( VWV\right) ^{\ast }=V^{\ast }W^{\ast }V^{\ast }=V^{2}WV^{2}\text{,}$$we get the first equation. Similarly we get the other two.
Since $\pi $ is irreducible we conclude that there exists a constant $c$ such that $$VWV=cW.$$$V$ has a precise form and when we compute $VWV-cW$ we conclude that this equation has a non zero solution iff $c=1,$ $c=\lambda ,$ or $c=\lambda
^{2}. $ Moreover, the solutions have the form:$$\begin{aligned}
W &=&\begin{bmatrix}
x & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & y \\
0 & z & 0\end{bmatrix}\text{ if }c=1 \\
W &=&\begin{bmatrix}
0 & x & 0 \\
y & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & z\end{bmatrix}\text{ if }c=\lambda \\
W &=&\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & x \\
0 & y & 0 \\
z & 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}\text{ if }c=\lambda ^{2}\end{aligned}$$for some $x,y,c\in
\mathbb{C}
$.
Now we easily check that $T$ does not commute with any of the three $W$’s. For example,$$\begin{aligned}
&&\begin{bmatrix}
x & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & y \\
0 & z & 0\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -\frac{4}{5} & -\frac{3}{5} \\
\frac{4}{5} & -\frac{9}{25} & \frac{12}{25} \\
\frac{3}{5} & \frac{12}{25} & -\frac{16}{25}\end{bmatrix}-\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -\frac{4}{5} & -\frac{3}{5} \\
\frac{4}{5} & -\frac{9}{25} & \frac{12}{25} \\
\frac{3}{5} & \frac{12}{25} & -\frac{16}{25}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
x & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & y \\
0 & z & 0\end{bmatrix}
\\
&=&\begin{bmatrix}
0 & \frac{3}{5}z-\frac{4}{5}x & \frac{4}{5}y-\frac{3}{5}x \\
\frac{3}{5}y-\frac{4}{5}x & \frac{12}{25}y-\frac{12}{25}z & -\frac{7}{25}y
\\
\frac{4}{5}z-\frac{3}{5}x & \frac{7}{25}z & \frac{12}{25}z-\frac{12}{25}y\end{bmatrix}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$This of course implies that $x=y=z=0$.
\[Torus1\]This example acts on $A=C\left( \mathbb{T}^{3}\right) $. Define for $f\in C(\mathbb{T}^{3})$ and $\left( z_{1},z_{2},z_{3}\right) \in
\mathbb{T}^{3}$: $$\alpha _{\eta }\left( f\right) \left( z_{1},z_{2},z_{3}\right) =f\left(
z_{2},z_{3},z_{1}\right)$$and $$\alpha _{\tau }\left( f\right) \left( z_{1},z_{2},z_{3}\right) =f\left(
z_{2},z_{1},z_{3}\right)$$on $C\left( \mathbb{T}^{3}\right) $. We can build a non trivial irreducible representation $\pi :C\left( \mathbb{T}^{3}\right) \rightarrow
\mathbb{C}
$ such that $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\eta }$ are not unitarily equivalent and $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\tau }$ are also not unitarily equivalent. Let $x=\left( x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}\right) \in \mathbb{T}^{3}$ be such that $x_{1}\neq x_{2},$ $x_{2}\neq x_{3},$ and $x_{3}\neq x_{1}.$Define $\pi (f)=f(x)$. Then we obtain an irreducible representation of the required type as the regular representation induced by $\pi $, using Theorem ([RegularIrred]{}).
Now, Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]) allowed for the irreducible subrepresentations of $\Pi _{|A}$ to have multiplicity greater than one, for irreducible representations $\Pi $ of $A\rtimes _{\alpha }G$. This situation is however prohibited when $G$ is finite cyclic by Theorem (\[CyclicConclusion\]). We show that finite polycyclic groups such as $\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ can provide examples where $\Pi _{|A}$ may not be multiplicity free, thus showing again that Theorem ([FiniteGroupConclusion]{}) can not be strengthened to the conclusion of Theorem (\[CyclicConclusion\]).
\[ExPermutation1\]We shall use the notations of Theorem ([Permutation3]{}). There exists a unital C\*-algebra $A$, an action $\alpha $ of $\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ on $A$ and an irreducible representation $\widetilde{\Pi }:A\rtimes _{\alpha }S_{3}\rightarrow B\left( \mathcal{H}\oplus \mathcal{H}\right) $ such that for all $x\in A$ we have:$$\widetilde{\Pi }\left( x\right) =\begin{bmatrix}
\pi \left( x\right) & 0 \\
0 & \pi \left( \alpha _{\tau }(x)\right)\end{bmatrix}
\label{ExampleMultiplicity2-1}$$for some irreducible representation $\pi :A\rightarrow B\left( \mathcal{H}\right) $ such that $\pi $ and $\pi \circ \alpha _{\tau }$ are equivalent. Note that $\pi $ is thus minimal for the action of $\alpha _{\eta }$.
Indeed, let us start with any unital C\*-algebra $A$ for which there exists an action $\alpha $ of $\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ and an irreducible representation $\Pi :A\rtimes _{\alpha }\mathfrak{S}_{3}\rightarrow B\left( \mathcal{H}\right) $ such that $\pi =\Pi _{|A}$ is also irreducible, i.e. $\Pi $ is minimal. For instance, Example (\[Minimal\]) provides such a situation. Let $V_{\eta }=\Pi \left( U_{\eta }\right) $ and $V_{\tau }=\Pi (U_{\tau })$. Then for all $x\in A$$$\begin{aligned}
V_{\eta }\pi \left( x\right) V_{\eta }^{\ast } &=&\pi \left( \alpha _{\eta
}\left( x\right) \right) \text{,} \\
V_{\eta }\pi \left( x\right) V_{\eta }^{\ast } &=&\pi \left( \alpha _{\eta
}\left( x\right) \right) \text{,} \\
V_{\tau }^{2}=1\text{, }V_{\eta }^{3} &=&1\text{ }\text{and }V_{\tau
}V_{\eta }V_{\tau }=V_{\eta }^{2}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$Let $\omega =\exp \left( \frac{1}{3}2\pi i\right) $. For $x\in A$ define $\widetilde{\Pi }\left( x\right) $ by (\[ExampleMultiplicity2-1\]); let $W_{\eta }=\widetilde{\Pi }\left( U_{\eta }\right) $ and $W_{\tau }=\widetilde{\Pi }\left( U_{\tau }\right) $ given by:$$W_{\eta }=\begin{bmatrix}
\omega V_{\eta } & 0 \\
0 & \omega ^{2}V_{\eta }\end{bmatrix}\text{ \qquad }W_{\tau }=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0\end{bmatrix}\text{.}$$ We easily check that: $$W_{\eta }\widetilde{\Pi }\left( x\right) W_{\eta }^{\ast }=\widetilde{\Pi }\left( \alpha _{\eta }\left( x\right) \right) \text{, } W_{\tau }\widetilde{\Pi }\left( x\right) W_{\tau }^{\ast }=\widetilde{\Pi } \left( \alpha _{\tau
}\left( x\right) \right) \text{,}$$ and: $$\left( W_{\tau }\right) ^{3}=1, \left( W_{\tau }\right) ^{2}=1 \text{.}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
W_{\tau }W_{\eta }W_{\tau } &=&\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
\omega V_{\eta } & 0 \\
0 & \omega ^{2}V_{\eta }\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0\end{bmatrix}
\\
&=&\begin{bmatrix}
\omega ^{2}\left( V_{\eta }\right) ^{2} & 0 \\
0 & \omega \left( V_{\eta }\right) ^{2}\end{bmatrix}=\left( V_{\eta }\right) ^{2}\text{,}\end{aligned}$$because $\omega ^{4}=\omega .$
We need to prove that $\widetilde{\Pi }:A\rtimes _{\alpha }S_{3}\rightarrow
B\left( \mathcal{H}\oplus \mathcal{H}\right) $ is irreducible. Let $$T=\begin{bmatrix}
a & b \\
c & d\end{bmatrix}$$be in the commutant of $\widetilde{\Pi }\left( A\rtimes _{\alpha
}S_{3}\right) $. For every $x\in A$: $$T\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\pi (x) & 0 \\
0 & \pi (\alpha _{\tau }(x))\end{array}\right] =\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\pi (x) & 0 \\
0 & \pi \left( \alpha _{\tau }(x)\right)\end{array}\right] T\text{.}$$Since $\pi $ is an irreducible representation of $A$ and $\pi \circ \alpha
_{\tau }=V_{\tau }\pi V_{\tau }$ by construction, we conclude by Lemma ([Schur]{}) that $a$ and $b$ are multiple of the identity, while $c$ and $d$ are multiples of $V_{\tau }$. Since $TW_{\tau }=W_{\tau }T$ we conclude that $a=d$ and $b=c$. This means that $$T-aI=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & bV_{\tau } \\
bV_{\tau } & 0\end{bmatrix}$$is in the commutant of the $\widetilde{\pi }\left( A\rtimes _{\alpha
}S_{3}\right) $. However, this element must commute with $W_{\eta }$. This can only happen if $b=0$. This completes the proof.
Thus, using Example (\[ExPermutation1\]), there exists an irreducible representation $\widetilde{\Pi }$ of $C^{\ast }(\mathbb{F}_{3})\rtimes _{\alpha }\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ such that $\widetilde{\Pi }_{|C^{\ast }(\mathbb{F}_{3})}$ is the sum of two equivalent irreducible representations of $C^{\ast }(\mathbb{F}_{3})$, a situation which is impossible for crossed-product by finite cyclic groups by Theorem ([CyclicConclusion]{}).
In general, repeated applications of Theorem (\[CyclicConclusion\]) can lead to detailed descriptions of irreducible representations of crossed-products of unital C\*-algebra by finite polycyclic groups, based upon the same method as we used in Theorem (\[Permutation3\]). Of course, in these situations Theorem (\[FiniteGroupConclusion\]) provides already a detailed necessary condition on such representations, and much of the structure can be read from this result.
[10]{}
. [B]{}ratteli, [G]{}. [E]{}lliott, [D]{}. [E]{}vans, and [A]{}. [K]{}ishimoto, *Noncommutative spheres [I]{}*, [I]{}nternat. [J]{}. [M]{}ath. **2** (1991), 139–166.
[to3em]{}, *Noncommutative spheres. [II]{}. [R]{}ational rotations*, [J]{}. [O]{}perator [T]{}heory **1** (1992), 53–85.
.-[D]{}. [C]{}hoi and [F]{}. [L]{}atr[é]{}moli[è]{}re, *The [C\*]{}-algebra of symmetric words in two universal unitaries*, [J]{}. [O]{}perator [T]{}heory **62** (2009), no. 1, 159–169, math.OA/0610467.
[to3em]{}, *[C\*]{}-crossed-products by an order-two automorphism*, Canad. Bull. Math. (2006), **53** (2010), no. 1, 37–50, math.OA/0610468.
. [R]{}. [D]{}avidson, *[C\*]{}–algebras by example*, Fields Institute Monographs, American Mathematical Society, 1996.
J. [D]{}ixmier, *Les [C\*–]{}algebres et leur représentations*, Gauthier-Villars, 1969, (reprint) Editions Jacques Gabay, 1996.
R. Hoegh-Krohn, M. B. Landstad, and E. Stormer, *Compact ergodic groups of automorphisms*, [A]{}nnals of [M]{}athematics **114** (1981), 75–86.
. [K]{}. [P]{}edersen, *[C]{}\*-[A]{}lgebras and their automorphism groups*, Academic Press, 1979.
. [R]{}ieffel, *Actions of finite groups on [C\*]{}-algebras*, Math. Scand. **47** (1980), 157–176.
. [R]{}obinson, *[A]{} [C]{}ourse in the [T]{}heory of [G]{}roups*, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, [S]{}pringer-[V]{}erlag, New-York, 1982.
. [T]{}akesaki, *Covariant representations of $C^{\ast}$-algebras and their locally compact automorphism groups*, Acta Math. **119** (1967), 273–303.
. [Z]{}eller[-]{}[M]{}eier, *Produits croisés [d’u]{}ne [C\*-]{}algèbre par un groupe [d’ A]{}utomorphismes*, [J]{}. [M]{}ath. pures et appl. **47** (1968), no. 2, 101–239.
[^1]: Part of this research took place when the first author visited Texas A&M University to participate in the Workshop in Analysis and Probability. He expresses his appreciation for their hospitality.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Durham [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} semi-analytical galaxy formation model has been shown to reproduce the observed rest-frame 1500Å luminosity function of galaxies well over the whole redshift range $z=5-10$. We show that in this model, this galaxy population also emits enough ionizing photons to reionize the Universe by redshift $z=10$, assuming a modest escape fraction of 20 per cent. The bulk of the ionizing photons is produced in faint galaxies during starbursts triggered by galaxy mergers. The bursts introduce a dispersion up to $\sim 5$ dex in galaxy ionizing luminosity at a given halo mass. Almost 90 per cent of the ionizing photons emitted at $z=10$ are from galaxies below the current observational detection limit at that redshift. Photo-ionization suppression of star formation in these galaxies is unlikely to affect this conclusion significantly, because the gas that fuels the starbursts has already cooled out of their host halos. The galaxies that dominate the ionizing emissivity at $z=10$ are faint, with $M_{1500, {\rm AB}}\sim -16$, have low star formation rates, $\dot M_\star\sim 0.06\,h^{-1}M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, and reside in halos of mass $M\sim 10^9\,h^{-1}M_\odot$.'
author:
- |
Milan Raičević$^{1,2}$[^1], Tom Theuns$^{1,3}$, Cedric Lacey$^1$\
$^1$Institute for Computational Cosmology, Durham University, Science Laboratories, Durham DH1 3LE, UK\
$^2$Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9513, 2300RA Leiden, The Netherlands\
$^3$Universiteit Antwerpen, Campus Groenenborger, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerpen, Belgium\
bibliography:
- 'paper2.bib'
title: The galaxies that reionized the Universe
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: formation, galaxies: evolution, galaxies: high-redshift, intergalactic medium, cosmology: dark ages, reionization, first stars
Introduction
============
Reionization refers to the transition in the state of the Universe from mostly neutral, following recombination at a redshift of $z\sim
1000$, to highly ionized once more at later times. @GunnPeterson [and also @BahcallSalpeter] realised as soon as @Schmidt published spectra of $z\sim 2$ quasars that the absence of significant Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption in their spectra implied that the $z\sim 2$ Universe is very highly ionized. That basic picture has not changed with the discovery by @Fan03 of $z>6$ QSOs [@Becker07] or the novel method based on gamma-ray bursts as probes of the intergalactic medium (IGM) at even higher $z$ [@Totani06; @Zafar10; @Patel10].
The fact that most of the hydrogen in the Universe is highly ionized at least as early as $z\sim 7$ is also consistent with the large Thomson scattering optical depth toward the surface of large scattering which is inferred from measurements of CMB fluctuations. This implies a reionization redshift of $z_{\rm reion}=10.5\pm 1.2$, if the transition from neutral to completely ionized occurred instantaneously [@Komatsu10]. The temperature of the IGM depends on its reionization history because the thermal timescales are long: measurements of that temperature [@Schaye00] are also consistent with reionization occurring around $z\sim 10$ [@Theuns02].
The current paradigm as to how reionization happens is that initially small H[II]{} regions form around individual sources of ionizing photons[^2]. As the sources become brighter and more numerous, isolated H[II]{} regions grow, merge, and eventually percolate throughout the IGM, see for example the early simulations by @Gnedin97. The nature of the sources of the ionizing radiation is still unknown. While a number of works show that the majority of ionizing radiation is probably produced by stellar sources [e.g. @madau99; @Gnedin00a; @Sokasian03; @Ciardi03; @Furlanetto04; @Trac07; @Trac09], the exact contribution of Population III stars or quasars is under debate [see @Choudhury07; @Wyithe07; @loeb09; @Volonteri09; @Salvaterra10 for recent examples].
Depending on its spin temperature, the not-yet ionized H[I]{} during the epoch of reionization (EoR) could be detected in either emission or absorption in redshifted 21-cm radiation, either in the form of a global step in the spectrum, or indeed probing the remaining neutral regions in a partly ionized IGM [@Madau97; @Shaver99; @Tozzi00]. Because most plausible ionizing sources will be highly clustered, the ionized bubbles could grow to be quite large, and the epoch where the IGM is 50% ionized may be best suited for direct detection with current and future experiments, such as LOFAR[^3], 21CMA[^4], MWA[^5], and eventually the SKA[^6]. The promise of a direct observational probe has stimulated considerable interest in the EoR, see recent reviews by for example @Barkana01 [@Ciardi05; @Loeb06; @Trac09].
The recent installation of the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3)/IR on the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} has made it possible to search for $z>6$ galaxies using the Lyman-break drop-out technique, with a number of authors reporting the discovery of galaxies with $z>6$ (based on their colours), with candidates up to $z\sim 10$ [@Bunker09a; @Bouwens07; @Bouwens09a; @Bouwens09c; @Oesch09]. Are these the galaxies that caused reionization? The analysis by @Bunker09b suggests that these galaxies are unlikely to produce sufficient ionizing photons to reionize the Universe. In fact even at lower $z\sim 6$ there seems to be a problem, in the sense that the observed galaxies do not appear to produce sufficient photons to keep the IGM from recombining [@Bolton07].
In this paper we use the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} semi-analytical model of galaxy formation [@Cole00; @Baugh05] to make theoretical predictions for the evolution of the emissivity of ionizing photons from galaxies, $\epsilon(z)$. The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} model calculates the formation and evolution of galaxies in the framework of hierarchical structure formation in CDM, including baryonic physics such as gas cooling, star formation and supernova feedback. In contrast to most other work modelling the contribution of galaxies to reionization, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} model which we use here was originally developed to try to explain the properties of galaxies at much lower redshifts. Predictions from [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} have been compared with a very wide range of observational data at lower redshifts $z \lesssim 6$, including galaxy luminosity functions, colours, sizes, morphologies, gas contents and metallicities at redshift $z=0$ [@Cole00; @Baugh05; @Bower06; @Gonzalez09], the evolution of galaxies at optical, IR and sub-mm wavelengths [@Baugh05; @Bower06; @Lacey08; @Gonzalez-Perez09], and the evolution of $Ly\alpha$-emitting galaxies [@LeDelliou06; @Orsi08]. In this paper, we use the @Baugh05 variant of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} model. This model was already shown by @Baugh05 to reproduce the observed rest-frame far-UV luminosity function of Lyman-break galaxies at $z\sim 3$, and the same model has recently been shown to reproduce the observed numbers of Lyman-break galaxies over the whole range $z
\sim 3-10$ [@Lacey10b]. Two important features of the @Baugh05 model are that at high redshifts, most star formation happens in starbursts triggered by galaxy mergers, and the initial mass function (IMF) of the stars formed in such bursts is top heavy, containing a much larger proportion of high-mass stars than is found in more quiescent star formation environments such as the solar neighbourhood. This top-heavy IMF was introduced into the model by @Baugh05 in order to explain the observed numbers and redshifts of the faint sub-mm galaxies, now known to be very luminous, dust-obscured starbursts at $z \sim 1-3$. Models assuming a standard solar neighbourhood IMF were found to underpredict the numbers of sub-mm galaxies by an order of magnitude, if these models were also constrained to reproduce the present-day galaxy luminosity functions.
In the present study, we want to investigate whether a model that is consistent with the new measurements of the Lyman-dropout galaxy population at $z>6$ can produce sufficient ionizing photons to reionize the universe at $z_{\rm reion} \gtrsim 10$. If so, we want to quantify which galaxies dominate $\epsilon$, and which aspects of the model affect $\epsilon$ most. A similar analysis based on the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} model was performed by @Benson06 (see also @Benson02a [@Benson02b]), who also included a simple model for the evolution of the H[II]{} volume filling factor. The present paper looks in more detail at the properties of the galaxies that cause reionization and the dark matter halos that host them, and how these are connected to the newly discovered $z>6$ drop-outs. The properties of Lyman-break galaxies predicted by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} over the whole redshift range $z=3-20$ have been analyzed in more detail in a companion paper by @Lacey10b, which also makes a more detailed comparison with the observed far-UV luminosity functions. We emphasize that the default values of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} model parameters used in the present work are identical to those chosen by @Baugh05, which were adjusted to match a range of observed galaxy properties at lower redshifts. We will couple the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{}source model with a radiative transfer scheme to investigate the progression of reionization in more detail in a follow-up paper [@Raicevic10].
This paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 we briefly discuss the main ingredients of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{}, paying particular attention to those aspects that most affect the ionizing luminosities of the galaxies. In Section 3 we show the evolution of the emissivity $\epsilon$ for the default [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} parameters, discuss which galaxies dominate $\epsilon$, and how changes in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} parameters affect $\epsilon$. In section 4 we show the corresponding far-UV luminosity functions at $z=6$ and 10, explore the extent to which the currently detected galaxies constrain $\epsilon$, and how future observations with [*e.g.*]{} the [*James Webb Telescope*]{} will improve our understanding. We summarize in Section 5.
Method {#sect:model}
======
The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} semi-analytical model [@Cole00] computes how galaxies form and evolve in the hierarchically growing dark matter halos of a cold dark matter Universe. The evolution of the halos themselves is described by halo merger trees, which are either extracted from an N-body simulation or computed using a Monte-Carlo scheme based on [@lacey93] and improved by [@Parkinson08]. The semi-analytical algorithm incorporates physically motivated recipes for gas cooling, star formation, feedback from supernovae, galaxy mergers, metal enrichment, dust production and other processes, and in particular allows a calculation of the observable properties of each galaxy, notably its broad-band luminosity and colours, and its ionizing emissivity; see [@Baugh06] for a recent review of semi-analytical methods.
The buildup of dark matter halos of course depends on the assumed cosmological parameters, but the properties of the [*galaxies*]{} associated with them are at least equally strongly dependent on the gastrophysics governed by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} parameters; for this reason we only consider the cosmological parameters used in the Millennium simulation [@Springel05-1], $(\Omega_{\rm
m},\Omega_\Lambda,\Omega_{\rm b},h,\sigma_8,n_s) =
(0.25,0.75,0.045,0.73,0.9,1)$[^7].
Even at redshift $z=0$ only a very small fraction of baryons have been converted into stars [@Fukugita98]. In particular the faint-end slope of the $z=0$ K-band luminosity function, $\alpha_{\rm L}\approx
-1$ [@Cole01-2], is much flatter than the low-mass slope of the dark halo mass function, $\alpha_{\rm M}\approx -2$ [@press74]. Therefore a crucial ingredient of any successful galaxy formation model is strong negative feedback to quench the formation of small galaxies [@White91; @Benson03]. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} incorporates this and other effects with a set of rules, each with an associated set of parameters. Some of these have a large effect on the properties of early galaxies, others mostly affect the present-day galaxy population. Recent studies using [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} have concentrated on two different variants, that of @Baugh05 (hereafter, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{}) and of [@Bower06] (hereafter, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bower06</span>]{}), which adopt somewhat different prescriptions for star formation, feedback and the IMF (see also @Lacey08 for more details about the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model). The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{}model includes superwinds (following [@Benson03]) in order to better reproduce the bright-end of the optical and near-IR galaxy luminosity function at $z=0$, while the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bower06</span>]{} model instead accomplishes this by including feedback from accreting black holes (see also [@Croton06]). The other most important difference between the two models is that the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model assumes that stars form with a top-heavy initial mass function (IMF) in starbursts, and a normal solar neighbourhood IMF in galaxy discs, while the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bower06</span>]{} model instead assumes that all star formation occurs with a solar neighbourhood IMF. In addition to this, the two models make somewhat different assumptions about the star formation timescale in discs, supernova feedback, the timescale for ejected gas to be re-incorporated into halos, and the triggering of starbursts.
While the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bower06</span>]{} models predict similar galaxy luminosity functions at optical and near-IR wavelengths at $z=0$, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{}model is in much better agreement with the observed numbers of star-forming galaxies seen at high redshifts, selected either as Lyman-dropouts or from their sub-mm emission [@Baugh05; @Lacey10b]. As we will show later, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model also predicts higher ionizing emissivities at high redshifts than the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bower06</span>]{} model, and a correspondingly higher redshift of reionization, in better agreement with current observational constraints. For these reasons, we concentrate in this paper on predictions from the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{}model. Not surprisingly, neither superwinds nor AGN greatly affect the predictions for galaxies at $z \gtrsim 6$, since the massive galaxies that are affected by these processes are extremely rare at such early times. Nevertheless, we do find quite significant differences between these two popular [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} variants in what they predict for ionizing emissivities at $z \gtrsim 6$, which are related to their different assumptions about star formation, supernova feedback and the IMF. We now discuss the physical processes incorporated in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} version of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} model that have a large effect on $z \gtrsim 6$ galaxies, and why they were introduced in the original model.
Star formation
--------------
The model assumes two distict modes of star formation, [*quiescent*]{} star formation in galaxy discs, and [*starbursts*]{} triggered by galaxy mergers. In both cases the instantaneous star formation rate is parametrized as: $$\psi={M_{\rm cold}\over \tau_\star}\,,
\label{eq:sfr}$$ where $M_{{\rm cold}}$ is the amount of cold gas in the galaxy, and $\tau_\star$ the star formation time scale. Neglecting the life-times of massive stars (the instantaneous recycling approximation), the stellar mass in long-lived stars then builds up at a rate $$\dot{M}_\star = (1-R) \psi\,,$$ where $R$ is the recycling fraction, see [@Cole00] for more details.\
In the [*quiescent star formation mode*]{}, $\tau_\star$ depends on the circular velocity, $V_{{\rm disc}}$, of the galactic disc at the half-mass radius, as $\tau_\star=\tau_{\star,0}
(V_{{\rm disc}}/200~{\rm km\, s}^{-1})^{\alpha_\star}$, with $\tau_{\star,0}=8$ Gyr and $\alpha_\star=-3$. This parametrization yields reasonable gas masses and star formation rates at low redshifts $z\sim 0$, and implies that $\psi$ is quite low at high redshifts. This makes the high-$z$ discs gas rich, so that when galaxies merge, there is a large reservoir of gas available for fueling a starburst [@Baugh05].\
[*Bursts of star formation*]{} are assumed to be triggered by galaxy mergers under certain conditions. The model includes both [ *major*]{} and [*minor*]{} mergers, distinguished by the mass ratio of merging galaxies. Major mergers between spirals are assumed to destroy both discs and consume the remaining gas in a starburst. Minor mergers were introduced in the model motivated by the simulations of [@Hernquist95]; such a merger does not destroy the disc, but does build up the bulge. The star formation time scale in the burst mode is shorter than in the quiescent mode [see @Baugh05].\
[*The stellar initial mass function*]{} for quiescently forming stars is assumed to be similar to what is observed in the solar neighbourhood, specifically that proposed by [@Kennicutt83], $dN/d\ln(m) \propto m^{-x}$, with $x=0.4$ for $m <1M_\odot$ and $x=1.5$ for $m > 1M_\odot$, However, in bursts the IMF is assumed to be top-heavy, $x = 0$. In both cases, the IMF covers the mass range $0.15 < m/M_\odot < 120$.\
Star formation with a top-heavy IMF in bursts triggered by gas-rich galaxy mergers results in large UV luminosities from the massive young stars, and also the production of large quantities of metals and dust from supernovae. This dust in turn absorbs the copious UV radiation and re-radiates it at far-IR wavelengths. Both the frequent bursts at high redshifts and the top-heavy IMF are needed to boost the number of very luminous high-z IR galaxies to a level consistent with the observed number counts and redshift distribution of sub-mm galaxies. The parameters in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model were chosen to match this sub-mm data, while at the same time yielding good fits to the Lyman-break galaxy luminosity function at $z\sim 3$, and remaining conistent with observational constraints at $z=0$ [@Baugh05]. The case for a top-heavy IMF for the formation of at least a fraction of stars is further supported by the fact that its use during starbursts also results in better agreement with observed metallicities (including $\alpha$/Fe ratios) in intracluster gas in clusters and stars in elliptical galaxies [@Nagashima05a; @Nagashima05b]. Other independent observational evidence for variations in the IMF is discussed in @Lacey10a [@Lacey10b]. We emphasize that our results do not depend crucially on the precise form of the top-heavy IMF assumed - similar results would be obtained for an IMF in which the high-mass slope was fixed but the low mass turnover was varied, as proposed by @Larson98. We will show below that the bursts, and the associated change in the IMF during bursts, [*both*]{} have large effects on the emissivity of ionizing photons by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} galaxies at $z \gtrsim 6$.
Supernova feedback {#sect:SNe}
------------------
The fact that galaxies in low-mass halos form stars very inefficiently is likely due to energy injection from supernovae [@Dekel86]. In the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model this is implemented by ejecting gas out of a galaxy disc at a rate $$\dot M_{\rm eject}=\psi \left({V_{\rm disc}\over V_{\rm
hot}}\right)^{-\alpha_{\rm hot}}\,,
\label{eq:SNfeedback}$$ so that it is no longer available for star formation. Here, $V_{\rm
disc}$ is the circular velocity of the galactic disc at the half-mass radius. Values of $V_{\rm hot}=300$ km s$^{-1}$ and $\alpha_{\rm
hot}=2$ were chosen to reproduce the faint-end slope of the $B$-band galaxy luminosity function at $z=0$ [@Baugh05]. Such strong feedback also significantly quenches star formation in small halos at $z \gtrsim 6$, and therefore has a large impact on reionization. Note that the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bower06</span>]{} model incorporates even stronger SN feedback in small halos.
Photo-ionization feedback {#sect:photo}
-------------------------
Star formation in small galaxies may be quenched as the IGM becomes ionized, either because cooling is suppressed [@Efstathiou92], or because the higher IGM gas pressure inhibits gas from falling into halos [@Gnedin00b], or because photo-heating causes small galaxies to lose their gas [@Hoeft06; @Okamoto08]. These effects may lead to a global suppression of star formation during and after the EOR, as seen in the simulations of [@Crain09]. The standard approach in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} is to model this by suppressing the cooling of halo gas onto the galaxy when the host halo circular velocity is below a threshold value $$V_{\rm circ} < V_{\rm cut}\,.
\label{eq:photo}$$ at redshifts $z<z_{\rm cut}$ (but see also @Benson02a for a more detailed treatment).
The default value of $V_{\rm cut}=60$ km s$^{-1}$ in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{}model, originally guided by the results of [@Gnedin00b], is considerably larger than values found from more recent simulations [@Hoeft06; @Okamoto08]. The original [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model also assumed $z_{\rm cut}=6$. Interestingly, because only the [*gas cooling*]{} in the halo is suppressed in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{}, a small galaxy with circular velocity $V<V_{\rm cut}$ can continue to form stars until it has exhausted its supply of [*cold*]{} ([*i.e.*]{} already cooled) gas. This way of suppressing galaxy formation in small halos once the IGM is ionized has consequences for reionization and also for the luminosity function at later times, as we show below.
Modeling Lyman-continuum and broad-band SEDs {#sect:SED}
--------------------------------------------
The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} code computes the spectral energy distribution (SED) of each galaxy, given its star formation history and abundance evolution. The population synthesis models are based on the Padova stellar evolution tracks combined with Kurucz model atmospheres [@Bressan98]. The dust extinction is modeled with a prescription described by [@Cole00] with improvements described in [@Lacey10b]. Convolving the SED with a filter response yields broad-band luminosities for the galaxy. Below we will use the rest-frame 1500Å broad-band AB magnitudes of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} galaxies to compare against observed galaxy luminosity functions at approximately the same rest-frame wavelength, after rescaling observed luminosities and number densities to the same [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Millennium</span>]{} cosmology as assumed in the model.
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} also computes the Lyman-continuum luminosity for each galaxy, expressed as the emission rate of ionizing photons, $$\dot N_{\rm LyC} = \int_{\nu_{\rm thresh}}^\infty {L_{\nu} \over h\nu}\,d\nu\,,$$ where $L_{\nu}$ is the SED of the galaxy and $\nu_{{\rm thresh}}$ is the Lyman-limit frequency, $h \nu_{{\rm thresh}} = 13.6$ eV. Note that the number of ionizing photons produced per solar mass of stars formed is very different for the Kennicutt IMF assumed during quiescent star formation compared to the top-heavy IMF in bursts ($N_{\rm
LyC}/M_\star=3.2 \times 10^{60}$ and $3.5\times 10^{61}$ respectively, for solar metallicity).
A considerable fraction of those ionizing photons may be absorbed locally in the interstellar medium of the galaxy or by gas in the surrounding halo, and the fraction $f_{\rm esc}$ of photons that does manage to escape into the IGM is very uncertain. Observations of $z\sim 3-4$ Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs) by [@Steidel01] and [@Shapley06] suggest $f_{{\rm esc}}\sim 0.01-0.1$ or even lower [@Giallongo02] (but note the slightly different definition of $f_{\rm esc}$ there). The escape fraction may depend strongly on the porosity of the interstellar medium within the galaxy or the presence of supernova-driven winds [e.g. @ciardi02; @clarke02]. Some of the more recent models that attempt to include these effects suggest that $z \gtrsim 6$ galaxies may have significantly larger escape fractions, $f_{{\rm esc}} \sim 0.5$, [e.g. @Wise09; @Razoumov10]. Note that this parameter is unlikely to be independent of metallicity, gas content, and halo mass. In this paper, we simply assume $f_{{\rm esc}}$ to be the same for all galaxies.
We will now discuss the net emissivity of ionizing photons in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model, and how that depends on [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} parameters.
Ionizing emissivities
=====================
The emissivity $\epsilon(z)$, the number of ionizing photons produced per unit comoving volume at redshift $z$, is found by summing the Lyman-continuum luminosity of all galaxies, per unit volume, $$\epsilon(z) = \int_0^{\infty}\,\dot N_{\rm LyC}\,\Phi(\dot{N}_{\rm LyC})\,{{\rm d}}\dot{N}_{\rm LyC},$$ where $\Phi(\dot{N}_{\rm LyC})$ is the Lyman-continuum luminosity function. The emissivity $\epsilon(z)$ increases by approximately 1.5 dex between $z=13$ and $z=5$ in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model (Fig.\[fig:bau\_bow\_nphot\], thin line), mostly as a consequence of evolution in the halo mass function, as we will show below.
Integrating $\epsilon(z)$ down to a given redshift yields the total number of ionizing photons produced per unit comoving volume up to that time. This number can be compared to the mean comoving number density of hydrogen atoms, $n_{\rm H}$. Reionization will occur when their ratio $${\cal R}(z)\equiv {\int_\infty^z\,\epsilon(z)\,dz\over n_{\rm H}\,},$$ is ${\cal R}=(1+N_{\rm rec})/f_{\rm esc}$. Here, $N_{\rm rec}$ denotes the mean number of recombinations per hydrogen atom up to reionization, and $f_{\rm esc}$ is the mean escape fraction from Section \[sect:SED\].
Estimating $N_{\rm rec}$ is not straightforward. Recombinations can occur in the higher-density regions of the general IGM, in mini-halos that have too shallow potential wells for star formation [@Shapiro04; @Ciardi06], or in even higher-density regions associated with Lyman-limit or damped Lyman-$\alpha$ systems. The value of $N_{\rm rec}$ will itself depend on $\int_\infty^z\,\epsilon(z)\,dz$, since a slower build-up of the ionization rate will allow more time for recombinations. Interestingly, once the IGM is ionized, the smoothing of the density field due to gas pressure following photo-heating reduces the recombination rate [@Pawlik09]. Current simulations of the EoR suggest values of $N_{\rm rec}$ of a few [@Iliev06; @McQuinn07; @Trac07].
Combining the estimate of $1+N_{\rm rec}\sim 2$ with a reasonable escape fraction of $f_{\rm esc}\sim 0.2$ then suggests that reionization requires a value of ${\cal R}\sim 10$. This is plotted as a function of redshift for the default values of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bower06</span>]{} [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} parameters in Fig. \[fig:bau\_bow\_nphot\] (thick lines), suggesting that the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model will produce a reasonable reionization redshift $z_{\rm reion}\sim 10$, $\Delta z\sim 5$ before [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bower06</span>]{}. Next we discuss the properties of the galaxies and halos that dominate the emissivity in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model, and how strongly these depend on the assumed parametrization in the model, following the same order as in the previous Section \[sect:model\].
Effect of star formation parameters and IMF
-------------------------------------------
The number of ionizing photons produced per unit time by galaxies in a halo of given mass, $\dot N_{\rm LyC}(M,z)$, is plotted as a function of $M$ in Fig. \[fig:emis\_evol2\]. The virial temperature $T_{\rm
vir}$ of halos with $M<M_{\rm min} \approx 10^8\,h^{-1}M_\odot$ is too low to enable radiative cooling by atomic lines and hence such halos do not form stars[^8]. Given that $T_{\rm vir} \propto (1+z)$ at fixed $M$, there is strong redshift dependence in $\dot{N}_{\rm LyC}(M,z)$ at very low masses, but above this minimum mass [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} predicts essentially no evolution in the mean $\dot{N}_{\rm LyC}(M,z)$ between $z=15$ and $z=6$, but with a modest $\sim50\%$ decrease in the median in halos with mass $M \gtrsim 10^{10} {h^{-1}{\rm M_{\odot}}}$ in the same redshift range.
The mean $\dot N_{\rm {LyC}}$ at a given halo mass increases approximately as $\dot{N}_{\rm{LyC}} \propto M^{1.8}$ for small halos $M\lesssim 2\times 10^9\,h^{-1}M_\odot$, and roughly as $\dot{N}_{{\rm LyC}} \propto M$ for more massive halos, in contrast to many recent simulations of reionization which assume a simple $\dot
N_{\rm {LyC}}\propto M$ relation for all $M$ [e.g. @Furlanetto04; @Iliev06]. Interestingly, there is a very large difference between the mean and median of $\dot{N}_{\rm LyC}$ at given $M$, and there is also a very large range, up to $\sim 5~$dex, in $\dot N_{\rm {LyC}}$ at [*given*]{} $M$ (Fig. \[fig:emis\_evol2\]). Both are consequences of the importance of bursts in generating ionizing photons, as we will discuss in more detail below.
The total Lyman-continuum emissivity per dex in halo mass ${{\rm d}}\epsilon/ {{\rm d}}\log_{10}(M)$ (Fig. \[fig:emis\_evol3\]), can be obtained by combining the mean luminosity of a single halo of given mass, $\dot N_{\rm
{LyC}}(M)$, with the number of halos of that mass, ${{\rm d}}n/{{\rm d}}\log_{10}(M)$. This function evolves rapidly as a consequence of the rapid build-up of more massive halos as time progresses. The halo mass below which 50 per cent of ionizing photons are produced increases from $\sim 8\times 10^8\,h^{-1}M_\odot$ at $z=14$ by an order of magnitude to $\sim 8\times
10^9\,h^{-1}\,M_\odot$ at $z=6$ (top panel of Fig. \[fig:emis\_evol3\]). At high $z$, the mass range of halos that contribute significantly to $\epsilon$ is relatively small, of order 1 dex, since it is limited at low $M$ by $M_{\rm min}$ and at large $M$ by the exponential drop in the abundance of more massive halos. At later redshift $z\sim 6$, ${{\rm d}}\epsilon/ {{\rm d}}{\rm log_{10}} M$ is nearly independent of $M$ over nearly 2 dex, a consequence of the fact that the ionizing photon luminosity of halos increases with halo mass approximately as $\dot N_{\rm {LyC}}(M)\propto M^1$ (dotted line in Fig. \[fig:emis\_evol2\]), whereas the number density of halos decreases with increasing mass approximately as ${{\rm d}}n/ {{\rm d}}\log_{10}M\propto M^{-1}$.
The impact of starbursts on the emissivity is quantified in Fig. \[fig:bursts\_nphot\]. In the default [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model, bursts increase the ionizing emissivity relative to that from quiescent galaxies both as a consequence of the reduction in star formation timescale, Eq. [(\[eq:sfr\])]{}, and because of the assumed change to a top-heavy IMF. The net effect is a factor 5-10 increase in $\epsilon$ depending on redshift, with approximately 65 per cent of the increase due to bursts following a minor merger. Most of the increase in $\dot
N_{\rm {LyC}}$ is a consequence of the assumed change in IMF.
Neglecting bursts does not affect the characteristic halo mass below which 50 per cent of the ionizing photons are produced (Fig. \[fig:bursts\]) but it does increase the range of halo masses responsible for the majority (e.g. 90 per cent) of ionizing photon production by $\sim$ 1 dex (compare solid black and short dashed red lines in the top inset of the same panel).
Bursts skew the distribution of $\dot N_{\rm {LyC}}$ at given halo mass by introducing a long tail of much more luminous galaxies which happen to be bursting, with again the assumed change in IMF playing a dominant role (Fig. \[fig:bursts\_hist\]). These few, but relatively bright, galaxies dominate the emissivity at that halo mass by a large factor. Remarkably, there can be nearly a 5 dex range in Lyman-continuum luminosity at given halo mass.
We conclude that bursts are a crucial ingredient in order for the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model to produce that many ionizing photons by $z\sim 10$. Not only do stars form at a greater rate due to the decrease in the star formation timescale, but especially the change to a top-heavy IMF in bursts, originally introduced to produce sufficiently luminous sub-mm galaxies at $z=1$-3, and to produce sufficient metals by $z=0$, causes a small fraction of galaxies to emit copious ionizing radiation. The bursts occur mostly due to minor mergers, and are so effective because the merging galaxies are very gas rich, itself a consequence of the inefficient star formation in their quiescent state. Bursts also introduce nearly 5 dex of scatter in the $\dot N_{\rm {LyC}}$-halo mass relation. These same bursts are also a crucial ingredient for reproducing the observed luminosity function of Lyman-break galaxies at $z>6$, as shown in @Lacey10b and also discussed below (Fig. \[fig:LF\_bursts\]). But first we investigate the effect of the feedback parameters on $\epsilon$.
Effect of supernova feedback parameters
---------------------------------------
We consider two variants to the default [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} supernova feedback parametrization to investigate how strongly they affect the emissivity of ionizing photons. The weak feedback choice, shown in Fig. \[fig:SN\_nphot\] (green dashed line), uses parameters $(V_{\rm
hot},\alpha_{\rm hot})=(100\,{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1},1)$ (as defined in Eq. \[eq:SNfeedback\]), as opposed to the default [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} values of $(300\,{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1},2)$. The ionizing emissivity of the weak feedback model is not very different from a model without any SN feedback at all; it produces nearly twice as many ionizing photons as the default [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model, increasing the reionization redshift, for which ${\cal R}=10$, by $\Delta z\sim 0.7$. The strongfeedback model has $(V_{\rm hot},\alpha_{\rm hot})=(500\,{\rm km}~{\rm
s}^{-1},3)$, close to the values $(475\,{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1},3.2)$ used in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bower06</span>]{} ; this choice of parameters decreases $\epsilon(z)$ by a factor $\sim 5$, delaying reionization by $\Delta z \sim 2$.
Even stronger feedback is probably ruled out by the comparison with the observed $z=6$ Lyman-break far-UV LF discussed in Fig. \[fig:SN\_LF\] below, but all three models are probably equally consistent with the $z=10$ LF. This is not surprising since the SN parameters affect mostly the fainter galaxies that are currently below the detection limits at these very high redshifts. We note that the standard approach in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} modelling is to constrain the SN feedback parameters by comparison with galaxy properties at $z=0$. However, even if one chooses to relax the $z=0$ constraints on the SN feedback, on the grounds that SN feedback might operate differently in early galaxies, the constraints on this from the $z
\geq 6$ Lyman-break LFs still limit the uncertainty in $\epsilon$ to a factor $\sim 2$ in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model.
Effect of photo-ionization feedback parameters {#sect:photo}
----------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section \[sect:photo\], the effect of photo-ionization feedback from reionization on galaxy formation is modeled in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} with a simple prescription, whereby gas cooling is suppressed in all halos of circular velocity $V_{{\rm circ}} <
V_{{\rm cut}}$ after the reionization redshift $z_{{\rm cut}}$, Eq. (\[eq:photo\]). The key feature of this prescription is that the cold gas already present in galaxies before the onset of photo-ionization feedback is allowed to form stars after $z_{{\rm cut}}$. This results in a significant delay between the time at which the surroundings of the galaxy become ionized and the quenching of star formation. This is in contrast to several current simulations of reionization, which assume that suppression is instantaneous [e.g. @Iliev06]. The delay is in fact so large that the suppression of star formation (and hence also the production of ionizing photons) due to photo-ionization has little effect on the progression of reionization, as we will show elsewhere.
However, given enough time, photo-ionizing feedback does have a strong effect on the ionizing emissivity, as shown in Fig. \[fig:reion\_params\]. Note that the default [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model uses a value of $V_{\rm cut}=60$ km s$^{-1}$ which is unrealistically high compared to more recent simulation results, which reduces $\epsilon$ by as much as 50 per cent by redshift 5 compared to the no reionization model (assuming reionization occurs at $z_{{\rm cut}} =
10$). The more modern value of $V_{\rm cut}\sim 30$ km s$^{-1}$, suggested by the simulations of [@Okamoto08], yields a smaller yet still significant decrease in the total emissivity at $z=5$ of 15 per cent.
We conclude that photo-ionization suppression as implemented in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} has little effect on the production of ionizing photons until well after reionization, but it does affect the emissivity at later times. Interestingly, the photo-ionization quenching of star formation also has observable effects on the Lyman-break LF, as we discuss in more detail below (Fig. \[fig:zcut\_LF\]).
Far-UV luminosity functions of the galaxies that caused reionization
====================================================================
![Rest-frame 1500 Å broad-band luminosity functions of the default [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model (lines) compared to data from [@Bouwens07] and [@Bouwens09a], at redshifts $z=6$ and 10 (symbols with error bars; downward pointing arrows mark $1 \sigma$ upper limits). Both the default [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model (black solid lines) and the single IMF variant (long dashed blue lines) produce reasonable fits to the observed LFs at both redshifts. The *insets* in each panel show the cumulative fraction of ionizing photons produced in galaxies brighter than, or fainter than, a given value of the $M_{{\rm 1500,AB}}$ absolute AB magnitude (rising and falling curves, respectively). []{data-label="fig:LF_bursts"}](figure9_top.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Rest-frame 1500 Å broad-band luminosity functions of the default [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model (lines) compared to data from [@Bouwens07] and [@Bouwens09a], at redshifts $z=6$ and 10 (symbols with error bars; downward pointing arrows mark $1 \sigma$ upper limits). Both the default [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model (black solid lines) and the single IMF variant (long dashed blue lines) produce reasonable fits to the observed LFs at both redshifts. The *insets* in each panel show the cumulative fraction of ionizing photons produced in galaxies brighter than, or fainter than, a given value of the $M_{{\rm 1500,AB}}$ absolute AB magnitude (rising and falling curves, respectively). []{data-label="fig:LF_bursts"}](figure9_bottom.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
![ The effect of the supernova feedback parameters on the predicted rest-frame 1500Å luminosity functions in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model at redshifts 6 (top) and 10 (bottom), and models with weaker and stronger feedback (green and red lines, respectively); the corresponding emissivities were shown Fig. \[fig:SN\_nphot\]. The data (solid points) are from Bouwens [*et al.*]{}, as in Fig.\[fig:LF\_bursts\]. The weak feedback model (green dashed line) slightly over predicts the number of galaxies at $z\sim 6$, and the strong feedback model under predicts the numbers. However at $z\sim 10$ the bright, observed end of the LF is equally well fit by all models.[]{data-label="fig:SN_LF"}](figure10_top.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![ The effect of the supernova feedback parameters on the predicted rest-frame 1500Å luminosity functions in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model at redshifts 6 (top) and 10 (bottom), and models with weaker and stronger feedback (green and red lines, respectively); the corresponding emissivities were shown Fig. \[fig:SN\_nphot\]. The data (solid points) are from Bouwens [*et al.*]{}, as in Fig.\[fig:LF\_bursts\]. The weak feedback model (green dashed line) slightly over predicts the number of galaxies at $z\sim 6$, and the strong feedback model under predicts the numbers. However at $z\sim 10$ the bright, observed end of the LF is equally well fit by all models.[]{data-label="fig:SN_LF"}](figure10_bottom.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
![The effect of photo-ionization on the predicted rest-frame 1500Å LF in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model at redshift 6. The models differ in their choice of reionization redshifts ($z_{{\rm cut}}$), and of the halo circular velocity below which galaxies are affected by photo-ionizing feedback ($V_{{\rm cut}}$). The corresponding emissivities were shown in Fig.\[fig:reion\_params\]. The data (solid points) are from Bouwens [*et al.*]{}, as in Fig.\[fig:LF\_bursts\]. If galaxies with $V_{{\rm cut}}$=60 km s$^{-1}$ are affected by suppression, then early reionization ($z_{\rm cut} \gtrsim 10$) can be ruled out by the current data, since then the predicted number density of galaxies at $M_{{\rm 1500,AB}} \sim -18$ is $\sim 4$ times lower than observed (red lines). A more reasonable suppression scale of $V_{{\rm cut}}$=30 km s$^{-1}$ is consistent with early reionization (green lines).[]{data-label="fig:zcut_LF"}](figure11.eps){width="45.00000%"}
The Lyman-break colour-selection technique has proven to be very effective for identifying large samples of star-forming galaxies at high redshifts since its first application at $z\sim 3$ [@Steidel96]. This selection method was first applied at $z\sim
6$ by @Bouwens03, and recent deep near-IR imaging with [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} (HST) has been used to discover significant numbers of candidate Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs) at $z\sim 7-8$, and a few candidates at $z\sim 10$ [@Bouwens07; @Bunker09a; @Bouwens09a; @Bouwens09c; @Oesch09]. We therefore now have direct detections of a part of the galaxy population responsible for reionizing the universe at $z\sim 6-10$. The companion paper by @Lacey10b presents a detailed comparison of the predictions of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} models with observations of Lyman-break galaxies over the whole redshift range $z=3-10$, including rest-frame far-UV luminosity functions, sizes, masses and other properties. In this section, we investigate what constraints can be put on the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} parameters to which the emissivity of ionizing photons $\epsilon$ is particularly sensitive from observations of the rest-frame far-UV (1500Å) luminosity functions of $z\sim 6-10$ Lyman-break galaxies alone. We also investigate the extent to which the currently observed Lyman-break galaxies contribute to the total emissivity of ionizing photons, according to the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} model.
Effect of star formation parameters and IMF
-------------------------------------------
The rest-frame 1500[Å]{} broad-band [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} LFs at $z=6$ and $z=10$ are compared against the HST data on LBGs in Fig. \[fig:LF\_bursts\]. The default [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model reproduces the LFs at both redshifts, a considerable success. Clearly, starbursts are crucial for bringing the 1500 Å luminosities of the galaxies to the observed levels (compare the red short dashed lines for the model without bursts with the other two lines). These same bursts also produce the bulk of the ionizing photons, as we showed in Fig. \[fig:bursts\].
Interestingly both the model with a top-heavy IMF in bursts (the default model, black lines), and a model which uses the same [@Kennicutt83] IMF in both quiescent galaxies and bursts (blue dashed lines) fit the observed LFs nearly equally well at these redshifts, notwithstanding the significant differences between these models that we pointed out in, for example, Fig. \[fig:bursts\_nphot\]. The reason for this is dust extinction: the default model with the top heavy IMF produces more metals and hence also more dust as compared to the [@Kennicutt83] IMF, and the larger dust extinction partly compensates the larger intrinsic far-UV luminosities [see @Lacey10b for more details]. Previously we found that a change in IMF affected the ionizing emissivity considerably (Fig. \[fig:bursts\_nphot\]), but there we assumed that the escape fraction of ionizing photons $f_{\rm
{esc}}$, is simply a constant. A physically motivated $f_{\rm {esc}}$ would presumably depend on galactic dust content, reducing the difference between the top-heavy IMF and single IMF emissivities [see e.g. @Benson06] which would shift the completion of reionization we found here to lower redshifts. We will examine these issues in future work.
The currently detected candidate LBGs contribute only a small fraction of the total emissivity of the whole population of galaxies predicted by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} at high-z. Even at $z \sim 6$ (top panel), galaxies brighter than the current observational limit ($M_{{\rm 1500, AB, min}}
\sim -18$) contribute only $\sim$ 40 per cent of the total ionizing emissivity (solid black line in the top inset). If a single [@Kennicutt83] IMF is assumed, that fraction is even lower ($\sim$ 20 per cent; long dashed blue line). At $z \sim 10$ (bottom panel), more than 90 per cent of ionizing photons are emitted by galaxies below the current detection limit for the default [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{}parameters, and for a single IMF model that fraction is $\sim 95$ per cent.
The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model predicts that the galaxies that produce the bulk of the ionizing photons at $z\sim 10$ are intrinsically faint, with 50 per cent of ionizing photons produced in galaxies fainter than $m_{\rm
AB}\sim 31$ in the H-band. Clearly it will be challenging to detect a significant fraction of the galaxies that emit the photons that reionized the Universe, even with the [*James Webb Space Telescope*]{}, see [*e.g.*]{} the JWST white paper by Stiavelli [*et al.*]{}[^9].
Effect of supernova feedback parameters
---------------------------------------
The strength of supernova feedback cannot be strongly constrained with the current $z \gtrsim 6$ data [Fig.\[fig:SN\_LF\], see also @Lacey10b]. At the lowest redshift ($z=6$; top panel), the faint end currently probed provides some constraints on the strength of the supernova feedback, with the weak and strong models on either side of the data. However, the $z=10$ data only probes the very brightest galaxies, for which all three models predict very similar LFs.
Of course, the supernova feedback parameters in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} are strongly constrained by even lower redshift data. However, the reader should keep in mind that the emissivities we predict here are contingent on the assumption that the basic physics of galaxy formation (in particular the impact of supernova feedback on regulating star formation) is the same at all redshifts. If for some reason this is not true, the currently available observations at $z \gtrsim 6$ do not probe sufficiently faint galaxies to determine the impact of supernova feedback on the total emissivity produced by all galaxies.
Effect of photo-ionization feedback parameters {#effect-of-photo-ionization-feedback-parameters}
----------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section \[sect:photo\], the high-$z$ 1500 [Å]{} LF may hold information about the reionization history, if star formation in galaxies is quenched once their surroundings are ionized. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:zcut\_LF\]. The $z=6$ LF is reasonably well fit by the default [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model, which assumes that reionization occurs at $z_{{\rm cut}}=6$ (and hence for which there is no suppression in Fig. \[fig:zcut\_LF\]).
However, recent CMB measurements of the Thomson scattering optical depth suggest reionization at $z \sim 10$, assuming an instantaneous reionization model [@Komatsu10]. The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} model with such early reionization and $V_{{\rm cut}}=60$ km s$^{-1}$ underpredicts the faint end of the observed $z=6$ luminosity function by a considerable amount, a factor $\sim 4$ for galaxies with $M_{{\rm 1500,AB}}$ fainter than -18. Clearly photo-ionization suppression is then too strong. But we already argued that the default value of the halo circular velocity below which galaxies are affected by photo-ionizing feedback ($V_{{\rm cut}}=60$ km s$^{-1}$) is too high, with the hydrodynamical simulations of [@Okamoto08] suggesting a much lower value of $V_{{\rm cut}}=30$ km s$^{-1}$. With this lower value of $V_{{\rm cut}}$, the LF at $z=6$ is in good agreement with the data, even for an early reionization redshift (green dotted line, see also @Lacey10b); in fact this model fits the $z=6$ data best. Noting that the CMB data is the strongest current constraint on reionization, we argue that this result gives an *observational constraint* on the characteristic strength of photo-ionization feedback that strengthens the conclusion from current simulations.
The far-UV luminosity functions predicted by the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model and presented here and in [@Lacey10b] show a very good agreement with the $z \gtrsim 6$ data of [@Bouwens07; @Bouwens08; @Bouwens09a; @Bouwens09b]. This is a significant success for a model for which the parameters were chosen to match much lower redshift data, and provides us with reasonable confidence in using the ionizing luminosities predicted by this model in future, more detailed modeling of the reionization process [@Raicevic10].
We have seen that the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model predicts that the bulk of ionizing photons is produced by galaxies significantly below the current detection limit. It is a common practice to fit observed LFs with a Schechter function, and use the fit to extrapolate the LF to fainter galaxies. We show in the Appendix that this approach can lead to significant errors in estimating the total emissivity, since the LFs predicted by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} deviate significantly from Schechter functions in some ranges of luminosity, in particular due to the effects of bursts. As a result, the Schechter fit parameters depend significantly on the luminosity range over which the fit is done, and the total emissivity estimated by extrapolating this fit is sensitive to the minimum luminosity set by the observational detection limit.
Conclusions
===========
We used the @Baugh05 version of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} galaxy formation model to compute the emissivity ($\epsilon$) of hydrogen-ionizing photons in the redshift range relevant for reionization, $z \gtrsim
6$, and investigated the impact of changing some of the model parameters from their default values. A crucial element of this model is that mergers between gas-rich galaxies increase $\epsilon$ dramatically compared to a model without bursts, mainly due to the change to a top-heavy IMF in bursts assumed in the model. The @Baugh05 model, with the same parameter values as used here, has previously been shown to reproduce a wide range of observed galaxy properties at lower redshifts.
The main points presented in the paper are:
- The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model produces enough ionizing photons to complete reionization by $ z \sim 10$ with galaxies alone, assuming a reasonable photon consumption (2 photons per hydrogen atom, allowing an average of 1 recombination per H atom) and a 20 per cent escape fraction of LC photons from galaxies (Fig. \[fig:bau\_bow\_nphot\]).
- Starbursts are crucial for boosting the ionizing emissivity leading up to reionization. The majority of ionizing photons is produced in a relatively small fraction of galaxies at any given time that are bursting, and that are up to 5 dex brighter than non-bursting galaxies in halos of the same mass. Such bursts also increase the importance of intermediate-mass halos ($M \sim 10^9
{h^{-1}{\rm M_{\odot}}}$) compared to simpler models that do not include bursts (Fig. \[fig:bursts\_nphot\]).
- The top-heavy IMF used in the burst star formation mode is the main factor making the bursts so luminous, with $\sim 10$ times as many ionizing photons emitted per solar mass of stars formed as compared to the [@Kennicutt83] IMF. The change to a top-heavy IMF in starbursts was previously introduced in the model to reproduce the sub-mm galaxy counts at lower redshifts ($z\sim 1-3$), not the ionizing emissivity we discuss here, but it is crucial for completing reionization in agreement with current observational constraints. The model with a single IMF reionizes $\Delta z
\sim 2.5$ later than the default model (Fig. \[fig:bursts\_nphot\]).
- The assumed strength of supernova feedback has a strong impact on the ionizing emissivity, because the galaxies that dominate $\epsilon$ reside in relatively low-mass halos (Fig. \[fig:SN\_nphot\]). This fact is of course well known at lower redshifts where strong feedback is required to reproduce the faint-end of the galaxy luminosity function [e.g. @Cole00], but is often ignored in reionization modeling, where a simple linear mass-luminosity relation is assumed.
- As also shown in the companion paper by @Lacey10b, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model reproduces the observed $z \sim 6-10$ rest-frame 1500[Å]{} luminosity functions well (Fig. \[fig:LF\_bursts\]), with bursts a crucial ingredient in boosting the UV luminosities of galaxies to the observed levels. The good agreement between the predicted and observed UV luminosity functions gives credence to using the model for computing $\epsilon$ as well. In the model, $\sim 90$ per cent of ionizing photons are produced by galaxies that are below the current HST detection limit at $z=10$, with 50 per cent of ionizing photons produced by galaxies fainter than $m_{\rm
AB}\sim 31$ in the H-band. The intrinsic faintness of the sources will make it very challenging to detect a significant fraction of the galaxies that caused reionization, even with JWST.
- The shape of the rest-frame far-UV luminosity function in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model resembles a Schechter function, but with significant departures due to bursts. Given that the $z \gtrsim 6$ data only probe the bright end of this LF, extrapolating a Schechter function fit to estimate the contribution from galaxies below the detection limit can be inaccurate (see the Appendix).
As in all models of reionization, a significant uncertainty is the fraction $f_{\rm {esc}}$ of ionizing photons produced by galaxies that can actually escape into the IGM. We have intentionally used a simple estimate for $f_{\rm {esc}}$, and our default value of 20 per cent is somewhat higher than found observationally in lower redshift observational studies [e.g. $f_{{\rm esc}} \sim 10 \% $ for LBGs at $z=3-4$ @Steidel01]. A high dust content, one of the consequences of using a top-heavy IMF, may decrease the escape fraction by as much as an order of magnitude [@Benson06]. On the other hand, the fraction of the ionizing photons that can escape into the IGM during a burst could be significantly increased over the escape fraction during quiescent star formation, due to the galactic wind driven by the starburst. Detailed numerical models that include turbulent motions of gas in small galaxies find that $f_{{\rm esc}}$ can be as high as 0.5 - 1 [*during*]{} a burst [@Fujita03; @Wise08; @Wise09; @Razoumov10]. The enhancement of $f_{\rm esc}$ in bursts is likely to be more dramatic for smaller galaxies than for larger ones, hence the escape fraction is likely larger in small galaxies undergoing a burst. If this is the case, then small, bursting galaxies will dominate the Lyman-continuum emissivity even more. This strengthens our main conclusion that small, starbursting galaxies can reionize the Universe by $z\sim 10$. With this in mind, the value of $f_{{\rm esc}} = 0.2$ that we used throughout this paper may even be conservative.
As shown in the companion paper by @Lacey10b, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{}[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} model reproduces the observed rest-frame 1500[Å]{} luminosity function of high redshift galaxies well over the whole currently observed range $z=3-10$. A crucial ingredient in this model is the boost in luminosity of galaxies as they undergo a minor or major merger, when the stellar initial mass function becomes top-heavy. This top-heavy IMF in bursts was originally introduced in order to fit the counts of sub-mm galaxies at much lower $z\sim 2$, and is necessary also to reproduce the observed high metallicity of gas in $z\sim 0$ clusters of galaxies. A consequence is that bursts generate the majority of Lyman-continuum photons. The model predicts that starbursting galaxies with continuum UV magnitude $M_{1500, {\rm
AB}}\sim -16$, in halos of mass $\sim 10^9\,h^{-1}M_\odot$, dominate the total emissivity at $z\sim 10$ (Fig. \[fig:bursts\]). The predicted properties of these galaxies have been analysed in more detail in [@Lacey10b]. Those authors show that these galaxies have stellar masses of $M_\star\sim 2\times 10^5\,h^{-1}M_\odot$, circular velocities $V_c\sim 40$ km s$^{-1}$, star formation rates $\dot
M_\star\sim 0.06\,h^{-1}M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, are gas dominated, $M_{\rm
gas}/M_{\rm baryon}\sim 1$, and have gas and stellar metallicities of $\sim 4\times 10^{-3}$ and $\sim 3\times 10^{-3}$, respectively. Assuming that on average approximately 2 ionizing photons are required per hydrogen atom to reionize the Universe, a mean escape fraction of 20 per cent is sufficient to reionize the Universe by $z=10$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} team for allowing us to run their code, and for their constructive criticism. MR thanks John Helly, Violeta Gonzalez-Perez, Wong Tam and Carton Baugh for practical help and crucial discussions. During the work on this paper, MR was supported by a grant from Microsoft Research Cambridge.
Appendix: Inferring ionizing emissivity from Schechter fits to the LF {#appendix-inferring-ionizing-emissivity-from-schechter-fits-to-the-lf .unnumbered}
=====================================================================
![Schechter function fits (coloured lines) to the far-UV LF in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model (heavy dots) at $z=6$ over different absolute magnitude ranges, extrapolated to fainter luminosities (dashed lines). Starbursts (dotted line) introduce a deviation in the shape of the LF from a Schechter function. Due to this feature, varying the minimum absolute magnitude employed in the Schechter fit results in very different estimates of the faint-end slope parameter, $\alpha^*$ (black, green and red lines correspond to minimum values of $M_{{\rm 1500,AB}}$ of -10, -16 and -18 , respectively). Extrapolation of the fits to fainter values can then lead to inaccurate estimates of luminosity density (see Fig. \[fig:schechter\_fit\_params\]), which in turn results in wrongly estimated LC emissivities. []{data-label="fig:schechter_M_min"}](figure12.eps){width="45.00000%"}
![Comparison of the 1500[Å]{} luminosity densities, $j_{\nu}$, obtained by integrating the Schechter function fits to the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model LF at $z=6$, with the values obtained from integrating over the true model LF at the same redshift. The colour shading indicates the ratio of the luminosity density from the Schechter fit to the actual value in the model. In the Schechter fits, $M_{1500, AB}^*$ is held fixed at its best fitting value for the full luminosity range (black line in Fig. \[fig:schechter\_M\_min\]), while $\alpha$ and $\phi^*$ are the best fitting values for each choice of the minimum $M_{{\rm 1500,AB}}$. Values of $(\alpha, \phi^*)$ along the [*dotted red line*]{} reproduce the actual luminosity density of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model. Crosses mark the parameters of the three fits shown in Fig. \[fig:schechter\_M\_min\], plotted in the same colors. When the whole luminosity range is used for the fit (black cross), the model luminosity density is reasonably well reproduced by the integral over the Schechter function fit. On the other hand, fits performed on a more limited luminosity range, as in Fig. \[fig:schechter\_M\_min\], lead to significant errors in the luminosity density estimate. The yellow dot shows the results obtained with the best fit parameters from @Bouwens07 at this redshift.[]{data-label="fig:schechter_fit_params"}](figure13.eps){width="45.00000%"}
In observational studies, the contribution of galaxies below the detection threshold to the total ionizing emissivity is usually estimated by fitting the observed LF with a Schechter function [e.g. @Bouwens07; @Bunker09b]. At first glance, the far-UV LFs predicted by the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model and shown in this paper are indeed reasonably well represented by Schechter functions, as they have a power-law shape at low luminosity, $\propto L^{\alpha}$, and an exponential drop-off at the high luminosity end, $\propto
\exp(-L/L_\star)$. However, the LFs predicted by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} are *not* in detail described well by Schechter functions. In particular, in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model, starbursts introduce a feature (a bump) at $\sim 2$ magnitudes below $L_\star$ at high redshifts (see @Lacey10b for more details). Due to this departure from the Schechter shape, the result of fitting a Schechter function to a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} LF is strongly dependent on the luminosity range over which the fit is done (Fig. \[fig:schechter\_M\_min\]). Assuming that [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} is the correct model of the high-$z$ galaxy population, the observational detection limits will then strongly affect the predicted total ionizing emissivity, which relies on extrapolating the contribution of the currently unobserved low luminosity galaxies based on the faint-end slope $\alpha$ of the Schechter fit. We want to investigate how much such extrapolations are likely to be in error.
The estimated LC emissivity depends on more than just the LF shape, with the choice of IMF and dust extinction being crucial yet only weakly constrained by current observations. To focus only on the uncertainty from the assumed LF shape, in Fig. \[fig:schechter\_fit\_params\] we show the dependence of the 1500[Å]{} luminosity density, $j_{\nu}$, on the Schechter fit parameters. All values of $j_{\nu}$ were obtained by integrating the LFs over the magnitude range $-22 < M_{{\rm 1500,AB}} < -10$. In this figure, we vary only the normalization, $\phi^\star$, and the faint-end power law slope, $\alpha$, and keep the characteristic absolute magnitude, $M^\star_{{\rm 1500,AB}}$, fixed, because the fits shown in Fig. \[fig:schechter\_M\_min\] clearly have very similar $M^\star_{{\rm 1500,AB}}$ values.
With this procedure, a Schechter fit over the whole luminosity range (down to $M_{{\rm 1500,AB}} = -10$, black line in Fig. \[fig:schechter\_M\_min\]) of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} LF provides a good estimate of the real luminosity density in the model (black cross in Fig. \[fig:schechter\_fit\_params\]; the luminosity density from the fit is $\sim$ 20 per cent lower than the original model). If instead the Schechter function is fit only to the brighter part of the LF (green and red crosses, corresponding to $M_{{\rm 1500,AB,min}}$ of -16 and -18, respectively), the faint-end slope of the model is strongly overestimated. As a result, the luminosity density is also overestimated in these cases, by factors $\sim$ 2 and 30 for $M_{{\rm 1500,AB,min}}=-16$ and -18 respectively. We note that the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baugh05</span>]{} model predicts a total 1500[Å]{} luminosity density at $z=6$ a few times larger than estimates based on integrating the observed LF only over the currently observed luminosity range [e.g. @Bouwens07], but this difference shrinks if the observed Schechter fits are extrapolated to lower luminosities (e.g. the yellow circle in Fig. \[fig:schechter\_fit\_params\] shows the Schechter fit found by @Bouwens07, which implies a luminosity density only 2 times lower than found in the model).
Some authors have concluded from integrating over the observed far-UV LFs at $z \gtrsim 7$ that galaxies alone do not emit enough ionizing photons to keep the universe ionized at these redshifts [see e.g. @Bunker09b], but such conclusions seem premature, given that they do not allow for galaxies fainter than the current detection threshold or dust extinction or a different IMF slope.
This exercise aims to point out the danger of using Schechter function fits to the observational data to estimate ionizing emissivity produced by high-$z$ galaxies. The deviations of the LF from the Schechter shape only add more uncertainty to the procedure which already hinges on a number of unknowns, e.g. the choice of the IMF and the dust extinction. This becomes even more important at higher redshifts, where the LF is even more poorly constrained by current observational data.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: However, a strong background flux of higher-energy radiation, for example X-rays from accreting black holes, may pre-reionize the Universe [@Oh01].
[^3]: http://www.lofar.org/
[^4]: http://21cma.bao.ac.cn/
[^5]: http://www.haystack.mit.edu/ast/arrays/mwa/
[^6]: http://www.skatelescope.org/
[^7]: Note that the original @Baugh05 model used a slightly different cosmology, $(\Omega_{\rm m},\Omega_\Lambda,\Omega_{\rm b},h,\sigma_8,n_s) =
(0.3,0.7,0.04,0.7,0.9,1)$. The change of cosmological parameters was introduced for consistency with the Millennium-II simulation [@Boylan-Kolchin09] which we will employ in future numerical simulations of reionization.
[^8]: We recall that this [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALFORM</span>]{} model does not consider Pop. III stars that form due to molecular cooling in such small halos.
[^9]: http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/science/whitepapers/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyse the correlations between continuum properties and emission line equivalent widths of star-forming and active galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Since upcoming large sky surveys will make broad-band observations only, including strong emission lines into theoretical modelling of spectra will be essential to estimate physical properties of photometric galaxies. We show that emission line equivalent widths can be fairly well reconstructed from the stellar continuum using local multiple linear regression in the continuum principal component analysis (PCA) space. Line reconstruction is good for star-forming galaxies and reasonable for galaxies with active nuclei. We propose a practical method to combine stellar population synthesis models with empirical modelling of emission lines. The technique will help generate more accurate model spectra and mock catalogues of galaxies to fit observations of the new surveys. More accurate modelling of emission lines is also expected to improve template-based photometric redshift estimation methods. We also show that, by combining PCA coefficients from the pure continuum and the emission lines, automatic distinction between hosts of weak active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and quiescent star-forming galaxies can be made. The classification method is based on a training set consisting of high-confidence starburst galaxies and AGNs, and allows for the similar separation of active and star-forming galaxies as the empirical curve found by Kauffmann et al. We demonstrate the use of three important machine learning algorithms in the paper: $k$-nearest neighbour finding, $k$-means clustering and support vector machines'
author:
- |
Róbert Beck$^{1,2}$[^1], László Dobos$^{1}$, Ching-Wa Yip$^{2,3}$, Alexander S. Szalay$^{2}$ and István Csabai$^{1}$\
$^{1}$Department of Physics of Complex Systems, Eötvös Loránd University, 1117 Budapest, Hungary\
$^{2}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA\
$^{3}$Wolfram Research, Somerville, MA 02144, USA
date: 'Accepted 2015 December 22. Received 2015 November 21; in original form 2015 June 4'
title: Quantifying correlations between galaxy emission lines and stellar continua
---
\[firstpage\]
methods: data analysis – galaxies: active – galaxies: starburst – galaxies: stellar content.
Introduction
============
Stellar population synthesis models are very successful in explaining the spectral energy distribution of galaxies in the optical [@Pegase1; @BruzualCharlot2003; @Maraston2011; @Vazdekis2012] but they do not account for the characteristic emission lines originating from the excited interstellar gas. Starburst galaxies and galaxies with an active nucleus can produce emission lines so strong that can reach $~60$ per cent of the continuum flux in certain bands, or as much as 1 mag [@Atek2011]. As a result, pure population synthesis models are not enough to account for observations made with broad-band photometric filters. Since future large sky surveys will make photometric observations only, accurate modelling of the emission lines will be essential to estimate physical properties (including photometric redshifts) of galaxies precisely.
The purpose of this paper is to empirically quantify correlations between properties of the stellar continuum of galaxy spectra, and the strengths of emission lines. We also propose a recipe for generating realistic emission lines in the optical regime for stellar continua taken from population synthesis models. Moreover, we present a novel classification method to differentiate between starburst and active galaxies.
Results presented in the paper are obtained with the help of three important, widely used machine learning techniques that have just started to gain popularity in astronomical data analysis. Local linear regression using nearest neighbours [@Csabai2007; @Kerekes2013] has been used for physical parameter estimation based on broad-band photometry. $k$-means clustering, an automatic, unsupervised classification algorithm has been applied successfully, for instance, to classify gamma-ray bursts [@Chattopadhyay2007; @Veres2010]. Support vector machines (SVM), a supervised classification algorithm has been used for star–galaxy separation [@Kovacs2015] and transient detection [@Wright2015]. We will briefly introduce these methods later in the paper. For a detailed introduction to the field, refer to @Ivezic2013.
[As with all training set-based empirical methods, the validity of our results is limited to the training set’s coverage of the parameter space (in our case the redshift, metallicity, luminosity, continuum and line properties). Extrapolation capabilities of empirical techniques to parameter ranges outside the coverage is usually poor compared to theoretical models. While this certainly constrains the applicability of our results to strong emission line galaxies of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), the method itself can be easily extended to galaxies outside the investigated sample by augmenting the training set.]{}
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sec. \[sec:data\], we explain the sample selection and data reduction methods. Sec. \[sec:emlines\] describes the line reconstruction methods we investigated. [An empirical method for star-forming–active galactic nucleus (AGN) separation is given in Sec. \[sec:svm\]. We present a stochastic procedure to generate realistic emission lines for continuum models in Sec. \[sec:recipe\].]{} We summarize our findings and outline future work in Sec. \[sec:summary\].
Wavelengths are generally quoted in vacuum. More information on the data used for this study, additional figures and program source code are available on the web site of the paper[^2]. Colour versions of the figures are available in the online version of the paper.
Earlier work
------------
Thanks to the large amount of flux-calibrated optical galaxy spectra accumulated by the SDSS, precision of galaxy spectrum modelling has been improved significantly during the last decade. Many software tools and libraries exist to generate realistic stellar continua from a prescribed star formation history and various libraries of single stellar population spectra with a wide range of metallicities and initial mass function choices [@Pegase1; @BruzualCharlot2003; @Maraston2011; @parsec; @Vazdekis2012]. Models have also been extended with descriptions of interstellar extinction, the UV–IR balance [@grasil; @CharlotFall2000; @daCunha2010] and the chemical evolution of the gas from which stars can form [@Dave2011b].
Emission lines of galaxy spectra carry a large amount of information about the abundance and ionization states of elements in the interstellar gas. Based on ionization ratios of the various elements, the source of primary radiation responsible for the excitation of the interstellar medium (ISM) can be characterized [@BPT1981; @Kewley2001; @Kauffmann2003a] The two primary radiation sources are young, hot, massive stars and active galactic nuclei (AGNs). Their different spectra (thermal and power law, respectively) cause different ionization states and ratios of the most common elements which, in turn, produce well measurable, strong, often broad emission lines: the Balmer series of hydrogen, \[[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\], \[[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>]{}\], \[[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\], \[[S<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\], etc. Population synthesis models do not account for the emission of the ISM.
[Photoionization models [@Stasinska1984; @cloudy] yield accurate line ratios for any primary radiation spectrum and gas composition. To couple stellar population synthesis with models of photoionization, shock-heating of the interstellar gas, emission of the dust etc., the star formation history, several interactions between the stellar populations, the active nucleus, the dust and gas content need to be accounted for. For instance, AGNs are very likely to be responsible for quenching rapid star formation following starburst periods in the galaxy but they also emit ionizing radiation that excites gas, evaporates dust and produces shock waves that heat the ISM. Also, starburst periods are followed by high supernova activity that enriches the ISM with metals, leading to significant chemical evolution which must be reflected in the models of emission lines. Additionally, a recent advancement in stellar population synthesis is the inclusion of stellar rotation and binary evolution effects which have been shown to noticeably influence the strengths of some emission lines [@Eldridge2012; @Stanway2014; @Leitherer2014; @Topping2015]. Taking everything into account is not possible without detailed hydrodynamic simulation of the galaxies [@Jonsson2010; @Kewley2013] or without making significant simplifications to the models. Various software, notably PÉGASE and BPASS [@Pegase1; @Eldridge2012], can be used to generate emission lines on top of stellar continua computed from stellar population synthesis. The photoionization part of these softwares, however, introduces a large set of free parameters that describe the distribution and composition of the ISM. A frequently used way of reducing the number of free parameters is to make theoretical or empirical assumptions. Typical theoretical simplifications include the assumption of spherical symmetry or the use of a common ionization spectrum for all gas clouds [@Stasinska1984; @Pegase1; @cloudy]. If no strict physical considerations can be made, to generate realistic emission lines on top of [modelled]{} continua using any photoionization code, one has to estimate the *a priori* distribution of model parameters by comparing large ensembles of models with observations. For instance, the code Le Phare [@LePhare] uses the relations of @Kennicutt1998 to parametrize emission lines.]{}
Another route to take to generate realistic emission lines is to work on an entirely empirical basis. @Yip2004 demonstrated that stellar continua of SDSS galaxies form a 1D sequence and thus, can be characterized by a single numerical value, the `eclass`. The value of `eclass` for each galaxy spectrum is obtained by expressing the continuum on a basis derived from principal component analysis (PCA). @Gyory2011 showed that strong correlations between the `eclass` (i.e. the stellar continua) of starburst and AGN galaxies exist. They applied PCA to expand emission line equivalent widths (EWs) of SDSS galaxies on a 3D basis and correlate the principal components with the `eclass` of the continua. We take their approach a step further: based on the correlations, we give a recipe to automatically generate emission lines with realistic distribution and refine star-forming–AGN separation using the principal components and SVM.
Data reduction {#sec:data}
==============
We started with the entire spectroscopic galaxy sample of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 [@SDSS; @DR7;; @Abazajian2009] which we later filtered by signal-to-noise ratio and line strength. As one of our goals was to accurately fit broad AGN lines, we measured line parameters ourselves.
Continuum fitting and line measurements {#section_fits}
---------------------------------------
PCA is widely used to derive a representative basis from optical spectra of galaxies. When performing PCA on emission line galaxies, the eigenspectra are primarily sensitive to the variations in emission line strengths and only secondly to continuum features [@Connolly1995; @Yip2004]. [Obviously, the]{} slope of the continuum is correlated with emission lines but the variance of the lines is bigger. To run PCA on the pure continua, one has to mask the regions of emission lines, or eliminate the lines completely by subtracting line models from the measured spectra. Line fits have to be precise enough so that the line-subtracted continua contain minimal residuals. We reprocessed the entire set of SDSS DR7 galaxy spectra according to these requirements with our own implementation of the algorithm detailed in this section.
One frequent method of fitting continua in the optical band is to express the spectrum as a non-negative linear combination of template spectra [@tremonti2004] while also accounting for the intrinsic attenuation and velocity dispersion. Although more advanced, Bayesian and PCA-based methods exist [@Kauffmann2003b; @chen2012] to derive physical properties from the continuum, as we were mainly interested in the emission lines, we retained the former technique for continuum subtraction. First, we corrected for galactic extinction, masked emission lines and fitted the continuum using the templates from @BruzualCharlot2003 by also fitting the velocity dispersion and intrinsic extinction in parallel. Intrinsic extinction was modelled following @CharlotFall2000. Metallicity was taken into account by fitting [four]{} sets of templates [of differing metallicities]{} and choosing the one with minimal reduced $\chi^2$. [Thus, the fitted metallicity can take one of four values: $Z=0.004$, $0.008$, $0.02$ or $0.05$.]{} [We did not take the nebular continuum emission into account, which, in the case of young starburst galaxies, can contribute a non-negligible flux to the near-infrared part of the spectrum [@Leitherer1995]. Since the entire continuum was fitted with stellar templates only, we expect a slight overestimation of absorption lines, and therefore the overestimation of emission lines for starburst galaxies. On the other hand, within the wavelength coverage of SDSS spectroscopy, nebular continuum emission is significant only in the case of stellar populations younger than $10$ Myr or at very low metallicities of $Z \sim 0.0001$ [@Molla2009], and only about 0.5 per cent of our sample potentially fall into this parameter range.]{}
Due to discrepancies between continuum models and SDSS spectra [@Maraston2009], the continuum-subtracted spectrum consists of three components: the emission lines, the noise and a slowly changing background that originates from the imperfect models. Since the emission lines and noise are high-frequency components, one can easily eliminate the background by a high-pass filter. For this purpose, we used a 50 Å wide rolling median filter. This was wide enough to leave broad AGN lines almost intact, yet remove any residuals of the incorrect background subtraction. Fig. \[fig:contfit\] illustrates this procedure.
Once the low-frequency background [has been]{} removed, lines are fitted using a technique we call *noise-limited fitting*. To precisely fit all strong emission lines, including those of active galaxies, we use three increasingly complex line models.
- A single Gaussian: $$F(\lambda) = A \cdot \mathrm{e}^{- \frac{(\lambda - \lambda_0)^2}{\sigma^2}}$$
- Two Gaussians centred on the same wavelength but with different variance $$F(\lambda) = A \cdot \mathrm{e}^{- \frac{(\lambda - \lambda_0)^2}{\sigma_a^2}} + B \cdot \mathrm{e}^{- \frac{(\lambda - \lambda_0)^2}{\sigma_b^2}}$$
- Two Gaussians allowing for a small offset $\Delta \lambda < 5$ Å between the centres, different variance $$F(\lambda) = A \cdot \mathrm{e}^{- \frac{(\lambda - \lambda_a)^2}{\sigma_a^2}} + B \cdot \mathrm{e}^{- \frac{(\lambda - \lambda_b)^2}{\sigma_b^2}}$$
While the first model is enough to fit emission lines with typical velocity dispersion, the second model is necessary for lines with broad wings and the third model for asymmetric lines. Our objective is to find the simplest, yet well-fitting model. Overlapping emission lines are – obviously – fitted together, but we do not enforce any correlation on the EWs of lines from the same ion. [Also, the velocity dispersions of the lines, even of those from the same ion, are fitted independently.]{} First, we fit the lines with the simplest model, subtract it from the measurement and compare the residual within the region of the emission line with the noise in wavelength ranges without lines. If rms of the residual inside the region of the line is at least two times than elsewhere, we reject the model and attempt to fit the line with a more complex one. Fig \[fig:linefitting\] illustrates how this technique works on asymmetric broad AGN lines.
Tab. \[table\_lines\] summarizes the fitted and subtracted emission lines. Line model fit parameters are available online. In panel (a) of Fig. \[fig:bpt\_classes\], we plot the Baldwin–Phillips–Terlevich (BPT) diagram of the sample using a colour coding we are going to use throughout the paper.
\[table\_lines\]
Line $\lambda_\textnormal{vac}$ (Å) Line $\lambda_\textnormal{vac}$ (Å) Line $\lambda_\textnormal{vac}$ (Å)
------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{} 3727.09 H$\gamma$ 4341.68 [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>]{} 6365.54
[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{} 3729.88 [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>]{} 4364.44 [N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>]{} 6529.03
H$\theta$ 3798.98 H$\beta$ 4862.68 [N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{} 6549.86
H$\eta$ 3836.47 [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>]{} 4932.60 H$\alpha$ 6564.61
H$\zeta$ 3890.16 [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>]{} 4960.30 [N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{} 6585.27
H$\epsilon$ 3971.20 [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>]{} 5008.24 [S<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{} 6718.29
[S<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{} 4072.30 [He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>]{} 5877.65 [S<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{} 6732.67
H$\delta$ 4102.89 [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>]{} 6302.05
: List of the fitted nebular emission lines.
![Original and reconstructed BPT diagrams of strong emission line galaxies sampled from SDSS DR7. In each panel, the dashed curved shows the empirical segregation line between star-forming galaxies and AGN as defined by @Kauffmann2003a. Panel (a) is plotted from directly measured line EWs. Galaxies are colour coded based on their loci in the BPT plane: blue galaxies are star-forming, green ones are AGNs and red ones are the intermediate weak AGNs in the bottom corner of the distribution. This colour coding based on directly measured emission lines is used in all BPTs throughout the paper. Panel (b) displays the BPT of line log EWs reconstructed from continuum principal components using the local linear regression method with the 30 nearest neighbours in PCA space. Panels (c) and (d) show galaxies only that were originally classified as (c) AGNs, (d) star-forming using directly measured line EWs. While lines of strong AGNs and extreme starburst galaxies can be reconstructed well, there is significant ‘cross-talk’ in the quiescent region.[]{data-label="fig:bpt_classes"}](bpt_classes_arxiv.pdf)
Comparison with other work
--------------------------
It is interesting to compare our line fits to those of @Brinchmann2004. In the cited work, the authors used a simpler technique of fitting nebular emission lines of SDSS galaxies with the primary focus on the signal-to-noise ratio of line measurements and not on the minimization of the residuals after line subtraction. As a result, their line models cannot directly be used to get a pure continuum due to the high residuals of the fitting.
In Fig. \[fig:mpacompare\], we compare the EWs of the most prominent emission lines as derived with our technique and with the method of @Brinchmann2004. [In the case of strong emission lines, our measurements of line strengths are very similar to the results of @Brinchmann2004, but we estimate weak emission lines significantly higher. This is very likely due to the high-pass filtering applied to the continuum-subtracted spectrum, cf. Sec. \[section\_fits\]. Yet, between $97.9\%$ and $99.1\%$ of our line, EWs are within $3\sigma$ of @Brinchmann2004, with the exception of H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ where only $93.9\%$ and $87.7\%$, respectively, of the measurements are within $3\sigma$. Also, @Brinchmann2004 measured weak lines by fitting them together with stronger lines of the same ion, imposing a constraint on line ratios, whereas we fitted these lines independently. Weaker lines can easily become undetectable in noisy regions, hence our fitting method introduces some selection bias.]{}
Galaxy sample selection
-----------------------
We selected a smaller sample of $N = 13788$ galaxies from the entire set of continuum and line-fitted spectra that met the following criteria:
- observed at a signal-to-noise ratio $S/N > 5$,
- all 11 emission lines listed in Tab. \[tab:ewfit\] are measured and non-zero. These lines are the same as in @Gyory2011.
[The sample size was further limited to an easily manageable number by choosing a section of the sky (right ascension between $220^{\circ}$ and $230^{\circ}$).]{}
[The requirement that all $11$ emission lines should be measurable results in a sample containing galaxies with ongoing star formation or possessing an active nucleus only. Fig. \[fig:samplehistograms\] shows the selection effects on the distribution of the apparent and absolute $r$-band magnitudes, the redshift and the metallicity. While the cut in signal-to-noise ratio did produce a cutoff around $r=19$ apparent magnitude and a relative increase of objects towards smaller redshifts, the absolute magnitude distribution shows that our selection method prefers fainter, smaller and younger galaxies. Galaxies with lower metallicities are also selected with higher probability, presumably due to correlations between ongoing strong star formation, metallicity and age. Nevertheless, galaxies with solar and above solar metallicities are still present in the sample.]{}
[The SDSS DR7 main galaxy sample, which makes up the majority of our training set, was not selected for morphological type or colour, and thus includes a wide variety of galaxies [@Strauss2002]. At larger redshifts, however, different environments, e.g. harder radiation fields and higher ionization parameters [@Steidel2014], can lead to significantly different emission line characteristics. Certainly, the validity of our results is constrained by parameter ranges covered by the sample. By using a data set that goes beyond the types of galaxies observed by the SDSS, one can easily apply our method to a broader range of galaxies.]{}
![[Normalized histograms of galaxy properties. Our sample is plotted in blue, the grey lines correspond to the entire DR7 spectroscopic galaxy sample, while the black lines show the DR7 sample excluding the deeper LRG sub-sample. The latter provides a better comparison to our data set, since we selected predominantly from the main galaxy sample.]{}[]{data-label="fig:samplehistograms"}](samplehistograms.pdf)
Continuum principal components {#sec:contpca}
------------------------------
Principal components of the stellar continuum were derived from the fitted model spectra instead of the measurements directly. Although the precise line modelling would make it possible to subtract emission lines from the original spectra or run PCA directly on the measurements by masking out emission lines, due to the limited size of the sample which would make eigenspectra noisy, we choose to use the models instead. Fitted continuum models were taken at rest frame, convolved with the best-fitting velocity dispersion kernel and normalized to have equal flux in the following featureless rest-frame wavelength ranges: $4250$–$4300$ Å, $4600$–$4800$ Å, $5400$–$5500$ Å, $5600$–$5800$ Å. PCA was done in the $3722$–$6761$ Å[ ]{}range with $0.6$ Å[ ]{}binning. The average continuum was subtracted from the individual spectra prior to calculating the covariance matrix.
Eigenspectra were determined using the Lanczos singular value decomposition (SVD) algorithm from PROPACK [@propack]. The algorithm calculates only a given number of singular vectors with the largest corresponding singular values. This was very useful in our case as the spectra consisted of $5065$ data points, whereas we were interested in the first five principal components only.
The average spectrum and the resulting eigenspectra are plotted in Fig. \[fig:pcavectors\]. As the average was subtracted, the first eigenspectrum corresponds to the colour of the galaxy. The following two basis vectors are rather similar at first sight but the third one shows more prominent absorption lines. They are together very likely to determine the age and metallicity of the galaxy as the $4000$ Å-break is very strong in both of them. The fourth vector probably corresponds to the width of absorption lines thus correlates with velocity dispersion. [The magnitude of the fourth and fifth eigenvalues is similar, and they already mark the start of the plateau in the distribution of eigenvalues, therefore taking more eigenspectra into account does not significantly increase the variance explained by them.]{}
![The average and the first five eigenvectors of the principal component analysis of galaxy continua, ordered by the corresponding singular values (as displayed in each panel). See the text for the physical interpretation of the eigenspectra.[]{data-label="fig:pcavectors"}](pcavectors.pdf)
Emission line principal components
----------------------------------
In contrast to what was done by @Gyory2011, we calculate principal components of the *logarithm* of emission line EWs. Fig. \[fig:linepcavectors\] shows the resulting singular vectors. Taking the logarithm is more useful when one is interested in line ratios instead of absolute line strengths and uses linear methods for the analysis. We have to mention, however, that using the logarithm of the EWs also means that the results presented in the rest of the paper will be valid in the *logarithmic sense* only.
![The first four singular vectors of the correlation matrix of the logarithm of emission line equivalent widths, ordered decreasingly by the corresponding singular values (as displayed in each panel). The fourth vector is very likely to be just noise as \[[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\] lines should not have different signs.[]{data-label="fig:linepcavectors"}](linepcavectors.pdf)
Reconstructing emission lines {#sec:emlines}
=============================
Our goal was to empirically estimate emission line EWs from continuum principal components. If there exists any correlation between the continuum and emission lines of galaxy spectra, it is clearly non-linear. Global linear methods to analyse the correlations are not useful in this case, yet *locally linear* methods still can be used.
Local linear regression {#sec:linreg}
-----------------------
Let us consider an ensemble of measurements where measured values are split into two sets $D = {\{{\textbf{d}}_i\}}$ and $R = {\{r_i\}}$, $i$ indexing the individual measurements. For the sake of simplicity, $r_i$ are taken to be scalars whereas ${\textbf{d}}_i$ are vectors, thus $D$ forms a metric space of dimension $N$. The Euclidean metric is often used to measure distances among data vectors of $D$ even though it might lack any physical interpretation. Our objective is to characterize known, or predict unknown $r_i$ from the always known ${\textbf{d}}_i$ vectors. To estimate $r_i$ from ${\textbf{d}}_i$, first we find the $k$-nearest neighbours of ${\textbf{d}}_i$ in $D$. Let us denote the set of indices of these nearest neighbours with ${{N\!N}}({\textbf{d}}_i, D, k)$, where $i \notin {{N\!N}}$ by definition. Then we express $r_i$ in the following form $$r_i \approx c_i + {\textbf{a}}_i {\textbf{d}}_i.
\label{eq:lincomb}$$ Note, that both ${\textbf{a}}_i$ and ${\textbf{d}}_i$ are vectors and their dot product is taken in the formula above. The $c_i$ constants and the ${\textbf{a}}_i$ coefficients need to be determined individually for every $({\textbf{d}}_i, r_i)$ measurement using standard linear regression by minimizing $$\chi_i^2 = \sum_{j \in {{N\!N}}} \frac{\left(r_j - c_i - {\textbf{a}}_i {\textbf{d}}_j \right)^2}{w_j},
\label{eq:chisquared}$$ where $i$ is still the index of the measurement, $j$ runs on the nearest neighbours and $w_j$ is a weight. The expression of $\chi^2$ is similar if $r_i$ are vectors instead of scalars but the ${\textbf{a}}$ coefficients become matrices. Errors in $r_i$ and the components of ${\textbf{d}}_i$ can be incorporated into the value of $w_i$. Similarly, neighbours in ${{N\!N}}$ can be ordered by distance from $d_i$ and the inverse of (the square of) the distance can be used as a weight in Eq. \[eq:chisquared\].
Local linear regression has many advantages over global non-linear modelling. First of all, global models are usually either too simple to describe the data or prone to overfitting. Local linear models, on the other hand, are simple and can be used to characterize the local estimation errors. For instance, one can measure the goodness of the estimation of $r_i$ by the $\chi^2$ of the local linear fit. The challenge in local linear fitting is to find the $k$-nearest neighbours quickly in large data sets. Spatial indexing, most often a $kD$-tree index is used for this purpose [@Csabai2007].
Emission line reconstruction from the continuum {#sec:pcafit}
-----------------------------------------------
We applied the local linear regression technique to estimate emission line EWs from the stellar continuum principal [components]{}. To test whether continuum PCs carry more information regarding the emission lines than broad-band SDSS magnitudes, we will also perform the regression analysis directly on the photometric magnitudes in Sec. \[sec:magfit\]. Further tests are done with randomized samples (Sec. \[sec:randomfit\]) to get a picture of the performance of our method.
By using the notation of Sec. \[sec:linreg\], ${\textbf{d}}_i$ became the first five continuum principal components and $r_i$ became the log EWs. Emission line log EWs were fitted individually based on the log EWs of the $k=30$ nearest neighbour galaxies in the continuum PCA space. The $\chi^2$ of the fitting was weighted by the inverse-square distance of the neighbours from the query point. [The value of $k=30$ was chosen as a rule of thumb: we are fitting $5+1$ parameters and the number of data points must be large enough to adequately determine that many parameters but small enough to preserve locality. Modifying this parameter within reasonable limits (e.g. $25-40$) does not significantly impact the results.]{}
![Reconstructed log EWs from continuum principal components. Estimated log EWs are plotted as functions of the directly measured log EWs for the $11$ emission lines we used. Colour coding of data points is the same as in panel (a) of Fig. \[fig:bpt\_classes\] and reflects the activity class of galaxies.[]{data-label="fig:ewfit"}](ewfit_pca_arxiv.pdf)
![Reconstructed log EWs from broad-band SDSS magnitudes. Estimated log EWs are plotted as functions of the directly measured log EWs for the $11$ emission lines we used. Colour coding of data points is the same as in panel (a) of Fig. \[fig:bpt\_classes\] and reflects the activity class of galaxies.[]{data-label="fig:magfit"}](ewfit_mag_arxiv.pdf)
[Fig. \[fig:ewfit\] shows the reconstructed log EWs of emission lines as functions of the directly measured EWs. EWs reconstructed from the continuum are in reasonably good agreement with directly measured log EWs. The relative flux error $\sigma_r$ of the line reconstruction is Gaussian but a systematic shift $\delta$ is visible in the case of \[[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\], \[[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>]{}\] and \[[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\] ($\delta \approx 0.1, 0.15, 0.15$, respectively). The typical value of the relative error is $\sigma_r \approx 0.3$ for hydrogen and sulfur, $\sigma_r \approx 35\%$ for \[[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\] and \[[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\], and $\sigma_r \approx 45\%$ for \[[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>]{}\].]{} [Col. 3-4]{} of Tab. \[tab:ewfit\] list the outcome of the correlation analysis for the 11 investigated lines using the local linear regression technique. Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient $\rho$ and the rms error $\sigma$ were calculated for each line. [These numbers also show that]{} fits are most accurate for the hydrogen and sulfur lines ($\rho > 0.8$) whereas oxygen and nitrogen lines are significantly less correlated with direct line measurements.
[Fig. \[fig:sliceerrors\] shows the dependence of the error of the reconstruction on galaxy properties (cf. Fig. \[fig:samplehistograms\] for histograms of these) for select lines. The brighter and higher metallicity galaxies have a larger fraction of AGNs and are estimated with higher errors, especially in the case of oxygen and sulfur lines. Objects at higher redshifts generally exhibit decreasing accuracy. The error of line reconstruction visibly increases towards the limits of our training set. This is due to the fact that near the edges of the training set there are fewer galaxies and the nearest neighbours used to estimate the emission lines are generally less similar to each other and to the galaxy whose lines are being fitted.]{}
![[The rms error of emission line log EW reconstruction as the function of various galaxy properties. The colours correspond to the following emission lines: red – [\[[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>]{}\] 5008 Å]{}, black – [\[[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\] 6585 Å]{}, grey – [\[[S<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\] 6718 Å]{}, and blue – H$\alpha$. See the text for a discussion.]{}[]{data-label="fig:sliceerrors"}](sliceerrors.pdf)
As we expected, emission lines can be much better reconstructed from the continuum of star-forming galaxies due to the strong connection between the young stellar population and the ISM: young massive stars are responsible for the excitation of interstellar gas clouds. Nevertheless, \[[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\] and \[[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\] lines show a significant scatter even in the star-forming case. Interestingly, sulfur lines can be reconstructed much better.
One intriguing result is that, while \[[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>]{}\] is an important indicator of nuclear activity, its reconstruction from continuum properties in case of AGNs seems rather problematic. It is understandable as AGN activity correlates much less with the properties of the stellar populations than in the star-forming case. Yet, some connections exist as it is visible from \[[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\] and the hydrogen lines.
[l c | d d | d d | d d | d d ]{} & & & & &\
& & & & &\
line & $\lambda$ \[Å\] & & & & & & & &\
H$\alpha$ & 6565 & $0.898$ & $0.388$ & $0.842$ & $0.481$ & $0.803$ & $0.561$ & $-1.46$ & $0.961$\
H$\beta$ & 4863 & $0.882$ & $0.369$ & $0.840$ & $0.430$ & $0.795$ & $0.535$ & $-1.52$ & $0.854$\
[S<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{} & 6718 & $0.839$ & $0.416$ & $0.773$ & $0.492$ & $0.798$ & $0.484$ & $-1.23$ & $0.832$\
[S<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{} & 6733 & $0.827$ & $0.433$ & $0.751$ & $0.516$ & $0.754$ & $0.527$ & $-1.36$ & $0.840$\
H$\gamma$ & 4342 & $0.816$ & $0.418$ & $0.773$ & $0.465$ & $0.698$ & $0.772$ & $-2.81$ & $0.790$\
[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{} & 3727 & $0.749$ & $0.498$ & $0.700$ & $0.547$ & $0.556$ & $0.716$ & $-0.710$ & $0.817$\
[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>]{} & 5008 & $0.743$ & $0.784$ & $0.673$ & $0.884$ & $0.673$ & $0.877$ & $-1.10$ & $1.268$\
[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>]{} & 4960 & $0.721$ & $0.773$ & $0.659$ & $0.858$ & $0.628$ & $0.890$ & $-1.35$ & $1.208$\
[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{} & 6585 & $0.680$ & $0.514$ & $0.677$ & $0.527$ & $0.411$ & $0.815$ & $-0.318$ & $0.757$\
[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{} & 6550 & $0.664$ & $0.570$ & $0.669$ & $0.579$ & $0.367$ & $0.880$ & $0.306$ & $0.820$\
Emission line reconstruction from broad-band magnitudes {#sec:magfit}
-------------------------------------------------------
To see if continuum PCA is any better than directly estimating emission lines from broad-band magnitudes, we performed the above analysis using the SDSS photometric magnitudes instead of the principal components. For this purpose, we used dereddened model magnitudes without any $K$-correction. The lack of $K$-correction is not supposed to significantly affect the procedure as the redshift distribution of the sampled galaxies is rather sharp.
While broad-band magnitudes are strongly correlated with continuum principal components, it is still interesting to see how lines are reconstructed from them. First of all, magnitudes are highly correlated with each other, whereas PCA eliminates covariance. Also, observed magnitudes are already ‘contaminated’ with emission lines which might result in stronger correlations with EWs. Results of line reconstruction from magnitudes are plotted in Fig. \[fig:magfit\]. Compared with line reconstruction from PCA as plotted in Fig. \[fig:ewfit\], no clear difference can be seen in terms of scatter, perhaps with the exception of more outliers being visible in the photometric case. Thus, log EWs can be reconstructed from magnitudes almost as well as from the principal components. Quantitative results are listed in Col. 5-6 of Tab. \[tab:ewfit\]. We have to emphasize here that our sample contained strong emission line galaxies only, thus the strong correlation between magnitudes and log EWs exists only for our sample and cannot be generalized to all galaxies.
Non-local line reconstruction from the continuum
------------------------------------------------
To test whether a single global linear model is sufficient to reproduce the lines, we repeated the procedure [of]{} estimating log EWs from the continuum principal components as described in Sec. \[sec:pcafit\] but instead of using the 30 nearest neighbour galaxies, we randomly selected 30 galaxies from the entire sample. Another difference was that the $\chi^2$ of the fit was not weighted by the inverse-square of the distance from the query point to relax the effect of locality. By looking at Col. 7-8 of Tab. \[tab:ewfit\], it is somewhat surprising that correlation coefficients and rms errors of the individual lines did not get much worse. By looking at panel (c) of Fig. \[fig:bpt\_random\], one can clearly see, however, that that the star-forming branch of the BPT diagram cannot be reconstructed this way, and the AGN sequence is also greatly distorted. The conclusion is that emission line log EWs cannot be explained by a simple, global linear relationship with continuum principal components. Thus, local fitting from nearest neighbours is necessary to reconstruct the BPT from either continuum principal components or broad-band magnitudes.
Cross-tests with randomized data {#sec:randomfit}
--------------------------------
As another test, we shuffled the sample and randomly paired continuum principal components with emission line vectors of other galaxies to break the locality in the PCA space. Results are listed in Col. 9-10 of Tab. \[tab:ewfit\]. It is not surprising that correlations almost entirely disappear in the shuffled case (note that $\rho$ values are multiplied by $10^{2}$). This supports that information about the emission lines is indeed encoded in the continuum of a galaxy spectrum.
Reconstructing the BPT
----------------------
As the BPT diagram is generally used to classify emission line galaxies into star-forming and AGN, it is very informative to see how well the various methods can recover it solely from the continuum. The difference among the line estimation methods introduced above is obvious once the BPT diagram is plotted from the reconstructed log EWs, as it was done in Fig. \[fig:bpt\_random\]. Local linear fitting of EWs using the nearest neighbours and reconstructing lines from broad-band magnitudes give similarly fair, qualitatively correct BPT diagrams while the randomization of the sample disrupts the diagram entirely.
![BPT diagrams with log EWs reconstructed from the stellar continuum using different methods and cross-tests. Panel (a) shows reconstructed log EWs from continuum principal components using local linear regression from the 30 nearest neighbours. Panel (b) is the reconstruction of lines from broad-band magnitudes by local linear regression from the 30 nearest neighbours. Panel (c) was drawn from lines estimated using the global linear regression technique from 30 randomly selected galaxies. Panel (d) is the cross-test using local linear regression but with shuffled continuum principal components. The colour coding of the data points is based on the original BPT as in panel (a) of Fig. \[fig:bpt\_classes\]. See the text for discussion.[]{data-label="fig:bpt_random"}](bpt_random_arxiv.pdf)
To further analyse the properties of a reconstructed BPT diagram, we will stick to local linear regression based on the continuum principal components. In Fig. \[fig:bpt\_classes\], we plot the original BPT for reference, the reconstructed diagram for all galaxies, and two diagrams showing AGNs and star-forming galaxies only, as classified by @Kauffmann2003a.
The first thing to see in panels (c) and (d) of Fig. \[fig:bpt\_classes\] is the mixing of weak star-forming galaxies with weak AGNs in the bottom corner of the reconstructed BPT diagram. The mixing is caused by the bad reconstructability of the \[[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>]{}\] line which is most likely due to lack of a strong correlation between AGN activity level and the stellar continuum.
Revisiting star-forming/AGN separation {#sec:svm}
======================================
The mixed, low activity – low star formation rate region is located at the bottom corner of the \[[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>]{}\]/H$\alpha$–\[[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>]{}\]/H$\beta$ BPT diagram. Empirically drawn BPT diagrams are noisy enough to smear pure star-forming galaxies and mixed star-forming/AGNs together in this part of the BPT so it is an interesting question whether it is possible to segregate galaxies into two distinct classes or not by incorporating information on the stellar continuum into classification model. By visually inspecting the projections of the 5D continuum PCA space, one can see that while AGNs and star-forming galaxies occupy different loci, they cannot be clearly separated into two disjoint sets by cuts in any principal component dimensions, nor the distribution of galaxies is bimodal. We turned to SVM, a machine learning algorithm, to determine an empirical segregation plane between the two classes in the continuum-PCA–line-PCA space.
Support vector machines
-----------------------
SVM are supervised learning algorithms which can be trained to automatically classify multidimensional data vectors into two disjoint sets [@svm; @SVM_R]. The training phase starts with compiling a *training set* of data vectors that are tagged as either belonging to class $A$ or class $B$. During learning, the model will find a hyperplane in the space of data vectors which separates the elements of $A$ and $B$ with the largest possible margin[^3]. Once the model is trained, it can be used to classify any query point into one of the two classes.
Automatic star-forming/AGN classification
-----------------------------------------
We compiled the training set from our emission line galaxy sample by selecting galaxies on the BPT that could be classified with high confidence either as pure star-forming or AGN. To select high-confidence AGNs only, we picked galaxies above the theoretical maximum starburst line of @Kewley2001: $$\log_{10}\left(\frac{[{O\textsc{iii}}]}{H\beta}\right) > 0.61 \left[ \log_{10}\left(\frac{[{N\textsc{ii}}]}{H\alpha}\right)-0.47 \right]^{-1} + 1.19.$$ Star-forming galaxies were selected to fall below the empirical starburst line of @Kauffmann2003a: $$\log_{10}\left(\frac{[{O\textsc{iii}}]}{H\beta}\right) < 0.61 \left[ \log_{10}\left(\frac{[{N\textsc{ii}}]}{H\alpha}\right)-0.05 \right]^{-1} + 1.3,$$ and at the same time be above the [following line, defined by us:]{} $$\log_{10}\left(\frac{[{O\textsc{iii}}]}{H\beta}\right) > 3 \log_{10}\left(\frac{[{N\textsc{ii}}]}{H\alpha}\right) + 1.55.$$ [The line was drawn empirically to cut out the most reliably identifiable part of the star-forming population.]{} Curves on Fig. \[fig:bpt\_svm\] illustrate these cuts.
We used the first five continuum principal components and the first four log EW principal components of the training set galaxies as input data vectors to SVM. By combining information from the continuum into the training, we might hope a better separation of the two galaxy types in the mixed lower corner of the BPT than simply from the emission lines. As SVM is a strictly empirical model, we shall not, however, draw far-reaching theoretical conclusions from its outcome. Since our training set was not containing the mixed region, it was directly separable into two disjoint classes by a linear cut. Consequently, data points did not need to be projected into any higher dimensional space by a kernel function, like in most applications of SVM, we simply ran it on the $5+4$ dimensional vectors of the continuum + line PCA space.
![BPT diagrams resulting from the SVM-based star-forming/AGN separation. Panels (a) and (b) show star-forming and AGN galaxies used to train the algorithm. Panels (c) and (d) display the outcome of the automatic classification. The theoretical segregation line of @Kewley2001 is drawn in blue and the empirical one of @Kauffmann2003a in red. Our star-forming/low-activity line is in black. Colour coding of the data points is based on the original BPT as in panel (a) of Fig. \[fig:bpt\_classes\]. See the text for discussion.[]{data-label="fig:bpt_svm"}](bpt_svm_arxiv.pdf)
We plot the results of the SVM-based classification in Fig. \[fig:bpt\_svm\]. Panels (a) and (b) show the two training set classes (star-forming and AGN, respectively) with log EWs of the originally measured emission lines. Panels (c) and (d) show the outcome of the SVM classification. Even though the mixed region was not included in the training set at all, SVM reproduced the empirical segregation line of @Kauffmann2003a surprisingly well, with only about $6$ per cent of the sample scattered into the opposite region.
Generating realistic random emission lines {#sec:recipe}
==========================================
[The stochastic recipe]{}
-------------------------
Based on our findings, we propose a simple stochastic recipe to generate [a realistic distribution of]{} emission lines for stellar population synthesis models that provide the continuum only. The algorithm works by expressing the model continuum as a linear combination of the basis vectors derived from PCA of the continua of SDSS galaxies. According to these principal components, the model spectrum is classified into one of the $60$ continuum classes. We used $k$-means clustering to define the continuum classes, as described in Sec. \[sec:kmeans\].
Let us denote the average continuum vector with $e_{0,\lambda}$ and the PCA basis vectors with $e_{i,\lambda}$, where $i$ indexes the five dimensions of the PCA space and $\lambda$ goes over the wavelength bins. Continuum classes are given by the centre of mass vectors $c_{n, i}$ where $n$ indexes the $60$ classes. Within each class, model lines are randomly generated from a multivariate Gaussian distribution. The mean line log EWs ${\textbf{m}}_n$ and the covariance matrices ${\textbf{C}}_n$ of the distributions are pre-calculated from the real galaxy sample and provided for each of the $60$ continuum classes.
The detailed recipe for generating realistic emission lines given a stellar continuum model spectrum is the following.
1. Rebin the rest-frame model spectrum $s_\lambda$ to the grid of the basis vectors and normalize it as described in Sec. \[sec:contpca\] to get $\tilde{s}_\lambda$.
2. Subtract the average continuum $e_{0,\lambda}$ from the normalized spectrum.
3. Express the continuum as a linear combination of the provided basis by calculating the dot products $a_i = \sum_\lambda{\left[ e_{i, \lambda} \cdot (\tilde{s}_\lambda - e_{0,\lambda}) \right] }$
4. Find the class centre $c_{n, i}$ in the continuum PCA space that is the closest (in Euclidean distance) to the vector $a_i$ of the linear coefficients.
5. Take the covariance matrix ${\textbf{C}}_n$ and mean line log EW vector ${\textbf{m}}_n$ of the line distribution within the closest class and generate a random vector of line log EWs from the corresponding multivariate Gaussian distribution.
Data necessary to generate random lines are published on the paper’s web site.
$k$-means clustering
--------------------
$k$-means clustering is a machine learning algorithm that classifies data points based on their distances from cluster centres: points belonging to a cluster must be closer to the centre of mass of that particular cluster than any other clusters’[^4]. This implicit definition of a cluster makes finding the best exact solution a hard problem, but heuristic, randomized algorithms exist that can find a reasonable clustering relatively fast [@Forgy1965; @MacQueen1967; @Hartigan1979; @Lloyd1982]. The only inputs of $k$-means clustering are the data vectors and $k$, the number of clusters wanted. The output is the centres of mass of the $k$ clusters. Once the latter are known, new points can be classified simply by measuring their distances from the cluster centres and putting them into the one with the closest centre.
Automatic classification of emission line galaxies {#sec:kmeans}
--------------------------------------------------
To construct our stochastic model of emission lines, we started from the $5 + 4$-dimensional vector space of continuum and log EW principal components of our high signal-to-noise ratio SDSS galaxy sample. First, we classified galaxies into continuum–log EW classes using the $k$-means clustering function of R and the algorithm of @MacQueen1967.
To choose the right number of clusters, one has to consider the variance of emission line log EWs as functions of the number of the clusters. The variance in each cluster is supposed to be decreasing as the number of clusters is growing since clusters are becoming smaller. The minimum variance is limited by the noise in the data. The $\sigma(k)$ curves for all emission lines are plotted in panel (a) of Fig. \[fig:variance\]. Hence, to minimize the variance of line strengths within each class, we chose $k = 60$ as all curves get essentially flat above this value. [For training sets of different sizes and characteristics, a similar analysis of the variance is advisable to determine the input parameter of $k$-means clustering.]{}
![Variance of log EW of the 11 strong emission lines, averaged over all clusters, as a function of the number of clusters. Panel (a) refers to the case of considering both the continuum and line principal components for clustering and classification. Variance results from the sum of line measurement errors and uncertainty due to the finite size of the clusters. Panel (b) shows the effect of misclassification when only the continuum principal components are used to classify galaxies, with the clustering done in both the continuum and line log EW PCA space. Misclassification will add extra scatter to the randomly generated log EWs, cf. Sec. \[sec:recipeproblems\] and Fig. \[fig:bpt\_recipe\]. Panel (c) illustrates the case of performing both the clustering and classification in the continuum principal component space only. Even with the additional variance due to misclassification, using both the continuum and line log EW principal components for the clustering is favourable.[]{data-label="fig:variance"}](kmeanserror.pdf)
Modelling the emission line distributions {#sec:ewdist}
-----------------------------------------
Once $k$-means clusters in the continuum-PCA–line-PCA space are determined in the way described in Sec. \[sec:kmeans\], we have to model the distribution of emission line log EWs within each cluster. If the number of clusters is sufficiently high, clusters will become small enough that the distribution of emission lines within them can be well modelled by a multivariate Gaussian distribution parametrized with ${\textbf{m}}_n$ and ${\textbf{C}}_n$. [We note that a multivariate Gaussian distribution, when its entire covariance matrix is known, does not only account for individual line strengths but also for line ratios, including ratios from the same line series.]{} It is also important to mention that, while we did the $k$-means classification of galaxies in the $5 + 4$-dimensional continuum + log EW space, stellar population synthesis models yield the continuum coefficients only. As a result, when classifying model continua, we measure distances from cluster centres in the 5D continuum-PCA subspace only. This will introduce some mixing among clusters as determined by $k$-means and cause somewhat larger scatter in the randomly generated log EWs than what it would be based solely on the ${\textbf{C}}_n$ covariance matrices. This effect is shown in panel (b) of Fig. \[fig:variance\]. It is still worth using the entire $5 + 4$-dimensional space to run the $k$-mean classification because the resulting variances are still lower than using the continuum principal components only, cf. panel (c) of Fig. \[fig:variance\]. Also, because the covariance of the lines is treated stochastically, there will be random scatter in line ratios as well.
A direct test of the algorithm is to take the galaxies of our SDSS sample, generate emission lines based on their fitted continua and see how well the BPT diagram can be reconstructed. Results of this procedure are plotted in Fig. \[fig:bpt\_recipe\] where we also show the original BPT for reference in panel (a) next to the stochastically generated BPT in panel (b). While the curve of star-forming galaxies and the AGN mixing sequence is reproduced reasonably well, there [are]{} also a large number of red data points corresponding to the bottom corner of the original BPT visible in all regions of the plot.
![Panel (a) shows the original diagram plotted from the directly measured emission line for reference. Panel (b) is the BPT diagram plotted from stochastically generated emission lines based on the recipe described in Sec. \[sec:recipe\]. While lines were generated from a multivariate distribution randomly, based on the location of the continuum in the PCA space, the resulting BPT diagram resembles the original one remarkably well, although more scatter and significant mixing of galaxy types is visible. Colour coding of the data points is based on the original BPT as in panel (a) of Fig. \[fig:bpt\_classes\].[]{data-label="fig:bpt_recipe"}](bpt_recipe_arxiv.pdf)
Shortcomings of the method {#sec:recipeproblems}
--------------------------
The recipe outlined above yields line EWs only, and is sufficient to reproduce the flux excess caused by emission lines but not line widths. In general, line widths should be taken to be equal to the velocity dispersion, at least in the case of star-forming galaxies. Width distributions of broad lines would need to be investigated to generate AGN lines with realistic breadth distribution.
[As we pointed out in Sec. \[sec:ewdist\], using only the continuum principal components to generate log EWs introduces additional variance due to the mixing of the classes as defined in the continuum + line space. Additionally, as lines are randomly generated based on a multivariate Gaussian distribution, EWs and line ratios are not guaranteed to be correct for individual galaxies, but will be for the entire ensemble of mock galaxies.]{}
[If the goal is to generate realistic emission lines for individual model continua, we suggest using the local linear regression method as described in Sec. \[sec:pcafit\]. While that technique yields more accurate emission line estimates, it also requires a much larger input data set and more heavyweight algorithms.]{}
Summary and future work {#sec:summary}
=======================
We have measured the emission lines of galaxies from SDSS DR7 to analyse the correlation between the emission lines and the stellar continua in the optical wavelength range. We have developed an algorithm, noise limited fitting, to accurately measure the parameters of broad and asymmetric emission lines, yet avoid overfitting of narrow, symmetric lines. We have also demonstrated how to correct for discrepancies between theoretical stellar continuum modelling and real measurements by low-pass filtering the residual before emission line fitting.
In Sec. \[sec:emlines\], we have shown that optical emission line log EWs can be reasonably well reconstructed from both the optical stellar continuum and broad-band magnitudes of galaxies.
[The main practical use case of our method is to generate emission lines for stellar continua from stellar population synthesis models, provided that the models fall into the wavelength and physical parameter coverage of our training set. Since our sample contained strong emission line galaxies only (with all $11$ prominent lines measured), the results cannot be generalized to any type of galaxy without extending the training set, but the algorithm still applies. Also, further research is necessary to use our line reconstruction method for galaxies with fewer and weaker lines: correlations between the stellar continuum and the probability of the very presence of weak emission lines need to be taken into account.]{}
[Another application of our method is to estimate emission lines of photometric galaxies. The technique readily works for the SDSS *ugriz* filter set, but the existing training set can be adapted to other filter systems as well. While one simple way to do this is to compute synthetic photometry from the spectra, building a new training set by cross-matching the photometric measurements made with the other filter set to our spectroscopic sample is a better option (provided that the survey overlaps with the SDSS), since it would automatically account for the unknown systematics in spectrophotometry. With the outlined modifications, our technique will be of great value for analysing data from large photometric surveys like PanSTARRS and the LSST.]{}
[Additionally, by correcting for the contributions of strong emission lines to broad-band magnitudes, our method can be useful in improving template-based photometric redshift estimation algorithms to narrow the performance gap between the theoretical and the empirical approach.]{}
In Sec. \[sec:svm\], we used a supervised machine learning algorithm, SVM, to verify the empirical demarcation line between star-forming galaxies and AGNs defined by @Kauffmann2003a. Even though we used only extreme starburst galaxies and strong AGNs to train the algorithm, SVM yielded a result very similar to the analytical segregation curve, only about 6 per cent of galaxies in the bottom corner of the BPT diagram got classified differently. A future application to SVM would be to revisit the Seyfert/LINER separation as it was done in @Kewley2006.
Finally, in Sec. \[sec:recipe\], we gave a very simple recipe to generate random emission lines with realistic EWs on top of stellar continua generated by stellar population synthesis modes. We have demonstrated that, despite its simplicity, the method can qualitatively reconstruct the BPT. Our model has its application when the objective is not the accurate modelling of [the emission lines of individual galaxies]{} but rather generating stochastic mock catalogues with more realistic broad-band magnitudes.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The realization of this work was supported by the Hungarian OTKA NN grants 103244 and 114560.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
[^2]: <http://www.vo.elte.hu/papers/2015/emissionlines>
[^3]: Since this is often not possible in the original space of data vectors because the distributions of the two halves of the training set are non-convex, kernel functions are used to map training set vectors into a higher dimensional space where linear segregation is possible [@SVM_kernels]. Another option to handle non-convex situations is to find a *best possible* segregation plane which minimizes the overlap.
[^4]: The $k$-means algorithm basically constructs a Voronoi tessellation from the data vectors, with seeds being the centres of mass of the clusters.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
.
[**Discrete Dynamical Modeling and Analysis of the *R-S* Flip-Flop Circuit**]{}
$\ast\;\ast\;\ast$
$\ast\;\ast\;\ast$
**ABSTRACT:** A simple discrete planar dynamical model for the ideal (logical) *R-S* flip-flop circuit is developed with an eye toward mimicking the dynamical behavior observed for actual physical realizations of this circuit. It is shown that the model exhibits most of the qualitative features ascribed to the *R-S* flip-flop circuit, such as an intrinsic instability associated with unit set and reset inputs, manifested in a chaotic sequence of output states that tend to oscillate among all possible output states, and the existence of periodic orbits of arbitrarily high period that depend on the various intrinsic system parameters. The investigation involves a combination of analytical methods from the modern theory of discrete dynamical systems, and numerical simulations that illustrate the dazzling array of dynamics that can be generated by the model. Validation of the discrete model is accomplished by comparison with certain Poincaré map like representations of the dynamics corresponding to three-dimensional differential equation models of electrical circuits that produce *R*-*S* flip-flop behavior.
**Keywords:** R-S flip-flop, discrete dynamical system, Poincaré map, bifurcation, chaos, transverse homoclinic orbits
**AMS Subject Classification:** 37C05, 37C29, 37D45, 94C05
Introduction
============
The ideal *R-S flip-flop circuit* is a logical feedback circuit that can be described most efficiently in terms of Fig. 1, with input/output behavior described in Table 1, which shows the *set* ($S$) and *reset* ($R$) inputs feeding into the simple circuit comprised of two *nor gates* and the corresponding outputs $Q$ and $P$ that are generated. The input to this circuit may be represented as $(S,R)$ and the output by $(Q,P)$, so the association of the input to the output, denoted by $(S,R)\rightarrow(Q,P)$ may be regarded as the action of a map from the plane $\mathbb{R}^{2}:=\{(x,y):x,y\in\mathbb{R}\}$ into itself, where $\mathbb{R}$ denotes the real numbers. Our goal, from this mapping perspective, is to construct a simple nonlinear map of the plane that models the logical properties of the *R-S* flip-flop circuit, with iterates (discrete dynamics) that at least qualitatively capture most of its interesting dynamics, both those that are intuitive and those that have been observed in studies of physical circuit simulations - especially in certain critical cases that we shall describe in the sequel.
![$R$-$S$ flip-flop circuit[]{data-label="circuit"}](RSFFcircuit.eps){width="3.5in"}
The binary input/output behavior, with 0 and 1 representing false and true, respectively, is given in the following table.
\[c\][|c|c|c|c|]{}$S$ & $R$ & $S_{1}:=Q$ & $R_{1}:=P$\
1 & 0 & &\
0 & 1 & &\
1 & 1 & &\
0 & 0 & &\
Table 1. Binary input/output of $R$-$S$ flip-flop circuit
Note that the input/output behavior is not well defined when the set and reset values are both $0$; a situation that can be remedied by identifying $(1,0)$ with $(0,1)$. Such an identification strategy is consistent with the obvious symmetry of the circuit with respect to $S$ and $R$, and in fact we shall employ this in the sequel when we describe and analyze our $R$-$S$ flip-flop map model. If we make this symmetry identification, it leads to an unambiguous input/output behavior for the circuit, and from an abstract perspective, it is not immediately clear why the state $(1,1)$ should be problematical - other than that it is the only state that produces non-complementary output values $0,0$. Notwithstanding the well defined behavior of the abstract *R*-*S* flip-flop circuit when the symmetry identification is imposed, actual physical circuit models comprised of elements such as capacitors, diodes, inductors and resistors exhibit highly oscillatory, very unstable and even chaotic dynamics (*metastable operation*), as experimentally observed in such studies as [@Chaney; @KA; @kac; @LMH]. This type of highly irregular dynamical behavior has also been found in *R*-*S* flip-flop realizations in the context of Josephson junctions [@ztkbn]. In general, it is found that physical models of *R*-*S* flip-flop circuits invariably generate very complex dynamics belying the simplicity of the abstract logical circuit, which can plausibly be ascribed to the fact that every real model of this circuit must have inherent time sequencing characteristics due to the finite speed of electromagnetic waves.
Continuous dynamical systems representations of *R*-*S* flip-flop circuits derived from the usual circuit equations applied to the physical models, typically lead to three-dimensional systems of first order, autonomous, (possibly discontinuous) piecewise smooth (and usually piecewise linear) differential equations such as those investigated by Murali *et al*. [@msd], Okazaki *et al*. [@okt] and Ruzbehani *et al*. [@rzw]. These mathematical models are traceable back to the pioneering work of Moser [@Moser], and are subsumed by the famous circuit of Chua and its generalizations [@chua; @CWHZ]. Experimental observations on real circuit models of *R*-*S* flip-flops, together with numerical simulations utilizing such tools as SPICE [@hamill], and analytical studies employing the tools of modern dynamical systems theory (see *e.g*. [@guho; @kathas; @palmel; @wigbook]) including Poincaré sections and Melnikov functions such as in [@CWHZ; @Danca; @kac; @okt; @rzw] have painted a rather compelling picture of the extreme complexity of the dynamical possibilities.
Naturally, when one has a series of quite successful mathematical representations of phenomena or processes as is the case for *R-S* flip-flop circuit behavior, it leads to the question of the possible existence of simpler models. One cannot expect to reduce the dimension of the continuous dynamical models, since it is impossible for two-dimensional systems of autonomous differential equations to have chaotic solutions. However, two-dimensional discrete dynamical systems are an enticing possibility since they can exhibit almost all types of complex dynamics - including chaotic regimes. Moreover, there have been some studies, albeit just a few, including those of Danca [@Danca] and Hamill *et al*. [@hdj], which give strong indications of the potential of modeling circuits such as the *R*-*S* flip-flop using two-dimensional difference equations or iterated planar maps. Encouraged by this literature on discrete dynamical models and relying heavily on our knowledge of dynamical systems theory and physical intuition, we have developed a discrete - essentially phenomenological -dynamical model generated by iterates of a rather simple nonlinear (quadratic), two-parameter planar map, which we present and analyze in this paper.
Our investigation is organized as follows. First, in Section 2, we define our simple planar map model - with iterates producing the dynamic behavior that we shall show mimics that observed in real *R*-*S* flip-flop circuits. Moreover, we derive some basic properties of the map related to fixed points and the existence of a local inverse. This is followed in Section 3 with a more thorough analysis of the fixed points of the map - including a local stability analysis and an analysis of stable and unstable manifolds - under very mild, and quite reasonable, restrictions on the two map parameters. Next, in Section 4, we fix the value of one of the parameters and prove the existence of a Hopf bifurcation at an interior fixed point as the other parameter is varied. We also note what appears to be a kind of Hopf bifurcation cascade (manifested by an infinite sequence) as the parameter is increased, which suggests the existence of extreme oscillatory behavior culminating in chaos. We then prove the existence of chaotic dynamics in Section 5. This is followed in Section 6 by a comparison of the dynamics of our model with other results in the literature, primarily from the perspective of planar Poincaré maps. Naturally, liberal use is made in this section of numerical simulations of our model for comparison purposes. Finally, in Section 7, we summarize and underscore some of the more important results of this investigation, and identify several interesting directions for future related research.
A Discrete Model
================
Based upon the ideal mathematical properties of the *R-S* flip-flop circuit, which were briefly delineated in the preceding section, and a knowledge of the interesting dynamical characteristics of actual physical circuits constructed to perform like the *R-S* flip-flop circuit (see *e.g*. [@hdj; @kac; @okt; @rzw; @ztkbn], and also [@Danca] for related results) , we postulate the following simple, quadratic, two-parameter planar map model: $$\Phi=\left( \varphi,\psi\right) =\Phi_{\lambda,\mu}=\left( \varphi
_{\lambda,\mu},\psi_{\lambda,\mu}\right) :\mathbb{R}^{2}\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}^{2}, \label{e1}$$ where $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are positive parameters, and the coordinate functions $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are defined as$$\begin{aligned}
\varphi\left( x,y\right) & =\varphi_{\lambda,\mu}\left( x,y\right)
:=1-x\left[ \lambda\left( 1-x\right) +y\right] ,\nonumber\\
\psi\left( x,y\right) & =\psi_{\lambda,\mu}\left( x,y\right) :=\mu
y\left( x-y\right) \label{e2}$$ Naturally, this map generates a discrete dynamical system - actually a discrete semidynamical system - in terms of its forward iterates determined by $n$-fold compositions of the map with itself, denoted as $\Phi_{\lambda,\mu
}^{n}$, or more simply as $\Phi^{n}$, where $n$ is a nonnegative integer. We shall employ the usual notation and definitions for this discrete system; for example, the *positive semiorbit* of a point $p\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$, which we denote as $O_{+}(p)$, is simply defined as $$O_{+}(p):=\left\{ \Phi^{n}(p):n\in\mathbb{Z},\,n\geq0\right\} ,$$ and all other relevant definitions are standard (*cf*. [@guho; @hartman; @kathas; @palmel; @wigbook]). Our model map is clearly real-analytic, which we denote as usual by $\Phi\in C^{\omega}$ and *a fortiori* smooth, denoted as $\Phi\in C^{\infty}$.
Assuming the reset and set values, corresponding to the $x$- and $y$-coordinates, respectively, are normalized so that they may assume the discrete (logical) values $0$ or $1$, it makes sense to restrict the model map to the square $I^{2}:=I\times I:=[0,1]\times\lbrack0,1]$ in the plane. In fact, owing to the obvious symmetry of the circuit with respect to the reset and set inputs, it is actually natural to further restrict our attention to the triangular domain$$T:=\left\{ (x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}:0\leq x\leq1,\,0\leq y\leq x\right\} ,
\label{e3}$$ but we shall defer additional discussion of this point until later, except to note here that$$\Phi(0,0)=(1,0),\;\Phi(1,0)=(1,0)\text{ and }\Phi(1,1)=(0,0), \label{e4}$$ which shows that our model is at least logically consistent with the *R*-*S* flip-flop circuit.
Basic properties of the model
-----------------------------
Before embarking on a more thorough dynamical analysis of the iterates of our simple map model, we shall describe some of its simpler properties. The fixed points of the map, satisfying $\Phi(x,y)=(x,y)$, are the solutions of the equations$$\begin{aligned}
1-x\left[ \lambda\left( 1-x\right) +y\right] & =x\nonumber\\
\mu y\left( x-y\right) & =y, \label{e5}$$ from which we readily deduce the property.
- The points $(1,0)$ and $(1/\lambda,0)$ are fixed points of $\Phi$ for all $\lambda,\mu>0$ (*cf*. (4)), while all other fixed points are in the complement of the $x$-axis and are determined by the equations$$\left( 1-\lambda\right) x^{2}+\left( 1+\lambda-\mu^{-1}\right)
x-1=0,\;y=x-\mu^{-1}.$$ Hence, we have the following: there are no additional fixed points if $\lambda=1$ and $\mu^{-1}=1+\lambda=2$; there is one more fixed point, $(x,y)$ with $$x=\frac{\mu}{\mu(1+\lambda)-1},\;y=\frac{\mu}{\mu(1+\lambda)-1}-\frac{1}{\mu
};$$ if $\lambda=1$ and $\mu^{-1}\neq1+\lambda=2$; and if $\lambda\neq1$ and $\left( 1+\lambda-\mu^{-1}\right) ^{2}+4\left( 1-\lambda\right) \geq0 $, there two additional fixed points $(x,y)$ with $$x=\frac{\left( \mu^{-1}-\lambda-1\right) \pm\sqrt{\left( 1+\lambda-\mu
^{-1}\right) ^{2}+4\left( 1-\lambda\right) }}{2\left( 1-\lambda\right)
},\;y=x-\frac{1}{\mu}, \label{e6}$$ while if $\left( 1+\lambda-\mu^{-1}\right) ^{2}+4\left( 1-\lambda\right)
<0$, there are only the two fixed points on the $x$-axis.
The following additional properties of the map follow directly from its definition.
- $\Phi$ maps the $x$-axis into itself, and if $0<\lambda\leq4$, $\Phi$ actually maps the horizontal edge $e_{h}:=\{(x,0):0\leq x\leq1\}$ of $T$ into itself.
- $\Phi$ maps the diagonal line $x-y=0$ into the $x$-axis, and maps the diagonal edge $e_{d}:=\{(x,x):0\leq x\leq1\}$ of $T$ into $e_{h}$ if $0<\lambda\leq2$.
- $\Phi$ maps the $y$-axis onto the portion of the line $x=1$ with $y\leq0$, and maps the line $x=1$, containing the vertical edge $e_{v}:=\{(1,y):0\leq y\leq1\}$ of $T$, onto the parabola $y=\mu x(1-x)$ passing through the origin and the fixed point $(1,0)$.
- It follows from the derivative (matrix)$$\Phi^{\prime}(x,y)=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}\lambda(2x-1)-y & -x\\
\mu y & \mu(x-2y)
\end{array}
\right) \label{e7}$$ and the inverse function theorem that $\Phi$ is a local $C^{\omega}$-diffeomorphism at any point in the complement of the quadratic curve $$\lambda\left( 2x-1\right) \left( x-2y\right) +2y^{2}=0,$$ while in general, the preimage of any point in the plane, denoted as $\Phi^{-1}\left( (x,y)\right) $, is comprised of at most four points.
Elementary Dynamics of the Model
================================
We shall analyze the deeper dynamical aspects of the model map (1)-(2) for various parameter ranges in the sequel, but first we dispose of some of the more elementary properties such as a the usual local linear stability analysis of the fixed points. At this stage, and for the remainder of our investigation, we shall focus on the restriction of the model map to the triangle $T$ and assume that
($\mathcal{A}$1)$\qquad\qquad0<\lambda<1<\mu$
With the above restriction and assumption, it follows from the preceding section that our model map has precisely four fixed points: two in $T$; one near $T$ at $(1/\lambda,0)$ when $\lambda$ is close to unity; and the final one rather distant from $T$. In the next subsection, we embark on a local stability analysis of the fixed points of $\Phi$ on or near the triangle $T$.
Local analysis of the fixed points
----------------------------------
The local properties of the fixed points of our model map shall be delineated in a series of lemmas. They all have straightforward proofs that follow directly from the results in the preceding section and fundamental dynamical systems theory (as in [@guho; @kathas; @palmel; @wigbook]), which are left to the reader.
**Lemma 3.1.** *The fixed points of* $\Phi$* on the* $x$*-axis, namely* $(1,0)$* and* $(1/\lambda,0)$*, are a saddle and a source with eigenvalues* (*of* $\Phi^{\prime}(1,0)$ *and* $\Phi^{\prime}(1/\lambda,0)$) $\lambda,\mu$* and* $2-\lambda,\mu/\lambda$*, respectively. For* $(1,0)$*, the stable manifold is*$$W^{s}\left( 1,0\right) =\left\{ (x,0):x<1/\lambda\right\} ,$$ *and the linear unstable manifold is*$$W_{\ell}^{u}(1,0)=\left\{ \left( x,(\lambda-\mu)(x-1)\right) :x\in
\mathbb{R}\right\} .$$
**Lemma 3.2.** *The fixed point of* $\Phi$* in the interior of* $T$*, which we denote as* $p_{\ast}=(x_{\ast},y_{\ast})$*, is defined according to* (6) *as* $$x_{\ast}=x_{\ast}(\lambda,\mu)=\frac{\left( \mu^{-1}-\lambda-1\right)
+\sqrt{\left( 1+\lambda-\mu^{-1}\right) ^{2}+4\left( 1-\lambda\right) }}{2\left( 1-\lambda\right) },\;y_{\ast}=y_{\ast}(\lambda,\mu)=x_{\ast}-\frac{1}{\mu},$$ *and has complex conjugate eigenvalues that are roots of the quadratic equation*$$\sigma^{2}-a\sigma+b=0,$$ *where*$$\begin{aligned}
a & =a(\lambda,\mu):=\left( 2\lambda-\mu-1\right) x_{\ast}+\left(
2-\lambda+\mu^{-1}\right) ,\;\\
b & =b(\lambda,\mu):=\mu\left\{ \left[ \lambda\left( 4\mu^{-1}-1\right)
-2(1+\mu^{-1})\right] x_{\ast}+2\left[ 1-\mu^{-1}\left( \lambda-\mu
^{-1}\right) \right] \right\} ;\end{aligned}$$ *namely*$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma & =\sigma(\lambda,\mu)=\frac{1}{2}\left[ a+i\sqrt{4b-a^{2}}\right] \\
\bar{\sigma} & =\bar{\sigma}(\lambda,\mu)=\frac{1}{2}\left[ a-i\sqrt
{4b-a^{2}}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ *Hence it is a spiral sink or spiral source, respectively, when*$$\left\vert \sigma\right\vert ^{2}=\left\vert \bar{\sigma}\right\vert
^{2}=b<1,$$ *or*$$\left\vert \sigma\right\vert ^{2}=\left\vert \bar{\sigma}\right\vert
^{2}=b>1.$$ *Otherwise* (*when* $b=1$) *it has neutral stability.*
**Lemma 3.3.** *For any fixed* $\lambda$* and variable* $\mu$ *satisfying (*$\mathcal{A}$*1), the coefficient* $b$* defined above satisfies the following properties*:
- *It is a smooth* $(=C^{\infty})$*, nonnegative function of* $\mu$* for* $\mu>1$*, such that* $db/d\mu>0$ *for every* $\mu>1$.
- $b\uparrow\infty$* as* $\mu\uparrow\infty.$
- *There exists a positive* $c(\lambda)$* such that* $b<1$* for* $1<\mu<1+c(\lambda).$
- *In particular, for each* $0<\lambda<1$*, there exists a unique* $\mu_{h}=\mu_{h}(\lambda)=1+c(\lambda)$* such that* $1<\mu_{h}$*,* $b(\lambda,\mu_{h})=1$*,* $0<b(\lambda,\mu)<1$* for* $1<\mu<\mu_{h}$*, and* $b(\lambda,\mu)>1$* for* $\mu_{h}<\mu
$*.*
The case when the interior fixed point is a spiral attractor is shown in Fig. 2. By fixing $\lambda$ at a value near one, say $\lambda=0.99$, and then varying $\mu$ over a range from $4$ to $5$, we obtain a very rich array of dynamics as described in what follows.
Oscillation and Hopf Bifurcation
================================
In order to achieve a reasonable amount of focus - given the wide range of possible model map parameters - we shall narrow our range of investigation by adhering to the following additional assumption in the sequel:
($\mathcal{A}$2)$\qquad\qquad\lambda=0.99=\frac{99}{100}.$
Then assuming ($\mathcal{A}$1) and ($\mathcal{A}$2), our map $\Phi=\Phi_{\mu}$ satisfies all the properties delineated above, and depends only on the single parameter $\mu\in(1,\infty)$. In particular, it follows directly from Lemma 3.2 that$$x_{\ast}(\mu):=x_{\ast}(.99,\mu)=50\left\{ \left( \mu^{-1}-1.99\right)
+\sqrt{\left( 1.99-\mu^{-1}\right) ^{2}+0.04}\right\} ,\;y_{\ast}(\mu):=y_{\ast}(.99,\mu)=x_{\ast}-\frac{1}{\mu}, \label{e8}$$ and$$\begin{aligned}
a(\mu) & :=a(.99,\mu)=\left( .98-\mu\right) x_{\ast}+\left( 1.01+\mu
^{-1}\right) ,\nonumber\\
b(\mu) & :=b(.99,\mu)=\mu\left\{ \left[ (.99)\left( 4\mu^{-1}-1\right)
-2(1+\mu^{-1})\right] x_{\ast}+2\left[ 1-\mu^{-1}\left( .99-\mu
^{-1}\right) \right] \right\} .\; \label{e9}$$ It is then straightforward to compute in the notation of Lemma 3.3 that$$c:=c(.99)\cong3.5438,\;\mu_{h}:\cong\mu_{h}(.99)\cong4.5438,\;x_{\ast}(\mu
_{h})\cong0.5632,\;y_{\ast}(\mu_{h})\cong0.3431. \label{e10}$$
In order to study the behavior of the map in a neighborhood of the fixed point $p_{\ast}=(x_{\ast},y_{\ast})$, it is convenient to translate the coordinates and map to the origin by defining$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Phi} & :=\hat{\Phi}_{\mu}(\xi,\eta):=\Phi_{\mu}(\xi+x_{\ast},\eta+y_{\ast})-\Phi_{\mu}(x_{\ast},y_{\ast})\nonumber\\
& =\Phi_{\mu}(\xi+x_{\ast},\eta+y_{\ast})-(x_{\ast},y_{\ast}). \label{e11}$$ It is easy to compute that$$\hat{\Phi}:=\hat{\Phi}_{\mu}(\xi,\eta)=\left( \hat{\varphi}_{\mu}(\xi
,\eta),\hat{\psi}_{\mu}(\xi,\eta)\right) , \label{e12}$$ where$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\varphi}_{\mu}(\xi,\eta) & :=\left[ (0.98)x_{\ast}(\mu)+\mu
^{-1}-0.99\right] \xi-x_{\ast}(\mu)\eta+\xi\left[ (0.99)\xi-\eta\right]
,\nonumber\\
\hat{\psi}_{\mu}(\xi,\eta) & :=\left[ \mu x_{\ast}(\mu)-1\right]
\xi-\left[ 2-\mu x_{\ast}(\mu)\right] \eta+\mu\eta\left( \xi-\eta\right) .
\label{e13}$$
Invariant curve and Hopf bifurcation
------------------------------------
Now with this simple quadratic representation of the model map with respect to the fixed point $p_{\ast}$ interior to the triangle $T$ is a straightforward matter to describe the bifurcation behavior and oscillatory properties. In particular, we have the following result.
**Theorem 4.1.** *The discrete semidynamical system associated to the map* $\Phi_{\mu}$* *$($*or* $\hat{\Phi}_{\mu})$* has a Hopf bifurcation at the fixed point* $p_{\ast}$* when* $\mu=\mu_{h}$*. More specifically,* $p_{\ast}$* is a spiral sink* $($*source*$)$* for* $1<\mu<\mu_{h}$* *$(\mu_{h}<\mu
)$*, and* $p_{\ast}$* is neutrally stable for* $\mu=\mu_{h}$* with* $\Phi_{\mu_{h}}^{\prime}(p_{\ast})$* having complex conjugate eigenvalues on the unit circle* $S^{1}$* in the complex plane* $\mathbb{C}$* *$(``=$ $\mathbb{R}^{2})$*. Furthermore, for sufficiently small* $\nu:=\mu-\mu_{h}>0$*, say* $0<\nu<\epsilon$*, there exists a unique* $\Phi_{\mu}$*-invariant, smooth Jordan curve* $\Gamma_{\nu}$* *$($*i.e. with* $\Phi_{\mu
}(\Gamma_{\nu})=\Gamma_{\nu})$* enclosing* $p_{\ast}$* in its interior,* $\mathcal{I}(\Gamma_{\nu}),$*satisfying the following properties:*
- *There is a* $0<\epsilon_{\ast}\leq\epsilon$* for which* $0<\nu<\epsilon_{\ast}$* implies that for every point* $p\in
\mathcal{I}(\Gamma_{\nu})\smallsetminus\{p_{\ast}\}$* the iterates* $\Phi_{\mu}^{n}(p)$* spiral around* $p_{\ast}$* in a counterclockwise manner and approach* $\Gamma_{\nu}$*; in particular, the distance between these iterates and the curve, denoted* $\Delta(\Phi_{\mu
_{h}+\nu}^{n}(p),\Gamma_{\nu})$*, converges monotonically to zero as* $n\rightarrow\infty$*.*
- *With* $\epsilon_{\ast}$* and* $\epsilon$* as in* $(i)$*,* $\Gamma_{\nu}$* is a local attractor, in that all positive semiorbits originating in some open neighborhood of this curve converge to* $\Gamma_{\nu}$*.*
- *The dynamical system on* $\Gamma_{\nu}$* induced by the restriction of the map* $\Phi_{\mu}$* is either ergodic* $($*with dense orbits*$)$* or has periodic orbits* $($*or cycles*$)$* according as the rotation number is irrational or rational, respectively, including an* $11$*-cycle as* $\mu$* just exceeds the bifurcation value* $\mu_{h}$*, the collection* $\{\Gamma_{\nu}:0<\nu<\epsilon_{\ast}\}$* includes* $m$*-cycles for infinitely many* $m\in\mathbb{N}$*, where* $\mathbb{N}$* comprises the natural numbers.*
- *Under the same conditions as in* $(i)$*,* $\Delta(p_{\ast},\Gamma_{\nu})=O(\nu).$
*Proof.* Properties (i) and (ii) follow from a direct application to the map (11) of the Hopf bifurcation theorem for discrete dynamical systems (see *e.g.* [@DMP; @MM; @wan; @WXH] and also [@guho; @IJ; @kathas; @wigbook]), or one can obtain the same results via a straightforward modification of the main theorem of Champanerkar & Blackmore [@CB]. In fact, the latter approach actually shows that the invariant curve is analytic in its variables and parameter $\nu$. To prove (iii) and (iv) requires a deeper analysis of the invariant curves, which we shall merely outline in the interest of brevity (*cf*. [@guho] and Lanford’s version of Ruelle’s proof in [@MM]).
The curve $\Gamma_{\nu}$ can be parametrized in polar form as$$\Gamma_{\nu}:\xi=\xi(\theta;\mu):=\rho(\theta;\mu)\cos\theta,\quad\eta
=\eta(\theta;\mu):=\rho(\theta;\mu)\sin\theta, \label{e14}$$ where $\theta$ is the usual polar angle about the point $p_{\ast}$. Then $\Phi_{\mu}$-invariance requires that $$\hat{\Phi}_{\mu}\left( \xi(\theta;\mu),\eta(\theta;\mu)\right) =\left(
\xi(\Theta;\mu),\eta(\Theta;\mu)\right) , \label{e15}$$ where $\Theta$ represents the angular rotational action of the map defined as$$\Theta=\Theta\left( \xi,\eta;\nu\right) :=\tan^{-1}\left( \frac{\hat{\psi
}_{\mu}(\xi,\eta)}{\hat{\varphi}_{\mu}(\xi,\eta)}\right) . \label{e16}$$ We note that is easy to verify that we must take the branch of the arctangent that takes on values between $\theta+\pi/2$ and $\theta+3\pi/2.$
It is convenient to introduce the following more compact notation for the map as expressed in terms of its coordinate functions in (13):$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\varphi}_{\mu}(\xi,\eta) & :=-\alpha(\nu)\xi-\beta(\nu)\eta+\xi\left[
(0.99)\xi-\eta\right] ,\nonumber\\
\hat{\psi}_{\mu}(\xi,\eta) & :=\gamma(\nu)\xi+\delta(\nu)\eta+\mu\eta\left(
\xi-\eta\right) , \label{e17}$$ where the parameter dependent, positive coefficients $\alpha(\nu)$, $\beta
(\nu)$, $\gamma(\nu)$ and $\delta(\nu)$ are defined in the obvious way according to (13). In polar coordinates with respect to $p_{\ast}$, the functions defined in (17) have the form$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\varphi}_{\mu}(r,\theta) & :=r\left\{ -\alpha(\nu)\cos\theta-\beta
(\nu)\sin\theta+r\cos\theta\left[ (0.99)\cos\theta-\sin\theta\right]
\right\} ,\nonumber\\
\hat{\psi}_{\mu}(r,\theta) & :=r\left[ \gamma(\nu)\cos\theta+\delta
(\nu)\sin\theta+\mu r\sin\theta\left( \cos\theta-\sin\theta\right) \right]
. \label{e18}$$ Moreover, in the context of these polar coordinates, our map can be rewritten in the form$$\hat{\Phi}_{\mu}\left( r,\theta\right) :=\left( R(r,\theta;\mu
),\Theta(r,\theta;\mu)\right) , \label{e19}$$ and we compute that$$\begin{aligned}
R^{2} & =\hat{\varphi}_{\mu}^{2}+\hat{\psi}_{\mu}^{2}=r^{2}\left\{ \left(
\alpha^{2}+\gamma^{2}\right) \cos^{2}\theta+\left( \alpha\beta+\gamma
\delta\right) \cos2\theta+\left( \beta^{2}+\delta^{2}\right) \sin^{2}\theta-\right. \\
& r\left( 0.99\cos\theta-\sin\theta\right) \left[ 2\alpha\cos^{2}\theta+\beta\cos2\theta-r\cos^{2}\theta\left( 0.99\cos\theta-\sin
\theta\right) \right] +\\
& \left. \mu r\left( \cos\theta-\sin\theta\right) \left[ \gamma
\cos2\theta+2\delta\sin^{2}\theta+r\sin^{2}\theta\left( \cos\theta-\sin
\theta\right) \right] \right\} ,\end{aligned}$$ which implies that$$\begin{aligned}
R\left( r,\theta;\mu\right) & :=rU\left( r,\theta;\mu\right) =r\left\{
\left( \alpha^{2}+\gamma^{2}\right) \cos^{2}\theta+\left( \alpha
\beta+\gamma\delta\right) \cos2\theta+\left( \beta^{2}+\delta^{2}\right)
\sin^{2}\theta-\right. \nonumber\\
& r\left( 0.99\cos\theta-\sin\theta\right) \left[ 2\alpha\cos^{2}\theta+\beta\cos2\theta-r\cos^{2}\theta\left( 0.99\cos\theta-\sin
\theta\right) \right] +\label{e20}\\
& \left. \mu r\left( \cos\theta-\sin\theta\right) \left[ \gamma
\cos2\theta+2\delta\sin^{2}\theta+r\sin^{2}\theta\left( \cos\theta-\sin
\theta\right) \right] \right\} ^{1/2}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Now it follows from the $\hat{\Phi}_{\mu}$-invariance of $\Gamma_{\nu}$, manifested by (19), and (14)-(20) that the radius function $\rho$ must satisfy$$\rho=\rho\left( \theta;\mu\right) =U\left( \rho,\theta;\mu\right)
^{-1}\rho\left( \tan^{-1}\left( \frac{\left[ \gamma(\nu)\cos\theta
+\delta(\nu)\sin\theta+\mu\rho\sin\theta\left( \cos\theta-\sin\theta\right)
\right] }{\left\{ -\alpha(\nu)\cos\theta-\beta(\nu)\sin\theta+\rho\cos
\theta\left[ (0.99)\cos\theta-\sin\theta\right] \right\} }\right) \right)
. \label{e21}$$ This equation expresses the fact that $\rho$ is a fixed point of the operator on the right-hand side, and can be used to approximate this radius function to any desired degree of accuracy. As we noted above, $\rho$ is analytic in $(\theta,\mu)$, so the approximation can be effected by assuming a power series representation in $\theta$ or $\mu$, whereupon substitution in (21) would provide a means for recursive determination of the series coefficients. But this turns out to be a rather laborious, albeit straightforward, process. It is actually more efficient in this case to find (global in $\theta$) approximations via Picard iteration. For example, if we take $\rho_{0}=\nu$, the next approximation yields$$\rho_{1}=\nu U\left( \nu,\theta;\mu\right) ^{-1},$$ which owing to the easily verified rather rapid geometric convergence of the iterates, gives quite a good approximation of the (fixed point) solution - one that is, for example, sufficient to verify property (iv). Then a closer examination of the accuracy of the remaining successive approximations, with special attention to the angular aspect of the restriction of $\hat{\Phi}_{\mu}$ to $\Gamma_{\nu}$ embodied in$$\Theta=\tan^{-1}\left( \frac{\left[ \gamma(\nu)\cos\theta+\delta(\nu
)\sin\theta+\mu\rho\sin\theta\left( \cos\theta-\sin\theta\right) \right]
}{\left\{ -\alpha(\nu)\cos\theta-\beta(\nu)\sin\theta+\rho\cos\theta\left[
(0.99)\cos\theta-\sin\theta\right] \right\} }\right) ,$$ together with some fundamental results on rotation numbers such as given in Hartman [@hartman], makes it possible to verify (iii); thereby completing the proof. $\blacksquare$
Cascading Hopf doubling bifurcations
------------------------------------
If one continues further along the lines of analysis of the behavior of the map $\hat{\Phi}_{\mu}$ in the proof of Theorem 4.1, a much more intricate sequence of bifurcations and dynamical properties emerges, which we shall just sketch here. We begin by keeping close tabs on the stability of the invariant curve $\Gamma_{\nu}$ as $\nu$ increases. A careful analysis of this locally attracting curve and the map, which we leave to the reader, reveals that there is a small $\nu_{1}>0$ beyond which the curve becomes locally repelling, and for which the main theorem of [@CB] applies. Accordingly a pair of new locally attracting, smooth Jordan curves emerge from a pitchfork bifurcation of $\Gamma_{\nu}$ - one interior to $\Gamma_{\nu}$, which we denote as $\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0)}$, and the other exterior to $\Gamma_{\nu}$, denoted as $\Gamma_{\nu}^{(1)}$, such that $\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0)}\cup\Gamma_{\nu}^{(1)}$ is $\hat{\Phi}_{\mu}$-invariant, with $\hat{\Phi}_{\mu}(\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0)})=\Gamma_{\nu}^{(1)}$ and $\hat{\Phi}_{\mu}(\Gamma_{\nu}^{(1)})=\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0)}$. In effect then, $\{\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0)},\Gamma_{\nu
}^{(1)}\}$ is a 2-cycle of sets. Thus we have a doubling bifurcation for one-dimensional closed smooth manifolds analogous to the beginning of a period doubling cascade for points (zero-dimensional manifolds) observed in such one-dimensional discrete dynamical systems as that of the logistic map.
One can actually show that this analog is complete, in that there is an infinite sequence of such stability shifting, smooth, invariant, Jordan curve doubling bifurcations that converge to an extremely complicated chaotic state. More specifically, there is a $\nu_{2}>\nu_{1}$ such that across this parameter value, each member of the pair $\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0)}$, $\Gamma_{\nu
}^{(1)}$ becomes locally repelling, and gives birth - via pitchfork bifurcation (*cf*. [@CB]) - to a pair of locally attracting, smooth Jordan curves, $\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0,0)},\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0,1)}$ and $\Gamma_{\nu
}^{(1,0)},\Gamma_{\nu}^{(1,1)}$, respectively. Furthermore, $\Gamma_{\nu
}^{(0,0)}$ ($\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0,1)}$) is in the interior (exterior) of $\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0)}$ and $\Gamma_{\nu}^{(1,0)}$ ($\Gamma_{\nu}^{(1,1)}$) is in the interior (exterior) of $\Gamma_{\nu}^{(1)}$, $\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0,0)}\cup\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0,1)}\cup\Gamma_{\nu}^{(1,0)}\cup\Gamma_{\nu}^{(1,1)}$ is $\hat{\Phi}_{\mu}$-invariant, with these four curves forming the 4-cycle $\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0,0)}\rightarrow\Gamma_{\nu}^{(1,0)}\rightarrow\Gamma_{\nu
}^{(0,1)}\rightarrow$ $\Gamma_{\nu}^{(1,1)}\rightarrow\Gamma_{\nu}^{(0,0)}$. This process continues *ad infinitum* to generate a bounded monotone increasing sequence of parameter values $\nu_{1}<\nu_{2}<\nu_{3}<\cdots$, with $\nu_{n}\rightarrow\nu_{\infty}<3$, with $\Phi_{\mu_{h}+\nu_{\infty}}$ exhibiting chaotic dynamics. Among the consequences of this cascade of bifurcations is that for $\mu\geq\mu_{h}+\nu_{\infty}$ there exists a closed, smooth, $\hat{\Phi}_{\mu}$-invariant curvilinear annulus $A$ that encloses the fixed point $p_{\ast}$ and contains an infinite number (with cardinality of the continuum) of smooth Jordan curves that can be partitioned into $n$-cycles, with $n$ ranging over the nonnegative integers, and naturally this annulus contains very intricate dynamics. We summarize this in the next result - illustrated in Fig. 3 for the Hopf bifurcation and Fig. 4 for the multiring configuration - whose proof we shall leave to the reader for now, although we plan to prove it in a more general form in a forthcoming paper. It is helpful to observe that it describes the discrete dynamical behavior embodied in the following paradigm represented in polar coordinates, with angular coordinate function similar to the circular map of Arnold [@VIA]:$$(r,\theta)\rightarrow\left( R,\Theta\right) ,$$ where$$\begin{aligned}
R & :=\left( \nu+1\right) r\left( 1-r\right) ,\\
\Theta & :=\theta+\frac{2\pi}{a+\nu}\left( 1+kr\sin\theta\right)
\;(\mathrm{mod\,}2\pi),\end{aligned}$$ and $a$ and $k$ are positive numbers.
**Theorem 4.2.** *Let* $\hat{\Phi}_{\nu}$ *be defined as* $\hat{\Phi}_{\mu_{h}+\nu}$. *There exists an increasing sequence* $0=\nu_{0}<\nu_{1}<\nu_{2}<\cdots\rightarrow\nu_{\infty}<3$* such that, in addition to the* $\hat{\Phi}_{\nu}$-*invariant smooth Jordan curve* $\Gamma_{\nu}$,* which exists for all* $\nu>\nu_{0}$,* and is locally attracting* $(\emph{repelling})$* for* $\nu_{0}<\nu<\nu_{1}$* *$(\nu>\nu_{1})$,* for each* $m\in\mathbb{N}$* and* $\nu>\nu_{m}$ *there is a* $2^{m}$-* cycle* $($*of sets that are smooth Jordan curves*$)$* of* $\hat{\Phi}_{\nu},$$$\mathcal{Z}_{m}:=\left\{ \Gamma_{\nu}^{i_{m}}:i_{m}\in\{0,1\}^{m}\right\}$$ * which is created from* $\mathcal{Z}_{m-1}$ *via pitchfork bifurcation, and is locally attracting* $($*repelling*$)$* for* $\nu_{m}<\nu<\nu_{m+1}$ $\emph{(}\nu>\nu_{m+1})$.* Furthermore,* $\hat{\Phi}_{\nu}^{2^{m}}$* restricted to any of the curves* $\Gamma_{\nu}^{i_{m}}$* is either ergodic or has periodic orbits according as the rotation number* $($*which varies continuously with* $\nu)$* is irrational or rational, respectively. Consequently,* $\hat{\Phi}_{\nu}$ *has periodic orbits of arbitrarily large period for infinitely many* $\nu$* in a small neighborhood of *$\nu_{\infty}$, *where it can also be shown to have chaotic orbits if* $\nu>\nu_{\infty}$*. Furthermore, for* $\nu\geq\nu_{\infty}$ *there is a closed, smooth,* $\hat{\Phi}_{\nu}$-*invariant annulus* $A$ * enclosing the fixed point* $p_{\ast}$, *which contains* $\Gamma_{\nu}$*, is locally attracting and is the minimal invariant set containing all the cycles* $\mathcal{Z}_{m}$.
The invariant, locally attracting annulus $A$ may not precisely qualify as a strange attractor, yet the intricacies of the dynamics it contains - including cycles of arbitrarily large period - deserves a special name such as a *pseudo-strange attractor*.
![Spiral attractor at interior fixed point ($\cong(0.5639, 0.3417)$) for $\lambda=0.99,\, \mu=4.5$. The initial point is $(x,y)=(0.564,0.342)$ and the eigenvalues are $\xi
\cong-0.3763\pm0.9171i$.[]{data-label="attractor"}](SpirAtt.eps){width="4.5in"}
![Hopf bifurcation at interior fixed point ($\cong(0.5639, 0.3417)$) for $\lambda=0.99,\,
\mu=4.5449$, with eigenvalues $\xi\cong-0.3889\pm0.9215i$. The initial points are $(x,y)=(0.555,0.340)$ and $(x,y)=(0.558,0.34)$.[]{data-label="Hopf"}](1Ring.eps){width="4.5in"}
![Multiring structure around interior fixed point ($\cong(0.5639, 0.3417)$) for $\lambda=0.99,\,
\mu=4.55$, with eigenvalues $\xi\cong-0.3903\pm0.922i$. The initial points are $(x,y)=(0.555,0.338)$ and $(x,y)=(0.43,0.38)$.[]{data-label="multiring"}](2Rings.eps){width="4.5in"}
Chaotic Dynamics and Instability
================================
As pointed out in Theorem 4.2, our model exhibits chaotic dynamics at the limit of the cascade of doubling bifurcations described therein. The proof of this limiting form of chaos turns out to be rather subtle and difficult, so we shall not go into it here. Instead, we shall prove the existence of chaotic regimes for higher parameter values using a fairly simple geometric argument based upon demonstrating that a sufficiently high power (iterate) of our model map exhibits Smale horseshoe-like behavior (see *e.g.* [@guho; @kathas; @palmel; @wigbook]), as illustrated in Fig. 5, and also heteroclinic cycles with transverse intersections (*cf*. [@db; @palmel; @wigbook]). We keep the value of $\lambda=0.99$, and set $\mu=5$, and summarize our main findings on chaos in the following result.
**Theorem 5.1.** *Let* $\Phi:=\Phi_{0.99,5}$. *Then there exist an* $N\in\mathbb{N}$ *and a region* $Q$* homeomorphic with a square that intersects the triangular domain* $T$, *and has the following properties depicted in Fig.* $5$:
- $F:=\Phi^{N}$ *maps* $Q$ *onto a pill shaped region, which contains the fixed point* $(1,0)$ *in its interior, lies along the vertical edge* $e_{v}$ *of* $T$*, has maximum* $y$ *value of* $0.22$*, and is of sufficient height to include the line segment from* $(1,0)$ *to* $(1,0.2)$ *in its interior.*
- $G:=\Phi^{N+1}$ *maps* $Q$ *along the curve described above in (B4) into a thin curved homeomorph* $\Phi(F(Q))$ *of a square that just crosses the diagonal edge* $e_{d}$ *of* $T$ *in the interior of the unit square.*
- $H:=\Phi^{N+2}=\Phi\circ G$ *maps* $Q$ *into a stretched and folded homeomorph of* $Q$ *that (transversely) intersects* $Q$ *in a disjoint pair of curvilinear rectangles in a horseshoe-like fashion.*
*Consequently,* $Q$ *contains a compact invariant set* $\Lambda$ *on which* $H$ *is topologically conjugate to a shift map* $($*or equivalently,* $\Phi$ * is topologically conjugate to a subshift*$),$* which implies that* $\Phi$ *generates chaotic dynamics in* $Q\cap\Lambda$*, including a dense orbit and cycles of arbitrarily large period.*
*Proof*. We begin our proof with a disk $D$ with an elliptical boundary having its center at $(0.95,0.1)$, semimajor axis length equal to $0.13$ and semiminor axis length equal to $0.075$. Then it follows from the properties of the model map delineated in (B1)-(B5) above that there exist a sufficiently large positive integer $N$ and a diffeomorph of $D$, which we denote as $Q$, such that $\Phi^{-N}(D)=Q$, where $Q$ contains the horizontal edge $e_{h}$ of $T$ as shown in Fig. 5(a). Observe here that $\Phi$ restricted to $e_{h}$ is a doubling map taking the left vertex into the right vertex, which is symmetric with respect to $x=1/2$, so the inverse notation in this definition must be viewed in the set theoretical preimage context. Nevertheless, $Q$ satisfies $F(Q):=\Phi^{N}(Q)=D$.
Next, we consider the image of $D$ under $\Phi$; namely, $\Phi(D)=\Phi\left(
F(Q)\right) =G(Q)$, which is illustrated in Fig. 5(b). To see that this is an accurate depiction of the image, first observe that for the point $(1,0.2)$ lying in the interior of $D$ near its highest point, we have $\Phi
(1,0.2)=(0.8,0.8)$, which lies on the diagonal edge $e_{d}$ of $T$. Moreover, the fixed point $(1,0)$ is also an interior point of $D$, but one that lies near its lowest point. Accordingly in virtue of the properties of $\Phi$ - in particular (B4) - the shape of $\Phi(D)$ must be that of the thickened version of part of the parabolic curve described in (B4) and must slightly overlap $e_{d}$ around the point $(0.8,0.8)$, just as depicted in Fig. 5(a).
In order to obtain the desired horseshoe-like behavior, another application of $\Phi$ is required; that is, we need to describe $\Phi^{2}(D)=\Phi\left(
G(Q)\right) =H(Q)$. Taking into account the overall definition of the map, property (B3), and the fact that $\Phi(0.8,0.8)=(0.2016,0)$, it is clear that Fig. 4(c) is a rather accurate rendering of the region $H(Q)$, which intersects $Q$ in a fairly typical horseshoe type set comprised of two approximately rectangular components. With this geometric representation of $Q$ and its image $H(Q)$ in hand, we can describe the key fractal component $\Lambda$ of nonwandering set $\Omega$ of $H$ (and *a fortiori*, $\Phi$) and the topological conjugacy of the restriction of $H$ on $\Lambda$, which we denote as $h$, to a shift map on doubly-infinite binary sequences in essentially the usual way (*cf*. [@guho; @kathas; @palmel; @wigbook]), modulo a minor alteration necessitated by the fact that $\Phi$ fails to injective on some subsets of $T$.
It remains to describe the alteration and the final steps in defining $\Lambda$ and establishing the topological conjugacy between $h:\Lambda
\rightarrow\Lambda$ and the shift map $\sigma:2^{\mathbb{Z}}\rightarrow
2^{\mathbb{Z}}$, where $2^{\mathbb{Z}}:=\{0,1\}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ - the space of all doubly-infinite binary sequences $\ldots a_{-2}a_{-1}a_{0}a_{1}a_{2}\ldots$with $a_{i}=0$ or $1$. To this end, we define $C_{\ell}$ and $C_{r}$ to be the left and right components of $H(Q)\cap Q$, respectively, as shown in Fig. 5(c), and observe that $C_{\ell}\subset Q_{l}:=Q\cap\{(x,y):x<2/5\}$ and $C_{r}\subset Q_{r}^{+}:=\left( Q\cap\{(x,y):x>3/5\}\right) \cup D$. It follows readily from the definition and properties of $\Phi$ delineated in Section 2 that by making $Q$ more slender and $N$, larger, if necessary, $\Phi$ maps $Q_{\ell}$ and $Q_{r}^{+}$ diffeomorphically onto their images, with $\Phi\left( Q_{\ell}\right) ,\Phi\left( Q\cap\{(x,y):x>3/5\}\right)
\subset$ $\{(x,y):x>3/5\}$. In addition, possibly after another shrinking of $Q$ and increase of $N$, we may assume that the iterated sets $\{C_{\ell},\Phi^{m}\left( C_{\ell}\right) \cap Q_{r}^{+}:m\in\mathbb{N}\}$ are pairwise disjoint. We denote the restriction of $\Phi$ to $Q_{\ell}$ and $Q_{r}$ by $\Phi_{\ell}$ and $\Phi_{r}$, respectively. Furthermore, $C_{\ell}$ is the diffeomorphic image of a disjoint set $C_{\ell}^{-1}$ ($=\Phi_{\ell
}^{-1}(C_{\ell})$) under $\Phi$, which intersects the edge $e_{d}$, and $C_{\ell}^{-1}$ is, in turn, the diffeomorphic image under $\Phi_{r}$ of a set $C_{\ell}^{-2}$ ($=\Phi_{r}^{-1}(C_{\ell}^{-1})$) contained in $D=\Phi^{N}(Q)$.
We can now define a unique inverse on $\Lambda\subset C_{\ell}\cup C_{r}$ - a set to be defined in this last phase of our proof. As $H^{-1}=\Phi^{-1}\circ\Phi^{-1}\circ\cdots\circ\Phi^{-1}$ ($N$ factors), it remains to select the proper branch of each of the factors in this composition so as to prescribe $H^{-1}$ unambiguously. It is easy to see that this is accomplished as follows: set$$\Phi_{\ast}^{-1}\left( x,y\right) :=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}\Phi_{\ell}^{-1}(x,y), & \left( x,y\right) \in C_{\ell}\cup\Phi_{\ell
}\left( C_{\ell}\right) \\
\Phi_{r}^{-1}(x,y) & (x,y)\in C_{\ell}^{-1}\cup\left( Q_{r}^{+}\smallsetminus\Phi_{\ell}\left( C_{\ell}\right) \right)
\end{array}
\right. ,$$ and$$H^{-1}:=\Phi_{\ast}^{-1}\circ\Phi_{\ast}^{-1}\circ\cdots\circ\Phi_{\ast}^{-1}\quad(N\text{ factors}),$$ and define $$\Lambda:=Q\cap\left[
{\displaystyle\bigcap\nolimits_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}}
H^{m}\left( H(Q)\cap Q\right) \right] .$$ It is easy to verify that $\Lambda$ is a compact, $H$-invariant set, which is homeomorphic with the cartesian product of a pair of 2-component Cantor sets that , in turn, is homeomorphic with $2^{\mathbb{Z}}$ employing the standard topologies. Then the restriction $h:=H_{\mid\Lambda}$ can be shown to be topologically conjugate to the shift map in the usual way (such as in [@guho; @palmel; @wigbook]), thereby completing the proof. $\blacksquare$
We note here that the existence of chaotic regimes described in Theorem 5.1 could also have been demonstrated following a more detailed analysis of the iterates along the lines of the above proof - revealing both transverse homoclinic points of periodic points and transverse heteroclinic points of branches of heteroclinic cycles of periodic points, both of which imply the existence of chaos (as shown or indicated in [@db; @guho; @kathas; @palmel; @wigbook]). The chaotic case (with its characteristic splattering effect) is depicted in Fig. 6, which shows the iterates corresponding to three initial points selected near $(1,0)$. Note the accumulation of points near $(0.85,0)$, $(0.7,0.6)$, $(0.4,0.4)$ and $(0.35,0)$, which are near the set $\Lambda$ and its images under $\Phi$, as described above. Three initial points were used in order to get a reasonable representation of the chaotic iterates because of the sensitivity (associated with chaos) of the system and the limits of computing accuracy.
![Horseshoe-like behavior of map for $\lambda=0.99,\, \mu=5$: (a) Domain and first stage of geometric image of iterated map; (b) Second stage focusing on stretching and nascent folding; and (c) Final stage of horseshoe configuration[]{data-label="ffchaos"}](ffchaos.eps){width="5.5in"}
![Chaotic orbits about interior fixed point ($\cong(0.5569, 0.3569)$) for $\lambda=0.99,\, \mu=4.55$, with eigenvalues $\xi\cong-0.5144\pm0.9596i$. The three initial points were taken very close to $(1,0)$[]{data-label="chaos"}](CHAOS.eps){width="4.5in"}
Comparison with Physical Models
===============================
Our purpose in this section is to show that our discrete dynamical model shares many properties with actual physical realizations (and their associated mathematical models) of the *R*-*S* flip-flop circuit. Among the several physically based studies of flip-flop type circuit behavior, which includes the work in [@Chaney; @Danca; @KA; @kac; @LMH; @Moser; @msd; @okt; @rzw; @ztkbn], perhaps the best source of comparison is provided by the investigation of Okazaki *et* *al*. [@okt], so this shall be our focus here. We shall also provide additional numerical simulation illustrations of the behavior of the orbits of our system to further highlight the areas of agreement between our dynamical model and that of [@okt].
The approach in [@okt] is quite different from ours. Okazaki and his collaborators start with a physical realization of an *R*-*S* flip-flop circuit using two capacitors, one inductor, one linear resistor, one DC battery and a pair of piecewise linear resistors comprised of tunnel diodes. They then derive the state equations for their circuit (hereafter referred to as the OKT system), which is a system of three first-order, piecewise linear ordinary differential equations in two dependent voltage and one dependent current variable, and depends on several parameters associated with the various electrical elements in the circuit. In their study they find numerical solutions of this system of equations using a Runge-Kutta scheme, which they compare with data collected directly from the physical circuit using fairly standard electronic measuring and representation devices. They find that the dynamical behavior deduced from numerical simulation of their system of differential equations is in very good agreement with that observed experimentally from the physical circuit. This behavior includes Hopf bifurcation and chaotic dynamics for certain ranges of their parameters , which of course we have also observed and actually proved for our discrete dynamical model.
More specifically, they deduce - mainly by observing the phase space behavior of their numerical solutions - that there is a certain parameter value where their system develops a Hopf bifurcation on a center manifold, followed, as the parameter increases, by what appears to be a sequence of Hopf bifurcations on the periodic orbits generated. This, of course, is consistent with the qualitative behavior for our model described in Theorems 4.1 and 5.1, and illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4. Moreover, although there are one-dimensional but no two-dimensional Poincaré sections studied in [@okt], several projections of phase space structure on the two-dimensional voltage coordinate plane, which are at least indicative of Poincaré map behavior on this plane, have a striking similarity to the ring structure delineated in Theorem 5.1. Thus, there appears to be considerable qualitative agreement in the dynamical behavior of our model and the OKT system for parameter values nearly up to but just below those producing full-blown chaos.
Chaotic dynamics for the OKT system [@okt] is inferred primarily by numerical computation of Lyapunov exponents, analysis of approximate one-dimensional Poincaré sections, and observation of very complicated, ostensibly random outputs in the experimental monitors. The projections onto the voltage coordinate planes also have a somewhat chaotic appearance, with a complicated looking tangle of orbits attached to and partially surrounding the ring configuration mentioned above. Comparing this with the dynamics in the examples pictured in Fig. 5 and 6, which shows ring configurations and the tell-tale splatter (around the rings and concentrated near the fixed point) associated with chaotic discrete dynamics, we have additional qualitative validation for our model.
Concluding Remarks
==================
In this investigation we have introduced and analyzed a rather simple discrete dynamical model for the *R*-*S* flip-flop circuit, which is based upon the iterates of a two-parameter family of planar, quadratic maps. We proved that for certain parameter ranges, the dynamics of our model exhibits the qualitative behavior expected in and observed for physical realizations of the logical *R*-*S* flip-flop circuit such as Hopf bifurcations and chaotic responses including oscillatory outputs of arbitrarily large periods concentrated around states corresponding to nearly equal set and reset inputs. In addition, we indicated how the dynamics of our model displays fascinating complexity - as the parameters are varied - generated by cascading bifurcations of stability transferring, doublings of invariant collections of curves encircling a single equilibrium state, which produce extremely intricate orbit structures.
Not being satisfied with the fact that the interesting variety of complex dynamical structures produced by our model is certainly interesting from a purely mathematical perspective, we undertook a more comprehensive validation by comparing our results with the numerically simulated and experimentally observed characteristics of a fairly standard realization of an *R*-*S* flip-flop circuit comprised of linear elements such as inductors and capacitors and piecewise linear components consisting of tunnel diodes. We found that the qualitative agreement between the dynamics of our model and that of physical realization is surprisingly good. Notwithstanding this very favorable comparison, we are aware that it may be largely fortuitous. After all, our model is formulated in an essentially *ad hoc* manner that relies heavily on intuition and a desire to obtain the simplest maps producing the kinds of dynamics known to be exhibited in working *R*-*S* flip-flop circuits. Consequently, we are in the near future going to revisit this logical circuit and investigate others of its kind using a much more direct, first principles oriented approach along the lines of the work of Danca [@Danca] and Hamill *et al*. [@hdj]. Of course, it would be particularly satisfying if we are able to show that such an approach produces essentially the same discrete model for the *R*-*S* flip-flop circuit investigated here, which is something that we expect but naturally remains to be seen. We also intend to formulate and prove a generalized version of Theorem 5.1, which we expect to have numerous applications in our envisaged program of developing discrete dynamical models for a host of logical circuits.
[99]{}
V. Arnold, Small denominators, I: mappings of the circumference into itself, *AMS Transl. Ser. 2* **46** (1965), 213-284.
D. Blackmore, New models for chaotic dynamics, *Regular & Chaotic Dynamics* **10** (2005), 307-321.
J. Champanerkar and D. Blackmore, Pitchfork bifurcations of invariant manifolds, *Topology and Its Applications* **154** (2007), 1650-1663.
T. Chaney, A note on synchronizer and interlock maloperation, *IEEE Trans. Computers* **C-28** (1979), 802-804.
L. Chua, Chua’s circuit: Ten years later, *IEICE Trans. Fundamentals* **E77-A** (1994), 1811-1821.
L. Chua, C.-W. Wu, A. Huang and G.-Q. Zhong, A universal circuit for studying and generating chaos - Part II: Strange attractors, *IEEE Trans. Circuits & Systems* **40** (1993), 745-761.
M. D’Amico, J. Moiola and E. Paolini, Hopf bifurcation in discrete-time systems via a frequency domain approach, *Proc. IEEE COC Conf*., St. Petersburg, Russia, 2000, pp. 290-293.
M-F. Danca, Numerical approximation of a class of switch dynamical systems, *Chaos, Solitons & Fractals* **38** (2008), 184-191.
J. Guckenheimer and P. Holmes, *Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems, and Bifurcations of Vector Fields*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983.
D. Hamill, J. Deane and D. Jeffries, Modeling of chaotic DC/DC converters by iterated nonlinear maps, *IEEE Trans. Power Electron*. **7** (1992), 25-36.
D. Hamill, Learning about chaotic circuits with SPICE, *IEEE Trans. Education* **36** (1993), 28-35.
P. Hartman, *Ordinary Differential Equations*, $2^{nd}$ *ed*., Birkhäuser, New York, 1982.
G. Ioos and D. Joseph, *Elementary Stability and Bifurcation Theory*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981.
T. Kacprzak and A. Albicki, Analysis of metastable operation in *RS* CMOS flip-flop, *IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits* **SC-22** (1987), 57-64.
T. Kacprzak, Analysis of oscillatory metastable operation of *RS* flip-flop, *IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits* **23** (1988), 260-266.
A. Katok and B. Hasselblatt, *Introduction to the Modern Theory of Dynamical Systems*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
G. Lacroix, P. Marchegay and N. Al Hossri, Prediction of flip-flop behavior in metastable state, *Electron. Lett*. **16** (1980), 725-726.
J. Marsden and M. McCracken, *The Hopf Bifurcation and Its Applications*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1976.
J. Moser, Bistable systems of differential equations with applications to tunnel diode circuits, *IBM J. Res. Dev*. **5** (1961), 226-240.
K. Murali, S. Sinha and W. Ditto, Implementation of a nor gate by a chaotic Chua’s circuit, *Int. J. Bifurcation and Chaos* **13** (2003), 2669-2672.
H. Okazaki, H. Nakano and T. Kawase, Chaotic and bifurcation behavior in an autonomous flip-flop circuit used by piecewise linear tunnel diodes, *IEEE Proc. ?*, 1998, III-291 - III-297.
J. Palis and W. de Melo, *Geometric Theory of Dynamical Systems*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982.
M. Ruzbehani, L. Zhou and M. Wang, Bifurcation features of a dc-dc converter under current-mode control, *Chaos, Solitons & Fractals* **28** (2006), 205-212.
Y.H. Wan, Computations of the stability condition for the Hopf bifurcation of diffeomorphisms on $\mathbb{R}^{2}$, *SIAM J. Appl. Math*. **34** (1978), 167-175.
G. Wan, D. Xu and X. Han, On creation of Hopf bifurcations in discrete-time nonlinear systems, *CHAOS* **12** (2002), 350-355.
S. Wiggins, *Introduction to Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Chaos*, *2*$^{nd}$* ed*., Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003.
A. Zorin, E. Tolkacheva, M. Khabipov, F.-I. Buchholz and J. Niemeyer, Dynamics of Josephson junctions and single-flux-quantum networks with superconductor-normal-metal junction shunts, *Phys. Rev. B* **74** (2006), 014508.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Causal discovery algorithms allow for the inference of causal structures from probabilistic relations of random variables. A natural field for the application of this tool is quantum mechanics, where a long-standing debate about the role of causality in the theory has flourished since its early days. In this paper, a causal discovery algorithm is applied in the search for causal models to describe a quantum version of Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment. The outputs explicitly show the restrictions for the introduction of classical concepts in this system. The exclusion of models with two hidden variables is one of them. A consequence of such a constraint is the impossibility to construct a causal model that avoids superluminal causation and assumes an objective view of the wave and particle properties simultaneously.'
author:
- 'R. Rossi Jr.'
title: Restrictions for the Causal Inferences in an Interferometric System
---
The search for stable connections that explain the correlation between two events is the main goal of natural science. A simple indication, based on statistical results, that event B will follow event A is not enough to fulfill one’s scientific expectations. Causal relations are required to assure the persistence of the conjunction A-B, and their robustness allows us to construct theories with predictive power.
Recently, a formal approach for causal relations, developed as a result of contributions from different fields (statistics, philosophy, and computer science) was summarized in [@pearl; @spirtes]. The mathematical formalism of the theory promoted a revolutionary development in investigations about counterfactuals, interventions, and the inferences of causal models from statistical data. In this theory, causal structure is represented by a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), which is composed of nodes and directed edges connecting those nodes. The acyclicity certifies that no paths in the graph begin and end at the same node. The nodes represent variables of the system to be model and the directed edges are associated with the causal connections between those variables. This formalism has attracted much attention from different areas [@dif1; @dif2; @dif3]. The role of causality in quantum systems has been a theme of discussions since the early days of quantum theory. Hence, the application of the new formalism of causality in the context of quantum mechanics is of great interest [@art6; @art7; @art8; @art9; @art10; @art11; @art111; @art112; @art12; @art13].
In this approach of causality, strategies to infer causal models from statistical data are known as causal discovery algorithms (a brief summary is given in the appendix). In Ref. [@art13], the authors investigate the possibility of inferring a causal structure for the correlations that have emerged from an entangled system. They show that the algorithm can not distinguish correlations that violate Bell inequalities from correlations that satisfy them. They also show that the possible candidates of causal structures that would describe the correlations of the entangled system have to infringe one of the basic principles of these algorithms; the stability assumption, which states that “an observed statistical independence between variables should not be explained by fine-tuning of the causal parameters”[@art13].
When applied to quantum systems, causal discovery algorithms allow us to explicitly show the restrictions on inferences of causal relations. Such inferences are usually motivated by our classical intuitions, and the debate about causal inferences involving hidden variables is usually present in the literature of Bell inequality. In [@Ionicioiu2], the authors conduct the discussion about causality and hidden variables in a different system; a quantum version of Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment. In this context, the hidden variables are considered as a possible cause of the wave-like or particle-like behavior of photons in the experiment. The authors show that, in this system, an objective view of the wave and particle properties using hidden variables is not consistent. This setup was implemented experimentally in [@art1; @art2; @art3; @art4; @art5].
In Ref.[@Ionicioiu1], the authors present an extension of the system studied in [@Ionicioiu2]. The system in [@Ionicioiu1] is composed of a photon that goes through a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) with a removable second beamsplitter (BS2) controlled by a quantum device described by a qubit $q_{b}$. The states of a qubit $q_{a}$ correspond to the two exits of the interferometer. A third subsystem is included; the qubit $q_{c}$ prepared in an entangled state with $q_{b}$. With the inclusion of the entanglement between $q_{b}$ and $q_{c}$, the authors considered a second hidden variable, independent of the first one, that allows for an analysis that shows the incompatibility between determinism, wave–particle objectivity, and local independence in the interferometric system.
In the present paper a causal discovery algorithm is applied to the system presented in Ref.[@Ionicioiu1]. The algorithm explicitly reveals the restrictions over the possible causal assumptions that can be inferred for this system. As an output, the algorithm yields groups of possible causal structures that depend on the detection of the ordering of the qubits ($q_{a}$, $q_{b}$ and $q_{c}$). The analysis of these groups shows the restrictions regarding the causal assumptions. One of the restriction is the impossibility of constructing a causal structure with two hidden variables for this system, and this precludes the existence of a causal model that avoids superluminal causation and assumes an objective view of the wave and particle properties simultaneously.
The causal discovery algorithm allows us to critically analyze the theory of hidden variables. In Ref.[@Ionicioiu1], contradictions between the predictions of quantum mechanics and of a hidden variable theory are also shown. However, the strategies used and the main results are different from the ones reported here. In Ref.[@Ionicioiu1], the authors show that the quantum mechanical probability distribution cannot result from the probability distribution given by the hidden variable theory that assumes wave–particle objectivity, local independence, and determinism. Here, the causal structures that conform with the correlations given in the interferometric system are investigated through the application of a causal discovery algorithm. Some of these causal structures, given as outputs of the algorithm, have hidden variables. Therefore, the analysis of these outputs gives us the information about the role played by hidden variables i.e., to which variables can they be connected to, how many of them can be used in the model, etc.
The causal structures obtained here, from the algorithm are in accordance with the negative result deduced in [@Ionicioiu1]. However, no reference to determinism is necessary here. As it will be shown, the causal structures given by the algorithm do not allow the presence of two hidden variables. The assumption of local independence and wave–particle objectivity considered in [@Ionicioiu1], demanded the existence of one hidden variable associated with the photon ($q_{a}$) and a second one associated with the subsystem $q_{b}-q_{c}$. Therefore, a consequence of the algorithm applied in the interferometric system is that no causal structure can simultaneously fulfill the conditions of local independence and wave–particle objectivity, and no deterministic assumption is needed to obtain this negative result. This comparison shows how causal discovery algorithm allows for new insights in the analysis of the theories on hidden variables in quantum mechanics.
For a causal discovery algorithm, the input is a set of conditional independence relations held among the variables of interest. We define the variables $A$, $B$, and $C$, corresponding to the measurement results of $q_{a}$, $q_{b}$, and $q_{c}$, respectively. The states of $q_{a}$: $|0\rangle_{A}$ and $|1\rangle_{A}$ represent the exits of the interfrometer. $q_{b}$: $|0\rangle_{B}$ and $|1\rangle_{B}$ describe the absence and presence of the second beamsplitter, respectively. In the experimental implementation proposed in [@Ionicioiu1], $q_{b}$ and $q_{c}$ are also photons and $|0\rangle$ ($|1\rangle$) represents absence (presence) of a photon in the channel $B$ or $C$. Fig.1 shows the quantum circuit diagrams for this setup. The qubit $q_{c}$ can be rotated before detection in $D_{C}$.
![Quantum circuit diagrams for the setup proposed in Ref.[@Ionicioiu1].](fig1 "fig:")\
The initial state of the global system is given by:
$$|\psi_{0}\rangle = |0\rangle_{A}\left(\sqrt{\eta}|0\rangle_{B}|0\rangle_{C} + \sqrt{1-\eta}|1\rangle_{B}|1\rangle_{C}\right),$$
where $\eta$ is a parameter that regulates the entanglement between $q_{b}$ and $q_{c}$.
The state just before the measurements can be written as:
$$\begin{aligned}
|\psi\rangle &=& \left(\sqrt{\eta}\cos(\alpha)|p\rangle_{A}|0\rangle_{B} + \sqrt{1-\eta}\sin(\alpha)|\omega\rangle_{A}|1\rangle_{B}\right)|0\rangle_{C}\notag\\
&-&\left(\sqrt{\eta}\sin(\alpha)|p\rangle_{A}|0\rangle_{B} + \sqrt{1-\eta}\cos(\alpha)|\omega\rangle_{A}|1\rangle_{B}\right)|1\rangle_{C}\label{vstate} ,\end{aligned}$$
where $\alpha$ is a parameter related to the rotation that $q_{c}$ undergoes before the measurement. The particle-like state and the wave-like state are given by $|p\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle + e^{i\phi}|1\rangle)$ and $|\omega\rangle=\e^{i\phi / 2 }(\cos(\phi/2)|0\rangle - i\sin(\phi/2)|1\rangle)$ respectively.
Two variables $X$ and $Y$ are considered conditionally independent given $Z$ if one of the equivalent condition is fulfilled:
$$\begin{aligned}
P(X|Y,Z)&=&P(X|Z)\notag\\
P(Y|X,Z)&=&P(Y|Z)\notag\\
P(X,Y|Z)&=&P(X|Z)P(Y|Z) \label{cond}\end{aligned}$$
We denote the conditional independence between $X$ and $Y$, given $Z$ as $X\perp\!\!\!\perp Y | Z$.
From the conditions given in eq.(\[cond\]), where the probabilities can be calculated from the state in eq.(\[vstate\]), one can obtain the set of conditional independence relations for the qubits $q_{a}$, $q_{b}$, and $q_{c}$. The results of this calculation are the relations: $A\perp\!\!\!\perp C | B$ and $C\perp\!\!\!\perp A | B$ (the second can be inferred from the first using the semi-graphoid axioms [@pearl]).
Using the relation $A\perp\!\!\!\perp C | B$ as an input for the algorithm IC\* presented in [@pearl], the output returned is the pattern shown in Fig.2, where the undirected edge with a circle at both extremities represents any of the five possibilities shown in Fig. 3.
\
\
The IC\* algorithm eliminates combinations that create a new v-structure. The v-structure in a DAG is defined as a collision between two heads on one node, making this node a common effect of the two variables that do not exert any direct causal influence on one another. With the elimination of these configurations, the causal structures returned by the IC\* algorithm are shown in Figs. 4, 5, and 6. They are separated in groups according to the ordering of the variables. The experimental proposal in [@Ionicioiu1] uses photons generated from parametric down-conversion. The ordering of detections can be controlled by optical delays in the photon arms.
\
\
\
*The Results*
As IC\* algorithm selects causal structures that do not create new v-structures, it is not possible to have causal structures with two hidden variables for this system. If two hidden variables ($\lambda$ and $\mu$) were considered, the first ($\lambda$), a common cause of the variables $A$ and $B$ and the second ($\mu$) , a common cause of $B$ and $C$, the variable $B$ would be a common effect of $\lambda$ and $\mu$. Therefore, conditioning on $B$ would induce a dependence between $\lambda$ and $\mu$, as these hidden variables are correlated with $A$ and $C$ respectively, it would also induce a dependence between $A$ and $C$ conditioned on $B$, contradicting the relation $A\perp\!\!\!\perp C | B$.
In the interferometric system of reference [@Ionicioiu1], the space-like separation between the subsystem $q_{a}-q_{b}$ and the qubit $q_{c}$ is considered. Therefore, to avoid superluminal causation, it is necessary to assume the hidden variable $\mu$ in the causal structure to describe the correlation between $B$ and $C$. On the other hand, an objective view of the wave and particle properties that require each photon $A$ to have the intrinsic characteristic of being a particle or a wave also demands the existence of a hidden variable $\lambda$. In order for the photons $q_{a}$ to have unchanged properties (during their lifetime), the correlation between $A$ and $B$ cannot be considered as being directly caused by $B$, for it would mean that detections of $q_{b}$ would define the nature of the photons $q_{a}$. This interdiction of causal link $B \longrightarrow A$ was already present in the Classic Delayed Choice experiment, where the definition of whether or not to insert the second beamsplitter was taken after the photon enters the interferometer (the variable $B$ was determined by a QRNG in the classic setup). This directed causal connection would contradict the objective view of the wave and particle properties of the photon. Therefore, to maintain this objective view, one must consider a second hidden variable $\lambda$. In conclusion, to avoid superluminal causation and to assume the objective view of the wave and particle properties, one must consider two hidden variables. The first one ($\mu$) as a common cause of $B$ and $C$ and the second one ($\lambda$) as a common cause of $A$ and $B$. However, the application of IC\* algorithm in the present system does not give causal models with two hidden variables as an output. Therefore, a conclusion from the IC\* algorithm is that it is not possible to construct a causal model for this system that avoids superluminal causation and assumes an objective view of the wave and particle properties simultaneously.
For the ordering $C<B<A$, there is no causal structure with the hidden variable $\lambda$ (the common cause of $A$ and $B$). In this ordering, $A$ is directly caused by $B$, and there is no possibility to consider an objective view of the wave and particle properties even when superluminal causation is assumed (when $C$ is a direct cause of $B$). This result is also a consequence of the limitation impose by IC\* algorithm regarding causal structure that creates new v-structures. If $\lambda$ was included, $B$ would be a common effect of $\lambda$ and $C$, which are variables that do not exert any direct causal influence on one another.
In the ordering $A<B<C$, superluminal causation ($B$ is a direct cause of $C$) is assumed in all causal structures. The inclusion of $\mu$ (common cause between $B$ and $C$) would create new v-structures.
For the ordering $A<C<B$ and $C<A<B$, there are no causal structures according to the IC\* algorithm. In the present system, $B$ can not be a common effect because every causal structure in which $B$ is a common effect necessarily includes a new v-structure.
To summarize, in this paper, a contribution to the debate about the role of causality in quantum mechanics is presented. A recently developed mathematical tool, namely, the causal discovery algorithm is applied in the search for causal models to describe the quantum system presented in ref.[@Ionicioiu1]. As an output, the algorithm gives causal structures for each ordering of the detections of the variables. It is shown that no causal structure with two hidden variables is allowed for this quantum system, and a consequence of such constraint is the impossibility of constructing a causal model for this system that avoids superluminal causation and assumes an objective view of the wave and particle properties simultaneously.
Causal Models and Causal Discovery Algorithms
=============================================
In this section a brief summary of the theory of causal models and causal discovery algorithms is given. For further details see references [@pearl; @spirtes].
*Causal Models*
A causal model is composed of a set of statistical parameters $\Theta$ and a casual structure. The set $\Theta$ specifies the probability distribution for the variable that describe the system, and the causal structure can be represented as a directed acyclic graph (DAG) that indicates the causal connections among the variables.
Let us start by analyzing the relation between probability distribution calculation and DAGs. Consider a system composed of $n$ variables $\{X_{1},...,X_{n}\}$. The calculation of the joint probability $P(X_{1},...,X_{n})$ demands a table with $2^{n}$ entries. Using the chain rule of probability theory, one can write the joint probability as a product of each of their conditional probabilities:
$$P(X_{1},...,X_{n})=\prod_{j}P(X_{j}|X_{1},...,X_{j-1}),$$
where $\{X_{1},...,X_{j-1}\}$ are the predecessors of $X_{j}$. If the conditional probability of $X_{j}$ depends only on a subset ($Pa(X_{j})$) of its predecessors, the joint probability can be written in a simpler form given by:
$$P(X_{1},...,X_{n})=\prod_{j}P(X_{j}|Pa(X_{j})),$$
the variables in the set $Pa(X_{j})$ are called parents (or Markovian parents) of $X_{j}$.
The relations among the variables and their parents can be represented by a DAG, which is composed of directed edges connecting the nodes. In a DAG, nodes represent the variables and the directed edges correspond to connections among them. The connection between a variable and its parent is represented by an arrow form the parent to the variable. The acyclicity certifies that no paths in the graph begin and end at the same node.
In the section 1.2 of Ref.[@pearl], it is shown that a necessary and sufficient condition for a probability distribution P to be represented by a DAG G is: every variable ($X_{j}$) should be independent of all its nondescendants ($Nd(X_{j})$), conditional on its parents ($Pa(X_{j})$). This condition is called *Markov Condition*, and can be written as $X_{j}\perp\!\!\!\perp Nd(X_{j}) | Pa(X_{j})$.
The interpretation of the DAGs as causal structures forms the basis of the causal model theory. In this interpretation, every parent-child connection in the DAG is a causal relation. In this context, from the analysis of a DAG, one can know the conditional independence relations associated to the probability distribution that correspond to the DAG. However, in usual scenarios of natural science, the conditional independence relations are known and the goal of the research is to obtain the causal structure that yields these relations. The tools developed in the theory of causal models that give a systematic treatment of this search are the causal discovery algorithms.
*Causal Discovery Algorithms*
In this section, two principles of the causal discovery algorithms are highlighted: stability and minimality. Different causal structures can produce the same probability distribution, and consequently the same conditional independence relations. However, assuming the principles of stability and minimality, one can restrict the number of causal structures that correspond to a given probability distribution.
A causal structure is considered to be stable if its explanation for the conditional independence relations is robust to changes in the statistical parameters represented by $\Theta$. Stability is essential to assure that the probability distribution is defined by a causal structure and not by a specific configuration of parameters (fine-tuning). Therefore, the causal structures selected by the causal discovery algorithms exclude models based on fine-tuning.
The assumption of minimality results in the selection of the most simple causal structure that explains the conditional independence relations. To understand the criteria of simplicity, consider two causal models $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ associated with the same set of variables. If one can always find a set of statistical parameters $\theta_{2}$ that makes $M_{2}$ reproduce every probability distribution of the observed variables provided by $M_{1}$, and the contrary is not true, we say that $M_{1}$ is simpler than $M_{2}$. A simpler model is more falsifiable, therefore, it can be submitted to greater number of experimental tests. Causal models that are more falsifiable and succeed in all experimental tests are more trustable than less falsifiable models. Hence, accordingly, the causal discovery algorithms select the most simple causal structures.
As a consequence of these assumptions, the algorithm gives the output shown in Fig.2, with no connections between the variables $A$ and $C$ (that would be only possible with fine-tuning) and with the 5 possible connections (shown in Fig.3) between $A-B$ and $B-C$.
[22]{}
J. Pearl, *Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference* 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2009).
P. Spirtes , C. N. Glymour and R. Scheines *Causation, Prediction, and Search* 2nd edn Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (2001)
G. Ver Steeg and A. Galstyan, A sequence of relaxations constraining hidden variable models, in Proceedings of the 27th conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (2011).
N. Wermuth and S. L. Lauritzen, Graphical and recursive models for contingency tables, Biometrika, 70, 537 (1983)
N. Friedman, Inferring cellular networks using probabilistic graphical models, Science 303, 799–805 (2004).
F. Costa and S. Shrapnel, Quantum causal modelling, New Journal of Physics 18, 063032 (2016).
T. Fritz, “Beyond bell’s theorem: correlation scenarios,” New J. Phys. 14, 103001 (2012).
M. S. Leifer and R. W. Spekkens, Towards a formulation of quantum theory as a causally neutral theory of bayesian inference, Phys. Rev. A 88, 052130 (2013).
R. Chaves, Christian Majenz, and David Gross, Information–theoretic implications of quantum causal structures, Nat. Commun. 6, 5766 (2015).
J. Pienaar and Caslav Brukner, “A graph-separation theorem for quantum causal models,” New J. Phys. 17, 073020 (2015).
C. Budroni, Nikolai Miklin, and Rafael Chaves, Indistinguishability of causal relations from limited marginals, Phys. Rev. A 94, 042127 (2016).
Tobias Fritz, Beyond bell’s theorem ii: Scenarios with arbitrary causal structure, Communications in Mathematical Physics 341, 391–434 (2016).
Katja Ried, Megan Agnew, Lydia Vermeyden, Dominik Janzing, Robert W Spekkens, and Kevin J Resch, A quantum advantage for inferring causal structure, Nature Physics 11, 414 (2015).
R. Chaves, Polynomial Bell Inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 010402 (2016).
C. J Wood and R. W Spekkens, The lesson of causal discovery algorithms for quantum correlations: causal explanations of Bell-inequality violations require fine-tuning, New Journal of Physics,17, 033002 (2015).
Ionicioiu, R. and Terno, D. R. Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 230406 (2011).
F. Kaiser, F. Kaiser, T. Coudreau, P. Milman, D. B. Ostrowsky, S. Tanzilli, Entanglement-enabled delayed choice experiment. Science 338, 637–640 (2012).
Roy, S., Shukla, A. and Mahesh, T. S. NMR implementation of a quantum delayed-choice experiment. Phys. Rev. A 85, 022109 (2012).
Auccaise, R. et al. Experimental analysis of the quantum complementarity principle. Phys. Rev. A 85, 032121 (2012).
Tang, J.-S. et al. Realization of quantum Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment. Nat. Photonics 6, 600–604 (2012).
Peruzzo, A. et al. A quantum delayed choice experiment. Science 338, 634–637 (2012).
Ionicioiu, R., Jennewein, T., Mann, R. B. and Terno, D. R. Is wave-particle objectivity compatible with determinism and locality? Nature communications 5 (2014).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Directional oil well drilling requires high precision of the wellbore positioning inside the productive area. However, due to specifics of engineering design, sensors that explicitly determine the type of the drilled rock are located farther than 15m from the drilling bit. As a result, the target area runaways can be detected only after this distance, which in turn, leads to a loss in well productivity and the risk of the need for an expensive re-boring operation.
We present a novel approach for identifying rock type at the drilling bit based on machine learning classification methods and data mining on sensors readings. We compare various machine-learning algorithms, examine extra features coming from mathematical modeling of drilling mechanics, and show that the real-time rock type classification error can be reduced from 13.5% to 9%. The approach is applicable for precise directional drilling in relatively thin target intervals of complex shapes and generalizes appropriately to new wells that are different from the ones used for training the machine learning model.
address:
- 'Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Skolkovo Innovation Center, Building 3, Moscow 143026, Russia'
- 'IBM East Europe/Asia, 10, Presnenskaya emb., Moscow, 123112, Russia'
- 'Gazprom Neft Science & Technology Centre, 75-79 liter D Moika River emb., St. Petersburg 19000, Russia'
author:
- Nikita Klyuchnikov
- Alexey Zaytsev
- Arseniy Gruzdev
- Georgiy Ovchinnikov
- Ksenia Antipova
- Leyla Ismailova
- Ekaterina Muravleva
- Evgeny Burnaev
- Artyom Semenikhin
- Alexey Cherepanov
- Vitaliy Koryabkin
- Igor Simon
- Alexey Tsurgan
- Fedor Krasnov
- Dmitry Koroteev
bibliography:
- 'mybibfile.bib'
title: 'Data-driven model for the identification of the rock type at a drilling bit'
---
directional drilling ,machine learning ,rock type ,classification ,MWD ,LWD
Introduction
============
Oil and Gas reserves are becoming more complex for an efficient exploration with significant financial margins nowadays. There is a number of examples when oil companies have to approach thin oil/gas bearing layers of complex topology. These layers, or the target intervals, can be as thin as a couple of meters. One of the common ways of exploring such intervals is directional drilling.
The directional drilling aims to place a wellbore in a way that it has the maximal contact with the thin target layer. Later requires the wellbore trajectory to follow all the folds of the layer as accurate as possible. To follow the folds, drilling engineers use Logging While Drilling (LWD) data recorded by physical sensors placed on a borehole assembly 15 m to 40 m behind the drilling bit. The sensor data is the source of information on whether the sensors are within the oil/gas bearing formation or not. Based on this information, engineers correct the drilling trajectory.
The gap between the bit and the sensors is a significant issue preventing the timely correction of the drilling trajectory. It can result in a non-optimal placement of the well or multiple cost-intensive re-drilling exercises. Figure \[fig:drilling\_schema\] shows schematic illustrations to supply the definition of the problem.
[.2]{} ![Schematic illustration of the drilling string (on the left) and the effect of timely applied trajectory correction (on the right): the black curve shows a trajectory in case rock types are available only at the distance of 15 m from the drilling bit, blue dashed curve corresponds to the trajectory when rock types are available at the drilling bit.[]{data-label="fig:drilling_schema"}](figures/drilling_bit_blind_zone.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.68]{} ![Schematic illustration of the drilling string (on the left) and the effect of timely applied trajectory correction (on the right): the black curve shows a trajectory in case rock types are available only at the distance of 15 m from the drilling bit, blue dashed curve corresponds to the trajectory when rock types are available at the drilling bit.[]{data-label="fig:drilling_schema"}](figures/drilling_trajectory.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
This paper proves the feasibility of a technology aimed at optimizing trajectories of directional wells ensuring best possible contact of the wellbore and the target layer of the reservoir. The technology allows tackling the challenge of a delayed reaction on trajectory correction during drilling of directional wells. Machine learning allows eliminating $15$ m to $40$ m gap between the drilling bit and the LWD sensors and corresponding speeding up of decision making at the trajectory correction. Along with machine learning approaches we examine, how mathematical modeling can advance machine-learning based approaches.
Basically, a trained data-driven algorithm allows a computer to identify when the bit touches a shale-rich part of the formation by a continuous screening through the real-time Measurements While Drilling (MWD) data. In machine learning, this problem is referred as the two-class classification problem: we need to create a predictive classification model (a classifier) that can identify whether the bit at the current moment is in the shale-rich part of the formation (the first class) or not (the second class). In addition to labeling objects, the classifier can output the probability of the object to belong to a specific class, thus allowing to introduce confidence of predictions.
From the machine learning perspective, the main peculiarities of the problem are missing values in measurements and a relatively high imbalance of classes: there are only 13.5% of shales and hard-rocks in the available data, where “hard” refers to a measure of the resistance to localized plastic deformation induced by either mechanical indentation or abrasion, and 86.5% of sands. Therefore, we tested different machine learning algorithms under these peculiarities, and developed appropriate evaluation methods of their performance.
The main contribution of this work is a novel data-driven approach for identifying lithotype at the drilling bit. We prove the feasibility of this approach by studying mathematical and physical modeling and applying three essential machine learning baselines (Logistic Regression, Neural Networks and Gradient Boosting on Decision Trees) for the problem of lithotype classification based on MWD data, which come from 27 wells of the Novoportovskoe oil and gas condensate field on Western Siberia.
Machine Learning in drilling application
----------------------------------------
There are previous studies on the involvement of machine learning for detection of a material type at drilling bit. [@zhou2010hybrid] cover an analysis of the applicability of regression and classification based on Gaussian Processes and unsupervised clustering for on-bit rock typing with MWD data. In the report the authors consider the rate of penetration (), pulldown pressure, which is also referred after as a weight on bit (), and top drive torque () as the key parameters for building the data-driven forecasting model. One of the conclusions is that a value called adjusted penetration rate () (Eq. \[eq:APR\]) is the best reflection of a features specifics of the rock which are unknown a-priori. The authors conclude that the optimal way to predict a rock type at the drilling bit is to apply a hybrid model combining the advances of both supervised classification and unsupervised clustering.
$$\label{eq:APR}
\begin{split}
{{\text{APR}}{} \propto \cfrac{{\text{ROP}}{}}{{{\text{WOB}}{}}\sqrt{{\text{TRQ}}{}}}}
\end{split}$$
is tested in this study as well as another characteristic utilized by many authors [@zhou2010hybrid; @zhou2011adaptive], the Specific Energy of Drilling ():
$$\label{eq:SED}
\begin{split}
{\text{SED}}{} = \frac{{\text{WOB}}{}}{A} + \frac{2\pi \times {\text{RPM}}{} \times {\text{TRQ}}{}}{A \times {\text{ROP}}{}},
\end{split}$$
where $A$ represents a cross section area of the wellbore.
[@zhou2011adaptive] illustrates that unsupervised learning together with the minimization of is a promising approach for the optimization of the penetration rate. Another effort on penetration rate optimization is presented by [@hegde2017use]. The authors use the Random Forest algorithm to build a model linking the penetration rate with weight on bit, rotation speed, drilling mud rate, and unconfined rock strength. The model allowed to optimize the penetration rate for up to $12\%$ for the wells close to ones in the training set.
[@labelle2000material] and [@labelle2001lithological] describe an application of Artificial Neural Networks for material typing and rock typing at drilling. MWD-like measurement and the trained Neural Networks allow a relative classification error to be as small as $4.5\%$ for a case with the complete set of available mechanical measurements (features).
According to the fundamentals of Machine Learning, Gaussian Processes and Neural Networks are not the best fit for rock type classification with MWD data as they can not automatically handle missing values that typically occur in MWD data. Thus, both methods require training data without missing values that implies the development of accurate imputation procedures. The difference between these methods is in the preferred data size and its dimensionality. Gaussian Processes are based on the Bayesian approach, so they can work well when training sample is small, however, their area of application is limited to low input dimensions and small sample sizes (up to 10000 elements). Neural networks are based on frequentist inference, so they require large training samples, but they can work well in large dimensions. In case we need to reflect the temporal behavior of MWD in input features, we face high dimensions, also for real-life MWD sample sizes are large. Therefore Neural Networks would be more preferable than Gaussian Processes, if there are no missing values in training and real-life data.
Decision trees and methods based on them [@hastie_09_elements-of.statistical-learning] such as Random Forest and Gradient Boosting can automatically handle missing values, and they are comfortable with large sample sizes. However, tree-based methods are weak at data interpolation, so they generalize well only when the density and the diversity of points in the training sample are high. Gradient Boosting can also handle classes imbalance by automatic weighting the importance of data entries while maximizing the quality of a classifier.
Modeling of Drilling Mechanics
------------------------------
Physical models are based on the physical equations (typically mass and energy balances) governing the system under analysis. [@Downton2012] examines the modeling of different aspects of drilling and focuses on the possibility of bringing these models together into a single approach and creating unified control systems to automate the entire process. [@Sugiura2015] gives the most accurate description of the state-of-the-art in the modeling of drilling systems for automation and control, adaptive modeling for downhole drilling systems and actual tasks of the industry. [@Cayeux2014] provides a detailed analysis of sensor equipment on the drilling rig and the issues of its layout based on obtaining the most qualitative boundary and initial conditions for solving the problems of physical modeling of the drilling process. The majority of the papers on drilling mechanics are devoted to the vibrational analysis of the drill-string [@Shor2014].
Initially, analytical formulas derived from a simplified view of the drilling process can be used [@detournay1992]. The input data ( and ) allow to predict the output ( and ). The main difficulty is the calibration of the model, which requires finding the model coefficients from the experimental data. The general scheme is the following. For a known set of lithotypes in height with unknown parameters of the model, a numerical solution is found, and the computed values of are compared with the experimental data. Thus, in the presence of a sufficient number of experimental data, it is possible to find the model coefficients for each of the lithotypes and bit types. Therefore, one may simulate the drilling process for an arbitrary set of lithotypes in height, thereby substantially expanding the training set for the predictive model.
Non-linear models of drill string vibrations were considered by [@Spanos2002], where the nonlinearity arises when taking into account the interaction of the bit and rock. Only lateral vibrations were examined therein. The state of the system is described by the transverse displacement $u$ and the angle of rotation $\theta$ of each of $N$ segments. The resulting system of equations is: $$\label{mur:spanos:maineq}
M \mathbf{u}'' + C \mathbf{u}' + K \mathbf{u} + F(\mathbf{u}) = g(t),$$ where $\mathbf{u}=[u_1,\dots,u_N, \theta_1,\dots,\theta_N]$; $M$, $C$, $K$ are the system mass, damping and stiffness matrices, respectively; $g(t)$ denotes the excitation applied to the system, and $\mathbf{u}, \mathbf{u}', \mathbf{u}''$ correspond to the displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors. Nonlinear part $F(u)$ plays an important role, it arises due to the contact interaction of the drill string with the wall. While matrices $M,C,K$ depend on properties of drill-string, the friction term $F$ depends on rock type. By solving the inverse problem for $F$, for example, determining constants in Hertzian contact law, we get parameters characteristic for rock type. To increase the quality of the model the right-hand side of equation can be considered as a random (Wiener) process. Unfortunately, this type of models is hardly applicable as input data is incomplete: to get matrices $M,C,K$ we need to know exact geometric properties of drill-string along with material ones.
Materials and Methods
=====================
This section first specifies the origin of data used in our work and its pre-processing procedures, next it describes machine learning methods we studied for rock type classification at a drilling bit, then the section defines quality metrics used for evaluation of classifiers, and finally, it describes approaches for improving classification quality by choosing input features.
Data description and pre-processing
-----------------------------------
This subsection specifies geological formation on which the data was collected, then it outlines essential for this work components of the data, and describes the process of obtaining them from the raw exported files.
### Geological formation of the interest
The Novoportovskoye oil and gas condensate field, located within the Yamal Peninsula, 30 km from the Gulf of Ob Bay, is the largest field under the development of the northwest of Siberia, Russia. The formation includes several strata, the most productive of which is the Lower Cretaceous NP-2-3 — NP-8 (the formation depth is 1800 m), and sand layers of the Tyumen suite J-2-6 (the formation depth is 2000 m). The reservoir rocks are fine-medium grained sandstones and siltstone with thin layers of shales and limestone. The average rocks permeability is 0.01-0.03 $\mu$m$^2$ and the porosity is about $18\%$.
### Initial data
The initial data included mud logging, involved the rig-site monitoring and assessment of information measured on the surface while drilling and MWD, LWD data from downhole sensors. The main purpose of MWD systems is to determine and transmit to the surface of the inclinometry data (zenith angle and magnetic azimuth) in real time while drilling. It is necessary to determine the well trajectory. Sometimes the inclinometry data are supplemented with information about the drilling process and logging data (LWD). Logging allows measure the properties of the rock, dividing the geological section into different lithotypes.
The data includes the following parameters: , , , , , also rotary speed (), input flow rate (), output flow rate (), standpipe pressure (), and hook load ().
Initial information about the drilled lithotypes was Lithology Map produced by petrophysical interpretation of LWD measurements which were represented by natural gamma radiation; apparent resistivity; polarization resistance; electromagnetic well log; induced gamma-ray log; neutron log; acoustic log.
LWD petrophysical interpretation was also used to compare the real values of the lithotype and the prediction obtained.
### Pre-processing {#sss:preprocessing}
For the solutions based on machine learning approaches, it is crucial to preprocess raw data into a suitable format for data-driven algorithms, also known as constructing data-pipeline. For the real-world cases, the problem of preprocessing is usually complicated: the size of the raw data, the variety of formats and the number of sources can be too large to apply straightforward methods [@Garcia2016; @7207219]. Although some formats are common for oil-and-gas industry, such as .las files, others can vary from company to company e.g. drilling reports. In order to effectively process source files, the pipeline has to handle common types of errors in them. Some formats can also have different options, for example, different .csv files can have different columns separators. Moreover, the number of wells for the preprocessing can be as large as hundreds or even thousands, so the proposed framework should work in a fast and accurate way in an automatic regime.
In this study we used a task-based approach using Luigi[^1] framework for Python programming language. This framework allows building data pipelines, where each step of the preprocessing can be implemented as a separate task, such as processing of source files or merging some chunks of data, which can depend on other tasks. Thus, the whole pipeline is resistant to errors in raw data and dependencies between tasks.
#### Pipeline description
The complete scheme of pipeline used in our study is shown in Figure \[fig:preprocessing\_schema\]. The pipeline for the preprocessing of the data consisted of four main steps: extraction of required columns from the raw data files; selection of the relevant horizontal parts of the wells; merging data from different sources; unifying depths steps for constructed dataframes.
All data sources were in different directories. The first step for each source file processing was the extraction of required columns or cells of data. This step is represented in the schema as outgoing arrows from each file (`.xls`, `.las` or `.csv`). All information from drilling reports was aggregated into the file `aggregate_table.pickle`. We stored the results of each intermediate step in pickle files, which were serialized tables of data. Pickle format is storage-consuming, but fast for input/output operations.
The mud logging data was discretized by files with the sampling frequency equal to the sampling of other sources of data in block “Discretization”. Next, we extracted data corresponding to the horizontal part from each mud logging table in the block “Get horizontal part”. For obtaining boundaries of the horizontal parts, we used the interpretation data.
Some wells had several laterals (in preprocessing pipeline they were called holes), that is why part of data was associated with laterals (e.g. mud logging data), and other data was connected to wells (e.g. drilling reports). The final step of the preprocessing is merging data for each hole by depth (see block “Merge” in the schema). For merging all chunks of data, we used a table with the correspondence between laterals and wells from `hole-to-well-dict.xls`. As a result, we received the set of merged data into depth-associated time series by laterals (see block “Final datamarts” in the schema).
After preprocessing of the raw data, we reduced the granularity of time-series by aggregating them over depth intervals of size 0.1 meters. For intervals containing any data, we averaged its values, for intervals without data, we used forward fill with a constant that equals the latest preceding value.
![Raw data preprocessing pipeline.[]{data-label="fig:preprocessing_schema"}](figures/preprocessing_schema.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
Machine Learning Models
-----------------------
We considered the of rock type identification as the common machine learning binary classification problem. To attack this problem, we used three machine learning methods: Logistic Regression, Gradient Boosting on decision trees and Artificial Neural Networks. These methods are described in this section.
### Logistic regression
The logistic regression is a generalization of the linear regression to classification problem [@hastie_09_elements-of.statistical-learning].
For logistic regression, we suppose that the target probability of an object to belong to a certain class is a sigmoid transformation $\sigma(\eta) = 1 / (1 + \exp(-\eta))$ of a linear function of input features $\eta = \sum_{i = 1}^d w_i x_i$, where $x_i$ is a value of some input feature e.g. WOB, and $w_i$ is a weight for this feature. During the learning phase, we estimate weights $w_i$ by maximizing likelihood or quality of fit of the model to the data.
In this article we use Logistic regression as a baseline to identify improvement due to the usage of more complex significantly nonlinear Gradient Boosting and Artificial Neural Networks approaches for our problem.
### Decision trees and Gradient Boosting
The most widely used approach for the solution of classification problems is based on the Ensembles of Decision Trees. An example of a decision tree is presented in Figure \[fig:example\_decision\_tree\]:
- for each object the classifier proceeds through the decision tree according to the values of input variables for this object until it reaches a leaf of the tree,
- if it reaches the leaf, it returns either the major class in this leaf or probabilities to belong to classes according to the distribution of objects of different classes from the training sample, that correspond to this leaf.
The advantages of this approach include a superior performance with default settings [@fernandez2014we], fast model construction, almost no over-fitting and handling of various problems in data including the availability of missing values and outliers.
Among various approaches for construction of Ensembles of Decision Trees, the most popular nowadays is Gradient Boosting [@chen2016xgboost; @kozlovskaya2017deepboost], which essentially follows functional gradient in the space of decision tree classifiers to construct the ensemble. At each step it increases weights of objects that are poorly classified using the current ensemble, thus increasing their contribution to the total model quality measure. The algorithm has the following main parameters:
- learning rate — how fast it learns the ensemble. If learning rate is too small, we need to use larger number of trees in the ensemble at the cost of larger computational power, which grows linearly from the number of trees; in the opposite case, we can get overfitting as the adaptation of the ensemble to the training data occurs too fast; In the experimental section we demonstrate this effect in Figure \[fig:ntrees\_vs\_lr\];
- maximal depth — maximal depth for each tree in the ensemble;
- random subspace share — share of features used by each decision tree;
- subsample rate — share of objects from the training sample used for training of each decision tree.
![An example of a real decision tree for the lithotype classification: internal nodes contain decision rules, the splits of the training objects that fall into this node into two classes (Sand — left number, Shale & Rock - right number). Color of the node corresponds to this distribution. Leaf nodes don’t have decision rules, but provide suggested classes.[]{data-label="fig:example_decision_tree"}](figures/lithotype_decision_tree_update.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
### Artificial Neural Networks
Alternative modern data-driven approach for classification problems is Artificial Neural Networks. They are more demanding for quality and size of input data and require more subtle tuning of hyperparameters. On the other hand, this type of machine learning algorithms can be more powerful in some types of problems and for some specific structures of input data [@8037515; @AHMAD201777].
The main idea behind Neural Networks is to define a deep composition of sequential application of linear and nonlinear multi-input and multi-output functions parameterized by weights of linear functions. Each composition of linearity and nonlinearity is called a layer. As gradient of classification error is easy to propagate through this composition, we can apply gradient methods for optimizing a quality metric with respect to these parameters and get a pretty accurate model in the end.
There are many ways to define this deep composition, the most relevant to our problem are Feed Forward fully connected [@Hornik:1989:MFN:70405.70408] and Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM) [@Hochreiter:1997:LSM:1246443.1246450] architectures. For fully connected architecture we connect each input with each output at each layer, when applying linear function. For LSTM we use as additional input some variables from the previous moment of time, thus keeping some information from the distant pass and creating long-term memory effect for a neural network. This scheme is shown in Figure \[fig:example\_lstm\].
![An illustration of information flows in LSTM. $X_t$ are input values at the moment $t$, $Y_t$ is the corresponding output of the network, arrows between LSTM cells represent additional input of internal variables from the previous moment.[]{data-label="fig:example_lstm"}](figures/LSTM_scheme.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
During experiments we applied two classes of Neural Networks: Feed Forward and LSTM. Our experiments were based on different configurations of these classes of Neural Networks.
Quality metrics
---------------
There are many quality metrics for comparing classifiers. In this article we used three metrics: a specific industry-driven metric Accuracy L and two common machine learning metrics, namely, area under Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (ROC AUC) and area under Precision-Recall (PR) curve (PR AUC).
We used additional quality metrics, because accuracy metric alone is not very representative due to significant class imbalance, such that a constant “always-sand” predictor gives relatively high accuracy, yet brings no practical benefits.
We did not consider specific metrics for time-series or ordered data, as there was no universally acknowledged metric that was easy to interpret [@burnaev2017automatic; @artemov2015ensembles].
Let us consider a test sample $D = \{(\mathbf{x}_i, y_i)\}_{i = 1}^n$, $\mathbf{x}_i$ is an input vector for an interval, $y_i$ is a true class, either $0$ (Sand) or $1$ (Shale and Rock). We have predictions by a classifier for each interval $\hat{y}_i \in \{0, 1\}$. The length of each interval is $l_i$, $i = \overline{1, n}$.
Accuracy L is the sum of lengths of intervals with correct predictions of lithotype divided by the total depth of considered wells. $$\mathrm{Accuracy\, L} = \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{n} l_i [y_i = \hat{y}_i]}{\sum_{i = 1}^{n} l_i},$$ where for any arguments $a$ and $b$ expression $[a = b]$ henceforth means the indicator function: it equals $1$ if $a$ is equal to $b$, and $0$ otherwise.
To define ROC AUC and PR AUC metrics we need to introduce additional notation. After training a classifier, it outputs a probability of an object to belong to a class. To obtain the final classification with labels we apply a threshold to the probabilities: the objects with probabilities below the threshold are classified as the first class objects, and the objects with probabilities above the threshold are classified as the second class objects.
For a particular classification there are four numbers that represent its quality: number of True Positive (TP) — correctly classified objects of the first class, False Negative (FN) — objects of the first class attributed by the classification to the second class , False Positive (FP) — – objects of the second class attributed by the classification to the first class, and True Negative (TN) — correctly classified objects of the second class: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{TP} &= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n [y_i = 1] [\hat{y}_i = 1],
\mathrm{TN} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n [y_i = 0] [\hat{y}_i = 0], \\
\mathrm{FP} &= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n [y_i = 0] [\hat{y}_i = 1],
\mathrm{FN} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n [y_i = 1] [\hat{y}_i = 0].\end{aligned}$$ By dividing the number of TP objects by the total number of positive objects (sum of TP and FN) we get True Positive Rate (TPR), by dividing the number of False Positive objects by the total number of negative objects (sum of False Positive and True Negative objects) we get False Positive Rate (FPR): $$\mathrm{TPR} = \frac{\mathrm{TP}}{\mathrm{TP} + \mathrm{FN}}, \mathrm{FPR} = \frac{\mathrm{FP}}{\mathrm{FP} + \mathrm{TN}}.$$
By varying the threshold, we get a trajectory in the space of TPR and FPR that starts at point $(0, 0)$ when all objects are classified to the negative class, and ends at $(1, 1)$ where all objects are classified to the positive class. This trajectory is ROC curve. In a similar way we define precision as $\mathrm{TP} / (\mathrm{TP} + \mathrm{FP})$ and recall as $\mathrm{TP} / (\mathrm{TP} + \mathrm{FN})$ and plot the trajectory in the space of precision and recall. This trajectory is PR curve.
By calculating areas under ROC and PR curves, we get correspondingly ROC AUC and PR AUC widely used to measure the quality of classifiers. Higher values of ROC AUC and PR AUC suggest that the classifier is better. ROC AUC and PR AUC values for a random classifier are $0.5$ and the share of the positive class respectively, ROC AUC and PR AUC values for the perfect classifier are $1$. For imbalanced classification problems, PR AUC suits better, for a detailed discussion on metrics for imbalanced classification see [@burnaev2015influence] and references therein.
Feature engineering and selection {#sec:feature_engineering_and_selection}
---------------------------------
In this section we describe several methods of refining information about rock types which is stored in MWD and LWD data, so that classifiers can take advantage of it.
### Time-series features
At each moment of time not only current MWD and LWD values characterize the type of rocks, but also previous values and their relationships among each other bring additional information. Therefore in this section, we start with considering a few ways to incorporate such information as input features.
The *Basic* (B) set of features used in a predictive model includes original mechanical features, , and . We also derived new features from the basic ones:
- *Derivatives* (D) — rolling mean and standard deviation with the window size of 1 m, and the difference between values on rolling window’s borders;
- *Lagged* (L) — lagged basic features i.e. their values 0.1, 0.5, 1 and 10 m ago;
- *Fluctuations* (F) — standard deviation of original time series inside aggregated (see sec. \[sss:preprocessing\]) intervals of 0.1 m;
- *Extra* (E) features — true class values 20 and 50 m ago, since they can be obtained from LWD measurements with such spatial lags.
### Mathematical modeling of drilling mechanics
Rock destruction under load has been studied in great detail by [@mishnaevsky1993] and [@mishnaevsky1995], but only a few works studied dynamic properties of the process.
We started with the assumption that drill-bit rock interaction could be described as several processes: rock crushing, rock cutting and rotary friction on drill-bit. We further assumed the rate of penetration was proportional to the weight on bit (rock crushing part) and the angular velocity $\Omega$ (cutting and friction part): $$\label{rop}
\mbox{{\text{ROP}}{}} = a_1 + a_2 \mbox{{\text{WOB}}{}} + a_3 \Omega.$$ On the other hand, following [@detournay1992] and assuming torque on bit is mainly related to rock cutting process, we had the following relation: $$\label{tob}
\mbox{TOB} = a_4 \frac{\mbox{{\text{ROP}}{}}}{\Omega} + a_5.$$
To get a smaller set of parameters, we substituted (\[rop\]) into (\[tob\]): $$\label{model}
\mbox{TOB} = \frac{b_1 + b_2 \mbox{{\text{WOB}}{}}}{\Omega} + b_3.$$ For the fixed bit, parameters $b_1, b_2, b_3$ depend on rock properties and therefore can characterize them, so they can be used as *Mathematical* (M) features for rock type identification. These parameters were obtained for short intervals with size $m$ of MWD time-series by solving the optimization problem , which minimized the model local discrepancy at some moment $k$: $$\label{eq:math_opt}
b_1(k), b_2(k), b_3(k) = \underset{b_1, b_2, b_3}{\mbox{argmin}} \sum_{i = k - m + 1}^{k} \left(\mbox{TOB}_k - \frac{b_1 + b_2
\mbox{{\text{WOB}}{}}_k}{\Omega_k} - b_3 \right)^2.$$ Because of locality, window size $m$ should not be large.
### Feature selection
Generating too many interrelated features results in their redundancy, longer time of models training and risk of overfitting. Thus, after feature engineering, we ran the feature selection procedure which had the aim to select the subset of features that maximized classification quality.
We used a “greedy” approach for feature selection: the procedure started from the empty set and expanded it by adding step by step the most impactful feature from the pool of remaining ones according to a selected quality metric.
Results
=======
In this section we:
- report on how different sets of features affect the quality of rock type classification, which features are more informative;
- examine selection of hyperparameters for different machine learning methods;
- compare the performance of different machine learning methods and show how classification quality depends on the balance of classes.
.
Feature selection results {#sec:feature_selection}
-------------------------
For feature selection we used ROC AUC quality metric obtained via leave-one-well-out cross-validation (LOWO-CV). Since sensors readings are autocorrelated, it is crucial to split the dataset by wells, not by random subsets during cross-validation. Otherwise, data leakage will take place resulting in overestimated quality, that is, models will have more information about the test set during cross-validation than they will have in the field test on new wells.
The classifier was constructed with Gradient Boosting of $50$ decision trees, each of maximal depth $6$. The best selected set *Greedy* (G) consists of , , rolling differences of , 1m rolling standard deviations of and , 1m moving average of , $0.5$ meters lagged , and $10$ meters lagged , , and .
We also fine-tuned Gradient Boosting hyperparameters by increasing the number of decision trees up to 100 and conducting a grid-search LOWO-CV for maximal depth of trees, random subspace share and sub-sampling rate. Table \[tb:feature\_selection\] summarizes the results of the feature selection process. We obtained the best results for all quality metrics using the selected set of features G along with extra set E. In particular, Accuracy L is larger than $0.9$.
Feature set ROC AUC PR AUC Accuracy L
------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
- 0.494 0.181 0.866
B 0.794 0.492 0.865
B, F 0.803 0.484 0.867
B, F, D, L 0.829 0.504 0.870
G 0.850 0.559 0.888
E 0.653 0.359 0.879
B, E 0.848 0.581 0.900
B, F, D, L, E 0.870 0.600 0.902
G, E $\mathbf{0.878}$ $\mathbf{0.614}$ $\mathbf{0.905}$
G, E (fine-tuned) $\mathbf{0.880}$ $\mathbf{0.625}$ $\mathbf{0.910}$
: Feature selection results. Greedy selected set of features combined with the Extra set provides the best quality.[]{data-label="tb:feature_selection"}
Figure \[fig:ntrees\_vs\_lr\] shows the dependence of quality metrics on learning rate and the number of trees in the ensemble obtained by Gradient Boosting. Low learning rates (blue curves) result in underfitting, whereas high learning rates (red curves) result in overfitting of the model. Orange and green curves correspond to a good trade-off.
[.48]{} ![Quality vs Gradient Boosting parameters. Curves of different colors correspond to different learning rates.[]{data-label="fig:ntrees_vs_lr"}](figures/ntrees_vs_lr_rocauc.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.48]{} ![Quality vs Gradient Boosting parameters. Curves of different colors correspond to different learning rates.[]{data-label="fig:ntrees_vs_lr"}](figures/ntrees_vs_lr_acc_l.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:greedy\_feature\_importance\] shows feature importances for the fine-tuned classifier trained on the whole dataset. Importance scores indicate how many times a particular feature played the key role in the classifier’s decision.
![Importance of features for the Gradient Boosting classifier predictions. Two sets of features are included: Greedy and Extra. The bottom-up order of Greedy features corresponds to their selection order during the selection procedure.[]{data-label="fig:greedy_feature_importance"}](figures/greedy_feature_importance.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
Examination of mathematical modeling features
---------------------------------------------
Only 13 out of 27 wells had no missing values of features required for mathematical modeling. For them we studied the effect of Mathematical features (M) and their fluctuations (FM) on quality metrics. We used window size $m=5$. The results are presented in Table \[tb:feature\_phys\]. Mathematical modeling features turned out to have weak predictive power: no significant gain on top of the Greedy features was obtained.
Feature set ROC AUC PR AUC Accuracy L
------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
- 0.499 0.198 0.858
B 0.837 0.552 0.890
M 0.524 0.208 0.829
M, FM 0.566 0.264 0.855
G 0.874 $\mathbf{0.609}$ $\mathbf{0.906}$
G, M $\mathbf{0.875}$ 0.597 0.904
G, M, FM 0.870 0.590 0.900
: Performance of the approaches significantly depends on the set of used features. However, the usage of mathematically modeled features doesn’t improve quality.[]{data-label="tb:feature_phys"}
Algorithms performance
----------------------
We compared three classes of machine learning methods in details: Logistic regression, Gradient Boosting, and Neural Networks. Results in this section correspond to the performance of the best-found configurations for each method using LOWO-CV. All methods used both Greedy and Extra sets of features.
For logistic regression, we observed the best quality when no regularization is applied. The best-found configuration of Gradient Boosting for 100 trees had the following hyper-parameters: learning rate 0.05, maximal depth 3, random subspace share 0.8, and sub-sampling rate 0.55. For Feedforward Neural Networks (NN) we tested different architectures with 2-, 3- and 4-layer networks. The best found configuration had two hidden layers of size 100 and 500 neurons using ReLU activation between layers.
Table \[tb:algorithms\_comparison\] summarizes the best performance of different classification methods. Gradient Boosting uniformly dominates logistic regression, in turn, Feedforward NN and Gradient Boosting qualities are comparable due to the preprocessing pipeline we developed, which filled the missing data sections with rather adequate values. LSTM training time was impractically long, whereas its best-found performance was similar to Feedforward NN.
Algorithm ROC AUC PR AUC Accuracy L
-------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Always predict the major class 0.494 0.181 0.866
Logistic regression 0.860 0.585 0.908
Gradient Boosting $\mathbf{0.880}$ $\mathbf{0.625}$ 0.910
Feedforward NN 0.875 $\mathbf{0.625}$ $\mathbf{0.911}$
: Performance of machine learning approaches Logistic regression, Gradient Boosting, and Feedforward NN. All performance measures are better if higher.[]{data-label="tb:algorithms_comparison"}
Figures \[fig:quality\_comparison\_curves\] present visual comparison of performance of different classification methods.
[.49]{} ![Performance curves for three different machine learning approaches: Logistic Regression, Gradient Boosting, and Feedforward NN; compared with the input-agnostic method that always predicts the major class. As the curves for Gradient Boosting and Feedforward NN lie higher than the curves for Logistic regression, we conclude that the corresponding models are better.[]{data-label="fig:quality_comparison_curves"}](figures/roc_paper.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
[.49]{} ![Performance curves for three different machine learning approaches: Logistic Regression, Gradient Boosting, and Feedforward NN; compared with the input-agnostic method that always predicts the major class. As the curves for Gradient Boosting and Feedforward NN lie higher than the curves for Logistic regression, we conclude that the corresponding models are better.[]{data-label="fig:quality_comparison_curves"}](figures/precision_recall_paper.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:roc\_auc\_accl\_imp\] shows performance of the Gradient Boosting with respect to lithotype classes balance. The lithotype predictions with the trained classifier are better than major-class predictions for 24 out of 27 wells. Improvement of Accuracy L increases if the classes are more balanced, that is, if they tend to have more equal shares of shales and rocks (first class), and sands (second class). However, the improvement varies significantly from well to well. Figure \[fig:classification\_examples\] shows examples of lithotype classification on three wells with different achieved quality.
![Gradient Boosting performance on different wells with respect to well-specific shale and rock percentage. The vertical axis represents the improvement of Accuracy L from using Gradient Boosting over the major class predictions.[]{data-label="fig:roc_auc_accl_imp"}](figures/roc_auc_accl_imp_paper.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
[.32]{} ![Examples of lithotype classification for three wells with different achieved quality: from one of the best on the left through average in the middle to one of the worst on the right. In each subfigure the left column shows the true lithotype values: yellow color represents sand, grey color represents shales and hard-rock; the right column shows the respective probability of lithotypes given by the classifier.[]{data-label="fig:classification_examples"}](figures/classification_id_4065.pdf "fig:"){width="99.00000%"}
[.32]{} ![Examples of lithotype classification for three wells with different achieved quality: from one of the best on the left through average in the middle to one of the worst on the right. In each subfigure the left column shows the true lithotype values: yellow color represents sand, grey color represents shales and hard-rock; the right column shows the respective probability of lithotypes given by the classifier.[]{data-label="fig:classification_examples"}](figures/classification_id_9217.pdf "fig:"){width="99.00000%"}
[.32]{} ![Examples of lithotype classification for three wells with different achieved quality: from one of the best on the left through average in the middle to one of the worst on the right. In each subfigure the left column shows the true lithotype values: yellow color represents sand, grey color represents shales and hard-rock; the right column shows the respective probability of lithotypes given by the classifier.[]{data-label="fig:classification_examples"}](figures/classification_id_5135.pdf "fig:"){width="99.00000%"}
------ --------------------
sand shale or hard-rock
------ --------------------
Discussion
==========
In this section, we discuss possible ways for improving the classification accuracy of the data-driven models. For this purpose, we study peculiarities of the initial data by embedding multi-dimensional MWD features in a convenient for analysis 2D space. In Figure \[fig:phase\_portrait\] we represent data applying a t-distributed Stochastic Neighborhood Embedding [@maaten2008visualizing] method on vectors of Basic and Lagged features including , , and their lagged values.
The 2D representation shows the non-homogeneous nature of the real-world MWD measurements. In terms of Machine learning, this means that the algorithms are trained on a few localized areas of the data points, which dilutes the information among them. That is, we face a case when the algorithms make use of multiple small datasets instead of a single uniform large one. For example, we did not use features that explicitly specify pads, while the 2D representation of data has separated pads. Such distribution of data can negatively affect the generalization ability of classifiers, especially the ones that are based on threshold rules. Moreover, the mixture of different rock types and indistinct margins of classes illustrate fundamental indiscriminability of some part of data within the considered features.
One way to improve generalization ability is to use more discriminative features from additional sensors. Another way is to apply domain adaptation approach [@ganin2015unsupervised] for transforming input features for non-Neural Network algorithms like Gradient Boosting. However, the performance of Neural Networks is unlikely to be improved much with this approach, since they are capable of learning universal representations [@bilen2017universal].
Other ways for improving classification quality belong to three major areas.
The first area is consideration of different types of income data like LWD data, information about a well or a bit in total or drill cuttings. The main problem here is how to integrate different data sources of variable degree of fidelity and spatial resolution [@zaytsev2017large] as the current approaches are often problem-specific especially when dealing with more than two levels of fidelity of data [@zaytsev2016reliable].
The second area is related to correcting sample labels. One may want to use raw LWD data to train at and to predict, because LWD data will allow one to replace subjective lithotype interpretation made by experts with automatic labeling based on images at a training set markup, and will likely open new horizons for better resolution of the predictive model.
The third area is the multi-class classification which is likely to allow distinguishing between several rock types rather than only a target interval and a boundary shale-reach zone. This will enrich the application of such data-driven predictions and move them from the point of just operative trajectory correction towards the capabilities to optimal control of the penetration rate with respect to maximal drilling efficiency at minimal tolerance to potential failures related to geomechanical specifics of the rocks.
![2-dimensional embedding of the MWD data. Colors of scattered points indicate rock types in the corresponding drilling states. Contours indicate different PADs. It is easy to distinguish different PADs for this 2-dimensional embedding, while it is hard to distinguish two LOBs.[]{data-label="fig:phase_portrait"}](figures/TSNE_wells_LOB_and_PAD.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
This study illustrates the capabilities of machine learning to handle the real technological issues of directional drilling. The accuracy of prediction of rock types relevant to directional drilling management reaches 91%, that is, the classification error drops from 13.5% (major-class prediction) down to 9% (the best-achieved performance by examined algorithms). The involved algorithms allow real-time implementation which makes them useful for drilling support IT infrastructure. Further development of the predictive algorithms is covered in the discussion.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: `https://pypi.python.org/pypi/luigi`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Let $X$ be a (real or complex) rearrangement-invariant function space on ${\Omega}$ (where ${\Omega}=
[0,1]$ or ${\Omega}\subseteq {{\Bbb{N}}}$) whose norm is not proportional to the $L_2$-norm. Let $H$ be a separable Hilbert space. We characterize surjective isometries of $X(H).$ We prove that if $T$ is such an isometry then there exist Borel maps $a:{\Omega}\to{{\Bbb{K}}}$ and $\sigma:{\Omega}{\longrightarrow}{\Omega}$ and a strongly measurable operator map $S$ of ${\Omega}$ into ${{\cal{B}}}(H)$ so that for almost all ${\omega}$ $S({\omega})$ is a surjective isometry of $H$
and for any $f\in X(H)$ $$Tf({\omega})=a({\omega})S({\omega})(f(\sigma({\omega}))) \text{ a.e.}$$
As a consequence we obtain a new proof of characterization of surjective isometries in complex rearrangement-invariant function spaces.
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
The University of Texas at Austin\
Austin, TX 78712
author:
- Beata Randrianantoanina
bibliography:
- 'tref.bib'
title: Isometries of Hilbert space valued function spaces
---
=.1in =.1in =6.5in -.5truein =8.5in
\[prop\][Theorem]{} \[prop\][Corollary]{} \[prop\][Lemma]{}
currentlabel[2.1]{}\[e:dispaa\] currentlabel[2.21]{}\[e:dispau\] currentlabel[2.22]{}\[e:dispav\] currentlabel[2.23]{}\[e:dispaw\] currentlabel[2.24]{}\[e:dispax\]
Introduction
============
We study isometries of Hilbert space valued rearrangement-invariant function spaces $X(H)$, where $\dim H\ge 2$ and $H$ is separable.. Our results are valid for both symmetric sequence spaces and nonatomic rearrangement-invariant function spaces on $[0,1]$ with norm not proportional to $L_2$ but they are new only in the nonatomic case. If $X$ is a sequence space, even not necessarily symmetric, Theorem \[isoxl2\] is a special case of a much more general result of Rosenthal [@R86] about isometries of Functional Hilbertian Sums. We include here the case of $X$ being a symmetric sequence space since the proof is essentially the same as when $X$ is a nonatomic rearrangement-invariant function space, and also our techniques are much simpler than those developed in [@R86].
Spaces of the form $X(H)$ appear naturally in the theory of Banach spaces (see [@LT2 Chapter 2.d]). In particular, if $X$ is rearrangement-invariant (with Boyd indeces $1<p_X \le q_X
<\infty$) then $X(L_2)$ is isomorphic to $X$ ([@LT2 Proposition 2.d.4]) and this plays an important role in the study of uniqueness of unconditional bases in $X.$
Isometries of Hilbert space-valued function spaces have been studied by many authors. Cambern [@C74] (1974) characterized isometries of $L_p(L_2)$ in the complex case (see also an alternative proof of Fleming and Jamison [@FJ77]). Isometries of $L_p(L_2)$ in both real and complex cases are described (among other spaces) in the general paper of Greim [@Greim] (1983). In 1981 Cambern [@C81] described isometries of, both real and complex, $L_{\infty}(L_2).$ In 1986 Jamison and Loomis [@JL] gave the characterization of isometries in complex Hilbert space-valued nonatomic Orlicz spaces $X(L_2).$ Also there have been done a number of studies of various $L_2$-valued analytic function spaces. For a fuller discussion of literature we refer the reader to the forthcoming survey of Fleming and Jamison [@FJs].
We use a method of proof which is designed for spaces over ${{\Bbb{R}}}$, but clearly complex linear operators $T:X(H) \to X(H)$ can be always considered as real linear operators acting on $X(H)(\ell_2^2)$ and therefore our results are valid also in complex case.
Moreover Theorem \[isoxl2\] with $H=\ell_2^2$ may be viewed as a statement about the form of isometries of complex rearrangement-invariant spaces. Thus we give a new proof of the fact that all surjective isometries on $X$ can be represented as weighted composition operators i.e. if $T$ is such an isometry then there are Borel maps $a, \sigma$ such that $Tf = a f\circ \sigma$ for all $f$ in $X$ (cf. [@Z77], [@Z80] for nonatomic spaces and [@T] for sequence spaces).
Preliminaries
=============
[sec2]{}
We follow standard notations as in [@LT2].
In the following $H$ denotes a separable Hilbert space with $\dim H
\ge 2.$ If we want to stress that we restrict our attention to the case when $\dim H = \infty$ we will write $H=\ell_2.$
If $X$ is a Köthe function space ([@LT2 Definition 1.b.17]) we denote by $X'$ the [**Köthe dual**]{} of $X;$ thus $X'$ is the Köthe space of all $g$ such that $\int|f||g|\,d\mu<\infty$ for every $f\in X$ equipped with the norm $\|g\|_{X'}= \sup_{\|f\|_X\le 1}\int |f||g|\,d\mu.$ Then $X'$ can be regarded as a closed subspace of the dual $X^*$ of $X$.
If $X$ is a Köthe function space on $({\Omega}_1,\mu_1)$ and $H$ is a separable Hilbert space on $({\Omega}_2,{\mu}_2),$ we will denote by $\bold{X(H)}$ [defxy]{} the Köthe function space on $({\Omega}_1 \times {\Omega}_2,\mu_1 \times {\mu}_2)$ with a following norm $$\|f({\omega}_1,{\omega}_2)\|_{X(H)} = \| \ \|f({\omega}_1,\cdot)\|_2 \ \|_X.$$
This definition coincides with the notion of $H$-valued Bochner spaces.
It is well-known that $(X(H))^* = X^*(H),$ and the space $(X(H))' \subset X^*(H)$ can be identified with the space of functions ${\varphi}:{\Omega}_1 {\longrightarrow}H$ such that for every $y \in H$ the map ${\omega}_1 \longmapsto \langle{\varphi}({\omega}_1),y\rangle$ is measurable and the map ${\varphi}_\#:{\omega}_1 \longmapsto \|{\varphi}({\omega}_1)\|_{H}$ belongs to $X'.$ The operation of ${\varphi}$ on $X(H)$ is given by $${\varphi}(f) = \int_{{\Omega}_1} \langle{\varphi}({\omega}_1),f({\omega}_1)\rangle\
d{\mu}_1({\omega}_1)$$ for any $f \in X(H).$ Thus $(X(H))' = X'(H).$
For any function $f\in X(H)$ we define the map $f_\# :
\omega_1\to{{\Bbb{R}}}$ by $f_\#(\omega) = \|f(\omega)\|_{H}$. Then $f_\# \in X$. We say that functions $f,g \in X(H)$ are [**disjoint in a vector sense**]{} if $f_\#$ and $g_\#$ are disjointly supported, i.e., $f_\# (\omega) \cdot g_\# (\omega)=0$ for a.e. $\omega\in
\Omega_1$. We say that an operator $T:X(H)\to X(H)$ is [ **disjointness preserving in a vector sense**]{} if $(Tf)_\# \cdot (Tg)_\# =0$ whenever $f_\#
\cdot g_\#=0$.
We will say that an operator $T:X(H) \to X(H)$ has [**a canonical vector form**]{} if there exists a nonvanishing Borel function $a $ on ${\Omega}$ (where ${\Omega}= [0,1]$ if $X$ is nonatomic or ${\Omega}\subset {{\Bbb{N}}}$ if $X$ is a sequence space) and an invertible Borel map $\sigma:{\Omega}{\longrightarrow}{\Omega}$ such that, for any Borel set $B \subset {\Omega},$ we have ${\mu}(\sigma^{-1}B)=0$ if and only if ${\mu}(B)=0$ and a strongly measurable map $S$ of ${\Omega}$ into ${{\cal{B}}}(H)$ (i.e. for each $h\in H$ the mapping ${\omega}\mapsto S({\omega})h$ is measurable) so that $S(t)$ is an isometry of $H$ onto itself for almost all $t$ and $$Tf(t)=a(t)S(t)(f(\sigma(t))) \text{ a.e.}$$ for any $f\in X(H).$
Note that the name “a canonical vector form” is introduced here only for the purpose of this paper — we do not know the standard name for this type of operator. We will need the following simple observation (cf. [@KR Lemma 2.4])
\[2.4’\] Suppose that $T:X(H)\to X(H)$ is an invertible operator which has a canonical vector form. Then $T':X'(H)\to X'(H)$ exists and has a canonical vector form.
Operator $T$ has an representation $$Tf(\omega_1) = a(\omega_1) S(\omega_1)(f(\sigma(\omega_1)))$$ where $a,S,\sigma$ satisfy the above conditions for canonical form and moreover $a$ is nonvanishing and $\sigma$ is an invertible Borel map with $\mu(\sigma^{-1}B)=0$ if and only if $\mu(B)=0.$ Let $v$ be the Radon-Nikodym derivative of the $\sigma$-finite measure $\nu(B)=\mu(\sigma^{-1} B).$
Then for $f\in X(H),g\in X'(H)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
g(Tf) &= \int_{\Omega_1}\langle g(\omega_1),Tf(\omega_1)\rangle
\,d\mu (\omega_1)=\\
&= \int_{\Omega_1}\langle g(\omega_1),a(\omega_1)S(\omega_1)
(f(\sigma(\omega_1)))\rangle\,d\mu (\omega_1)=\\
&= \int_{\Omega_1}\langle a(\omega_1)(S(\omega_1))'(g(\omega_1)),
f(\sigma(\omega_1)) \rangle\,d\mu(\omega_1)=\\
&= \int_{\Omega_1}\langle
a(\sigma^{-1}(\omega_1))(S(\sigma^{-1}(\omega_1)))'
(g(\sigma^{-1}(\omega_1))),f(\omega_1)\rangle v(\omega_1)\,
d\mu(\omega_1)\ ,\end{aligned}$$ since $(S({\omega}))^* = (S({\omega}))'.$
Thus $T^*g \in X'(H)$ and $$T'g(\omega_1) = a(\sigma^{-1}(\omega_1))v(\omega_1)
(S(\sigma^{-1}(\omega_1)))' g (\sigma^{-1}(\omega_1))\ \text{
a.e.}$$ Clearly the map $\omega_1\mapsto S(\sigma^{-1}(\omega_1))'$ is strongly measurable and thus $T'$ has a canonical vector form.
A [**rearrangement-invariant function space**]{} ([**r.i. space**]{}) [@LT2 Definition 2.a.1] is a Köthe function space on $({\Omega},\mu)$ which satisfies the conditions:
1. $X'$ is a norming subspace of $X^*.$
2. If $\tau:{\Omega}{\longrightarrow}{\Omega}$ is any measure-preserving invertible Borel automorphism then $f\in
X$ if and only if $f\circ\tau\in X$ and $\|f\|_X=\|f\circ\tau\|_X.$
3. $\|\chi_{B}\|_X=1$ if $\mu(B) = 1.$
Next we will quickly state a definition of Flinn elements. For fuller description and proofs we refer to [@KR] and [@th].
We say that an element $u$ of a Köthe space $X$ is [**Flinn**]{} if there exists an $f\in X^*$ such that $f\ne 0$ and for every $x\in X$ and $x^*\in X^*$ with $x^* (x) = \|x\|_X\cdot \|x^*\|_{X^*}$ we have $$f(x)\cdot x^* (u)\ge 0\ .$$ We say that $(u,f)$ is a [**Flinn pair**]{}. We denote by ${{{\cal{F}}}}(X)$ the set of Flinn elements in $X$. We will need the following facts:
[fiso]{} ([@KR Proposition 3.2])
Suppose $U:X{\longrightarrow}Y$ is a surjective isometry. Then $U({{\cal{F}}}(X)) = {{\cal{F}}}(Y)$; furthermore if $(u,f)$ is a Flinn pair then $(U(u),(U^*)^{-1}f)$ is a Flinn pair.
[flinn]{} (Flinn, [@R84 Theorem 1.1], [@KR Theorem 3.3])
Let $X$ be a Banach space and $\pi$ be a contractive projection on $X$ with range $Y.$ Suppose $(u,f)$ is a Flinn pair in $X$. Suppose $f\notin Y^{\perp}.$ Then $\pi(u)\in
{{\cal{F}}}(Y).$
[kw]{} ([@KR Theorem 4.3])
Suppose $\mu$ is nonatomic and suppose $X$ is an order-continuous Köthe function space on $(\Omega,\mu).$ Then $u\in X$ is a Flinn element if and only if there is a nonnegative function $w\in L_0(\mu)$ with supp $w=$ supp $u=B,$ so that:$(a)$ If $x\in X(B)$ then ${{\displaystyle}\|x\|=(\int |x|^2w\,d\mu)^{1/2}.}$ and$(b)$ If $v\in X(\Omega\setminus B)$ and $x,y\in X(B)$ satisfy $\|x\|=\|y\|$ then $\|v+x\|=\|v+y\|.$
The last fact about Flinn elements that we will need is a reformulation of Calvert and Fitzpatrick’s characterization of $\ell_p-$spaces [@CF86]:
[cf]{} Suppose that $X$ is a sequence space with $\dim X = d <\infty, d\ge
3,$ and basis $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^d.$ Suppose that every element $u$ of $X$ with support on at most two coordinates is Flinn in $X,$ i.e. $$\{u\in X\ : \ u = a_i e_i + a_je_j \text{ for some $i,j\le d, \ \
a_i,a_j \in{{\Bbb{R}}}$}\} \subset {{\cal{F}}}(X).$$ Then $X= \ell_p^d$ for some $1\le p \le \infty.$
By Lemma 1.4 of [@R86] $(u,f)$ is a Flinn pair in $X$ [if and only if ]{}the projection $P$ defined by $P(x) = x - f(x)u$ has norm 1 in $X.$ Hence, if $(u,f)$ is a Flinn pair in $X$ then there is a projection of norm 1 onto the hyperplane $\ker f\subset X.$
It is also clear from the definition that if $(u,f)$ is a Flinn pair in $X$ then $(f,u)$ is a Flinn pair in $X'.$ Therefore there exists a projection of norm 1 onto $\ker u\subset X'$ for every $u$ with support on at most two coordinates. But then Theorem 1 of [@CF86] asserts that if $d\ge 3$ then $X'= \ell_q^d$ for some $1\le q \le \infty.$ Thus $X= \ell_p^d.$
Finally let us introduce the following notation.
Suppose that $X$ is a nonatomic r.i. space on $[0,1]$ and $n$ is a natural number. Let $e^n_i=\chi_{((i-1)2^{-n},i2^{-n}]}$ for $1\le i\le 2^n.$ Denote $X_n=[e^n_i:1\le i\le 2^n].$ If $\dim X < \infty$ then, for the uniformity of notation, we will use $X_n = X$ for any $n \in{{\Bbb{N}}}.$ Notice that $X_n^*$ can be identified naturally with $X'_n.$
We now need to introduce a technical definition. We will say that an r.i. space $X$ has [**property**]{} ${\bold(P)}$ if for every $t>0,$
1. $\| \chi_{[0,\frac12]}\|_X < \| \chi_{[0,\frac12]}+
t\chi_{[\frac12,1]} \|_X $ if $X$ is a nonatomic function space on $[0,1];$ or
2. $ \|e_1\|_X < \|e_1+te_2\|_X$ if $X$ is a sequence space with basis $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\dim X}.$
We say that $X$ has property ${\bold(P')}$ if $X'$ has property (P).
Notice that, clearly, if $X$ has property $(P)$ (resp. $(P')$) then for every $n\in {{\Bbb{N}}}$ $X_n$ has property $(P)$ (resp. $(P')$).
[4.2]{} ([@KR Lemma 5.2])
Any r.i. space $X$ has at least one of the properties $(P)$ or $(P').$
The reason for introducing property $(P)$ is the following fact which will be important for our applications.
If $v\in X_n(H)$ then $v=(v_i)_{i=1}^{2^n},$ where $v_i\in H$ for all $i$ and $v_i = (v_{i,j})_{j=1}^{\dim H}.$ Similarly for $f\in X_n'(H),$ $f=(f_i)_{i=1}^{2^n},$ and $f_i = (f_{i,j})_{j=1}^{\dim H}\in H.$ In this notation we have:
[5.2]{} Suppose that $X$ has property $(P')$ and $v\otimes f$ is a Flinn pair in $X_n(H)$. If $\|v_1\|_2 = |v_{11}|$ then $f_{11}\ne 0$.
Assume that $f_{11} = 0$. Then, since $v\otimes f\not\equiv 0$ there exists $i>1$ and $j\ge 1$ such that $f_{ij}\ne0$ and $v_{ij}\ne0$. In fact $v_{ij} f_{ij}>0$ since $f(e_{ij})\cdot e_{ij}^*(v)\ge 0$.
Consider $$e_{11}^* + te_{ij}^* \in X'_n (\ell_2^d)\ .$$ Then $$\|e_{11}^* + te_{ij}^*\|_{X'_n(H)}
= \| e_1^* + te_i^*\|_{X'_n} > \|e_1^*\|$$ for all $t\ne 0$ since $X$ has $(P')$. Hence for any $t\ne0$ if an element $(a_t e_{11} + b_t e_{ij})$ in $X_n(H)$ is norming for $(e_{11}^* + te_{ij}^*)$ then $b_t\ne0$. In fact $b_t\cdot t>0$. Let us take $t= {-v_{11}\over 2v_{ij}}$. Then ${\operatorname{sgn}}b_t = {\operatorname{sgn}}t = -{\operatorname{sgn}}(v_{11}\cdot v_{ij}) = -{\operatorname{sgn}}(v_{11}
f_{ij})$. Further: $$\begin{aligned}
&f(a_te_{11} + b_te_{ij})\cdot \left(e_{11}^* - {v_{11}\over 2v_{ij}}
e_{ij}^*
\right) (v) = \\
&\qquad = b_t f_{ij} \cdot \left( v_{11} - {v_{11}\over 2v_{ij}}
v_{ij}
\right) = \frac12 b_t\cdot f_{ij}\cdot v_{11} < 0\ .\end{aligned}$$ and the resulting contradiction with numerical positivity of $v\otimes f$ proves the lemma.
Main results
============
[secl2]{}
We start with with an important (for us) proposition about the form of Flinn elements in $X_n(H).$ In the case when $\dim H < \infty$ our proof requires a certain technical restriction on the space $X,$ which is irrelevant in the case when $H = \ell_2.$ We present here proofs for both cases since they are quite different. However, for the application to Theorem \[isoxl2\] we need only to know the validity of Proposition \[5.2a\].
[5.2a]{} Suppose that $X$ is an r.i. space with property $(P')$, $\dim X \ge
3$ and such that norm of $X$ is not proportional to the $L_p-$norm for any $1\le p\le \infty$. Then there exists $N\in{{\Bbb{N}}},$ such that if $n\ge N$ and $u =
(u_i)_{i=1}^{2^n} \in {{\cal{F}}}(X_n(H))$ then there exists $1\le i_0\le
2^n$ such that $\|u_i\|_2=0$ for all $i\ne i_0$.
Proposition \[5.2a\] can be also understood as a statement about the form of 1-codimensional hyperplanes in $X_n(H)$ which are ranges of a norm-1 projection.
Let $n$ be big enough so that $X_n\ne \ell_p^{2^n}$, $1\le
p\le\infty$. Let $u\in {{{\cal{F}}}}(X_n(H))$. $$u= (u_i)_{i=1}^{2^n},\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ u_i\in H.$$ Let $m= {\operatorname{card}}\{i:u_i\not\equiv 0\}$. We want to prove that $m=1$.
By Proposition \[fiso\] we can assume without loss of generality that $u_i\not\equiv 0$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$, $u_i=0$ for $i>m$ and $\alpha_1
=
\|u_1\|_2 = \min \{\|u_i\|_2 : i=1,\ldots,m\}$. Now, for any numbers $\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_m \in {{\Bbb{R}}}$ with $|\alpha_1|,\ldots,|\alpha_m|\le \alpha_1$ there exist isometries $\{U_i\}_{i=1}^m$ in $H$ such that $(U_i(u_i))_1= \alpha_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$. Hence by Proposition \[fiso\] the element $v$ with $$v_i = \begin{cases}
U_i(u_i)&\text{if $i\le m$}\\
0&\text{if $i>m$}
\end{cases}$$ is Flinn in $X_n(H)$. By Theorem \[flinn\] and Lemma \[5.2\] $\bar v=
(v_{i,1})_{i=1}^{2^n}
\in {{{\cal{F}}}}(X_n)$. And, since the sequence $\{\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_m\}$ is arbitrary, that implies that every element with support of cardinality smaller or equal than $m$ is Flinn in $X_n$. But if $m\ge2$ Theorem \[cf\] implies that $X_n = \ell_p^{2^n}$ for some $1\le p\le
\infty$ contrary to our assumption. So $m=1$.
As mentioned above, in the case when $H= \ell_2,$ Proposition \[5.2a\] is valid for any r.i. space $X.$ Namely we have:
[5.5l2]{} Let $X_n$ be a $n$–dimensional r.i. space not isometric to $\ell_2^{n} \ \ (n\ge 2).$ If $u = (u_i)_{i=1}^{n} \in
{{\cal{F}}}(X_n(L_2)) $ then there exists $1\le i_0 \le n$ such that $\|u_i\|_2 =0$ for all $i
\neq i_0.$
We use here notation $L_2$ for the separable Hilbert space to stress the fact that it is nonatomic. Clearly $L_2$ is isometric to $\ell_2$ and $X_n(L_2)$ is isometric to $X_n(\ell_2)$ via a surjective isometry which preserves disjointness in a vector sense and hence our result is valid also in $X_n(\ell_2).$
Let $u \in {{\cal{F}}}(X_n(L_2)) $ be such that $m = {\operatorname{card}}\{i : u_i
\not\equiv 0 \}$ is maximal. By Proposition \[fiso\] we can assume [without loss of generality ]{}that $u_i \equiv 0 $ for $i = m+1,\dots,n$ and ${\operatorname{supp}}u_i =
[0,1]$ for $i = 1,\dots,m.$
If we consider $X_n(L_2)$ as a function space on $\{1,\dots,n\}
\times
[0,1],$ then ${\operatorname{supp}}u_i = \{1,\dots,m\} \times [0,1] = B.$ Since $X_n(L_2)$ is nonatomic we can apply Theorem \[kw\] to conclude that there exists a measurable function $w$ such that ${\operatorname{supp}}w = B$ and for every $x \in X_n(L_2)(B)$, $${\label}{n}
\|x\| = \left({\displaystyle\int}|x|^2w\ d\mu\right)^{1/2}\ .$$ Since $X_n$ and $L_2$ are r.i. $w$ is constant, say $w \equiv k.$
We need to show that $m=1.$
First notice that $m<n$ since $X_n$ is not isometric to $\ell_2^{n}$ and . Assume, for contradiction, that $m \ge 2$ and consider any element $z = (z_i)_{i=1}^{n} \in X_n(L_2)$ such that $z_i \equiv 0$ for $i = m+2,\dots,n.$ Define $v, x, y \in
X_n(L_2) $ by
$$v_i = \begin{cases}
0 &\text{if } i\ne m+1, \\
z_{m+1} &\text{if } i= m+1
\end{cases};
x_i = \begin{cases}
z_i &\text{if } i\le m, \\
0 &\text{if } i> m
\end{cases};
y_i = \begin{cases}
\|x\|_2 &\text{if } i=1, \\
0 &\text{if } i>1
\end{cases};
\text{ resp.}$$
Then ${\operatorname{supp}}v \cap B = {\emptyset}, \ x, y \in X_n(L_2)(B)$ and $ \|x\|
=\|y\|$ so by Theorem \[kw\]$(b)$ $\|v+x\|= \|v+y\|$ i.e. $\|z\|=
\|v+y\|.$ Since $X_n$ is r.i. $$\|v+y\| = k (\|z_{m+1}\|_2^2 + \|x\|_2^2)^{1/2} = k \|z\|_2.$$
Hence $\|z\| = k \|z\|_2$ for every $z \in X_n(L_2)(\{1,\dots,m+1\}
\times [0,1])$ and Theorem \[kw\] quickly leads to contradiction with maximality of $m.$
[disj]{} Suppose that H is a sparable Hilbert space and $X$ is a rearrangement-invariant function space with norm not proportional to the $L_2$-norm. Suppose further that either $X$ is nonatomic on $[0,1]$ or it is a sequence space $(\dim X\le \infty),$ and
1. $H=\ell_2;$ or
2. $H=\ell_2^d$ , $X$ has a norm not proportional to $L_p-$norm for any $1\le p\le\infty,$ $X$ satisfies property $(P')$ and $\dim X \ge 3$.
Then every surjective isometry $T:X(H) {\longrightarrow}X(H)$ preserves disjointness in a vector sense.
We will present the proof in the case when $X$ is nonatomic. If $X$ is a sequence space the proof is almost identical and slightly simpler.
Let us denote $e_{i,j}^n = e_i^n \otimes e_j\in X_n(H)$ ($e_j$ denotes elements of natural basis of $H$) and $f_{i,j}^n = Te_{i,j}^n$ for $j, n \in {{\Bbb{N}}},\
i \le 2^n.$
Define for any ${\omega}\in [0,1]
\times {{\Bbb{N}}}$ (or $\omega \in [0,1] \times \{1,\ldots,d\}$ in case (b)) $$F_n({\omega}) = \sum_{i=1}^{2^n} \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}
f_{i,j}^n({\omega})e_{i,j}^n.$$ Following the argument same as in Theorem 6.1 of [@KR] we see that for almost every $\omega$ $F_n({\omega})\in {{\cal{F}}}(X_n'(H)).$
For the sake of completness we present this argument here.
Denote by $\Pi(X(H))$ the set of pairs $(x,x^*)$ where $x\in X(H), \ x^*\in X'(H)$ and $1= \|x\|=\|x^*\|=x^*(x).$
We note first that by Proposition 2.5 of [@KR], $T^{-1}$ is $\sigma(X(H),X'(H))-$continuous and so has an adjoint $S=(T^{-1})':X'(H){\longrightarrow}X'(H).$ We define $g^n_i=Se^n_i$. Suppose $(x,x^*)\in \Pi(X_n(H))$ where $ x=\sum
a_{i,j}e^n_{i,j}$ and $ x^*=\sum a_{i,j}^*e_{i,j}^n.$ Then $(Tx,Sx^*)\in
\Pi(X(H))$ and this implies that $$(\sum_{i=1}^{2^n}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}a_{i,j}f^n_{i,j}(\omega))
(\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}a_{i,j}^*g^n_{i,j}(\omega))\ge
0{\label}{(*)}$$ for $\mu-$a.e. $\omega\in\Omega.$
Using the fact that $\Pi(X_n(H))$ is separable it follows that there is a set of measure zero $\Omega^n_0$ so that if $\omega\notin \Omega^n_0,$ holds for every $(x,x^*)\in
\Pi(X_n(H)).$ Let $ \Omega_0=\cup_{n\ge 1}\Omega_0^n.$
Now define $
G_n(\omega)=\sum_{i=1}^{2^n}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}g^n_{i,j}(\omega)e^n_{i
,j}\in X_n(H).$ The above remarks show that if $\omega\notin\Omega_0$ then
$x^*(G_n(\omega))\cdot F_n(\omega)(x)\ge 0$ for all $(x,x^*)\in
\Pi(X_n'(H)),$ i.e. $F_n(\omega)\in {{\cal{F}}}(X'_n(H))$ provided that $G_n(\omega)\neq 0$ and $\omega\notin\Omega_0.$ We will show that this happens for a.e. $\omega\in [0,1].$
Let $B_n=\{\omega:G_n(\omega)=0\}.$ Clearly $(B_n)$ is a descending sequence of Borel sets. Let $B=\cap B_n.$ If $\mu(B)>0$ then there exists a nonzero $h\in X(H)$ supported on $B$ and $\langle h, Sx'\rangle=0$ for every $x'\in X'(H)$. Thus $T^{-1}h=0,$ which contradicts the fact that $T$ is an isometry.
Let $D_n=\Omega\setminus(\Omega_0\cup B_n).$ Then $\mu(D_n)=0$ and if
$\omega\in
D_n$ then $G_n(\omega)\neq 0$ and so it follows that $F_n(\omega)\in\cal F(X'_n).$
Hence, by Proposition \[5.2a\], $${\label}{disj1}
\text{for a.e. ${\omega}$ \ \ \ }
\exists i_{{\omega}} \ \ \text{ so that } f_{i,j}^n({\omega}) =0 \ \ \
\forall i \ne i_{{\omega}}, j \in {{\Bbb{N}}}.$$
Let ${\nu}_1, {\nu}_2$ be any natural numbers. Consider the isometry $V$ of $H$ defined by $$V(e_j) = \begin{cases}
e_j &\text{ if } j \ne {\nu}_1,{\nu}_2,\\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e_{{\nu}_1} + e_{{\nu}_2}) &\text{ if }
j={\nu}_1,\\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e_{{\nu}_1} - e_{{\nu}_2}) &\text{ if } j={\nu}_2,
\end{cases}$$ and the induced isometry $\overline{V}$ of $X(H)$ defined by $V$ on each fiber. $$\overline{V}Te_{i,j}^n(t,{\nu}) = \begin{cases}
f_{i,j}^n(t,{\nu}) &\text{ if } \nu \ne {\nu}_1,{\nu}_2,\\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(f_{i,j}^n(t,{\nu}_1) + f_{i,j}^n(t,{\nu}_2))
&\text{ if } \nu ={\nu}_1,\\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(f_{i,j}^n(t,{\nu}_1) - f_{i,j}^n(t,{\nu}_2))
&\text{ if } \nu ={\nu}_2,
\end{cases}$$
Similarly as in we conclude that for almost every $t$ there exists $\bar{\imath}_{(t,v_1)}$ such that $\overline{V}Te_{i,j}^n(t,{\nu}_1) = 0$ for all $i \ne \bar{\imath}_{(t,v_1)}$. Therefore, for a.e. $t,$ $$f_{i,j}^n(t,{\nu}_1) + f_{i,j}^n(t,{\nu}_2) = 0 \ \ \forall i \ne
\bar{\imath}_{(t,v_1)}\ , \forall\ j\ .$$
Combining this with we get that for almost every $t
\in
[0,1]$ and any ${\nu}_1,{\nu}_2 \in {{\Bbb{N}}}\ \ $ $\bar{\imath}_{(t,v_1)}=i_{t,{\nu}_1} =
i_{t,{\nu}_2}.$ It follows easily that $T$ preserves disjointness of functions supported in disjoint dyadic intervals.
We are now ready to present the main result of this paper.
[isoxl2]{}
Suppose that $X$ is a rearrangement-invariant function space with norm not proportional to the $L_2$-norm. Suppose further that either $X$ is nonatomic on $[0,1]$ or it is a sequence space $(\dim X\le \infty),$ and let $H$ be a separable Hilbert space.
Suppose that $T:X(H) {\longrightarrow}X(H)$ is a surjective isometry. Then there exists a nonvanishing Borel function $a $ on ${\Omega}$ (where ${\Omega}= [0,1]$ if $X$ is nonatomic or ${\Omega}\subset {{\Bbb{N}}}$ if $X$ is a sequence space) and an invertible Borel map $\sigma:{\Omega}{\longrightarrow}{\Omega}$ such that, for any Borel set $B \subset {\Omega},$ we have ${\mu}(\sigma^{-1}B)=0$ if and only if ${\mu}(B)=0$ and a strongly measurable map $S$ of ${\Omega}$ into ${{\cal{B}}}(H)$ so that $S(t)$ is an isometry of $H$ onto itself for almost all $t$ and $$Tf(t)=a(t)S(t)(f(\sigma(t))) \text{ a.e.}$$ for any $f\in X(H).$
Moreover if $X$ is not equal to $L_p[0,1]$ up to equivalent renorming then $|a|= 1$ a.e. and ${\sigma}$ is measure-preserving.
We prove the theorem under the assumption that either:
1. $H=\ell_2;$ or
2. $H=\ell_2^d$ , $X$ has a norm not proportional to $L_p-$norm for any $1\le p\le\infty,$ $X$ satisfies property $(P')$ and $\dim X \ge 3$.
If $\dim X = 2$ the theorem follows from Theorem 3.12 of [@R86]. If $X= L_p[0,1]$, $p\ne2$ the theorem was proved by Greim [@G] and Cambern [@C81]. If $X$ does not satisfy property $(P')$ then $X'$ does and the result follows by duality argument. That is, Proposition 2.5 of [@KR] says that the isometry $T$ has an adjoint $T':X'(H)\to X'(H)$ which is a surjective isometry and thus has a canonical vector form. By Lemma \[2.4’\] $T''$ and hence $T$ has a canonical vector form.
So in the following we assume that the assertion of Proposition \[disj\] holds, i.e., the isometry $T$ preserves disjointness.
We follow almost exactly the argument of Sourour [@S78 Theorems 3.1 and 3.2].
Let $\{x_n\}$ be the countable linearly independent subset of $H$ whose linear span ${{\cal{D}}}$ is dense in $H$ and let ${{\cal{D}}}_0$ be the set of all linear combinations of $\{x_n\}$ with rational coefficients. For any measurable set $E$ let $$\Phi(E) = \bigcup_n {\operatorname{supp}}(T({\chi}_E x_n)).$$
Then, since $T$ is 1-1, $\Phi$ is a set-isomorphism.
Let $y_n = T(\underline{x}_n).$ For every $t \in {\Omega}$ define $$A(t)x_n = y_n(t)$$ and extend $A(t)$ linearly to ${{\cal{D}}}$ and thus for every $y \in
{{\cal{D}}}$ $\ \ A(\cdot)y = T(\underline{y})$ a.e. We will now extend $A(t)$ to a bounded operator on $X.$ Let $E\subset
{\Omega}$ be measurable and $y \in {{\cal{D}}}_0, $ then $${\label}{isoxl21}
\begin{split}
\|A(t)y {\chi}_{\Phi(E)} \|_{X(H)} &= \| T(\underline{y}(t){\chi}_{\Phi(E)}
\|_{X(H)} \\
&= \| T(\underline{y}{\chi}_{E} )\|_{X(H)} =
\|\underline{y}{\chi}_{E}\|_{X(H)} \\
&= \|{\chi}_E\|_X \|y\|_2
\end{split}$$
By absolute continuity we can define for almost every $t:$ $$a(t) = \lim\begin{Sb} {\mu}(E) \to 0 \\ t\in E \end{Sb}
\frac{\|{\chi}_{\Phi^{-1}(E)}
\|_X}{\|{\chi}_E\|_X }$$ (notice that if $X=L_p$ then $a(\cdot)$ coincides with the function $h(\cdot)$ considered by Sourour).
By $A(t) = a(t)S(t)$ a.e. where $S(t)$ is an isometry of $H.$
The strong measurability of $S$ and surjectivity of almost all $S(t)$ follow as in the proof of Sourour without change.
The final remark is now an immediate consequence of Theorem [7.2]{} of [@KR].
I wish to express my gratitude to Professor Nigel Kalton for his interest in this work and many valuable disscussions.
[10]{}
. . Boll. Un. Math. Ital. (1986) 405–410.
. . Pacific J. Math. (1974) 9–17.
. . Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. (1981) 13–26.
. . preprint.
. . J. Australian Math. Soc. (1977) 129–138.
. . Pacific J. Math. (1973) 387–393.
. . In: J. M. Belley, J. Dubois, and P. Morales, editors, [ *Measure Theory and Its Applications. Proc. Conf. Sherbrooke 1982. [ *Lecture Notes in Math. 1033*]{}*]{}, pages 209–218. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1983.
. . Math. Z. (1986) 33–39.
. . Quart. J. Math. Oxford (1994) 301–327.
. . Springer–Verlag, Berlin–Heidelberg–New York, 1979.
. . University of Missouri–Columbia, 1993.
. . Longhorn Notes, The University of Texas Functional Analysis Seminar (1984-5) 1–14.
. . Pacific J. Math. (1986) 417–467.
. . J. Funct. Anal. (1978) 276–285.
. . Pacific J. Math. (1969) 233–246.
. . Soviet Math. Dokl. (1977) 636–640.
. . Investigations on the theory of functions of several real variables, Yaroslavl (1980) . (in Russian).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a newly developed time-dependent three-dimensional multi-zone hadronic blazar emission model. By coupling a Fokker-Planck based lepto-hadronic particle evolution code 3DHad with a polarization-dependent radiation transfer code, 3DPol, we are able to study the time-dependent radiation and polarization signatures of a hadronic blazar model for the first time. Our current code is limited to parameter regimes in which the hadronic $\gamma$-ray output is dominated by proton synchrotron emission, neglecting pion production. Our results demonstrate that the time-dependent flux and polarization signatures are generally dominated by the relation between the synchrotron cooling and the light crossing time scale, which is largely independent of the exact model parameters. We find that unlike the low-energy polarization signatures, which can vary rapidly in time, the high-energy polarization signatures appear stable. As a result, future high-energy polarimeters may be able to distinguish such signatures from the lower and more rapidly variable polarization signatures expected in leptonic models.'
author:
- 'Haocheng Zhang, Chris Diltz, and Markus Böttcher'
title: 'Radiation and Polarization Signatures of 3D Multi-zone Time-dependent Hadronic Blazar Model'
---
Introduction
============
Blazars are the most violent class of active galactic nuclei. Their emission is known to be nonthermal-dominated, covering the entire electromagnetic spectrum from radio up to TeV $\gamma$-rays, with strong variability on all time scales [e.g., @Aharonian07]. Blazar spectral energy distributions (SEDs) are characterized by two broad, non-thermal components. The low-energy component, from radio to optical-UV, is generally agreed to be synchrotron radiation of ultrarelativistic electrons. The origin of the high-energy component, from X-rays to $\gamma$-rays, is still under debate. The leptonic model argues that the high-energy component is due to the inverse Compton scattering of either the low-energy synchrotron emission [SSC, e.g. @Marscher85; @Maraschi92] or external photon fields [EC, e.g., @Dermer92; @Sikora94], while the hadronic model suggests that the high-energy emission is dominated by synchrotron emission of ultrarelativistic protons and the cascading secondary particles resulting from photo-pion and photo-pair production processes [e.g., @Mannheim92; @Mucke01]. It is of high importance to many aspects of high energy astrophysics to distinguish these two models, because it will put strong constraints on the blazar jet power, the physics of the central black hole, the origin of ultra-high-energy (UHE) cosmic rays and very-high-energy (VHE, i.e., TeV – PeV) neutrinos. However, both models are generally able to produce reasonable fits to snap-shot SEDs of blazars [e.g., @Boettcher13]. Thus, additional diagnostics are necessary.
An obvious choice would be through the identification of blazars as the sources of VHE neutrinos, which are the “smoking gun” of hadronic interactions [e.g., @Halzen97; @Kistler14; @Diltz15; @Petropoulou15]. IceCube has reported detection of astrophysical VHE neutrinos, and there are hints that the origin of these neutrinos could be spatially connected to blazars [e.g., @Aartsen13; @Kadler16]. However, in view of the low angular resolution of IceCube, so far the sources of these neutrinos are still unknown.
An alternative is the study of light curves. The development of time-dependent leptonic models has been quite fruitful [e.g., @Joshi11; @Diltz14; @Weidinger15; @Asano15]. Although one-zone leptonic models sometimes have difficulty in explaining the frequently seen symmetric light curves, some multi-zone leptonic models that explicitly include the light travel time effects (LTTEs) have successfully resolved that issue [e.g., @Chen14]. On the other hand, due to the more complicated cascading processes, hadronic models are generally stationary and/or single-zone [e.g., @Mastichiadis95; @Cerruti15; @Yan15].
Another possible discriminant is that leptonic and hadronic models require very distinct magnetic field conditions. Radio to optical polarization measurements have been a standard probe of the jet magnetic field. In particular, recent observations of $\gamma$-ray flares with optical polarization angle (PA) swings and substantial polarization degree (PD) variations indicate the active role of the magnetic field during flares [e.g., @Marscher08; @Abdo10; @Blinov15]. Several models have been put forward to explain these phenomena [e.g., @Larionov13; @Marscher14; @ZHC15], and a first-principle magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) based model is also under development [@ZHC16]. For the high energy emission, [@ZHC13] have shown that by combining the infrared/optical and the X-ray/$\gamma$-ray polarization signatures, it would be possible to distinguish the two models. Several X-ray and $\gamma$-ray polarimeters are currently proposed and/or under development [e.g., @Hunter14]. However, despite remarkable progress that has been made to improve these high-energy polarimeters, they commonly suffer from limited sensitivity. If the high-energy polarization signatures vary as rapidly as the low-energy (optical) polarization, it will be difficult for these polarimeters to measure, as they will integrate over episodes of vastly different PAs. This prompted us to investigate the time-dependent high-energy polarization signatures of lepto-hadronic blazar models in more detail.
In this paper, we present a newly developed 3D multi-zone time-dependent hadronic model code, 3DHad. This new code is based on the one-zone time-dependent Fokker-Planck (FP) based lepto-hadronic code of [@Diltz15], but generalized to 3D multi-zone. By coupling with the 3D polarization-dependent ray-tracing routines of the 3DPol code developed by [@ZHC14], we will derive the time-dependent radiation and polarization signatures across the whole blazar SED, including all LTTEs. Hence, we can study the general phenomenology of the light curves and time-dependent polarization signatures. Hadronic models generally require very high jet powers and magnetic fields. Therefore, we will put physical constraints on the allowed parameter space by estimating the available jet power and magnetic field in the case of a Blandford-Znajek [@BZ77] powered jet. With the above consideration, we will predict detailed time-dependent polarization signatures from proton-synchrotron dominated hadronic models based on various jet conditions and flaring mechanisms. These results can be compared with multiwavelength light curves and future high-energy polarization measurements, putting stringent constraints on the blazar jet conditions in a hadronic model. We will describe our code setup and physical considerations in Section \[code\], sketch our model setup in Section \[model\], present case studies in Sections \[result1\] and \[result2\], and discuss the results in Section \[discussion\].
3DHad and Physical Considerations \[code\]
==========================================
In this section, we will first introduce 3DHad and its main features, and how it is coupled with 3DPol. Then we will justify the physical considerations for the hadronic model and put constraints on the parameter space. Finally, for code verification purposes, we will compare 3DHad with the one-zone hadronic code developed by [@Diltz15], and illustrate the similarities and differences.
Code Features
-------------
3DHad is a time-dependent multi-zone nonthermal electron and proton evolution code based on FP equations. The code is written in a module-oriented style in FORTRAN 95, fully parallelized by MPI. This code can directly take inputs of each zone, including geometry, magnetic field information, particle evolution, etc., either from inhomogeneous blazar model parameters, or from first principle simulations such as MHD and particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations. Based on the inputs, each zone will solve FP equations for the evolution of electron and proton energy distributions. In this first application that we present here, we will not consider any particle transfer between the zones, hence the FP equations in each zone are independent.
We apply an implicit Euler method to solve the FP equations numerically. The solutions of FP equations in each zone are based on the work by [@Diltz15]. The general form of the FP equation is $$\frac{\partial n(\gamma,t)}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial}{\partial \gamma} (K\gamma^2
\frac{\partial n(\gamma,t)}{\partial \gamma}) - \frac{\partial}{\partial \gamma}((\dot{\gamma}+
2K\gamma)n(\gamma,t))-\frac{n(\gamma,t)}{t_{esc}}+n_{inj}(\gamma,t)
\label{fpeq}$$ where $K=1/(2t_{acc})$. The underlying assumption in Eq. \[fpeq\] is that the particle evolution is governed by four processes, a fast first-order Fermi acceleration process characterized by $n_{inj}(\gamma,t)$, a second-order Fermi acceleration process characterized by a mass-independent acceleration time scale $t_{acc}$, the synchrotron cooling on $\dot{\gamma}$, and particle escape parameterized by an energy-independent escape time scale $t_{esc}$. In a steady, quiescent state, nonthermal particles are continuously injected into each zone with a power-law distribution in energy, $$n_{inj}(\gamma,t)=n_0\times\gamma^{-p},~\gamma_{min}<\gamma<\gamma_{max}$$ which represents a rapid particle acceleration mechanism, such as diffusive shock acceleration and magnetic reconnection [@Guo16] on time scales much shorter than the time resolution of our simulation. In addition to this process, the emission region may contain microscopic turbulence, which will mediate stochastic second-order Fermi acceleration. We take $t_{acc}=1/\alpha$ as the stochastic acceleration time scale, where $\alpha=\frac{d\gamma}{dt}/\gamma$ is the stochastic acceleration rate. The exact form of $\alpha$ depends on the turbulent acceleration model and the turbulence parameters. A detailed treatment of these aspects is beyond the scope of this paper. Here we simply take $t_{acc}$ to be independent of particle energy. In general, the Compton cooling rates in hadronic models are negligible compared to synchrotron losses due to the large magnetic fields [e.g., @Boettcher13], especially in the parameter space that we will employ here. Finally, since we do not consider particle transport between zones in this first application, we simply use an energy-independent escape time scale $t_{esc}$ to mimic the process that particles leave a particular zone and no longer contribute to the emission there.
While the original one-zone hadronic code in [@Diltz15] is very comprehensive, including all details of pion production, $\gamma$-$\gamma$ interactions, explicit muon and pion evolution, etc., in this paper, we will restrict the parameters to a regime in which the proton energy losses and radiative outputs are strongly dominated by proton synchrotron emission, thus neglecting photo-pion and photo-pair production processes, and following only the electron and proton evolution. In this way, the photon transfer between each zone will not affect the particle evolution. The parameter restrictions inherent in this assumption will be detailed in the next section.
3DHad solves the FP equations for the particle distributions in each zone at each time step; in order to calculate the resulting emission, the derived time-dependent particle distributions will be fed into 3DPol [@ZHC14], which has been upgraded to include synchrotron emission (and their polarization signatures) from heavier particles, such as protons. 3DPol can calculate the time-dependent radiation and polarization signatures based on the particle and magnetic field inputs. Since in the parameter regime adopted here, Compton scattering is negligible, radiation transfer between zones will not affect the particle evolution. Hence, the radiation transfer problem is reduced to a ray-tracing method. The gyroradius of a proton is given by $$r_g=\frac{\gamma_p m_pc^2}{eB} \sim 3\times 10^6 \frac{\gamma_p}{B (G)}~cm$$ For a magnetic field of $B \sim 10$ G, and the most energetic protons around $\gamma\sim10^9$, this yields a gyroradius of the order of $\sim 10^{14}$ cm, which is smaller than our spatial resolution in the emission region. Therefore, we can assume that all particles will radiate in their corresponding zones, and calculate the individual Stokes parameters in each zone. By adding up the ones that arrive at the observer at the same time, we naturally include all LTTEs.
The execution of the combined 3DHad and 3DPol is efficient. For the runs that we will show in this paper, they take about 20 minutes on 500 CPUs on LANL clusters. Therefore, the code has the potential to do larger runs for more detailed physical modeling, e.g., with physical conditions derived from MHD simulations.
Physical Constraints and Assumptions \[physics\]
------------------------------------------------
Hadronic blazar models usually require high magnetic fields and nonthermal particle energies close to the upper limits that blazars can plausibly provide based on our current understanding of accretion and jet formation processes [e.g., @Boettcher13; @Cerruti15; @Zdziarski15]. Here we estimate the resulting limits and put constraints on the hadronic model parameter space. We employ the conservation of magnetic flux in the jet to estimate the available magnetic field in the emission region, and the Eddington luminosity to constrain the total particle energy. The magnetic flux from the Blandford-Znajek mechanism is given by $$\Phi_h \sim 1.4\times 10^{33}\frac{1}{f_{\Omega}(a)}L_{46}M_9 ~ G\, cm^2$$ where $f_{\Omega}(a)=a/(1+\sqrt{1-a^2})$ and $a$ is the dimensionless spin parameter of the black hole, $L_{46}$ is the magnetic jet luminosity in units of $10^{46}~erg\,s^{-1}$, and $M_9$ is the black hole mass in units of $10^9$ solar masses. Assuming conservation of the poloidal magnetic flux along the jet, and that the poloidal component is comparable to the toroidal component, the magnetic flux in the emission region is approximated by $B\,\pi R^2$, where $R = 10^{16} \, R_{16}$ cm is the radius of the emission region. Given a bright blazar ($L_{46} \sim 100$) and a large central black hole mass ($M_9 \sim 1$), we find the first constraint, $$B\times R^2 \lesssim 10^{33}~G\,cm^2
\label{constraint1}$$ or $B \lesssim 10 \, R_{16}^{-2}$ G. Assuming bulk motion of the blazar emission region with a Lorentz factor $\Gamma \gg 1$, the kinetic luminosity in protons is evaluated by $$L_p \sim \pi R^2 \Gamma^2 c\, u_p$$ where $u_p=m_p c^2 \int_1^{\infty} d\gamma n_p (\gamma) \gamma$ is the proton energy density in the rest frame of the emission region, and $n_p(\gamma)$ is the proton spectral number density in that frame. We expect that the total proton kinetic luminosity should not exceed the Eddington luminosity, which is given by $$L_{\rm Edd} = 4\pi GMm_pc/\sigma_T \sim 1.2\times 10^{47} M_9~erg\,s^{-1}$$ With a bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma$ of a few tens, and using the same black hole mass as in Eq. \[constraint1\], we obtain the second constraint, $$u_p \times R^2 \lesssim 10^{33}~erg \, cm^{-1}
\label{constraint2}$$ In spite of significant uncertainties in constraints on physical conditions in blazars, Eqs. \[constraint1\] and \[constraint2\] allow us to put some stringent constraints on parameters to be used for our models. For instance, hadronic models typically require magnetic fields exceeding $10~G$ [e.g., @Boettcher13; @Cerruti15]. Hence by Eq. \[constraint1\], the size of the emission region in the comoving frame should generally be smaller than $10^{16}~cm$, which can be translated to a flare duration of $\sim 10~h$ in the observer’s frame, assuming a typical Lorentz factor $\Gamma \sim 20$. Therefore, flares that last several days, in particular in the low-energy bands such as optical, where the LTTEs generally dominate, are unlikely to be of hadronic origin, unless some general physical conditions are varying on longer time scales. We will demonstrate this point in Sections \[result1\] and \[result2\].
![Synchrotron and pion-production loss rates of a power law proton distribution with cut-offs $\gamma_{min} = 1.0$, $\gamma_{max} = 10^{8}$, spectral index $p_p = 2.2$ in an emission region of size $R = 10^{16}~cm$ and magnetic field of $B = 50~G$. Synchrotron losses generally dominate over pion-production losses for ultrarelativistic protons. \[assumption2\]](LossRate.eps){width="\linewidth"}
For this preliminary study, we will make some additional assumptions in order to avoid more complicated radiation-feedback calculations, so that only the electron and proton evolution are important. The assumptions are:
1. Proton and electron energy losses are dominated by synchrotron cooling;
2. $\gamma\gamma$ opacity and pair-production are negligible;
This restricts the parameter space in which our model is applicable, as detailed in the following.
For assumption 1, we need to make sure that the synchrotron cooling for protons should be faster than the pion-production cooling rate. The synchrotron loss rate for protons is given by $$\dot \gamma_{p,syn} = -\frac{c \sigma_{T} B^{2}}{6 \pi m_{e} c^{2}} \ (\frac{m_{e}}{m_{p}})^{3} \gamma_{p}^{2}$$ and the pion production loss rate is given by [@Aharonian00] $$\dot \gamma_{p,p\gamma} = -c \langle \sigma_{p\gamma} f \rangle n_{ph} (\epsilon^{*}) \epsilon^{*} \gamma_{p}$$ where $\langle \sigma_{p\gamma} f \rangle \sim 10^{-28}~cm^{2}$ represents the elasticity-weighted $p\gamma$ interaction cross section, $\epsilon^{*} = 5.9 \times 10^{-8}~E_{19}^{-1}$ represents the energy of target photons interacting with protons of energy $E = 10^{19} E_{19}$ eV at the $\Delta$ resonance, and $n_{ph} (\epsilon)$ represents the target photon field for photo-pion production in units of photon energy normalized with respect to the rest mass of the electron, $\epsilon = h\nu/m_{e}c^{2}$. For a typical set of parameters of a hadronic blazar model, the two energy loss rates are plotted in Fig. \[assumption2\]. By comparing the two rates, we find that synchrotron losses dominate for protons with Lorentz factors $$\gamma_{p} > \frac{6 \pi m_{e} c^{2} \langle \sigma_{p\gamma} f \rangle n_{ph} (\epsilon^{*})
\epsilon^{*}}{\sigma_{T} B^{2}} \ (\frac{m_{p}}{m_{e}})^{3}$$ Assuming that the relevant section of the target synchrotron photon spectrum in the comoving frame is in the form of a power-law, $n_{ph} (\epsilon) = n_{ph}^{0} \epsilon^{-\alpha}$, the above constraint can be written as $$\gamma_{p} > \frac{6 \pi m_{e} c^{2} \langle \sigma_{p\gamma} f \rangle n_{ph}^{0}
(\epsilon^{*})^{1 - \alpha}}{\sigma_{T} B^{2}} \ (\frac{m_{p}}{m_{e}})^{3}$$ For the highest energy protons typically used in the lepto-hadronic modeling of FSRQs, $\gamma_{p, max} \sim 10^{8}$, the most efficient target photons for pion production have energies of $\epsilon^{*} = 590/\gamma_{p} \sim 6.0 \times 10^{-6}$. This is generally in the optical and UV bands, which is dominated by electron synchrotron emission. Using the delta approximation for the synchrotron power of electrons [@Boettcher12] and assuming a steady state electron distribution in the form of a power law, the constraint can then be rewritten in terms of the model parameters, $$(10^{-17}B(G)\gamma_p)^{\frac{p_e-3}{2}}R(cm)n_{0,e}(cm^{-3})<10^{22}$$ where $n_{0,e}$ is the normalization factor of the electron distribution, $p_e$ is the electron power-law index, $R$ is the radius of the emission region, and $\gamma_p$ is the proton Lorentz factor. As we can see, for a soft electron spectrum, $p_e\gtrsim 3$, given the physical constraints of Eqs. \[constraint1\] and \[constraint2\], the above equation generally holds for all proton energies that significantly contribute to the radiative output. For hard electron spectrum, $p_e\lesssim 3$, the low-energy protons may be subject to dominant pion-production losses. However, the total radiative output of these low-energy protons will be negligible compared to the output by ultrarelativistic protons ($\gamma_p \gtrsim 10^7$) and can therefore be safely neglected.
Assumption 2 requires that the $\gamma\gamma$ optical depth satisfies $\tau_{\gamma \gamma}
(\epsilon_{1}) < 1$. This implies a minimum Doppler factor of $$\delta_{D} > \sqrt[6]{\frac{\sigma_{T} d_{L}^{2} f_{\epsilon^{obs}}^{pk} (1 + z)^{2}
\epsilon_{1}^{obs}}{4 m_{e} c^{4} t_{v}}}
\label{deltaconstraint1}$$ [@Dondi95], where $d_{L}$ represents the luminosity distance of the source, $\epsilon_{1}^{obs}$ represents the highest observed energy of $\gamma$-ray photons, $f_{\epsilon^{obs}}^{pk}$ represents the observed flux of target photons and $t_{v}$ represents the variability time scale. The energy of the observed target photons in terms of the observed $\gamma$-ray photon energy is given by $\epsilon^{obs} = 2 \delta_{D}^{2}/[(1+z)^{2} \epsilon_{1}^{obs}]$. The observed flux at energy $\epsilon$ can be written in terms of the synchrotron photon field in the comoving frame of the jet, $$f_{\epsilon} = \epsilon F_{\epsilon} = \frac{\delta_{D}^{4} m_{e} c^{2} V_{b} \epsilon^{2} \
n_{ph}(\epsilon)}{4 \pi d_{L}^{2} t_{lc}}$$ where $t_{lc}$ is the light crossing time scale and $V_{b}$ represents the comoving volume of the emission region. High energy $\gamma$-rays of blazars typically peak around $\epsilon_{1}^{obs} \sim 1000$. The characteristic energy of target photons for pair-production in an FSRQ, such as 3C 279, is then $\epsilon^{obs} = 2 \delta_{D}^{2}/[(1+z)^{2} \epsilon_{1}^{obs}] \sim 0.33$, which is in the hard X-ray band. This suggests that proton synchrotron emission represents the primary target photon field for pair-production. Assuming the target photon field is in the form of a power law, the constraint of Eq. (\[deltaconstraint1\]) can be rewritten as $$\delta_{D} > \frac{1}{6}\sigma_{T} n_{ph}^{0}R \epsilon^{1 - \alpha} (1 + z)$$ Again we apply the delta approximation for the synchrotron power of protons [@Boettcher12] and assuming a steady state proton distribution in the form of a power law, the constraint can then be rewritten in terms of the hadronic model parameters, $$\frac{\delta_{D}}{1+z} \gtrsim 10^{-51}(10^{-17})^{p_{p} - 2} R^2 B^{p_p} n_{0,p}\gamma_{p, max}^{p_{p}-1}$$ where $R$ is in units of cm, $B$ in units of G, and $n_{0, p}$ in units of cm$^{-3}$. With the physical constraint in Eq. \[constraint2\] and a typical Doppler factor of $\sim 20$, the above constraint is satisfied for all parameter combinations employed in this study.
Additionally, as it has been shown in many hadronic fittings [e.g., @Boettcher13; @Cerruti15], Compton scattering generally does not make a substantial contribution due to the large magnetic field, hence we will also neglect this effect here.
Comparison with One-zone Code \[compare\]
-----------------------------------------
In order to verify the validity of our multi-zone hadronic radiation transfer approach, we compare the results of the one-zone code of [@Diltz15] to the results obtained with 3DHad+3DPol. We consider two sets of parameters for the quiescent state, Set 1 and 2, as listed in Table \[quiescent\]. These parameters refer to the pre-flare equilibrium state, where all cells are characterized by the same set of parameters. The difference between these two parameter sets is that Set 1 has particle evolution time scales generally larger than the light crossing time scale, while in Set 2 the light crossing time scale is generally the longest relevant time scale. Both parameter sets obey the constraints derived above. In order to examine the flare features, we change the proton injection density rate for the entire emission region after equilibrium has been achieved: for Set 1, we choose $\dot{u}_{p,inj}= 1.2\times 10^{-2} erg\,s^{-1}cm^{-3}$; for Set 2, $\dot{u}_{p,inj}= 1.5\times 10^{-5} erg\,s^{-1}cm^{-3}$.
Since the particle evolution time scales are longer than the light crossing time scale in Set 1, we expect that the light curves from the one-zone code and 3DHad+3DPol should appear similar. For Set 2, however, since 3DHad+3DPol explicitly includes the LTTEs, we expect that the light curve will appear more symmetric in time than calculated with the one-zone code, which does not include LTTEs. Fig. \[comparison\] presents the results. While minor differences probably due to the different geometry and the formulas are noticeable, the results generally meet our expectation. As a result, we conclude that 3DHad+3DPol is in agreement with the corresponding one-zone model for an appropriate choice of geometry.
Parameters Set 1 Set 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------
Bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma$ $20.0$ $20.0$
Orientation of LOS $\theta_{obs}$ $(^{\circ})$ $90$ $90$
Radius of the emission region $R$ $(10^{16}cm)$ $1.0$ $9.0$
Height of the emission region $Z$ $(10^{16}cm)$ $1.33$ $12.0$
Acceleration time scale $t_{acc}$ $(10^6 s)$ $8.2$ $2.9$
Escaping time scale $t_{esc}$ $(10^6 s)$ $2.0$ $1.5$
Background injection electron density rate $\dot{u}_{e,inj}$ $(erg\,s^{-1}cm^{-3})$ $2.8\times 10^{-7}$ $3.9\times 10^{-10}$
Background injection electron minimum energy $\gamma_{e,min}$ $100$ $80$
Background injection electron maximum energy $\gamma_{e,max}$ $10000$ $3500$
Background injection electron spectral index $p_e$ $2.8$ $2.8$
Background injection proton density rate $\dot{u}_{p,inj}$ $(erg\,s^{-1}cm^{-3})$ $3\times 10^{-3}$ $1.9\times 10^{-6}$
Background injection proton minimum energy $\gamma_{p,min}$ $1$ $1$
Background injection proton maximum energy $\gamma_{p,max}$ $5\times 10^8$ $3\times 10^8$
Background injection proton spectral index $p_p$ $2.2$ $2.2$
Helical magnetic field $B$ $(G)$ $50.0$ $80.0$
Magnetic pitch angle $\theta_B$ $(^{\circ})$ $45$ $45$
: Summary of model parameters in the quiescent state. Except for the Lorentz factor, which is in the observer’s frame, all parameters are in the comoving frame of the emission region. The time resolution is always identical to the typical light crossing time of a zone. Due to the small size of the emission region in parameter Set 1, it is computationally expensive to obtain high time resolution. The resulting light curves and polarization signatures, however, due to the implicit Euler method employed to solve the Fokker-Planck equations, we still obtain stable solutions for relatively large time steps (Figs. \[case1a\] to \[case1d\]). \[quiescent\]
![Comparison of 3DHad and the one-zone hadronic code of [@Diltz15]. Left: Quiescent SEDs. Black curves show the 3DHad total SED (thick solid), as well as the electron synchrotron (dashed) and the proton synchrotron (dotted) individual contributions. Red lines show the one-zone code total (thick dashed-dotted), electron (short dashed), proton (short dotted). Right: Light curves. Black solid lines show the 3DHad output, while red dashed-dotted lines show the output of the one-zone code. Upper panel: parameter Set 1 with additional proton injection as described in Section \[compare\]. Lower panel: parameter Set 2 with additional proton injection. \[comparison\]](Comparison.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Model Setup \[model\]
=====================
The purpose of this paper is to study the general radiation and polarization signatures of hadronic blazar models. To show the most generic features of such models, we employ a simple model setup with the least physical assumptions. We assume that a cylindrical emission region travels relativistically in a straight trajectory along the jet, when it encounters a flat stationary disturbance, resulting in a flare. While we are observing blazars at a small observing angle $\theta^{\ast}_{obs}$ along the jet in the observer’s frame, due to relativistic aberration, the observing angle $\theta_{obs}$ is much larger in the comoving frame of the emission region. Specifically, if $\theta^{\ast}_{obs} = 1/\Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is the Lorentz factor of the emission region in the observer’s frame, then $\theta_{obs} = 90^{\circ}$ for $\Gamma \gg 1$. As observations frequently suggest $\theta^{\ast}_{obs} \sim 1/\Gamma$, we will choose $\theta_{obs} = 90^{\circ}$. In this case, the Doppler factor is $\delta \equiv ( \Gamma [1 - \beta_{\Gamma} \cos\theta_{obs}^{\ast}] )^{-1} = \Gamma$.
In the comoving frame, the emission region is pervaded by a helical magnetic field. For this preliminary study, we will not add any turbulent field component. While a turbulent magnetic field is likely to dominate the polarization fluctuations occurring mostly in the quiescent state [@Marscher14], during major flares the polarization signatures appear more systematic, indicating a deterministic process [e.g., @Abdo10; @Blinov15; @Kiehlmann16]. [@ZHC15] have explicitly demonstrated that in such cases, the addition of a turbulent field component indeed yields better fit to the observational data, but the general trends of radiation and polarization signatures are similar to a purely helical field.
The disturbance will propagate through the emission region in the comoving frame. The zones affected by the disturbance will have different physical conditions from the initial state. After the disturbance moves out of a given zone, the zone will revert to its initial conditions. We point out that while the physical conditions such as the stochastic acceleration and the nonthermal particle injection can reasonably return to the quiescent state after the passage of the disturbance, this is not necessarily the case for the magnetic field strength and topology. However, the polarization signatures are frequently observed to quickly return to the initial values even after major variations such as PA swings [e.g., @Abdo10; @Morozova14; @Blinov15; @Blinov16], indicating the restoration of the magnetic field. [@ZHC16] have shown that this restoration is only possible when there is substantial magnetic energy compared to the plasma kinetic energy in the emission region. In most hadronic models, the magnetic energy is comparable to or stronger than the kinetic energy [e.g., @Boettcher13]. In particular, the parameter sets we will use in the following satisfy this condition.
Due to the LTTEs and the chosen $\theta_{obs}$, although the disturbance is flat, the observed “flaring region” will appear different. Fig. \[LTTE\] shows a sketch of our model, especially, the shapes of the flaring regions when the disturbance propagates through various locations in the emission region. The flaring region is composed of an “active region” with a slanted, ellipsoidal shape due to LTTEs, and an “evolving region” which is due to the slow evolution of protons. The zones outside the flaring region are termed as the “quiescent region”. The impact of the LTTEs on the polarization signatures has been discussed in detail in [@ZHC14; @ZHC15].
The parameter Sets 1 and 2 described in the previous section characterize the quiescent states for the following studies. We choose the same size of the disturbance in all the following case studies, which is $0.25$ times the length of the cylindrical emission region, so that the disturbance propagation time scale in a specific zone is $t_{\rm dp}=0.25 t_{\rm lc}$. We consider four scenarios in the active region that give rise to flares due to the disturbance:
a. Magnetic energy dissipation, where the magnetic field strength will decrease and its topology will change, along with additional particle injection;
b. Magnetic compression, where the magnetic field strength will increase and change its topology;
c. Enhanced particle injection for both electrons and protons;
d. Enhanced stochastic acceleration, where the stochastic acceleration time scale becomes shorter.
The flaring parameters for these scenarios are listed in Table \[flare\]. Since the flaring mechanisms are so different, in order to facilitate direct comparison, we choose the flaring parameters so that they result in approximately equal amplitudes of $\gamma$-ray flares. Also, we define similar epochs in the $\gamma$-ray light curves, approximately at the quiescent state, before the flare peak, at the peak of the flare, and after the peak. We point out that the low-energy (electron-synchrotron) light curves can look very different from the $\gamma$-ray light curves due to the drastically different radiative cooling time scales of protons and electrons.
![Sketch of the model and LTTEs. Left: a disturbance propagates through the emission region pervaded by a helical magnetic field in its comoving frame. Red, green, and blue colors denote the location of the disturbance at approximately entering ($t_1$), leaving the emission region ($t_2$), and some time after leaving the emission region ($t_3$). Right: the corresponding flaring region at the $t_1$ to $t_3$ at equal photon-arrival times at the observer. Dashed shaded regions are the active region; the region between the dashed shaded region and the dotted shape is the evolving region. \[LTTE\]](LTTE.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Parameters Case 1a Case 2a Case 1b Case 1c Case 2c Case 1d
-------------------------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------
$t_{acc,d}$ $(10^6 s)$ – – – – – $0.51$
$\dot{u}_{e,inj,d}$ $(erg\,s^{-1}cm^{-3})$ $3.0\times 10^{-6}$ $4.1\times 10^{-9}$ – $1.6\times 10^{-6}$ $2.2\times 10^{-9}$ –
$\dot{u}_{p,inj,d}$ $(erg\,s^{-1}cm^{-3})$ $5.5\times 10^{-2}$ $9.8\times 10^{-6}$ – $5.5\times 10^{-2}$ $9.6\times 10^{-6}$ –
$B_d$ $(G)$ $36.6$ $58.6$ $136.6$ – – –
$\theta_{B_d}$ $(^{\circ})$ $75$ $75$ $75$ – – –
: Summary of the model parameters at the disturbance. Only the parameters that are varied in the case studies are listed here. All parameters have the same meaning as in Table \[quiescent\], except for the subscript $d$ which denotes the parameters at the disturbance. \[flare\]
Synchrotron Cooling and LTTEs \[result1\]
=========================================
In this section, we will study Scenario a, magnetic energy dissipation to illustrate the effect of the relation between synchrotron cooling time scales and LTTEs. [@Guo16] have performed comprehensive PIC simulations to show that both electrons and protons can be effectively accelerated during magnetic reconnection events. As the detailed simulation of a reconnection event is beyond the scope of this paper, we simply assume that the particle injection is enhanced and the magnetic field is weakened in the disturbance, and keep the particle injection index the same as in the quiescent state. We have not included any thermal radiation contributions to the multiwavelength emission, such as the big blue bump typically seen in the flat spectrum radio quasars, or the host galaxy. In this way, the difference in the time-dependent radiation and polarization signatures mostly originates from the intrinsic hadronic physics. Proton synchrotron cooling is much slower than that for electrons. Due to the strong magentic field, the electron cooling time scale ($t_{\rm ec}$) is generally shorter than the light crossing time scale ($t_{\rm lc}$). Moreover, as is shown in Eq. \[constraint1\], the size of the emission region in the hadronic model has an upper limit due to the magnetic-flux constraint. Thus in most applicable situations, the proton cooling time scale ($t_{\rm pc}$) is comparable to or longer than $t_{\rm lc}$. In the following, we will demonstrate that this time scale relation, $t_{\rm ec} < t_{\rm lc} \lesssim t_{\rm pc}$, which is largely intrinsic to the hadronic model without any strong parameter dependence, is governing the general shape of the light curves and polarization signatures.
Case 1a
-------
This case refers to a small emission region (baseline parameter set 1) with magnetic energy dissipation (flaring scenario a) and is illustrated in Figure \[case1a\]. Since we do not vary the power-law index for the enhanced particle injection, the SEDs (Fig. \[case1a\] upper left) generally keep the same spectral indices during flares. In the quiescent state, the PD vs photon energy (Fig. \[case1a\] upper right) displays minor fluctuations across the entire spectrum. However, during the flare, we notice considerable spectral PD variations. These are shown in more detail in the time evolution of radiation and polarization signatures (middle and bottom panels of Fig. \[case1a\]).
Before we move to the emission evolution, we first take a look at the particle evolution. Fig. \[particle\] presents the electron (upper left) and proton (upper right) spectral evolution for Case 1a. In the electron evolution, owing to the short $t_{\rm ec}$, after the disturbance leaves a certain zone, most electrons only take about a disturbance propagation time scale $t_{\rm dp}$ to revert to the pre-flare equilibrium. However, the lowest-energy electrons have longer synchrotron cooling timescales, thus they take longer (up to $\sim 4 t_{\rm dp}=1 t_{\rm lc}$) to revert to the quiescent state. Therefore, the evolving region for the electrons is comparable to the active region, except for the lowest-energy electrons where it is moderately larger. The proton evolution appears very different. In view of the much longer cooling time scale $t_{\rm pc}$, after about $20 t_{\rm dp}$, the proton synchrotron contribution from the evolving region no longer dominates the active region, and it takes about $60 t_{\rm dp}$ (i.e., about $15 t_{\rm lc}$) to evolve back to a state close to the quiescent equilibrium. Hence for protons the evolving region overwhelms the active region.
These features are clearly reflected in light curves and polarization variations. For the low-energy component, since the evolving region for electrons is relatively small, the LTTEs will be dominating. Thus the flaring region on the right side of the sketch in Fig. \[LTTE\] is generally similar to that on the left side. Therefore, the light curves from radio to UV appear generally symmetric in time (Fig. \[case1a\] middle left). However, due to the slightly longer $t_{\rm ec}$ for the lowest-energy electrons, which are responsible for the radio emission, the radio peaks a little bit later than the optical and UV. Unlike the light curves, which only depend on the luminosity, the polarization signatures are also affected by the PD and PA in each zone. As the magnetic field structure varies from the active region to the evolving and the quiescent region, even in the PD and PA of the optical and UV bands we find a small degree of asymmetry in time. We notice that both the optical and UV bands exhibit a PA swing and significant PD variations (Fig. \[case1a\] middle and lower right). This is consistent with the results of [@ZHC14; @ZHC15], where these effects are discussed in detail.
The proton evolving region dominates the high-energy emission. All light curves peak considerably later than the low-energy light curves; in particular, we find long cooling tails in the high-energy light curves, which strongly extend the flare duration (Fig. \[case1a\] lower left). In the polarization signatures, we only find small changes in both PD and PA (Fig. \[case1a\] middle and lower right), due to the strong contamination from the evolving region, which has the same magnetic topology as the quiescent region. Specifically, at the beginning of the flare, as the evolving region is very small, the PD shows a relatively large drop. After that the evolving region becomes dominant, hence the polarization gradually recovers its initial state. When the active region has completely moved out, approximately at the same time when the low-energy flare stops, the high-energy polarization signatures appear largely identical to the quiescent state.
Case 2a
-------
The major difference of Case 2a (baseline parameter set 2) compared to Case 1a lies in the longer light crossing time, $t_{\rm lc}$. Again we examine the particle evolution (Fig. \[particle\] lower panel). When the disturbance moves out of a certain zone, most electrons revert to the quiescent equilibrium immediately, except for the electrons responsible for the radio emission, which take up to about $0.5 t_{\rm dp}$ to recover. Thus, the evolving region is generally smaller than the active region. For protons, after the disturbance leaves, they continue to make a substantial contribution to the high-energy emission for $\sim 3 t_{\rm dp}=0.75 t_{\rm dp}$, although it takes $\sim 7 t_{\rm dp}$ to fully recover to equilibrium. Hence, the evolving region is moderately larger than the active region.
Consequently, in the low-energy component, all light curves and polarization signatures appear symmetric in time without any noticeable delay (Fig. \[case2a\] middle left); additionally, all bands display PA swings, although the radio polarization slightly diverges from the others (Fig. \[case2a\] middle and lower right). In the high-energy component, the light curves appear generally symmetric in time, though they still peak later and the flares last longer than in the low-energy light curves (Fig. \[case2a\] lower left). Nevertheless, the polarization contamination from the evolving region is still significant, thus there is no PA swing in the high-energy bands (Fig. \[case2a\] middle and lower right). We notice that unlike the light curves, the high-energy polarization signatures are still synchronized with the low-energy flares and polarization variations: they all end approximately when the active region moves out.
To summarize this section, we find that the combined effects of synchrotron cooling and LTTEs will result in some interesting features in the hadronic models. First, the polarization signatures in the high-energy component are nearly identical from X-rays to $\gamma$-rays. Therefore, X-ray and $\gamma$-ray polarimeters may both be able to measure hadronic signatures in the high-energy polarization. Additionally, in the quiescent state, if the electrons and protons reside in the same emission region, the high-energy polarization signatures should be generally identical to the low-energy component. Moreover, the low-energy light curves and polarization variations are generally symmetric in time, but the high-energy signatures are generally asymmetric. Also the high-energy flares generally peak later and last longer than the low-energy flares. The low-energy flares and polarization variations, as well as the high-energy polarization variations, are generally synchronized. Finally, while the low-energy polarization signatures may vary rapidly during flares, high-energy polarization signatures appear generally stable.
![Case 1a. Upper left: snap-shot SEDs approximately in the quiescent state (black solid, A), shortly before the flare peak (red dashed, B), at the flare peak (blue dotted, C), and after the flare peak (magenta dashed-dotted, D). Thin curves show the individual contributions from electron synchrotron and proton synchrotron. Upper right: snap-shot polarization degree vs photon energy. Curves are chosen at the same epochs as the SEDs. Middle and lower left: multiwavelength light curves chosen at radio (30 to 300 GHz, navy short-dashed), optical (1.8 to 3.2 eV, thick orange solid), UV (3.3 to 6.2 eV, olive short-dotted), X-ray (60 to 200 keV, purple dotted), MeV $\gamma$-ray (5 to 200 MeV, AdEPT, pink dashed-dotted), and GeV $\gamma$-ray (20 MeV to 300 GeV, [*Fermi*]{}-LAT, thick violet dashed) bands. Due to the large bandwidth of the GeV light curve, it collects a much higher total luminosity than the keV and MeV bands. Hence we manually boost those two bands by a fixed number to allow us to show them in the same figure. Middle and lower right: multiwavelength PD and PA vs time. Bands are chosen the same as light curves. \[case1a\]](Case1a.eps){width="\linewidth"}
![Case 2a. Due to the larger emission region, the flare duration is longer. Otherwise, panels and line styles are the same as in Fig. \[case1a\]. \[case2a\]](Case2a.eps){width="\linewidth"}
![Particle spectra for Case 1a and 2a. Left: electron spectra at various epochs. Right: proton spectra at various epochs. Upper: particle spectra for Case 1a. Lower: particle spectra for Case 2a. The particle spectra are chosen at various epochs in units of light crossing time scales ($t_{\rm lc}$) in both cases, approximately at the quiescent state (0), in the middle of the disturbance (0.125), as the disturbance leaves the zone (0.25), and at later times. \[particle\]](ParticleSpectra.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Case Study of Alternative Flaring Scenarios \[result2\]
=======================================================
In this section, we will present more case studies to further test the hadronic features listed in the previous section, and examine how the different flaring mechanisms may affect the radiation and polarization signatures. We notice that the radio emission from blazars is generally dominated by the large-scale jets instead of the local emission region, therefore, we will not show the radio signatures in the following. Moreover, the optical and UV bands appear identical; the same applies to the keV, MeV, and GeV bands. Thus in the following we will only take the optical and [*Fermi*]{}-LAT GeV band as representative for the low- and high-energy components, respectively, and term the GeV band simply as “$\gamma$-ray”.
Scenario b
----------
We first look at Case 1b, compression of the magnetic field. In the presence of a strong magnetic field, most electrons are efficiently synchrotron cooled. This means that the electron synchrotron is already at maximal radiative efficiency. Consequently, the enhanced magnetic field will not boost the low-energy synchrotron flux, so that no flare is observed in the optical band (Fig. \[case1b\] middle left). However, the active region possesses a dominant toroidal magnetic field topology, leading to a considerable drop in the PD (Fig. \[case1b\] middle right). Nevertheless, the active region does not provide additional emission, thus the enhanced toroidal magnetic field alone is unable to trigger a PA swing (Fig. \[case1b\] lower right).
On the other hand, the high-energy synchrotron component exhibits some interesting features. Due to the enhanced magnetic field in the active region, the proton cooling becomes faster, giving rise to higher flux. Additionally, after the disturbance moves out a certain zone, the proton spectrum has a lower normalization than in the quiescent state. Hence the evolving region actually provides less emission than the quiescent region, leading to a minor contamination in the emission signatures. This is clearly shown at the end of the flare (Fig. \[case1b\] lower left), where the $\gamma$-ray light curve drops below the initial value. Also in the PD vs photon energy, we find a rapidly increasing PD tail at the highest energy, due to the exponential cooling cut-off in the proton spectrum (Fig. \[case1b\] upper right). In this way, the radiation and polarization signatures during the flare are dominated by the active region. Therefore, the $\gamma$-ray light curve becomes generally symmetric in time, and there are significant and generally time-symmetric PD changes and a PA swing during the flare (Fig. \[case1b\] middle, lower right).
In conclusion, the special properties in this scenario include an orphan $\gamma$-ray flare, and major polarization variations in both low- and high-energy components. In particular, there may be a $\gamma$-ray PA swing. Nonetheless, we want to emphasize that in the hadronic model, the magnetic field is very strong, and in most cases carries energy comparable to or even stronger than the plasma kinetic energy. In order to adequately compress the magnetic field, strong shocks are necessary, which are unlikely to happen in such a highly magnetized environment [@Komissarov11]. As a result, we suggest that this scenario is unlikely in practice. For the parameter Set 2, the magnetic energy is much stronger than the kinetic energy, further prohibiting this scenario. Thus we will not discuss Case 2b.
![Case 1b. Compared to Fig. \[case1a\], we removed the radio, UV, keV and MeV bands, and termed the GeV band as $\gamma$-ray. Otherwise, panels and line styles are the same as in Fig. \[case1a\]. \[case1b\]](Case1b.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Scenario c
----------
This is the case of enhanced particle injection at the disturbance without changing the magnetic field. Hence, the synchrotron cooling rates remain unchanged. The polarization variations in the optical band generally arise from the active region as it energizes up different parts of the emission region during its propagation (Fig. \[case1c\] middle and lower right). This has been discussed in detail in [@ZHC14]. On the other hand, owing to the large evolving region of the proton population, the high-energy polarization signatures again appear asymmetric in time and exhibit smaller variations than the low-energy ones. Compared to Case 1a, since the magnetic field topology is unchanged, we find an increase in the PD instead (Fig. \[case1c\] middle and lower right). For Case 2c, LTTEs dominate. As a result, both the $\gamma$-ray light curve and the PA variability appear generally symmetric in time (Fig. \[case2c\] lower). However, we can still see in the PD that the large evolving region will substantially contaminate the PD from the active region, giving rise to an asymmetric time variation (Fig. \[case2c\] middle right). In conclusion, Scenario c (enhanced particle injection) results in similar features as Scenario a (particle energization by magnetic energy dissipation).
![Case 1c. Panels and line styles are the same as in Fig. \[case1a\]. \[case1c\]](Case1c.eps){width="\linewidth"}
![Case 2c. Compared to Fig. \[case2a\], we removed the radio, UV, keV and MeV bands, and termed the GeV band as $\gamma$-ray. Otherwise, panels and line styles are the same as in Fig. \[case2a\]. \[case2c\]](Case2c.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Scenario d
----------
We finally consider Scenario d, enhanced stochastic acceleration. We assume that the stochastic acceleration parameterized by $t_{acc}$, which represents the wave-particle interaction with plasma waves in the turbulence, is enhanced due to the action of a shock. In view of the very fast synchrotron cooling of electrons, even the shortened acceleration time scale is still too long to have a significant impact on the electron distribution. Hence we observe featureless radiation and polarization signatures in the low-energy component (Fig. \[case1d\] middle, lower right). In the high-energy component, the enhanced acceleration boost the protons to higher energy, so that the SED becomes harder above a few GeV (Fig. \[case1d\] upper left). However, since the total particle injection rate is kept unchanged, no major change is detected at lower energies. Otherwise, the high-energy signatures are similar to Case 1c. The same applies to Case 2c, hence we will not discuss it in detail here.
We conclude that enhanced stochastic acceleration will result in a mild orphan $\gamma$-ray flare, similar to Case 1b. The differences are: phenomenologically, both low- and high-energy polarization signatures are stable in time, and there is no orphan flare in the X-ray band; physically, stochastic acceleration is due to magneto-hydrodynamic turbulence in the emission region, whose characteristics are likely to be altered by a passing shock. Therefore, we suggest that this case is more plausible than Scenario b.
![Case 1d. Panels and line styles are the same as in Fig. \[case1a\]. \[case1d\]](Case1d.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Discussions and Conclusion \[discussion\]
=========================================
In this paper, we have presented the first 3D multi-zone time-dependent lepto-hadronic blazar code, 3DHad, describing a lepto-hadronic model in a parameter regime in which the high-energy emission is dominated by proton synchrotron radiation. By coupling with the 3DPol code, we are able to derive the time-dependent flux and polarization signatures of this lepto-hadronic blazar emission model, including all LTTEs. Our work thus makes the first attempt to study the time-dependent lepto-hadronic multi-wavelength polarization signatures of blazar emission.
We have explicitly calculated the physical constraints for the hadronic model. Based on our estimates, if the Blandford-Znajek mechanism is responsible for powering the jet and providing the the magnetic field in the jet, the hadronic emission region cannot be very large due to the limited magnetic flux that the central black hole can provide. Therefore, the largest variability time scale in the observer’s frame is unlikely to exceed a few days. Also, the high particle energy necessary for the lepto-hadronic scenario requires extreme jet powers. These constraints would also suggest that UHE extragalactic neutrinos are unlikely to be attributed to blazars, as photo-pion production is negligible. If the lepto-hadronic polarization signatures derived here are indeed detected in future observations, the required extremely efficient particle acceleration, strong magnetic field, and high jet power will seriously challenge our current understanding of AGN jet formation.
We have demonstrated that the general time-dependent signatures of our proton-synchrotron dominated lepto-hadronic blazar model is dominated by the intrinsic time scale relations, namely, $t_{\rm ec} < t_{\rm lc} \lesssim t_{\rm pc}$. Through detailed parameter studies, we have identified the following time-dependent signatures of this model:
1. The time-dependent low-energy radiation signatures are generally symmetric in time, while the high-energy signatures are generally asymmetric;
2. The high-energy flares generally peak later and last longer than the low-energy flares;
3. An orphan flare in the high-energy component is possible;
4. The polarization signatures at various wavelengths within the high-energy component are generally similar;
5. In the quiescent state, if the low- and high-energy components are co-spatial, they share similar polarization degrees and angles.
6. While the low-energy polarization signatures may vary rapidly during flares, high-energy polarization signatures appear generally stable.
7. The time-dependent low-energy signatures and the high-energy polarization variations are generally synchronized with the disturbance propagation and the LTTEs. The high-energy flares, on the other hand, can last much longer due to the slow proton cooling.
We suggest that these features can be tested with simultaneous multiwavelength observations, including future high-energy polarimetry.
We notice that the polarization signatures possess a strong dependence on the magnetic field evolution. Although we have demonstrated in Section \[model\] that our assumptions on the magnetic field evolution are reasonable, our test cases are most likely an over-simplification of any actual physical scenario. However, our code can be easily coupled with first principle simulations, such as MHD, to constrain the magnetic field evolution, so that our polarization signatures in both low- and high-energy components are physically self-consistent.
Aartsen, M. G., Abbasi, R., Abdou, Y., et al. 2013, Physical Review Letters, 111, 021103
Abdo, A. A., et al., 2010, Nature, 463, 919
Aharonian, F. A. 2000, , 5, 377
Aharonian, F. A., et al., 2007, ApJ, 664, L71
Asano, K., & Hayashida, M. 2015, , 808, L18
Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L., 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433
Blinov, D., Pavlidou, V., Papadakis, I., et al. 2015, , 453, 1669
Blinov, D., Pavlidou, V., Papadakis, I. E., et al. 2016, , 457, 2252
Böttcher, M., Reimer, A., Sweeney, K., & Prakash, A., 2013, ApJ, 768, 54
Böttcher, M., Harris, D. E., & Krawczynski, H. 2012, Relativistic Jets from Active Galactic Nuclei, by M. Boettcher, D.E. Harris, ahd H. Krawczynski, 425 pages. Berlin: Wiley, 2012,
Cerruti, M., Zech, A., Boisson, C., & Inoue, S. 2015, , 448, 910
Chen, X., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2188
Diltz, C., & Böttcher, M. 2014, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 1, 63
Diltz, C., B[ö]{}ttcher, M., & Fossati, G. 2015, , 802, 133
Dermer, C. D., et al., 1992, A&A, 256, L27
Dondi, L., & Ghisellini, G. 1995, , 273, 583
Guo, F., Li, X., Li, H., et al. 2016, , 818, L9
Halzen, F., & Zas, E. 1997, , 488, 669
Hunter, S. D., Bloser, P. F., Depaola, G. O., et al. 2014, Astroparticle Physics, 59, 18
Joshi, M., & Böttcher, M. 2011, , 727, 21
Kadler, M., Krau[ß]{}, F., Mannheim, K., et al. 2016, arXiv:1602.02012 Kiehlmann, S., Savolainen, T., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2016, arXiv:1603.00249
Kistler, M. D., Stanev, T., & Yüksel, H. 2014, , 90, 123006
Komissarov, S. S., & Lyutikov, M. 2011, , 414, 2017
Larionov, V. M., et al., 2013, ApJ, 768, 40
Mannheim, K., & Biermann, P. L. 1992, , 253, L21
Maraschi, L., et al., 1992, ApJ, 397, L5
Marscher, A. P. & Gear, W. K., 1985, ApJ, 298, 114
Marscher, A. P., et al., 2008, Nature, 452, 966
Marscher, A. P., 2014, ApJ, 780, 87
Mastichiadis, A., & Kirk, J. G. 1995, , 295, 613
Morozova, D. A., et al., AJ, 148, 42
M[ü]{}cke, A., & Protheroe, R. J. 2001, Astroparticle Physics, 15, 121
Petropoulou, M., Dimitrakoudis, S., Padovani, P., Mastichiadis, A., & Resconi, E. 2015, , 448, 2412
Sikora, M., et al., 1994, ApJ, 421, 153
Weidinger, M., & Spanier, F. 2015, , 573, A7
Yan, D., & Zhang, L. 2015, , 447, 2810
Zdziarski, A. A., & Böttcher, M. 2015, , 450, L21
Zhang, H., & Böttcher, M., 2013, ApJ, 774, 18
Zhang, H., Chen, X. & Böttcher, M., 2014, ApJ, 789, 66
Zhang, H., Chen, X., Böttcher, M., Guo F., & Li, H., 2015, ApJ, 804, 58
Zhang, H., Deng, W., Li, H., & Böttcher, M., 2016, ApJ, 817, 63
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Sergei A. LEVSHAKOV\
[*National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8558, JAPAN, [email protected]*]{}\
Wilhelm H. KEGEL\
[*Institut für Theoretische Physik der Universität Frankfurt am Main, Postfach 11 19 32, 60054 Frankfurt/Main 11, GERMANY, [email protected]*]{}\
Fumio TAKAHARA\
[*Department of Earth and Space Science, Faculty of Science, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560, JAPAN, [email protected]*]{}
title: |
PRIMORDIAL DEUTERIUM\
ABUNDANCE MEASUREMENTS
---
34.5pc
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
Deuterium abundances measured recently from QSO absorption-line systems lie in the range from $\simeq 3\times10^{-5}$ to $\simeq 3\times10^{-4}$, which shed some questions on standard big bang theory. We show that this discordance may simply be an [*artifact*]{} caused by inadequate analysis ignoring spatial correlations in the velocity field in turbulent media. The generalized procedure (accounting for such correlations) is suggested to reconcile the D/H measurements.
An example is presented based on two high-resolution observations of Q 1009+2956 (low D/H) \[1,2\] and Q 1718+4807 (high D/H) \[8,9\]. We show that both observations are compatible with D/H $\simeq 4.1 - 4.6\times10^{-5}$, and thus support SBBN. The estimated mean value $\langle$ D/H $\rangle \simeq 4.4\times10^{-5}$ corresponds to the baryon-to-photon ratio during SBBN $\eta \simeq 4.4\times10^{-10}$ which yields the present-day baryon density $\Omega_b h^2 \simeq 0.015$.
Introduction
============
From recent HST observations of the $z_a = 0.7$ absorption-line system toward the quasar Q 1718+4807 Webb [*et al.*]{} \[8,9\] deduced D/H = $1.8-3.1\times10^{-4}$. This ratio is significantly higher than that derived from other quasar spectra. For instance, at $z_a = 2.504$ toward Q 1009+2956 the D/H ratio lies in the range from $1.8\times10^{-5}$ to $3.5\,10^{-5}$ \[1\]. New measurements \[2\] give a slightly higher range for the D/H value at $z_a = 2.504$ ($3.31 - 4.57\times10^{-5}$) which is still incompatible with the results of Webb [*et al.*]{}
According to the basic idea of homogeneity and isotropy of the big bang universe the [*primordial*]{} deuterium abundance should not vary in space. One can only expect that the D abundance decreases with cosmic time due to conversion of D into $^3$He and heavier elements in stars. To check whether big bang nucleosynthesis \[BBN\] has occurred homogeneously or not, precise measurements of absolute values of D/H at high redshift are extremely important. In a series of papers \[3-6\] we have shown that this task is badly model dependent. Here we present two examples to underline the difficulties of the inverse problem in the analysis of the H+D absorption blends.
Results
=======
We consider a cloud of a thickness $L$ with a stochastic velocity field but of homogeneous (H I) density and temperature. The velocity field is characterized by its rms amplitude $\sigma_{t}$ and its correlation length $l > 0$. The model is identical to that of \[5\]. This approach generalizes the standard procedure which assumes no spatial correlations in the velocity field ($l \equiv 0$). – To estimate physical parameters and an appropriate velocity field structure along the line of sight, we used a Reverse Monte Carlo \[RMC\] technique. The algorithm requires to define a simulation box for 5 physical parameters : N(H I), D/H, $T_{kin}$, $\sigma_{t}/v_{th}$, and $L/l$ (here $v_{th}$ denotes the thermal width of the hydrogen lines). – The continuous random function of the coordinate $v(s)$ is represented by its sampled values at equal space intervals $\Delta s$, i.e. by $\{v_1, v_2, \dots , v_k\}$, the vector of the velocity components parallel to the line of sight at the spatial points $s_j$ (for more detail, see \[5\]).
Direct observations of galactic halos at $z > 2$ \[7\] show that $\sigma_{t} \simeq 40 \pm 15$ km s$^{-1}$, if $T_{kin} \simeq 10^4$ K. Our RMC calculations yield for the $z_a = 2.504$ and $z_a = 0.701$ absorption systems $\sigma_t \simeq 26$ km s$^{-1}$ \[5,6\] which makes the procedure to be adequate, whereas $\sigma_t \simeq 2-8$ km s$^{-1}$ found in \[1,2\] and $\sigma_t \simeq 13$ km s$^{-1}$ found in \[8,9\] are evidently too low.
To illustrate our results, we show in Fig. 1 H+D Ly$\alpha$ lines observed by the two groups \[1,2\] and \[8,9\] and some of the adequate profile fits ($\chi^2_{min}$ per degree of freedom $\simeq 1$). The solutions are not unique, however, but depend sensitively on the velocity field configuration along the line of sight (see \[5,6\], for more examples). Fig. 1 shows that both profiles are compatible with D/H $\simeq
4.1\times10^{-5}$ (the uncertainty range is from $4.1\times10^{-5}$ to $4.6\times10^{-5}$ \[5,6\]). Taking the mean D/H value from this range, one can estimate the baryon-to-photon ratio $\eta$ during SBBN and using the present-day photon density determined from the cosmic microwave background measurements, one can obtain the current baryon density $\Omega_b$ : $\eta \simeq 4.4\times10^{-10}$ and $\Omega_b h^2 \simeq 0.015$, correspondingly.
We conclude that the reliability of the interpretation of deuterium absorption line observations at high redshift is determined by two factors : ($i$) improvements in the detection equipment, and ($ii$) advances in the theory of line formation in turbulent media.
[*Acknowledgment*]{} – The authors are grateful to John Webb for making available the calibrated HST/GHRS spectra of Q 1718+4807 and acknowledge helpful correspondence and comments by him and Alfred Vidal-Madjar. This work was supported in part by the RFBR grant No. 96-02-16905a.
References
==========
1\. Burles, S., Tytler, D., 1996, astro-ph 9603069. 2. Burles, S., Tytler, D., 1997, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} (submit.), astro-ph 9712109. 3. Levshakov, S. A., Kegel, W. H., 1997, [*Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**288**]{}, 787. 4. Levshakov, S. A., Kegel, W. H., Mazets, I. E., 1997, [*Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**288**]{}, 802. 5. Levshakov, S. A., Kegel, W. H., Takahara, F., 1997, [*Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc.*]{} (submit.), astro-ph 9710122. 6. Levshakov, S. A., Kegel, W. H., Takahara, F., 1997, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{} (submit.) . 7. van Ojik, R., et.al., 1997, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{} [**317**]{}, 358. 8. Webb, J. K., et.al., 1997, [*Nature*]{} [**388**]{}, 250. 9. Webb, J. K., et.al., 1997, astro-ph 9710089.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Many fundamental and applied experiments in quantum optics require transferring nonclassical states of light through large distances. In this context the free-space channels are a very promising alternative to optical fibers as they are mobile and enable to establish communications with moving objects, using satellites for global quantum links. For such channels the atmospheric turbulence is the main disturbing factor. The statistical properties of the fluctuating transmittance through the turbulent atmosphere are given by the probability distribution of transmittance (PDT). We derive the consistent PDTs for the atmospheric quantum channels by step-by-step inclusion of various atmospheric effects such as beam wandering, beam broadening and deformation of the beam into elliptic form, beam deformations into arbitrary forms. We discuss the applicability of PDT models for different propagation distances and optical turbulence strengths in the case when the receiver module has an annular aperture. We analyze the optimal detection and correction strategies which can improve the channel transmission characteristics. The obtained results are important for the design of optical experiments including postselection and adaptive strategies and for the security analysis of quantum communication protocols in free-space.'
author:
- 'D. Vasylyev'
- 'A. A. Semenov'
- 'W. Vogel'
title: 'Characterization of free-space quantum channels '
---
[7cm]{}(11cm,-5.2cm)
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}
============
The experimental quantum atmospheric optics has grown quickly from tabletop proof-of-principles experiments [@Bennett1989; @Bennett1992] and has reached already the intercontinental scale by applying satellites [@Liao2018]. The interest to this subject rises from the attractive possibility of performing quantum communication over atmospheric links [@Buttler1998; @Hughes2002; @Weier2006; @Fedrizzi2009; @Nauerth2013; @Croal2016; @Namazi2017; @Yin2017], to develop new measurement techniques [@Gottesman2012] , and to test the fundamental laws of physics [@Sabin2017; @Handsteiner2017]. The successful practical realization of free-space quantum protocols requires the development of advanced preselection, postselection, and adaptive strategies [@Vallone2015; @Gruneisen2016; @Bohmann2016; @Wang2018].
The main obstacle on the way of high-fidelity quantum communication in free-space is the atmospheric turbulence, random scattering, and absorption losses. The absorption and scattering effects contribute merely to energy losses and the degradation of the signal intensity. On the other hand, the atmospheric turbulence affects amplitude and phase of an optical beam in a random manner. This leads to the degradation of spatial and temporal coherence of the light beam and causes scintillation, beam wandering, and phase front distortion.
Fluctuations of temperature, pressure, and humidity of the air cause random variations of the atmospheric refractive index [@Tatarskii2016]. The flow of turbulent air consists of a set of air blobs and vortices that spans a wide range of scales ranging from extremely large to very small. Since the optical signal interacts along the propagation path with almost the whole set of scales, the precise description of light propagation in turbulence is almost impossible and the free-space channel should be described by statistical means. The statistical characteristics of the channel are then related with the moments and correlation functions of random optical amplitude and phase of the transmitted light.
The theory of classical light propagation through the atmospheric turbulence is well developed [@Tatarskii2016; @Ishimaru1978; @Andrews2001; @Andrews2005]. Some progress was also achieved in the theoretical description of free-space quantum light propagation [@Diament1970; @Perina1973; @Paterson2005] and in description of atmospheric quantum links [@Semenov2009; @Semenov2010; @Vasylyev2012; @Vasylyev2016; @Vasylyev2018]. The atmosphere is considered as a linear lossy quantum channel characterized by fluctuating transmission properties. The description of losses in quantum optics connects the annihilation operators of the input and output fields, $\hat a_{\mathrm{in}}$ and $\hat a_{\mathrm{out}}$, by the standard input-output relation $$\label{eq:InputOutput}
\hat a_{\mathrm{out}}=\sqrt{\eta}\hat a_{\mathrm{in}}+\sqrt{1-\eta}\hat c \, .$$ Here the operator $\hat c$ describes the environmental modes being in the vacuum state and $\eta\in[0,1]$ is the random channel transmittance. The alternative representation of the input-output relation (\[eq:InputOutput\]) can be given in terms of the Glauber-Sudarshan $P$ function [@Glauber1963; @Sudarshan1963], which is a quasiprobability as it may attain negativities for nonclassical quantum states. The relation between input $P_{\mathrm{in}}(\alpha)$ and output $P_{\mathrm{out}}(\alpha)$ states can be written as [@Semenov2009] $$\label{eq:PInputOutput}
P_{\mathrm{out}}(\alpha)=\int\limits_0^1{{\rm{d}}}\eta\mathcal{P}(\eta)\frac{1}{\eta}P_{\mathrm{in}}\left(\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{\eta}}\right) \, .$$ Here $\mathcal{P}(\eta)$ is the probability distribution of the quantum channel transmittance (PDT) defined in the domain $\eta\in[0,1]$. The knowledge of the PDT suffices for the description of atmospheric quantum channel.
In the present article we review three theoretical models of atmospheric quantum channels. The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[sec:Preliminaries\] we briefly discuss various theoretical aspects needed for the description of light propagation in the turbulent atmosphere. In Sec. \[sec:bwm\] we discuss the beam-wandering model for the calculation of the PDT. In Sec. \[sec:ElBeam\] we consider the elliptic-beam PDT model. Using the law of total probability, we derive the general PDT in Sec. \[sec:LawTotal\]. Assuming that the beam wandering effect is weak, we derive simple analytical expressions for the parameters of the corresponding conditional probability distribution. Examples of PDTs for atmospheric links of various length are presented in Sec. \[sec:Applications\] and some techniques for improvements of the signal-to-nose ratio are discussed. A summary is given in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\].
PRELIMINARIES {#sec:Preliminaries}
=============
In this paper, we review the theoretical models of the PDTs for the case when the quantum light beams are prepared in the fundamental Gaussian mode. While propagating in the atmospheric turbulence, a Gaussian beam undergoes random refraction and diffraction. The detection of the transmitted beam will exhibit the random modulation of the received intensity. Since the receiver has usually a finite-aperture collection/detection module, such as a telescope or a photodetector, this modulation coincides with the aperture transmittance of the incoming optical beam $\eta$. The transmission properties of the aperture are closely related with the disturbances of the light beam during its propagation in the turbulent atmosphere.
Let us choose the coordinate system such that the beam propagates along $z$ axis onto the aperture plane at distance $z=L$. Then the intensity transmittance through the aperture reads as $$\label{eq:Transm}
\eta =\int_{\mathcal{A}}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r} I(\boldsymbol{r};L)\, .$$ where $I(\boldsymbol{r};L)$ is the normalized intensity with respect to the full transversal plane $\boldsymbol{r}=\{x,y\}$ and $\mathcal{A}$ is the aperture area.
In this article we consider the Cassegrain type aperture, i.e. the annular circular aperture with outer, $a_1$, and inner, $a_2$, radii, cf. Fig. \[fig:Cassegr\]. This type of aperture is typical for Cassegrain reflecting telescopes which are the combination of two mirrors. The smaller secondary mirror in this design appears as a circular obscuration that covers the center of the visible in focus larger aperture opening. For this type of aperture the transmittance (\[eq:Transm\]) can be written as $$\label{eq:Transm1}
\eta = \eta_1 -\eta_2 =\left\{\int_{|\boldsymbol{r}|\le a_1} -\int_{|\boldsymbol{r}|\le a_2}\right\}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r} I(\boldsymbol{r};L)\, .$$ For definiteness in the following we use the values $a_1=0.075$ m and $a_2=0.023$ m for aperture radii, the values corresponding to $6$-inch reflector telescopes.
\[ht\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig:Cassegr\] Optical communication scheme in free space. The optical beam generated by the transmitter source propagates through the atmospheric turbulence. The transmitted light is then collected with the help of Cassegrain-type telescope and is then processed on the detection module. The telescope aperture, which consists of large aperture opening of radius $a_1$ and the inner circular obscuration of radius $a_2$, is also shown. ](Cassegrain.pdf "fig:"){height="6cm"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the definition (\[eq:Transm\]) we can determine the important characteristics of atmospheric channels, namely the first two moments of channel transmittance $$\label{eq:etaMean}
\langle\eta\rangle=\int\limits_{\mathcal{A}}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}\,\Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{r};L)\,,$$ $$\label{eq:etaSquaredMean}
\langle\eta^2\rangle=\int\limits_{\mathcal{A}}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}_1\int\limits_{\mathcal{A}}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}_2\, \Gamma_4(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\boldsymbol{r}_2;L)\, .$$ Here $\Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{r};L)=\langle I(\boldsymbol{r};L)\rangle$ and $\Gamma_4(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\boldsymbol{r}_2;L)=\langle I(\boldsymbol{r}_1;L)I(\boldsymbol{r}_2;L)\rangle$ are the second- and the fourth-order optical field correlation functions. It appears[@Vasylyev2016; @Vasylyev2018] that $\Gamma_2$ and $\Gamma_4$ play the central role in the description of atmospheric channels. For example, these functions allow one to calculate the mean beam spot radius $$\label{eq:Wst}
W_{\mathrm{ST}}=2\left[\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^2}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}\, x^2\,\Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{r};L)- \sigma^2_{\mathrm{bw}} \right]^{1/2}\, ,$$ where $$\label{eq:BW}
\sigma^2_{\mathrm{bw}}=\langle x^2\rangle-\langle x\rangle^2=\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^4}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}_1{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}_2\,x_1\,x_2\,\Gamma_{4}(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\boldsymbol{r}_2;L)-\left(\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^2}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}\, x\,\Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{r};L)\right)^2\,$$ is the beam wandering variance, i.e. the mean squared deviation of beam centroid position relative to the aperture center.
The second and fourth coherence functions entering the expressions (\[eq:etaMean\]) - (\[eq:BW\]) can be calculated by using methods of classical atmospheric optics [@Tatarskii2016]. In many practically interesting situations the calculation of the $\Gamma_4$ function is connected with complicated numerical calculations [@Baskov2016; @Baskov2018] In this paper we use the phase approximation of the Huygens-Kirchhoff method [@Mironov1977; @Aksenov1979] and evaluate $\Gamma_2$ and $\Gamma_4$ as $$\label{eq:Gamma2PhAppr}
\Gamma_2(\mathbf{r};L)=\frac{k^2}{4\pi^2L^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}{{\rm{d}}}^2\mathbf{r}^\prime\,\exp\left[-\frac{|\mathbf{r}^\prime|^2}{2W_0^2}
-2i\frac{\Omega}{W_0^2}\mathbf{r}{\cdot}\mathbf{r}^\prime{-}\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{D}_S(0,\mathbf{r}^\prime)\right]\, ,$$ $$\label{eq:Gamma4PhAppr}
\begin{split}
&\Gamma_4(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2;L)=\frac{2k^4}{\pi^2(2\pi)^3L^4W_0^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^6}{{\rm{d}}}^2\mathbf{r}_1^\prime
{{\rm{d}}}^2\mathbf{r}_2^\prime{{\rm{d}}}^2\mathbf{r}_3^\prime e^{-\sum\limits_{i=1}^3\frac{|\mathbf{r}_i^\prime|^2}{W_0^2}-2i\frac{\Omega}{W_0^2}\left[(\mathbf{r}_1
{-}\mathbf{r}_2){\cdot}\mathbf{r}_2^\prime{+}(\mathbf{r}_1{+}\mathbf{r}_2){\cdot}\mathbf{r}_3^\prime\right]}\\
&\quad\times\exp\Bigl[\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{j=1,2}\Bigl\{\mathcal{D}_S(\mathbf{r}_1{-}\mathbf{r}_2,
\mathbf{r}_1^\prime{+}(-1)^j\mathbf{r}_2^\prime)-\mathcal{D}_S(\mathbf{r}_1{-}\mathbf{r}_2,\mathbf{r}_1^\prime{+}(-1)^j\mathbf{r}_3^\prime)-
\mathcal{D}_S(0,\mathbf{r}_2^\prime{+}(-1)^j\mathbf{r}_3^\prime)\Bigr\}\Bigr]\, ,
\end{split}$$ where for the Kolmogorov-Obukhov turbulence spectrum [@Tatarskii2016] the phase structure function reads as $$\mathcal{D}_S(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}^\prime)=2C_n^2 k^2 L\int_0^1{{\rm{d}}}\xi\left|\mathbf{r}\xi+\mathbf{r}^\prime(1-\xi)\right|^{\frac{5}{3}}.$$ Here $k$ is the optical wavenumber, $C_n^2$ is the turbulence refractive-index structure constant [@Tatarskii2016], $L$ is the propagation length, $W_0$ is the beam-spot width at the transmitter site, and $\Omega{=}kW_0^2/2L$ is the Fresnel parameter. The so-called Rytov variance, $\sigma_R^2=1.23 C_n^2 k^{7/6} L^{11/6}$, along with the parameter $\Omega$ characterize the strength of optical turbulence [@Charnotskii2012]. We adopt the simplified characterization of the optical turbulence strength, namely in the following we distinguish between weak ($\sigma_R^2<1$), moderate ($\sigma_R^2\approx1$) and strong ($\sigma_R^2\gg 1$) turbulence conditions.
BEAM-WANDERING MODEL {#sec:bwm}
====================
In order to derive the simple PDT model that accounts only beam wandering effects, we derive firstly the transmission of a Gaussian laser beam through the Cassegrain-type aperture. Let us assume that the beam has the fixed beam spot-radius $W$ at the aperture plane. Its value can be also taken to be equal to the mean beam spot-radius $W_{\mathrm{ST}}$ defined in Eq. (\[eq:Wst\]). The corresponding situation is depicted in Fig. \[fig:Apert\] a). The intensity of the beam with beam-spot radius $W$ focused at the aperture plane reads as $$\label{eq:IntCirc}
I(\boldsymbol{r};L)=\frac{2}{\pi W^2}\exp\left[-\frac{2}{W^2}|\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}_0|^2\right] ,$$ where $\boldsymbol{r}_0=(x_0\quad y_0)^{T}$ is the displacement vector of the beam centroid from the aperture center. For simplicity we chose the coordinate system in such a way that the displacement $\boldsymbol{r}_0$ is aligned along the $x$ axis. In this case, by substituting (\[eq:IntCirc\]) in (\[eq:Transm\]) and integrating in polar coordinates over the angle variable we arrive at $$\label{eq:CircTransm}
\eta(r_0) =\frac{4}{W^2}\sum\limits_{n=1,2} (-1)^{n+1} e^{-2\frac{r_0^2}{W^2}}\int\limits_{0}^{a_n}{{\rm{d}}}r r e^{-2\frac{r^2}{W^2}}{{\rm{I}}}_0\left(\frac{4}{W^2}r_0 r\right) \, ,$$ where $r_0=|\boldsymbol{r}_0|$, ${{\rm{I}}}_i(x)$ is the modified Bessel function of $i$th order. The total transmittance through the annular aperture (\[eq:CircTransm\]) simply equals to the difference of transmittances through the apertures with radii $a_1$ and $a_2$. The alternative representation of this result can be written also as the combination of two Marcum Q-functions [@Marcum1950] $$\label{eq:CircTransm1}
\eta(r_0) =\sum\limits_{n=1,2} (-1)^{n} Q\left(2\frac{r_0}{W},2\frac{a_n}{W}\right) \, ,$$ where $Q(a,b)=\int_b^\infty{{\rm{d}}}x x\exp\left(-[x^2+a^2]/2\right)I_0(ax)$. The integration in Eqs. (\[eq:CircTransm\]), (\[eq:CircTransm1\]) should be performed numerically. We have proposed [@Vasylyev2012; @Vasylyev2013] an accurate analytical approximations for such types of integrals. Namely, we can rewrite Eqs. (\[eq:CircTransm\]) and (\[eq:CircTransm1\]) as $$\label{eq:CircTransmApprox}
\eta(r_0) =\sum\limits_{n=1,2} (-1)^{n+1} \,\eta_0\left(a_n,2/W\right) \exp\left[-\left(\frac{r_0/a_n}{R(a_n,2/W)}\right)^{\lambda(a_n, 2/W)}\right] \, .$$ Here $$\label{eq:CircTransmEta0}
\eta_0(a_n,\xi) =1-\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}a_n^2\xi^2\right] \,$$ is the maximal transmittance through the aperture with radius $a_n$, i.e. the transmission under the condition $r_0=0$. The scale, $R$, and shape, $\lambda$, parameters read as [@Vasylyev2012] $$\label{eq:CircTransmR}
R(a_n,\xi) =\left[\ln\left(\frac{2\eta_0(a_n,\xi)}{1-\exp[-a_n^2\xi^2]{{\rm{I}}}_0(a_n^2\xi^2)}\right)\right]^{-\frac{1}{\lambda(a_n,\xi)}} \, ,$$ $$\label{eq:CircTransmlambda}
\lambda(a_n,\xi) =2 a_n^2\xi^2\frac{\exp[- a_n^2\xi^2]{{\rm{I}}}_1( a_n^2\xi^2)}{1-\exp[- a_n^2\xi^2]{{\rm{I}}}_0( a_n^2\xi^2)}\left[\ln\left(\frac{2\eta_0(a_n,\xi)}{1-\exp[- a_n^2\xi^2]{{\rm{I}}}_0( a_n^2\xi^2)}\right)\right]^{-1} \,,$$ respectively. In the following we will also use the sort-hand notations $\eta_{0,n}$, $R_n$, and $\lambda_n$ for simplicity in notations.
For the derivation of the PDT that corresponds to the fluctuations of the transmittance (\[eq:CircTransmApprox\]), we restrict our attention to the case when the main source of losses is the beam wandering. In the case of isotropic turbulence we can assume that the beam deflection vector $\boldsymbol{r}_0$ is normally distributed with the variance $\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}^2$ given by Eq. (\[eq:BW\]). This assumption is equivalent to the Rayleigh probability density for the deflection parameter $r_0$ $$\label{eq:RayleighD}
\rho_{\mathrm{R}}(r_0;\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}) = \frac{r_0}{\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}^2}\exp\left[-\frac{r_0^2}{2\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}^2}\right]\,.$$ The PDT can then be obtained by resolving the equation (\[eq:CircTransmApprox\]) with respect to $r_0$ and performing the corresponding change of variables in the Rayleigh probability density. This procedure is straightforward for a simple circular aperture[@Vasylyev2012], but is quite cumbersome for the Cassegrain-type aperture and cannot be performed analytically. In the latter case we can formally write for the PDT the following expression $$\label{eq:PDTbw}
\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{bw}}(\eta) = \int\limits_{0}^\infty{{\rm{d}}}r_0 r_0 \rho_{\mathrm{R}}(r_0;\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}})\delta[\eta-\eta(r_0)]\,,$$ where $\delta(x)$ is the Dirac delta function and $\eta(r_0)$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:CircTransmApprox\]). The integration in Eq. (\[eq:PDTbw\]) should be performed numerically.
As a further generalization of the beam-wandering model we could further assume that the beam spot radius $W$ is also a random variable. Indeed the light beam propagating in the turbulent atmosphere is randomly diffracted and this results in random broadening of the beam. In the next section we go one step further and consider the most general situation when the beam remains Gaussian but it is broadened and deformed into elliptic form.
ELLIPTIC-BEAM APPROXIMATION {#sec:ElBeam}
===========================
We now extend the beam-wandering model described in the previous section and include the effects of beam broadening and deformation. Here we restrict our attention to the specific set of deformations that preserve the Gaussian profile of the beam, i.e. we consider deformations of the Gaussian beam into the elliptic form[@Vasylyev2016]. This approximation is appropriate for the regimes of weak and strong optical turbulence provided that the channel length is relatively short.
\[ht\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig:Apert\] Schematic representation of beam spot distributions in the aperture plane are shown relative to aperture opening. The Cassegrain-type annular aperture is given by the outer and inner radii, $a_1$ and $a_2$, respectively. The centroid of the beam experiences the momentary displacement from the aperture center to the point $\boldsymbol{r}_0$ with the polar coordinates $(r_0, \phi_0)$. The $x^\prime-y^\prime$ coordinate system is associated with the beam centroid. The diagrams represent the models considered in the article: a) The beam-wandering model. The beam is of circular form of radius $W$. b) The elliptic-beam model. The elliptical beam profile with the semi-axis $W_1$ rotated by the angle $\varphi$ relative to the $x$-axis and by the angle $\chi$ relative to the $\boldsymbol{r}_0$-associated axis is shown. c) More general situation described with the help of the law of total probability. The beam cross-section in this case has a complex structure and the beam dimensions are characterized by the mean short-term beam-spot radius $W_{\mathrm{ST}}$. ](Aperture.pdf "fig:"){height="5cm"}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of weak turbulence, the propagating beam is not distorted too much by scattering on turbulent inhomogeneities and it preserves its initial Gaussian form. If the turbulence strength grows, the turbulent fluctuations distort the beam wave-front considerably. This effect can be observed as a complex speckle pattern in the intensity distribution measured at the receiver cite. For very strong turbulence, the intensity fluctuations are saturated, the speckle pattern is “washed out”, and the beam profile is approximately Gaussian. Thus, in the regimes of weak and strong turbulence one can assume that the shape of the transmitted beam is formed by three major factors: beam wandering, beam broadening, and beam profile deformation into elliptic form. The corresponding intensity distribution for both weak and strong turbulence can be written then as $$\label{eq:IntEll}
I(\boldsymbol{r};L)=\frac{2}{\pi\sqrt{\det\boldsymbol{S}}}\exp\left[-2(\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}_0)^T\boldsymbol{S}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}_0)\right].$$ Here $\boldsymbol{S}$ is the real, symmetric, positive-definite spot-shape matrix. The eigenvalues of this matrix, $W_i^2$, $i=1,2$, are squared semiaxes of the elliptic beam spot. The semiaxis $W_1$ forms the angle $\varphi\in[0,\pi/2)$ relative to the $x$ axis, cf. Fig. \[fig:Apert\] b). The set $\{W_1^2,W_2^2,\varphi\}$ uniquely describes the orientation and the size of the ellipse. In the case of circular beam considered in the previous section, it reduces to the diagonal matrix $\boldsymbol{S}=\mathrm{diag}\{W^2,W^2\}$ and Eq. (\[eq:IntEll\]) reduces to (\[eq:IntCirc\]). It is worth to note that a similar transmitted beam form was used [@Baker2006] within the model of low-order turbulence phase fluctuations. It has been shown [@Baker2006] that this approximation is valid for atmospheric channels with weak turbulence and for short-distance atmospheric channels with strong turbulence.
For elliptic-beam profile, the transmittance $\eta$ is obtained by substituting Eq. (\[eq:IntEll\]) into Eq. (\[eq:Transm1\]) and performing the corresponding integration over the Cassegrain aperture profile. Unfortunately, the resulting integral cannot be evaluated analytically. However, we can expect that the behavior of the transmittance as a function of the deflection vector $\boldsymbol{r}_0 = (r_0\cos\phi_0\quad r_0\sin\phi_0)^T$ cannot deviate significantly from those obtained previously for the circular aperture case. Due to the elliptic form of the beam profile, the rotational symmetry is now broken. Therefore, the transmittance depends also on the relative angle $\chi=\varphi-\phi_0$, cf. Fig. \[fig:Apert\] b). We also observe that the transmittances $\eta_n$, $n=1,2$ in Eq. (\[eq:Transm1\]) behave similar to the transmittances of the circular Gaussian beams with the effective beam-spot radii $$\label{eq:EffSpot}
W_{\mathrm{eff}}(\xi,a_n)=2 a_n\left[\mathcal{W}\left(\frac{4a_n^2}{W_1W_2}e^{\frac{a_n^2}{W_1^2}(1+2\cos^2\chi)+\frac{a_n^2}{W_2^2}(1+2\sin^2\chi)}\right)\right]^{-\frac{1}{2}}\, ,$$ where $\mathcal{W}(x)$ is the Lambert $W$ function [@Corless1996]. In this case the total transmittance $\eta$ can be approximated similarly to Eq. (\[eq:CircTransmApprox\]) and reads as $$\label{eq:TransmEl}
\eta =\sum_{n=1,2}(-1)^{n+1}\eta_{0,n}\exp\left\{-\left[\frac{r_0/a_n}{R\left(a_n,\frac{2}{W_{\mathrm{eff}}(\chi,a_n)}\right)}\right]^{\lambda\left(a_n,\frac{2}{W_{\mathrm{eff}}(\chi,a_n)}\right)}\right\}.$$ The maximal possible transmittance $\eta_{0,n}$ for the aperture with radius $a_n$ can be written in terms of the incomplete Bessel function (or alternatively, the Marcum Q-function) and further approximated as $$\label{eq:eta0Ellipt}
\begin{split}
\eta_{0,n} &=1-{{\rm{I}}}_0\left(a_n^2\left[\frac{1}{W_1^2}-\frac{1}{W_2^2}\right]\right)e^{-a_n^2[(1/W_1^2)+(1/W_2^2)]}\\
&-2\left[1-e^{-(a^2_n/2)[(1/W_1)-(1/W_2)]^2}\right]\exp\left\{-\left[\frac{\frac{(W_1+W_2)^2}{|W_1^2-W_2^2|}}{R\left(a_n,\frac{1}{W_1}-\frac{1}{W_2}\right)}\right]^{\lambda\left(a_n, \frac{1}{W_1}-\frac{1}{W_2}\right)}\right\}\, .
\end{split}$$ It is worth to note that $\varphi$ is defined by modulo $\pi/2$ and hence the transmittance $\eta$ is a $\pi/2$-periodical function of $\varphi$ [@Vasylyev2016].
The aperture transmittance (\[eq:TransmEl\]) is a function of five real parameters, $\{x_0,y_0,\Theta_1,\Theta_2,\varphi\}$, randomly changed by the atmosphere, where $W_i^2=W_0^2\exp\Theta_i$ and $W_0$ is the initial beam-spot radius at the transmitter. We assume that the angle $\varphi$ is a $\pi/2$-periodical wrapped Gaussian variable [@Mardia1999]. With these assumptions, the PDT reads as $$\label{eq:PDTelAp}
\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{el}}(\eta) = \frac{2}{\pi}\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^4}{{\rm{d}}}^4 \boldsymbol{r} \int\limits_0^{\pi/2}{{\rm{d}}}\phi \rho_{\mathrm{G}}(\boldsymbol{V};\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\Sigma})\delta[\eta-\eta(\boldsymbol{V},\phi)]\,,$$ where $\eta(\boldsymbol{V},\phi)$ is the transmittance defined in (\[eq:TransmEl\]) and $\rho_{\mathrm{G}}(\boldsymbol{V};\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\Sigma})$ is the Gaussian probability density of the vector $\boldsymbol{V}$ with the mean $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ and the covariance matrix $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$. The vector of means $\boldsymbol{\mu}=(\langle x\rangle\quad\langle y\rangle\quad\langle\Theta_1\rangle\quad\langle\Theta_2\rangle)^T$ consists of mean values of beam deflections $$\langle x\rangle =\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^2}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r} x \Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{r};L),\qquad \langle y\rangle =\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^2}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r} y \Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{r};L)$$ and the mean values of the log-variable $\Theta$ $$\label{eq:MeanTheta}
\langle\Theta_i\rangle=\ln\left[\frac{\langle W_i^2\rangle}{W_0^2}\left(1+\frac{\langle(\Delta W_i^2)^2\rangle}{\langle W_i^2\rangle^2}\right)^{-1/2}\right].$$ Using the assumption of Gaussianity of variables and assuming that the turbulence is isotropic, we are able to simplify the covariance matrix $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$ considerably. Its nonzero elements read as $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:SigmaElements}
\Sigma_{11}&=\Sigma_{22}=\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}^2,\\
\Sigma_{33}&=\Sigma_{44}=\langle(\Delta\Theta_1)^2\rangle=\ln\left[1+\frac{\langle(\Delta W_1^2)^2\rangle}{\langle W_1^2\rangle^2}\right],\\
\Sigma_{23}&=\Sigma_{32}=\langle\Delta\Theta_1\Delta\Theta_2\rangle=\ln\left[1+\frac{\langle\Delta W_1^2\Delta W_2^2\rangle}{\langle W_1^2\rangle \langle W_2^2\rangle}\right].
\end{split}$$ Here the (co)variance elements $\langle \Delta W^2_i\Delta W^2_j\rangle$ are derived from the correlation functions $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:WElements}
\langle W_i^2 W_j^2\rangle = 8\left\{-8\delta_{ij}(\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}^2)^2 - \sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}^2\langle W_i^2\rangle +\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^4}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}_1{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}_2\left[x_1^2x_2^2(4\delta_{ij}-1)-x_1^2y_2^2(4\delta_{ij}-3)\right]\Gamma_4(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\boldsymbol{r}_2;L)\right\}
\end{split}$$ and the mean squared beam-spot radii $\langle W_1^2\rangle$ and $\langle W_2^2\rangle$ are mutually equal and are given by Eq. (\[eq:Wst\]).
The elliptic-beam approximation is a reasonable approximation for short atmospheric quantum channels. The PDTs obtained from Eq. (\[eq:PDTbw\]) show a good agreement with the experimental data for diverse daytime and weather conditions [@Vasylyev2016; @Vasylyev2017]. However, for longer channels the moments of the distribution (\[eq:PDTbw\]) start to deviate from the ones calculated from the first principles, i.e., from Eqs. (\[eq:etaMean\]) and (\[eq:etaSquaredMean\]). This makes the application of the elliptic-beam approximation doubtful for long-distance quantum channels. In order to overcome the limitations of the elliptic-beam approximation, we have developed a new technique for the calculation of the PDT based on the law of total probability.
LAW OF TOTAL PROBABILITY APPROACH AND WEAK BEAM WANDERING APPROXIMATION {#sec:LawTotal}
=======================================================================
The analysis of optical beam distortions caused by the atmospheric turbulence suggests that we can separate beam wandering effects from the effects induced by diffraction in the atmosphere. Indeed, the refraction of the beam as a whole (beam wandering) is caused by turbulent inhomogeneities of sizes larger than the size of the beam cross-section. On the other hand, the beam broadening, deformation and scintillation effects are caused by sizes of inhomogeneities smaller or comparable with the beam-spot diameter. This separation of scales and effects suggests that the PDT function can be written in the form where beam wandering is separated from beam broadening and deformation effects. We have used [@Vasylyev2018] the law of total probability [@Schervish] to derive the PDT based on these ideas. Here we extend this model to more complex Cassegrain-type apertures.
We derive the PDT for annular aperture from the joint probability density for beam transmittances $\eta_1$, $\eta_2$, corresponding to the transmission through the apertures with radii $a_1$, $a_2$, respectively, cf. Fig. \[fig:Apert\] c). Since the total transmittance $\eta$ is related to these partial transmittances as $\eta{=}\eta_1{-}\eta_2$, the PDT for annular aperture can be written as $$\label{eq:PDTCassAp}
\mathcal{P}(\eta)=\int\limits_0^1{{\rm{d}}}\eta_1\int\limits_0^{1-\eta}{{\rm{d}}}\eta_2\mathcal{P}_{1,2}(\eta_1, \eta_2)\delta(\eta-\eta_1+\eta_2)
= \int\limits_0^{1-\eta}{{\rm{d}}}\eta_2\mathcal{P}_{1,2}(\eta+\eta_2,\eta_2)\, ,$$ where $\mathcal{P}_{1,2}(\eta_1, \eta_2)$ is the joint probability density for the partial transmittances $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$.
We derive the joint probability $ \mathcal{P}_{1,2}(\eta_1,\eta_2)$ using the law of total probability on a similar footing as it was done for simple apertures [@Vasylyev2018]. The separation of beam wandering effects from those arising from beam broadening and deformation yields $$\label{eq:Total}
\mathcal{P}_{1,2}(\eta_1,\eta_2)=\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^2}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}_0 P(\eta_1,\eta_2|\boldsymbol{r}_0)\rho (\boldsymbol{r}_0;\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}).$$ Here $P(\eta_1,\eta_2|\boldsymbol{r}_0)$ is the joint probability distribution of transmittance, conditioned on the beam centroid being displaced relative to the centers of apertures by $\boldsymbol{r}_0$. The beam centroid displacement $\boldsymbol{r}_0$ is a random variable, the distribution of which is governed by the probability density $\rho (\boldsymbol{r}_0;\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}})$. In the case of isotropic turbulence, the latter reduces to the Rayleigh distribution (\[eq:RayleighD\]).
The analytical expression of the conditional probability $P(\eta_1,\eta_2|\boldsymbol{r}_0)$ can be deduced from the asymptotic analysis of Eq. (\[eq:Total\]). Beam wandering is a dominant effect for short distance atmospheric channels. The corresponding asymptotic PDT is given by Eq. (\[eq:PDTbw\]). In the case when the beam wandering plays a minor role, such as for long distance atmospheric channels, the transmission statistics resembles the log-normal behavior [@Tatarskii2016; @Vallone2015; @Sun2013]. Therefore, it is reasonable to approximate the conditional probability for variables $\boldsymbol{\eta}=(\eta_1\quad\eta_2)^T$ as the truncated bivariate log-normal distribution $$\label{eq:CondProb}
P(\eta_1,\eta_2|\boldsymbol{r}_0)=\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\frac{1}{\mathcal{F}}\frac{1}{2\pi\eta_1\eta_2\sqrt{\det\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}}\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}(\ln\boldsymbol{\eta}-\boldsymbol{\mu})^T\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{-1}(\ln\boldsymbol{\eta}-\boldsymbol{\mu})\right],& \eta_1\in[0,1],\quad \eta_2\in[0,1]\\
0, &\text{else}
\end{array}
\right. ,$$ the truncation restricts the resulting PDT to the physical domain of the transmittance values. Here, $$\mathcal{F}=\int\limits_0^1{{\rm{d}}}\eta_1\int\limits_0^1{{\rm{d}}}\eta_2\,\frac{1}{2\pi\eta_1\eta_2\sqrt{\det\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}}\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}(\ln\boldsymbol{\eta}-\boldsymbol{\mu})^T\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{-1}(\ln\boldsymbol{\eta}-\boldsymbol{\mu})\right]$$ is the log-normal cumulative distribution at the point $\eta_1=\eta_2=1$ used for normalization. The parameters of the truncated bivariate log-normal distribution, $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ and $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$, can be approximately replaced with the corresponding parameters of standard log-normal distribution, provided that $\mathcal{F}\approx 1$. Using the subscripts $n,m=1,2$ for notation of quantities corresponding to apertures $a_1$ and $a_2$, we can approximately write $$\label{eq:LNparameters}
\mu_{n}(r_0) \approx -\ln\left[\frac{\langle\eta_n\rangle^2_{r_0}}{\sqrt{\langle\eta_n^2\rangle_{r_0}}}\right],\quad
\qquad \Sigma_{n,m}(r_0)\approx\sqrt{\ln\left[\frac{\langle\eta_n\eta_m\rangle_{r_0}}{\langle\eta_n\rangle_{r_0}\langle\eta_m\rangle_{r_0}}\right]},$$ where the conditional moments are related to the corresponding transmittance moments as $$\label{eq:CondMoments}
\langle\eta_n\rangle =\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^2}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}_0\rho(\boldsymbol{r}_0;\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}})\langle\eta_n\rangle_{r_0},\qquad
\langle\eta_n\eta_m\rangle =\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^2}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}_0\rho(\boldsymbol{r}_0;\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}})\langle\eta_n\eta_m\rangle_{r_0}.$$ Here the correlation $\langle\eta_n\eta_m\rangle$ is given by $$\langle\eta_n\eta_m\rangle = \int\limits_{|\boldsymbol{r}_1|\le a_n}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}_1 \int\limits_{|\boldsymbol{r}_2|\le a_m}{{\rm{d}}}^2\boldsymbol{r}_2 \Gamma_4(\boldsymbol{r}_1,\boldsymbol{r}_2;L)$$ and the moments $\langle\eta_n\rangle$ and $\langle\eta_n^2\rangle$ are given by Eq. (\[eq:etaMean\]) and Eq. (\[eq:etaSquaredMean\]), respectively.
For determination of the parameters (\[eq:LNparameters\]) and derivation of the conditional probability (\[eq:CondProb\]) one has to resolve Eq. (\[eq:CondMoments\]) with respect to $\langle\eta\rangle_{r_0}$ and $\langle\eta^2\rangle_{r_0}$. This can be done by performing the inverse Weierstrass transform [@Brychkov1989]. Alternatively one can apply here the approximative approach which is justified if the beam wandering effect is small [@Vasylyev2018]. Within the so-called weak beam wandering approximation we have the following analytical approximation formulas for the conditional moments: $$\label{eq:etar0}
\langle\eta_n\rangle_{r_0}=\eta_n^{(0)}\exp\left\{-\left[\frac{r_0/a_n}{R\left(a_n,\frac{2}{W_{\mathrm{ST}}}\right)}\right]^{\lambda\left(a_n,\frac{2}{W_{\mathrm{ST}}}\right)}\right\}\, ,$$ $$\label{eq:etar20}
\langle\eta_n\eta_m\rangle_{r_0}=\left[\zeta^{(0)}_{n,m}\right]^2\exp\left\{-\left[\frac{r_0/a_n}{R\left(a_n,\frac{2}{W_{\mathrm{ST}}}\right)}\right]^{\lambda\left(a_n,\frac{2}{W_{\mathrm{ST}}}\right)}-\left[\frac{r_0/a_m}{R\left(a_m,\frac{2}{W_{\mathrm{ST}}}\right)}\right]^{\lambda\left(a_m,\frac{2}{W_{\mathrm{ST}}}\right)}\right\}\, ,$$ where the parameters $\eta_n^{(0)}$, $R_n$, and $\lambda_n$ are again given by Eqs. (\[eq:CircTransmEta0\]), (\[eq:CircTransmR\]), and (\[eq:CircTransmlambda\]), respectively. It is worth to note that in the case when $\Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{r};L)$ significantly deviates from the Gaussian form, the prefactor $\eta_0$ in Eq. (\[eq:etar0\]) should be specified as $$\eta_n^{(0)}=\frac{\langle\eta_n\rangle}{\int\limits_0^\infty{{\rm{d}}}\xi \xi e^{-\frac{\xi^2}{2}}e^{-\left(\frac{\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}}{R_n}\xi\right)^{\lambda_n}}}.$$ This equation is derived via substituting Eq. (\[eq:etar0\]) in Eq. (\[eq:CondMoments\]), and then expressing $\eta_0$ explicitly. In a similar way we determine the last unknown parameter $\zeta_{n,m}^{(0)}$ in (\[eq:etar20\]), $$\label{eq:zeta}
\left[\zeta_{n,m}^{(0)}\right]^2=\frac{\langle\eta_n\eta_m\rangle}{\int\limits_0^\infty{{\rm{d}}}\xi \xi e^{-\frac{\xi^2}{2}}e^{-\left(\frac{\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}}{R_n}\xi\right)^{\lambda_n}-\left(\frac{\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}}{R_m}\xi\right)^{\lambda_m}}}.$$ Therefore, the knowledge of seven parameters, $\langle\eta_1\rangle$, $\langle\eta_2\rangle$, $\langle\eta_1^2\rangle$, $\langle\eta_2^2\rangle$, $\langle\eta_1\eta_2\rangle$, $W_{\mathrm{ST}}$, and $\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}^2$, which can be calculated from first principles, allows one to determine the conditional probability (\[eq:CondProb\]) and hence the total PDT given by Eq. (\[eq:Total\]).
The weak beam wandering approximation is equivalent to the assumption that the conditional intensity (co)variance averaged over the aperture, $\langle\Delta\eta_n\Delta\eta_m\rangle_{r_0}$, does not depend on $\boldsymbol{r}_0$. The experimental observations suggest that this approximation is true for long propagation channels [@Vorontsov2010; @Gurvich2012]. Inserting Eqs. (\[eq:etar0\]) and (\[eq:etar20\]) into (\[eq:LNparameters\]), we obtain explicit expressions for the parameters of the truncated log-normal distribution (\[eq:CondProb\]), $$\label{eq:weakBW}
\mu_{n}(r_0)\approx -\ln\left[\frac{\left(\eta_n^{(0)}\right)^2}{\zeta^{(0)}_{n,n}}\right]+\left(\frac{r_0}{R_n}\right)^{\lambda_n},\qquad \Sigma_{n,m}(r_0)\approx\sqrt{\ln\left[\frac{\left(\zeta_{n,m}^{(0)}\right)^2}{\eta_n^{(0)}\eta_m^{(0)}}\right]}.$$ As one can see, the weak beam wandering approximation yields the parameter $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$ which does not depend on beam deflection $r_0$. This is not true for arbitrary atmospheric channels, i. e., in situations when the assumption of weak beam wandering is not valid. The obtained parameters uniquely define the conditional PDT $P(\eta_1,\eta_2|\boldsymbol{r}_0)$, which is used in the law of total probability (\[eq:Total\]) and in Eq. (\[eq:PDTCassAp\]) for determining the PDT of the channel under study.
We also note that the separation of beam wandering from the other atmospheric disturbance effects in Eq. (\[eq:CondProb\]) allows us to describe the communication scenarios when partial or full beam tip tilt error correction is performed. Usually such errors are mitigated by using the beam tracking procedure, which detects the position variations of a reference beam (beacon) sent by the receiver [@Tyler1994; @Chun2017; @Fernandez2018]. The tracking procedure reduces the beam wandering variance to some new value $\Delta^2$. By replacing $\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}\rightarrow\Delta$ in Eqs. (\[eq:CondProb\])-(\[eq:zeta\]) one derives the PDT for quantum atmospheric link with the inclusion of the beam tracking procedure.
APPLICATIONS {#sec:Applications}
============
We illustrate the proposed approaches for the PDT calculations by considering several atmospheric channels of diverse lengths. The atmospheric refractive-index structure constant is chosen as $C_n^2=10^{-14}\,\text{m}^{-2/3}$, which corresponds to typical values for the atmospheric optical turbulence near the ground. The wavelength of the optical field is chosen as $\lambda=800\, \text{nm}$ and the beam-spot radius at the transmitter source as $W_0=2$ cm.
\[ht\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig:3Methods\] The three PDT models considered in the article are compared for 1 km atmospheric link: the elliptic-beam approximation, the weak beam wandering approximation, and the beam-wandering model. The Rytov variance for this channel is $\sigma_R^2{=}0.43$ (weak optical turbulence). The additional deterministic attenuation of 2.3 dB due to molecular absorption [@Elterman] is also included. ](3Methods.pdf "fig:"){height="7cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[ht\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig:3Methods3km\] Comparison of three PDT models for the characterization of 3 km long atmospheric channel. The elliptic-beam approximation and the beam-wandering model yield incorrect values of the transmittance moments and hence do not describe the channel correctly. ](3Methods3km.pdf "fig:"){height="7cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[ht\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig:Offset\] The influence of beam centroid offset parameter $d_0$ on the form of the PDT for a 1 km channel a). The schematic representation b) shows the corresponding offsets relative to the aperture center together with the circles with radii $\sigma_\textbf{bw}$, cf. Eq. (\[eq:BW\]). The aperture obscuration is shown by the gray area. The shift of the PDT to the larger values of the transmittance is governed by the decreasing overlap of beam transversal profile with the central aperture obscuration. After reaching the optimal value $d_0{=}a_2{+}(a_1{-}a_2)/2$, the influence of the outer aperture radius on beam truncation starts to grow and the aperture transmittance drops again. ](OffsetDependence.pdf "fig:"){height="9cm"}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[ht\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig:OffsetTracking\] The influence of the beam centroid offset parameter $d_0$ and the beam tracking on the form of the PDT for a 1 km channel. The tracking leads to a partial mitigation of beam wandering effects, such that the resulting beam wandering variance is given by $\Delta^2$. As a reference, the PDT in the absence of beam tracking and with zero offset is shown by the gray area, cf. also with the solid line in Fig. \[fig:Offset\]. ](OffsetTracking.pdf "fig:"){height="7cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For short-distance atmospheric channels the most appropriate PDT is obtained from the elliptic-beam approximation, cf. Eq. (\[eq:PDTelAp\]). The corresponding PDT is shown in Fig. \[fig:3Methods\] as the solid line. The obtained PDT has moments which coincide with reasonable accuracy with those obtained from the first principles, i.e. from Eqs. (\[eq:etaMean\]), (\[eq:etaSquaredMean\]). For the atmospheric channel under consideration the beam wandering effect contributes significantly to the total loss budget. As a consequence, the approximation of weak beam wandering based on Eq. (\[eq:weakBW\]) does not describe adequately the considered channel, cf. Fig. \[fig:3Methods\], dashed line. Finally, the PDT calculated within the beam wandering model (\[eq:PDTbw\]) shows a sharp peak and a discontinuity-like behavior for small transmittances, cf. Fig. \[fig:3Methods\], dash-dotted line. This behavior is expectable since the beam-wandering model does not account for random beam broadening and deformation effects, which usually smear out the sharp edges of the beam-wandering PDT.
In the case of long propagation channels the beam-wandering model shows narrow peaks centered near the mean transmittance values. This behavior is clearly seen in Fig. \[fig:3Methods3km\] (dash-dotted line) for a 3 km atmospheric link. The small width of this distribution suggests that the beam wandering is relatively small and that the weak beam wandering approximation considered in Sec. \[sec:LawTotal\] is valid for the description of the channel, cf. dashed line in Fig. \[fig:3Methods3km\]. The elliptic-beam approximation (\[eq:PDTelAp\]) yields incorrect values for the mean transmittance and its variance. That is, it is not appropriate for modeling atmospheric channels of such lengths, cf. solid line in Fig. \[fig:3Methods3km\].
In Figure \[fig:Offset\] we illustrate the influence of inner obscuration of the receiver Cassegrain-type telescope on the transmittance characteristics of short distance channel. The corresponding calculations are based on the elliptic-beam approximation for the PDT. In the case when the mean beam wandering displacement, $\langle \boldsymbol{r}_0\rangle$, is zero, i.e. when the center of beam wandering fluctuations coincides with the aperture center, the aperture inner circular obscuration with radius $a_2$ truncates most of the times the central part of the transmitted beam. This leads to the considerable diminishing of total channel transmittance. By increasing the so-called offset parameter $d_0=\langle|\boldsymbol{r}_0|\rangle$ we can improve the transmittance. The optimal value for the offset parameter for Cassegrain-type aperture is given roughly by $d_{\mathrm{opt}}\approx d_0=a_2+(a_1-a_2)/2=(a_1+a_2)/2$, i.e. when it coincides with the mean value of two aperture radii. This situation corresponds to the case when the beam is targeted not on the aperture center but on the aperture annular opening half-way the distance $a_1{-}a_2$ from the edge of the inner obscuration. The use of this optimal beam offset for short propagation distances or small beam spot sizes leads to a considerable increase of the channel transmittance and improves the signal-to-noise ratio as clearly seen in Fig. \[fig:Offset\] by comparing the solid line and the dash-dotted.
Figure \[fig:OffsetTracking\] shows the PDTs for a 1 km link for various offset parameters and with the partial compensation of beam wandering. The beam wandering variance after applying the beam tracking procedure is reduced to $\Delta^2 =0.25^2\sigma_{\mathrm{bw}}^2$. By comparing curves in Fig. \[fig:OffsetTracking\] for the scenario of beam tracking and non-zero offset parameter with the corresponding curves without beam tracking in Fig. \[fig:Offset\], we can see that the beam tracking procedure improves the channel transmittance only for the optimal value $d_{\mathrm{opt}}$ of the offset parameter. In other cases the PDTs become narrower with the consequence of reducing the maximally possible values of the channel transmittance. Therefore, for quantum protocols that utilize the postselection strategies[@Vallone2015; @Wang2018; @Gumberidze2016] based on the selection of transmission events with the transmittance above some threshold values, the additional beam tracking does not always improve the protocol performance. The best strategy in such cases is the setting of the offset parameter to its optimal value. Additionally, for long propagation channels we have not found any significant improvement by using beam tracking and non-zero offset. We note that the discussed results are applicable to annual-type apertures.
\[ht\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig:LawTotal\] The PDTs calculated within the weak beam wandering approximation for atmospheric channels of various lengths. The Rytov variances for 1 km, 2 km, 3 km, 4 km, and 5 km propagation length are $\sigma_R^2 =0.43$, $1.53$, $3.22$, $5.47$, and $8.23$, respectively. Thus, the plot illustrates the transition from weak to strong optical turbulence. The worse transmission performance for a 1 km link in comparison with a 2 km channel is explained by almost complete shadowing of the transmitted beam by the central obscuration of the receiver aperture. The corresponding additional deterministic losses [@Elterman] are also included. ](LawTotalChannels.pdf "fig:"){height="7cm"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:LawTotal\] shows the PDTs for various propagation lengths calculated using the weak beam wandering approximation. With increasing propagation length, the influence of turbulent distortion factors on the propagating beam grows as well. Since the beam wandering effect shows saturation in the strong turbulence regime [@Mironov1976], for long distance channels the effects of beam broadening and deformation play a crucial role. In comparison with the PDT of a 2 km optical link, the PDT of a 1 km channel is shifted towards smaller values of the transmittance. This is a direct consequence of beam truncation by the central aperture obscuration as was discussed above. This result agrees with the observation that the annular aperture degrades the signal-to-noise ratio in astronomical photometry [@Young1967]. By choosing the appropriate offset parameter, one can improve the channel transmission characteristics (cf. Fig. \[fig:Offset\]). However this strategy works for transmitted beams with beam spot radii smaller or comparable with the radius of the inner obscuration. For wider beams or for longer propagation lengths the introduction of an offset would lead to increasing average losses.
CONCLUSIONS {#sec:conclusions}
===========
Free-space quantum channels are characterized by the probability distribution of the random transmittance. The intensity of transmittance fluctuations is dictated by the receiver aperture characteristics, while the statistical properties of transmittance are related with the atmosphere-induced effects such as beam wandering, beam broadening, and beam deformation. We reviewed three models of the probability distribution of transmittance based on the stepwise inclusion of these atmospheric effects. The situation when the receiver uses the Cassegrain-type telescope for the collection of the transmitted signal has been considered. The corresponding aperture has an annular form.
The first model of quantum channel considers the situation when the turbulence induces beam wandering effects only. In this model, the Gaussian beam is randomly reflected by turbulent inhomogeneities which cause random wandering of beam centroid relative to the aperture center. The shape of the beam remains circular. For a simple circular aperture the corresponding probability distribution for transmittance of the wandering beam can be derived analytically and is the log-negative Weibull distribution. In the case of a Cassegrain-type aperture the analytical presentation is not possible and the probability distribution has been evaluated here by numerical means.
The refraction of an optical beam is possible when the size of turbulent inhomogeneities is larger than the beam cross-section diameter. However, the atmospheric turbulence is a rather complex composition of inhomogeneities of different scales and shapes. The scales of the order of the beam diameter contribute to the beam diffraction-induced broadening and deformation. These additional effects are taken into account by the so-called elliptic-beam model and the model based on the law of total probability. The elliptic-beam model considers beam deformation into elliptic forms and is applicable for short propagation distances. The model based on the law of total probability is applicable for transmitted beams with more complex deformations. It allows one to separate the contributions from beam wandering and beam broadening/deformation and hence to describe beam tracking procedures that are often used for the tip-tilt compensation. With the assumption of weak beam wandering the corresponding probability distribution of transmittance can be derived in a simple form. Such simplified model is reasonable for the description of long-distance atmospheric channels. In the present article we derived the corresponding probability distributions for the case when the receiver collects the transmitted light with the Cassegrain-type aperture. We summarize the regions of applicability of each model considered here in Table \[tab:Models\].
[|l|l|l|l|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model & Included effects & Applicability range & Rytov parameter\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beam-wandering model & beam wandering & short distance channel &$\sigma_R^2 >0$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliptic-beam model & beam wandering, beam broadening& short distance channel &$ \sigma_R^2> 0$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& beam deformation into elliptic form &$L < 2$ km&\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximation of weak & beam wandering, beam broadening & long distance channel& $\sigma_R^2 >1$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
beam wandering & beam deformation into arbitrary form & $L>2$ km &\
The analysis of the PDTs for short propagation distances or small beam-spot radii of the transmitted light has shown that the transmission statistics is greatly influenced by the central obscuration of the receiver Cassegrain-type aperture. In order to correct the destructive effects caused by the central obscuration we propose to use nonzero offset between the aperture center and the center of beam wandering fluctuations of the transmitted beam. The correction of beam-wandering fluctuations by applying tracking procedures could improve the channel transmittance only when the optimal offset is used. For longer atmospheric channels the introduction of an additional offset or beam tracking will not improve the channel transmission characteristics considerably. This findings are important for designing adaptive techniques in experiments with quantum light which involve receiver modules with Cassegrain-type telescopes. In the companion paper we will apply the PDT models derived here for the analysis of quantum properties of the transmitted nonclassical light fields.
D. V. is grateful to A. Korzhuev for useful and enlightening discussions. The work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through projects VO 501/21-2.
[10]{}
Bennett, C. H. and Brassard, G., “Experimental quantum cryptography: the dawn of a new era for quantum cryptography: the experimental prototype is working,” [*ACM SIGACT News*]{} [**20**]{}, 78 (1989).
Bennett, C. H., Bessette, F., Brassard, G., Salvail, L., and Smolin, J., “Experimental quantum cryptography,” [*J. Cryptology*]{} [**5**]{}, 3 (1992).
Liao, S.-K. et al., “Satellite-relayed intercontinental quantum network,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**120**]{}, 030501 (2018).
Buttler, W. T. et al., “Practical free-space quantum key distribution over 1 km,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**81**]{}, 3283 (1998).
Hughes, R. J., Nordholt, J. E., Derkacs, D., and Peterson, C. G., “Practical free-space quantum key distribution over 10 km in daylight and at night,” [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**4**]{}, 43 (2002).
Weier, H., Schmitt-Manderbach, T., Regner, N., Kurtsiefer, C., and Weinfurter, H., “Free space quantum key distribution: Towards a real life application,” [*Forschr. Phys.*]{} [**54**]{}, 840 (2006).
Fedrizzi, A. et al., “High-fidelity transmission of entanglement over a high-loss free-space channel,” [*Nat. Phys.*]{} [**5**]{}, 389 (2009).
Nauerth, S., Moll, F., Rau, M., Fuchs, C., Horwath, J., Frick, S., and Weinfurter, H., “Air-to-ground quantum communication,” [*Nat. Photonics*]{} [**7**]{}, 381 (2013).
Croal, C. et al., “Free-space quantum signatures using heterodyne measurements,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**117**]{}, 100503 (2016).
Namazi, M., Vallone, G., Jordan, B., Goham, C., Shahrokhshahi, R., Villoresi, P., and Figueroa, E., “Free-space quantum communication with a portable quantum memory,” [*Phys. Rev. Appl.*]{} [**8**]{}, 064013 (2017).
Juan-Yin et al., “Satellite-based entanglement distribution over 1200 kilometers,” [*Science*]{} [**356**]{}, 1140 (2017).
Gottesman, D., Jennewein, T., and Croke, S., “Larger-baseline telescopes using quantum repeaters,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**109**]{}, 070503 (2012).
Sabin, C., “Quantum detection of wormholes,” [*Sci. Reports.*]{} [**7**]{}, 716 (2017).
Handsteiner, J. et al., “Cosmic bell test: Measurement settings from milky way stars,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**118**]{}, 060401 (2017).
Vallone, G. et al., “Adaptive real time selection for quantum key distribution in lossy and turbulent free-space channels,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**91**]{}, 042320 (2015).
Gruneisen, M. T., Sickmiller, B. A., Flanagan, M. B., Black, J. P., Stoltenberg, K. E., and Duchane, A. W., “Adaptive spatial filtering of daytime sky noise in a satellite quantum key distribution downlink receiver,” [*Opt. Engineering*]{} [**55(2)**]{}, 026104 (2016).
Bohmann, M., Semenov, A. A., Sperling, J., and Vogel, W., “Gaussian entanglement in the turbulent atmosphere,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**94**]{}, 010302(R) (2016).
Wang, W., Xu, F., and Lo, H.-K., “Prefixed-threshold real-time selection method in free-space quantum key distribution,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**97**]{}, 032337 (2018).
Tatarski, V. I., \[[*Wave propagation in a turbulent medium*]{}[\]]{}, Dover Publ., New York (2016).
Ishimaru, A., \[[*Wave Propagation and Scattering in Random Media*]{}[\]]{}, Academic Press, San Diego (1979).
Andrews, L., Phillips, R., and Hopen, C., \[[*Laser Beam Scintillation with Applications*]{}[\]]{}, SPIE, Bellingham, WA (2001).
Andrews, L. and Phillips, R., \[[*Laser Beam Propagation through Random Media*]{}[\]]{}, SPIE, Bellingham, WA (2005).
Diament, P. and Teich, M. C., “Photodetection of low-level radiation through the turbulent atmosphere,” [*J. Opt. Soc. Am.*]{} [**60**]{}, 1489 (1970).
Peřina, J., Peřinova, V., Teich, M. C., and P.Diament, “Two descriptions for the photocounting detection of radiation passed through a random medium: A comparison for the turbulent atmosphere,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**7**]{}, 1732 (1973).
Paterson, C., “Atmospheric turbulence and orbital angular momentum of single photons for optical communication,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**94**]{}, 153901 (2005).
Semenov, A. A. and Vogel, W., “Quantum light in the turbulent atmosphere,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**80**]{}, 021802(R) (2009).
Semenov, A. A. and Vogel, W., “Entanglement transfer through the turbulent atmosphere,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**81**]{}, 023835 (2010).
Vasylyev, D., Semenov, A. A., and Vogel, W., “Toward global quantum communication: Beam wandering preserves nonclassicality,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**108**]{}, 220501 (2012).
Vasylyev, D., Semenov, A. A., and Vogel, W., “Atmospheric quantum channels with weak and strong turbulence,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**117**]{}, 090501 (2016).
Vasylyev, D., Vogel, W., and Semenov, A. A., “Theory of atmospheric quantum channels based on the law of total probability,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [ **97**]{}, 063852 (2018).
Glauber, R. J., “Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field,” [ *Phys. Rev.*]{} [**131**]{}, 2766 (1963).
Sudarshan, E. C. G., “Equivalence of semiclassical and quantum mechanical descriptions of statistical light beams,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**10**]{}, 277 (1963).
Chumak, O. O. and Baskov, R. A., “Strong enhancing effect of correlations of photon trajectories on laser beam scintillations,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [ **93**]{}, 033821 (2016).
Chumak, O. O. and Baskov, R. A., “Laser-beam scintillations for weak and moderate turbulence,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**97**]{}, 043817 (2018).
Mironov, V. L. and Nosov, V. V., “On the theory of spatially limited light beam displacement in a randomly inhomogeneous medium,” [*J. Opt. Soc. Am.*]{} [**67**]{}, 1073 (1977).
Aksenov, V. P. and Mironov, V. L., “Phase approximation of the huygens-kirchhoff method in problems of reflections of optical waves in the turbulent atmosphere,” [*J. Opt. Soc. Am.*]{} [**69**]{}, 1609 (1979).
Charnotskii, M., “Common omissions and misconceptions of wave propagation in turbulence: discussion,” [*J. Opt. Soc. A*]{} [**29**]{}, 711 (2012).
Marcum, J. I., \[[*Table of Q Functions. U.S. Air Force RAND Research Memorandum M-339*]{}[\]]{}, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA (1950).
Vasylyev, D., Semenov, A. A., and Vogel, W., “Quantum channels with beam wandering: an analysis of the marcum $q$-function,” [*Phys. Scr.*]{} [ **T153**]{}, 014062 (2013).
Baker, G. J., “Gaussian beam weak scintillation: low-order turbulence effects and applicability of the rytov method,” [*J. Opt. Soc. Am. A*]{} [**23**]{}, 395 (2006).
Corless, R., Gonnet, G., Hare, D., Jeffrey, D., and Knuth, D., “On the lambert w function,” [*Adv. Comput. Math.*]{} [**5**]{}, 329 (1996).
Mardia, K. V. and Jupp, P. E., \[[*Directional Statistics*]{}[\]]{}, Addison-Wesley, New York (1999).
Vasylyev, D., Semenov, A. A., Vogel, W., Guenthner, K., Thurn, A., Bayraktar, O., and Marquardt, C., “Free-space quantum links under diverse weather conditions,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**96**]{}, 043856 (2017).
Schervish, M. J., \[[*Theory of Statistics*]{}[\]]{}, Springer, New York (1995).
Sun, X. et al., “Free space laser communication experiments from earth to the lunar reconnaissance orbiter in lunar orbit,” [*Opt. Express*]{} [**21**]{}, 1865 (2013).
Brychkov, Y. A. and Prudnikov, A. P., \[[*Integral Transforms of Generalized Functions*]{}[\]]{}, CRC Press, Boca Raton (1989).
Vorontsov, M. A. et al., “Characterization of atmospheric turbulence effects over 149 km propagation path using multi-wavelength laser beacons,” [ *Electrical and Computer Engineering Faculty Publications*]{} [**Paper 96**]{} (2010).
Gurvich, A. S., Gorbunov, M. E., Fedorova, O. V., Kirchengast, G., Proschek, V., Abad, G. G., and Tereszchuk, K. A., “Spatiotemporal structure of a laser beam over 144 km in a canary islands experiment,” [*Appl. Opt.*]{} [**51**]{}, 7374 (2012).
Tyler, G. A., “Bandwidth considerations for tracking through turbulence,” [*J. Opt. Soc. Am. A*]{} [**11**]{}, 358 (1994).
Chun, H. et al., “Handheld free space quantum key distribution with dynamic motion compensation,” [*Opt. Express*]{} [**25**]{}, 6784 (2017).
Fernandez, V., Gomez-Garcia, J., Ocampos-Guillen, A., and Carrasco-Casado, A., “Correction of wavefront tilt caused by atmospheric turbulence using quadrant detectors for enabling fast free-space quantum communications in daylight,” [*IEEE Access*]{} [**6**]{}, 3336 (2018).
Elterman, L., “Uv, visible, and ir attenuation for altitudes to 50 km,” [ *Environ. Res.*]{} [**Paper 285**]{}, AFCRL–68–0153 (1968).
Gumberidze, M. O., Semenov, A. A., Vasylyev, D., and Vogel, W., “Bell nonlocality in the turbulent atmosphere,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**94**]{}, 053801 (2016).
Mironov, V. L. and Nosov, V. V., “On the theory of spatially limited light beam displacements in a randomly inhomogeneous medium,” [*J. Opt. Soc. Am.*]{} [**67**]{}, 1073 (1979).
Young, A. T., “Photometric error analysis. vi. confirmation of reiger’s theory of scintillation,” [*Astr. J.*]{} [**72**]{}, 747 (1967).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Yi Xu[^1]\
OPPO US Research Center
- |
Shanglin Yang[^2]\
JD.COM American Technologies Corporation
- |
Wei Sun[^3]\
North Carolina State University
- |
Li Tan [^4]\
JD.COM
- |
Kefeng Li[^5]\
JD.COM
- |
Hui Zhou[^6]\
JD.COM American Technologies Corporation
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: 3D Virtual Garment Modeling from RGB Images
---
Introduction
============
Building 3D models of fashion items has many applications in Virtual Reality, Mixed Reality, and Computed-Aided Design (CAD) for apparel industry. A lot of commercial efforts have been put into this field. For example, there are a few CAD software systems that are created for 3D garment design, but most of them focus on creating 3D garment models based on 2D sewing patterns, such as MavelousDesigner and Optitex. Recently, a few e-commerce platforms have begun to use 3D virtual garments to enhance online shopping experiences. However, large variation, short fashion product life cycle, and high modeling costs make it difficult to use virtual garments on a regular basis. This necessitates a simple yet effective approach for 3D garment modeling.
There have been a lot of research for creating 3D virtual garment models. Some use specialized multi-camera setups to capture 4D evolving shape of the garments [@Bradley:2008:MGC:1360612.1360698; @Pons-Moll:2017:CSC:3072959.3073711]. These setups are complicated; therefore limiting their usage. Other methods take 2D sewing patterns [@Berthouzoz:2013:PSP:2461912.2461975] or 2D sketches [@Robson:2011:SFP:1994025.1994424] as input and build 3D models that can be easily manufactured. Although these methods use 2D images as input, they still rely on the careful and lengthy design of expert users. Another group of methods deform/reshape 3D template meshes to design garments that best fit 3D digital human models [@Meng:2012:FSC:2076818.2077262]. This can be an overkill in certain applications where an accurate design is not needed. Recently, there have been some methods that create 3D garment models from a single image or a pair of images [@Danzrek:2017:DGS:3128975.3129001; @Jeong:2015:doi:10.1002/cav.1653; @Yang:2018:TBD; @Zhou:2013:doi:10.1111/cgf.12215]. All of these methods assume the garment is worn by a human model or a mannequin; therefore, do not provide the convenience of working with readily available photos.
We propose a method that can construct 3D virtual garment models from photos that are available on the web, especially on e-commerce sites. Fig. \[fig\_input\] shows two examples. Each photo set displays several different views of a piece of garment on a fashion model, on a mannequin, or flattened on a support surface. To generate a 3D virtual model, a user needs to specify one front and one back image of the garment. The generated 3D model is up to a scale, but can have absolute scale if user specifies a real world measurement (e.g., sleeve length in meters).
We train a multi-task learning network, called JFNet, to predict fashion landmarks and segment a garment image into semantic parts (i.e., left sleeve, front piece, etc.). Based on the landmark predictions, we estimate sizing information of the garment and deform a template mesh to match the estimated measurements. We then deform the semantic parts onto a 2D reference texture to lift textures. It is worth-noting that our method is capable of using a single image as input if front-back symmetry is assumed for a garment. Our contributions are as follows:
![Two product photo sets (left) on an e-commerce site and 3D textured models (right) computed using two photos from each input set.[]{data-label="fig_input"}](figures/fig_input.pdf){width="0.98\linewidth"}
- We present a complete and easy-to-use approach that generates a 3D textured garment model using product photo set. T-shirt and pants are modeled in this paper; however, our approach can be extended to other garment types.
- We propose a multi-task learning framework that predicts fashion landmarks and segments garment image into semantic parts.
- We present algorithms for size estimation and texture extraction from garment images.
{width="0.99\linewidth"}
Related Work
============
In this section, we discuss related work in garment modeling, joint human body and garment shape estimation, semantic parsing of fashion images, and image-based virtual try-on.
Garment Modeling and Capturing
------------------------------
Garment modeling methods can be classified into the following three categories: geometric approaches, image-based 3D reconstruction, and image-based template reshaping.
### Geometric Approaches
Methods in this category typically have roots from the CAD community. Wang et al. [@Wang:2005:DAC:1649587.1649870] automated the Made-to-Measure (MtM) process by fitting 3D feature templates of garments onto different body shapes. Meng et al. [@Meng:2012:FSC:2076818.2077262] proposed a method that preserves the shape of user-defined features on the apparel products during the automatic MtM process.
Other methods use 2D sketches or patterns as input. For example, Decaudin et al. [@Decaudin:2006:doi:10.1111/j.1467-8659.2006.00982.x] fitted garment panels to contours and seam-lines that are sketched around a virtual mannequin. These panels are then approximated with developable surfaces for garment manufacturing. Robson et al. [@Robson:2011:SFP:1994025.1994424] created 3D garments that are suitable for virtual environments form simple user sketches using context-aware sketch interpretation. Berthouzoz et al. [@Berthouzoz:2013:PSP:2461912.2461975] proposed an approach that parses existing sewing patterns and converts them into 3D models. Wang et al. [@garmentdesign_Wang_SA18] presented a system that is capable of estimating garment and body shape parameters interactively using a learning approach. All of these methods rely on certain level of tailoring expertise from users.
### Image-based 3D Reconstruction
Some approaches aimed to create 3D models directly from input images and/or videos of a garment. Early work by White et al. [@White:2007:CAO:1276377.1276420] used a custom set of color markers printed on the cloth surface to recover 3D mesh of dynamic cloth with consistent connectivity. Markerless approaches were also developed by using multi-camera setup [@Bradley:2008:MGC:1360612.1360698], multi-view 3D scans with active stereo[@Pons-Moll:2017:CSC:3072959.3073711], or depth cameras [@Chen:2015:GMD:2816795.2818059]. These methods require specialized hardware and do not work with existing garment photos.
### Shape Parameter Estimation
Our approach is most similar to methods that utilize parametric models of human and/or garments. Zhou et al. [@Zhou:2013:doi:10.1111/cgf.12215] took a single image of a human wearing a garment as input. Their approach first estimates human pose and shape from images using parameter reshaping. Then, a semi-automatic approach is used to create an initial 3D mesh for the garment. Finally, shape-from-shading is used to recover details. Their method requires user input for pose estimation and garment outline labeling, assumes the garment is front-back symmetric, and does not extract textures from the input image.
Jeong et al. [@Jeong:2015:doi:10.1002/cav.1653] fitted parameterized pattern drafts to input images by analyzing silhouettes. However, their method requires input images of a mannequin both with and without garment from the same viewpoint. Yang et al. [@Yang:2018:TBD] used semi-automatic processing to extract semantic information from a single image of a model wearing the garment and used optimization with a physics-inspired objective function to estimate garment parameters. Compared to this method, our method provides a more advanced joint learning model for semantic parsing.
The DeepGarment framework proposed by Danźrek et al. [@Danzrek:2017:DGS:3128975.3129001] learns a mapping from garment images to 3D model using Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN). More specifically, the learned network can predict displacements of vertices from a template mesh. However, garment texture is not learned.
Joint Human Body and Garment Shape Estimation
---------------------------------------------
There have been a lot of efforts that address the challenging problem of joint human body and garment shape estimation.
Alldieck et al. [@video_based_people_model_cvpr2018] reconstructed detailed shape and texture of clothed human by transforming a large amount of dynamic human silhouettes from a single RGB sequence to a common reference frame. Later, the same authors introduced a learning approach that only requires a few RGB frames as input [@Octopus_alldieck19cvpr]. Natsume et al. [@SiCloPe_2019] reconstructed a complete and textured 3D model of a clothed person using just one image. In their work, deep visual hull algorithm is used to predict 3D shape from silhouettes and a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) is used to infer the appearance of the back of the human subject. Habermann et al. [@LiveCap_2019] presented a system for real time tracking of human performance, but relied on a personalized and textured 3D model that was captured during a pre-processing step. These work do not separate underlying body shape from garment geometry.
Using RGBD camera as input device, body shape and garment shape can be separated. For example, Zhang et al. [@Clothed_3D_scan_2017] reconstructed naked human shape under clothing. Yu et al. [@DoubleFusion_Yu_2018_CVPR] used a double layer representation to reconstruct geometry of both body and clothing. Physics based cloth simulation can also be incorporated into the framework to better track human performance [@SimulCap_Yu_2018_CVPR].
Fashion Semantic Parsing
------------------------
In this section, we review related work in fashion landmark prediction, semantic segmentation, and multi-task learning.
### Fashion Landmark Prediction
Fashion landmark prediction is a structured prediction problem for detecting functional key points, such as corners of cuff, collar, etc. Despite it being a relatively new topic [@Liu:2016:fashionlandmark], it has roots in a related problem-human pose estimation. Early work on human pose estimation used pictorial structures to model spatial correlation between human body parts [@Andriluka:2009:PSR]. Such method only works well when all body parts are visible, so that the structure can be modeled by graphical models. Later on, hierarchical models were used to model part relationships at multiple scales [@Tian:2012:SHM]. Spatial relationship can also be learned implicitly using a sequential prediction framework, such as Pose Machines [@Ramakrishna:2014:PM]. CNNs can also be integrated into Pose Machines to jointly learn image features and spatial context features [@Wei:2016:CPM].
Different from human pose, fashion landmark detection predicts functional key points of fashion items. Liu et al. proposed a Deep Fashion Alignment (DFA) [@Liu:2016:fashionlandmark] framework that cascades CNNs in three stages similar to DeepPose [@Toshev:2014:DP]. To achieve scale invariance and remove background clutter, DFA assumes that bounding boxes are known during training and testing; thus limiting its usage. This constraint was later removed in Deep LAndmark Network (DLAN) [@Yan:2017:UFL:3123266.3123276]. It is worth noting that the landmarks defined in these approaches cannot be used for texture extraction. For example, a mid-point on the cuff is a landmark defined in their work. In our work, two corners of the cuff are predicted and they carry critical information for texture extraction.
### Semantic Segmentation
Semantic segmentation assigns semantic labels to each pixel. CNNs have been successfully applied to this task. Long et al. proposed Fully Convolutional Networks (FCNs) for semantic segmentation [@Long:2015:FCN], which achieved significant improvements over methods relied on hand-crafted features. Built upon FCNs, Encoder-Decoder architectures have shown great success [@Ronneberger:2015:UNET:10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28; @Badrinarayanan:2017:SEGNET]. Such an architecture typically has an encoder that reduces feature map and a decoder that maps the encoded information back to input resolution. Spatial Pyramid Pooling (SPP) can also be applied at several scales to leverage multi-scale information [@Zhao:2017:PSP]. DeepLabV3+ [@Chen:2018:DEEPLABV3+] combines the benefits of both SPP and Encoder-Decoder architecture to achieve state-of-the-art result. Our part segmentation sub-network is based on DeepLabV3+ architecture. Similar to our work, Alldieck et al. [@Detail_human_avartar_2018] also used human semantic part segmentation to extract detailed textures from RGB sequences.
### Multi-task Learning
Multi-task learning (MTL) has been used successfully for many applications due to the inductive bias it achieves when training a model to perform multiple tasks. Recently, it has been applied to several computer vision tasks. Kokkinos introduced UberNet [@Kokkinos:2018:UBN] that can jointly handle multiple computer vision tasks, ranging from semantic segmentation, human parts, to object detection. Ranjan et al. proposed HyperFace [@Ranjan:2018:HYPERFACE] for simultaneously detecting faces, localizing landmarks, estimating head pose, and identifying gender. Perhaps the most similar work to ours is the work of JPPNet [@Liang:2018:LIP]. It is a joint human parsing and pose estimation network, while our work uses MTL for garment image analysis. Another MTL work on human parsing from the same group is [@Human_parsing_Gong_2018_ECCV], where semantic part segmentation and instance-aware edge detection are jointly learned.
Image-based Virtual Try-on
--------------------------
As an alternative to 3D modeling, image-based virtual try-on has also been explored. Neverova et al. [@DensePoseTransfer_Neverova_2018_ECCV] used a two-stream network where a data-driven predicted image and a surface-based warped image are combined and the whole network is learned end-to-end to generate a new pose of a person. Lassner et al. [@Lassner_2017_ICCV] used only image information to predict images of new people in different clothing items. VITON [@VITON_2018] on the other hand transfers the image of a new garment onto a photo of a person.
Our Approach
============
In this section, we explain our approaches on garment image parsing, 3D model creation, and texture extraction. Fig. \[fig\_overview\] shows an overview of our approach.
![Annotation Examples. Top and bottom shows landmark and part labeling for tops (including T-shirt) and pants respectively. []{data-label="fig_data"}](figures/fig_Dataset_v4.pdf){width="0.90\linewidth"}
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
Data Annotation
---------------
To train JFNet, we built a dataset with both fashion landmarks and pixel-level segmentation annotations. We collected 3,000 images of tops (including T-shirts) and another 3,000 images of pants from the web. For each type of garment, a set of landmarks are defined based on fashion design. 13 landmarks are defined for tops including center and corners of neckline, corners of both cuffs, end points on hemline, and armpits. 7 landmarks are defined for pants including end points of waistband, crotch, and end points of the bottom.
For part segmentation, we defined a set of labels and asked the annotators to provide pixel-level labeling. For tops, we used 5 labels including left-sleeve, right-sleeve, collar, torso, and hat. For pants, we used 2 labels including left-part and right-part. Some labeling examples are shown in Fig. \[fig\_data\].
Garment Image Parsing
---------------------
Our joint garment parsing network JFNet built upon Convoluitional Pose Machines (CPMs) [@Wei:2016:CPM] for landmark prediction and DeepLabV3+ [@Chen:2018:DEEPLABV3+] for semantic segmentation.
The network architecture of JFNet is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_jfnet\]. We use ResNet-101 [@He:2016:ResNet] as our backbone network to extract low-level features. Then we use two branching networks to obtain landmark prediction and part segmentation. Finally, we use a refinement network to refine the prediction results.
### Landmark Prediction
For landmark prediction (bottom half of Fig. \[fig\_jfnet\]), we use a learning network with *T*-stages similar to that of [@Wei:2016:CPM]. At first stage, we extract second stage outputs of ResNet-101 (Res-2) followed by a 3x3 convolutional layer as low level features from the input image. Then, we use two 1x1 convolutional layers to predict landmark heatmap at the first stage. At each of the subsequent stages, we concatenate the landmark heatmap predicted from the previous stage with shared low-level features from Res-2. Then we use five convolutional layers followed by two 1x1 convolutional layers to predict the heatmap at the current stage. The architecture repeats this process for *T* stages, where the size of receptive field increases with each stage. This is crucial for learning long-range relationships between fashion landmarks. The heatmap at each stage is compared against labeled ground truth and calculated towards total training loss.
### Garment Part Segmentation
For semantic garment part segmentation (top half of Fig. \[fig\_jfnet\]), we followed the encoder architecture of DeepLabV3+ [@Chen:2018:DEEPLABV3+]. Atrous Spatial Pyramid Pool (ASPP) module, which can learn context information at multiple scales effectively, is applied after the last stage output of ResNet-101, followed by one 1x1 convolutional layer and up-sampling.
### Refinement
To refine landmark prediction and part segmentation, and to promote each other, we concatenate the landmark prediction result from the *T*-th stage of the landmark sub-network, the part segmentation result from the segmentation sub-network, and the shared low-level features together. We then apply a 3x3 convolutional layer for landmark prediction and part segmentation respectively. The sum of loss from both branches is used for jointly training the network end-to-end.
### Training Details
We load ResNet-101 parameters that are pre-trained on ImageNet classification task. During training, random crop and random rotation between -10 and 10 degrees are applied for data augmentation and the final input image size is resized to 256x256. We adopt SGD optimizer with 0.9 as momentum. Learning rate is initially set as 0.001 and “poly" decay [@Zhao:2017:PSP] is set to $10^{-6}$ in 100 total training epoches.
3D Model Construction
---------------------
Our approach uses fashion landmarks to estimate the sizing information and to guide the deformation of a template mesh. Textures are extracted form input images and mapped onto the 3D garment model. In this section, we first discuss the garment templates used in our system. Then, we discuss our 3D modeling and texturing approaches.
### Garment Templates
![Our approach uses garment templates for modeling and texturing. (a) The template mesh for T-shirt, whose texture coordinates match the vertex coordinates of the (b) reference mesh. (c) Template mesh for pants, and the corresponding (d) reference mesh.[]{data-label="fig_garmenttemplate"}](figures/fig_garment_template.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
We use 3D garment models from Berkeley Garment Libraries [@BerkeleyGarmentLib] as templates. For each garment type, a coarse base mesh and a finer isotropically refined mesh are provided by the library. We use the refined mesh in world-space configuration as our base model. In addition, the texture coordinates of the refined mesh store the material coordinates that refer to a planar reference mesh. We use this 2D reference mesh for texture extraction. Currently, our system supports two garment types: T-shirt and pants as shown in Fig. \[fig\_garmenttemplate\].
### 3D Model Deformation
To create 3D garment models that conform to the sizing information from the input images, we apply Free-Form Deformation (FFD) [@Sederberg:1986:FDS] to deform a garment template. We chose FFD because it can be applied to 3D models locally while maintaining derivative continuity with adjacent regions of the model. For two view data (front and back), FFD is a plausible solution. When there are multi-view images, videos, or 4D scans of garments, other mesh fitting techniques can be used to generate more accurate results.
[p[0.3]{} p[0.6]{}]{} **Distance** & **How to calculate**\
$D(P\textsubscript{0jk},\ P\textsubscript{1jk})$ & left sleeve length \* $cos(\alpha)$\
$D(P\textsubscript{1jk},\ P\textsubscript{2jk})$ & chest width (armpit\_left to armpit\_right)\
$D(P\textsubscript{2jk},\ P\textsubscript{3jk})$ & right sleeve length \* $cos(\beta)$\
$D(P\textsubscript{ij0},\ P\textsubscript{ij1})$ & distance from armpit to hemline\
$D(P\textsubscript{ij1},\ P\textsubscript{ij2})$ & distance from armpit to shoulder\
$D(P\textsubscript{ij0},\ P\textsubscript{ij3})$ & distance from neck to hemline\
$D(P\textsubscript{i0k},\ P\textsubscript{i1k})$ & $D(P\textsubscript{ij1},\ P\textsubscript{ij2})$ \* $S$\
$S$ & $D(P\textsubscript{i0k},\ P\textsubscript{i1k}) / D(P\textsubscript{ij1},\ P\textsubscript{ij2})$, un-displaced.\
For each garment template, we impose a grid of control points ${P\textsubscript{ijk}}\ (0\leq{i}<l,\ 0\leq{j}<m,\ 0\leq{k}<n)$ on a lattice. The deformation of the template is achieved by moving each control point ${P\textsubscript{ijk}}$ from its original position. Control points are carefully chosen to facilitate deformation of individual parts so that a variety of garment shapes can be modeled. For T-shirt, as shown in Fig. \[fig\_ffd\] (a, b), we use $l=4, \ m=2, \ n=4$. For pants, as shown in Fig. \[fig\_ffd\] (c, d), we use control points with $l=3, \ m=2, \ n=3$.
![ Template Deformation. (a) The original template for T-shirt with control grid. (b) Deformed template that captures a different shape. (c) The original template for pants. (b) Deformed template.[]{data-label="fig_ffd"}](figures/fig_FFD.pdf){width="0.98\linewidth"}
If metric scale of the resulting 3D model is desired, we ask the user to specify a measurement *l* in world space (e.g., sleeve length). Otherwise, a default value is assigned to *l*. Based on the ratio between image space sleeve length to *l*, we can convert any image space distance to world space distance.
[p[0.3]{} p[0.6]{}]{} **Control Points** & **How to calculate**\
$D(P\textsubscript{0jk},\ P\textsubscript{1jk})$ & un-displaced distance \* $S^*$\
$D(P\textsubscript{1jk},\ P\textsubscript{2jk})$ & un-displaced distance \* $S^*$\
$D(P\textsubscript{ij0},\ P\textsubscript{ij1})$ & distance from crotch to bottom\
$D(P\textsubscript{ij1},\ P\textsubscript{ij2})$ & distance from crotch to waist line\
$D(P\textsubscript{i0k},\ P\textsubscript{i1k})$ & un-displaced distance \* $S^*$\
\
FFD control points do not directly corresponded to image landmarks. Instead, we compute 2D distances between garment landmarks and use them to compute 3D distances between control points. Tab. \[tab\_tshirt\] shows how to calculate control point distances for the T-shirt type. Constants $alpha$ and $beta$ are the angle between horizontal direction and left sleeve and the angle between horizontal direction and right sleeve respectively. They are measured from the template T-shirt mesh. The distances are then used to compute new locations of control points for template mesh deformation.
Since the T-shirt template resembles the shape of a T-shirt on a mannequin, using photos of T-shirts on mannequins achieves most accurate results. On such images, the distance between two armpits corresponds to the chest width of the mannequin. When a T-shirt lays on a flat surface, the distance between two armpits corresponds to half perimeter of the chest. In this case, we fit an ellipse to the horizontal section of the chest. We then compute the width of the horizontal section as the major axis of the ellipse using the perimeter measurement. Images of fashion models are not suitable for garment size estimation due to self-occlusion, wrinkles, etc. Tab. \[tab\_pants\] shows the calculation of control points for the pants.
Texture Extraction
------------------
The texture coordinates in the 3D mesh refer to the vertices in the planar 2D reference mesh. This allows us to perform 3D texture mapping by mapping input images onto the 2D reference mesh as a surrogate. The different pieces in the reference mesh correspond to different garment segmentation parts. This is the reason semantic segmentation is performed during garment image analysis. Texture mapping becomes an image deformation problem where the source is a garment part (e.g., left sleeve) and the target is its corresponding piece on the reference mesh.
On the reference mesh, we manually label the landmarks (Fig. \[fig\_texture\] (b) red circles). This only needs to be done once for each garment type. In this way, we establish feature correspondence between predicted landmarks on the source image and manually-labeled landmarks on the target image. However, using a sparse set of control points leads to large local deformation, especially around contours. To mitigate this, we map each landmark point onto the contour of the part by finding the closest point on the part contour. Then between each pair of adjacent landmarks, we sample *N* additional points uniformly along the contour. We do this for both input garment image and reference mesh (green circles in Fig. \[fig\_texture\]).The corresponding points are then used by Moving Least Squares (MLS) method with similarity deformation [@Schaefer:2006:IDU:1141911.1141920] to deform textures from the input image to the reference mesh. Alternatively, a Thin Plate Spline (TPS) based approach similar to that used in VITON [@VITON_2018] can also be used for image warping.
Before image deformation, each garment segment is eroded slightly to accommodate for segmentation artifacts. Then, color texture is extrapolated from the garment to surrounding area to remove background color after deformation. Fig. \[fig\_texture\] shows the process of deforming the front segment of a T-shirt to the desired location on its 2D reference mesh. Fig. \[fig\_texture\_pants\] shows that for the right leg of pants. Note that to better illustrate the idea, we use a small value of $N=10$ in Fig.\[fig\_texture\] and \[fig\_texture\_pants\]. In our experiments, we found that denser control point set (e.g. $N=50$) works better.
In our current implementation, the back piece around the neck/collar is often included in the front piece segmentation result. To handle this, we cut out the back piece automatically. JFNet predicts the front middle point of the neck as a landmark. We then correct the front piece segmentation by tracing the edge from two shoulder points to the middle neck point.
![ Texture Extraction for T-Shirt. (a) The extrapolated T-shirt image with control points computed along the contour of the front segment. (b) The front segment is deformed to the desired location on the 2D reference mesh.[]{data-label="fig_texture"}](figures/fig_texture.pdf){width="0.99\linewidth"}
![ Texture Extraction for Pants. (a) The extrapolated pants image with control points. (b) The image segment is deformed to the desired location on the 2D reference mesh.[]{data-label="fig_texture_pants"}](figures/fig_texturepants.pdf){width="0.99\linewidth"}
Experiments
===========
In this section, we show quantitative experimental results for JFNet. We also show results on 3D modeling.
Evaluation of JFNet
-------------------
Our model requires both landmark and segmentation annotations, thus we cannot compare our results directly with other SOTAs by training our model on public dataset. Nevertheless, we have trained CPM and DeepLabV3+ on our dataset and compare them with JFNet.
We trained JFNet for tops and pants separately. For each model, 2,000 images are used for training and 500 images for validation. Evaluation is performed on the remaining 500 images. We used the standard intersection over union ($IoU$) criterion and mean $IoU$ ($mIOU$) accuracy for segmentation evaluation and normalized error $(NE)$ metric[@Liu:2016:fashionlandmark] for landmark prediction evaluation. $NE$ refers to the distance between predicted landmarks and ground truth locations in the normalized coordinate space ($i.e.$, normalized with respect to the width of the image), and it is a commonly used evaluation metric.
Tab. \[2dquant\_res\] shows performances of different methods. For both tops and pants, JFNet achieves better performance on *both* landmark prediction and garment part segmentation. Our landmark prediction on tops greatly outperforms CPM (0.031 vs. 0.075). This shows that constraints and guidance from segmentation task have helped landmark prediction. Landmark prediction performance on pants also improves, but not as much because landmarks of pants are less complex than those of tops. Part segmentation is a more complex task. Thus, it is reasonable that our model does not boost the segmentation task as much. Nevertheless, JFNet still improves upon DeepLabV3+.
It is worth noting that the purpose of the proposed model is to handle multiple tasks simultaneously with performance improvement compared to individual tasks. Thus, our method focuses on information sharing and multi-task training while other SOTAs focus on network structure and training for each individual task. In the future, we can also incorporate other SOTA networks into our joint learning model.
-------------------------------------- -- ------------------ ------------------ -- ------------------ ------------------ -- --
\[0.5ex\] Methods NE mIOU NE mIOU
\[0.5ex\] $CPM$ [@Wei:2016:CPM] $0.075$ $-$ $0.034$ $-$
$Deeplabv3+$ [@Chen:2018:DEEPLABV3+] $-$ $0.721$ $-$ $0.964$
$JFNet$ $\textbf{0.031}$ $\textbf{0.725}$ $\textbf{0.022}$ $\textbf{0.968}$
-------------------------------------- -- ------------------ ------------------ -- ------------------ ------------------ -- --
: Landmark Prediction and Garment Segmentation Performance Comparison[]{data-label="2dquant_res"}
3D Modeling Results
-------------------
We applied our 3D garment modeling algorithm on various input images and the results are in Fig. \[fig\_result\]. Our approach utilizes the sizing information estimated from fashion landmarks to model different styles of garments (e.g., different length of legs or different fits of T-shirt). For example, the 3rd T-shirt is slightly longer, the 2nd T-shirt is slight wider, and the 1st T-shirt has narrower sleeves. These correspond to the characteristics of the input garment images. Our approach can also extract textures from garment images and map them on to different parts of the constructed 3D model.
To quantitatively evaluate our 3D modeling is expensive. This involves capturing 2D images of various garments and scanning them into 3D models. An alternative is to use synthetic data with ground truth to evaluate accuracy of size estimation and 3D reconstruction. We leave these for future work. Nevertheless, 3D modeling results of our approach are visually plausible for applications where accuracy requirement is not strict.
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
Conclusion
==========
We present a complete system that takes photos of a garment as input and creates a 3D textured virtual model. We propose a multi-task network called JFNet to predict fashion landmarks and segment the garment into parts. The landmark prediction results are used to guide template-based deformation. The semantic part segmentation results are used for texture extraction. We show that our system can create 3D virtual models for T-shirt and pants effectively.
Limitation
==========
One limitation is due to the representation power of the templates. Because our model is deformed from a template, the shape of the template limits the range of garments we can model. For example, our pants template is a regular fit. Modeling slim or skinny pants will be impractical. Our approach recovers shape, but not the pose of the garment. To learn the 3D pose of garments, more data and annotations are required.
Another limitation is that we only use two photos (front and back view) for texture extraction. This leads to excessive local deformation when source and target contours are very different (see stickers on the jeans in Fig. \[fig\_result\] last row).
The photo sets for testing our 3D modeling approach are from online shopping sites. Two occlusion-free images can always be selected from each set. In general, occlusion can pose a problem for texture extraction. However, missing textures can be mitigated using image in-painting. Missing landmarks can be mitigated using symmetry-based landmark completion.
Finally, our system only supports T-shirt and pants now and we only address a simplified version of the garment modeling problem, which usually involves wrinkles, folds and pleats.
Future Work
===========
Currently, 2D proportions from the photos are transferred to the 3D model. In the future, We want to use a garment modeling approach that uses sewing patterns [@Jeong:2015:doi:10.1002/cav.1653]. We can fit the shape of each individual 2D sewing pattern using image part segmentation. Then, these 2D patterns can be assembled in 3D space as in commercial garment design process. In this way, we can better transfer the shapes from 2D images to 3D models.
We also want to investigate if more than two images can be used together to texture a 3D model [@Detail_human_avartar_2018]. The distorted textures along the silhouettes of front and back view can be filled in by a side view photo.
For applications that require accurate 3D information, we would like to perform quantitatively evaluation of our 3D modeling algorithm.
Finally, by incorporating more garment templates, more garment types can be supported. Since we only need to create a template once for each type/fit, the overhead is small if used in large scales. There are certain garments that are not suitable for our approach (e.g., fancy dresses with customized design). A possible approach is to use a hybrid system where template-based deformation generates a base model and 3D details can be added via other methods. Part segmentation in its current state is not suitable for open jackets. It would be interesting to see if semantic segmentation model with more data and annotation can distinguish between back side and front side.
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected], currently with OPPO US Research Center. The work was done when Yi Xu was with JD.
[^2]: e-mail:[email protected]
[^3]: e-mail:[email protected], the work was when Wei Sun was with JD.
[^4]: e-mail:[email protected]
[^5]: e-mail:[email protected]
[^6]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
When implementing a propagator for a constraint, one must decide about variants: When implementing $\min$, should one also implement $\max$? Should one implement linear equations both with and without coefficients? Constraint variants are ubiquitous: implementing them requires considerable (if not prohibitive) effort and decreases maintainability, but will deliver better performance.
This paper shows how to use variable views, previously introduced for an implementation architecture, to derive *perfect* propagator variants. A model for views and derived propagators is introduced. Derived propagators are proved to be indeed perfect in that they inherit essential properties such as correctness and domain and bounds consistency. Techniques for systematically deriving propagators such as transformation, generalization, specialization, and channeling are developed for several variable domains. We evaluate the massive impact of derived propagators. Without derived propagators, Gecode would require $140\,000$ rather than $40\,000$ lines of code for propagators.
author:
- Christian Schulte
- Guido Tack
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Perfect Derived Propagators
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
When implementing a propagator for a constraint, one typically needs to decide whether to also implement some of its variants. For example, when implementing a propagator for $\max_{i=1}^n
x_i=y$, should one also implement $\min_{i=1}^n x_i=y$? When implementing the linear equation $\sum_{i=1}^n a_i x_i=c$ for integer variables $x_i$ and integers $a_i$ and $c$, should one also implement $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i=c$ for better performance? When implementing the reified linear equation ${\left(\sum_{i=1}^n
x_i=c\right)\Leftrightarrow b}$, should one also implement its almost identical algebraic variant ${\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i\neq c\right)\Leftrightarrow b}$?
Implementing inflates code and documentation. Not implementing increases space and runtime: by using more general propagators or by decomposing into several other constraints. Worse, given the potential code explosion, one may be able to only implement some variants (say, minimum and maximum). Other variants important for performance (say, minimum and maximum for two variables) may be infeasible due to excessive programming and maintenance effort.
Here, we follow a third approach: we derive propagators from already existing propagators using variable views. In [@SchulteTack:Advances:2006], we introduced an implementation architecture for variable views to reuse generic propagators without performance penalty. This architecture has been implemented in Gecode [@Gecode:2008], and is in fact essential for the system, as it saves approximately $100\,000$ lines of code. Due to the massive use of views in Gecode, it is vital to develop a model that allows us to prove that derived propagators have the desired properties.
In this paper, we argue that propagators that are derived using variable views are indeed *perfect*: they are not only perfect for performance, we prove that they inherit all essential properties such as correctness and completeness from their original propagator.
Last but not least, we show common techniques for deriving propagators with views and demonstrate their wide applicability. In Gecode, every propagator implementation is reused $3.6$ times on average. Without views, Gecode would feature $140\,000$ rather than $40\,000$ lines of propagator implementation to be written, tested, and maintained.
#### **Variable views.**
Consider a bounds consistent propagator for $\max(x,y)=z$. Assume that ${\overline{x}}$ (${\underline{x}}$) returns the maximum (minimum) of the finite domain variable $x$, whereas ${\overline{x}\gets n}$ (${\underline{x}\gets n}$) adjusts the maximum (minimum) value of $x$ to $\min({\overline{x}},n)$ ($\max({\underline{x}},n)$), only taking variable bounds into account. The propagator is implemented by performing the following operations on its variables: $${\overline{x}\gets {\overline{z}}}\qquad {\overline{y}\gets {\overline{z}}}\qquad
{\overline{z}\gets \max({\overline{x}},{\overline{y}})}\qquad
{\underline{z}\gets \max({\underline{x}},{\underline{y}})}$$
Given three more propagators for $x'=-x$, $y'=-y$, and $z'=-z$, we could propagate the constraint $\min(x',y')=z'$. In contrast to this *decomposition*, we propose to use generic propagators that perform operations on views rather than variables. Views provide the same interface (set of operations) as variables while enabling additional transformations. For example, an operation on a minus view $x'$ on a variable $x$ behaves as if executed on $-x$: ${\overline{x'}}$ is defined as $-{\underline{x}}$ and ${\overline{x'}\gets n}$ is defined as ${\underline{x}\gets -n}$. With views, the implementation of the maximum propagator can be reused: we *derive* a propagator for the minimum constraint by instantiating the maximum propagator with minus views for its variables.
The feasibility of variable views rests on today’s programming languages’ support for generic (or polymorphic) constructions (for example, templates in ) and that the simple transformations provided by views are optimized away.
#### **Contributions.**
This paper contributes an implementation independent model for views and derived propagators, techniques for deriving propagators, and an evaluation that shows that views are widely applicable, drastically reduce programming effort, and are more efficient than decomposition.
More specifically, the key contribution is the identification of properties of views that are essential for deriving *perfect* propagators. To this end, the paper establishes a formal model that defines a view as a function and a derived propagator as functional composition of views (mapping values to values) with a propagator (mapping variable domains to variable domains). This model yields all the desired results: derived propagators are indeed propagators; derived propagators faithfully implement the intended constraints; domain consistency carries over to derived propagators; different forms of bounds consistency over integer variables carry over provided that the views satisfy additional properties.
After establishing the fundamental results, we address further properties of derived propagators such as idempotence, subsumption, and events. Finally, we clarify the connection between derived propagators and path consistency when regarding views as binary constraints.
We introduce techniques for deriving propagators that use views for specialization and generalization of propagators, channeling between variable domains, and general domain-specific transformations. We show how to apply these techniques for different variable domains using various views. We provide a breakdown of how successful the use of derived propagators has been for Gecode.
#### **Overview.**
The next section introduces the basic notions we will use. Sect. \[sec:views\_and\_derived\_propagators\] presents views and derived propagators and proves fundamental properties like correctness and completeness. The following three sections develop techniques for deriving propagators: transformation, generalization, specialization, and channeling. Sect. \[sec:extended\_properties\_of\_derived\_propagators\] presents extensions of the model, and Sect. \[sec:limitations\] discusses its limitations. Sect. \[sec:experiments\] provides empirical evidence that views are useful in practice.
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
This section sets the stage for the paper with definitions of the basic concepts.
#### **Variables and constraints.**
We assume a finite set of variables ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Var}}}=\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}$ and a finite set of values ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}$. Constraints are characterized by assignments $a\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}$ that map variables to values: ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}={\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathit{Var}}}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}}}$. A constraint $c\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Con}}}$ is a relation over the variables, represented as the set of all assignments that satisfy the constraint, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Con}}}={\ensuremath{2^{{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}}}}$. We base constraints on full assignments, defined for all variables in ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Var}}}$. However, for typical constraints, only a subset ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{vars}}}(c)$ of the variables is *significant*; the constraint is the full relation for all $x\notin{\ensuremath{\mathrm{vars}}}(c)$. We write a constraint in extension ($c=\{(x\mapsto 0,y\mapsto 1),(x\mapsto 1,y\mapsto 2)\}$) or intensionally ($c\equiv x<y$).
#### **Domains.**
Constraints are implemented by propagators over domains, which are constructed as follows. A *domain* $d\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Dom}}}$ maps each variable to a finite set of possible values, the *variable domain* $d(x)\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}$.
A domain $d$ can be identified with a set of assignments $d\in{\ensuremath{2^{{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}}}}$. We can therefore treat domains as constraints. In particular, for any assignment $a$, $\{a\}$ is a domain as well as a constraint. We simply write *domain* for domains and variable domains when there is no risk of confusion.
A domain $d_1$ is *stronger* than a domain $d_2$ (written $d_1{\subseteq}d_2$), iff for all variables $x$, $d_1(x)\subseteq d_2(x)$. By ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(c)}}$ we refer to the strongest domain including all valid assignments of a constraint, defined as $\min{\{d\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Dom}}}\;|\;c\subseteq d\}}={\{a\;|\;\forall x\ \exists b\in c.\ a(x)=b(x)\}}$. The minimum exists as domains are closed under intersection, and the definition is non-trivial because not every constraint can be captured by a domain. Now, for a constraint $c$ and a domain $d$, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(c\cap d)}}$ refers to removing all values from $d$ not supported by the constraint $c$.
#### **Propagators.**
Propagators serve here as implementations of constraints. They are sometimes also referred to as constraint narrowing operators or filter functions. A propagator is a function $p\in{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathit{Dom}}}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathit{Dom}}}}}$ that is contracting ($p(d){\subseteq}d$) and monotone ($d'{\subseteq}d{\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}}p(d'){\subseteq}p(d)$). Idempotence is not required.
Propagators are contracting, they only remove values from variable domains. For an assignment $a$, a propagator $p$ hence has only two options: accept it ($p(\{a\})=\{a\}$), or reject it ($p(\{a\})=\emptyset$). Monotonicity guarantees that if some domain $d$ contains an assignment $a\in d$ that $p$ accepts, then $p$ will not remove $a$ from $d$: $a\in p(d)$. The propagator therefore behaves like a characteristic function for the set of accepted assignments. This set is the *associated constraint of $p$*.
We say that a propagator $p$ *implements its associated constraint* $c_p={\{a\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}\;|\;p(\{a\})=\{a\}\}}$. Monotonicity implies that for any domain $d$, we have ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(c_p\cap d)}}{\subseteq}p(d)$: no solution of $c_p$ is ever removed by $p$. We say that $p$ is *sound* for any $c\subseteq c_p$ and *weakly complete* for any $c'\supseteq c_p$ (meaning that it accepts all assignments in $c$ and rejects all assignments not in $c'$). For any constraint $c$, we can find at least one propagator $p$ such that $c=c_p$. Typically, there are several propagators, differing by *propagation strength* (see Sect. \[sec:completeness\]).
Our definitions of soundness and different notions of completeness for propagators are based on and equivalent to Benhamou’s [@BenhamouHeterogeneous] and Maher’s [@Maher:ICLP:02]. We specify *what* is computed by constraint propagation and not *how*. Approaches for performing constraint propagation can be found in [@BenhamouHeterogeneous; @AptPrinciples:2003; @SchulteStuckey:TOPLAS:2007].
Views and Derived Propagators {#sec:views_and_derived_propagators}
=============================
We now introduce our central concepts, views and derived propagators.
A *view* on a variable $x$ is an injective function $\varphi_x\in{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}'}}$, mapping values from ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}$ to values from a possibly different set ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}'$. We lift a family of views $\varphi_x$ (one for each $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Var}}}$) point-wise to assignments as follows: $\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(a)(x)=\varphi_x(a(x))$. Finally, given a family of views lifted to assignments, we define a view $\varphi\in{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathit{Con}}}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathit{Con}}}}}$ on constraints as $\varphi(c)={\{\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(a)\;|\;a\in c\}}$. The inverse of that view is defined as $\varphi^-(c)={\{a\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}\;|\;\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(a)\in c\}}$.
In the implementation, a view on $x$ presents the same interface as $x$, but applies transformations when a propagator adjusts or accesses the domain of $x$ through the view. In our model, $\varphi$ performs the transformations for accessing, and $\varphi^-$ for adjusting the variable domains. Views can now be composed with a propagator: a *derived propagator* is defined as ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)(d)=\varphi^-(p(\varphi(d)))$, or, using function composition, as ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)=\varphi^-\circ p\circ\varphi$.
Given a propagator $p$ for the constraint $c\equiv(x=y)$, we want to derive a propagator for $c'\equiv(x=2y)$ using a view $\varphi$ such that $\varphi^-(c)=c'$.
It is usually easier to think about the other direction: $\varphi(c')\subseteq c$. Intuitively, the function $\varphi$ leaves $x$ as it is and scales $y$ by 2, while $\varphi^-$ does the inverse transformation. We thus define $\varphi_x(v)=v$ and $\varphi_y(v)=2v$. We have a subset relation because some tuples of $c$ may be ruled out by $\varphi$. For instance, with $\varphi$ defined as above, there is no assignment $a$ such that $\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(a)(y) = 3$, but the assignment $(x\mapsto 3,y\mapsto 3)$ is in $c$.
This example also makes clear why the set ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}'$ is allowed to differ from ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}$. In this particular case, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}'$ has to contain all multiples of $2$ of elements in ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}$.
The derived propagator is ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)=\varphi^-\circ p\circ\varphi$. We say that ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ “uses a scale view on” $y$, meaning that $\varphi_y$ is the function defined as $\varphi_y(v)=2v$. Similarly, using an identity view on $x$ amounts to $\varphi_x$ being the identity function on ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}$.
Given the assignment $a=(x\mapsto 2,y\mapsto 1)$, we first apply $\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}$ and get $\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(a)=(x\mapsto 2,y\mapsto 2)$. This is accepted by $p$ and returned unchanged, so $\varphi^-$ transforms it back to $a$. Another assignment, $a'=(x\mapsto 1,y\mapsto 2)$, is transformed to $\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(a')=(x\mapsto 1,y\mapsto 4)$, rejected ($p(\{\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(a')\})=\emptyset$), and the empty domain is mapped to the empty domain by $\varphi^-$. The propagator ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ implements $\varphi^-(c)$.
Views and derived propagators satisfy a number of essential properties:
1. A derived propagator ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ is in fact a propagator.
2. The associated constraint of ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ is $\varphi^-(c_p)$.
3. A view $\varphi$ preserves contraction of a propagator $p$: If $p(\varphi(d))\subset \varphi(d)$, then ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)(d)\subset d$. This property makes sure that if the propagator makes an inference, then this inference will actually be reflected in a domain change.
In the following, we will prove these properties. For the proofs, we employ some direct consequences of the definitions of views and derived propagators: (1) $\varphi$ and $\varphi^-$ are monotone by construction; (2) $\varphi^-\circ\varphi=\mathrm{id}$ (the identity function); (3) $|\varphi(\{a\})|=1$, $\varphi(\emptyset)=\emptyset$; (4) for any view $\varphi$ and domain $d$, we have $\varphi(d)\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Dom}}}$ and $\varphi^-(d)\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Dom}}}$ (as views are defined point-wise).
\[theorem:derivedprop\] A derived propagator is a propagator: for all propagators $p$ and views $\varphi$, ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ is a monotone and contracting function in ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathit{Dom}}}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathit{Dom}}}}}$.
The derived propagator is well-defined because both $\varphi(d)$ and $\varphi^-(d)$ are domains (see (4) above). Monotonicity is obvious, as compositions of monotone functions are monotone. For contraction, we have $p(\varphi(d)){\subseteq}\varphi(d)$ as $p$ is contracting. By monotonicity of $\varphi^-$, we know that $\varphi^-(p(\varphi(d))){\subseteq}\varphi^-(\varphi(d))$. As $\varphi^-\circ\varphi=\mathrm{id}$, we have $\varphi^-(p(\varphi(d))){\subseteq}d$, which proves that ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ is contracting. In summary, for any propagator $p$, ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)=\varphi^-\circ p\circ\varphi$ is a propagator.
If $p$ implements $c_p$, then ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ implements $\varphi^-(c_p)$.
As $p$ implements $c_p$, we know $p(\{a\})= c_p\cap\{a\}$ for all assignments $a$. With $|\varphi(\{a\})|=1$, we have $p(\varphi(\{a\}))= c_p\cap\varphi(\{a\})$. Furthermore, we know that $c_p\cap\varphi(\{a\})$ is either $\emptyset$ or $\varphi(\{a\})$. Case $\emptyset$: We have $\varphi^-(p(\varphi(\{a\})))=\emptyset=\{a\}\cap\varphi^-(c_p)$. Case $\varphi(\{a\})$: As $\varphi^-\circ\varphi=\mathrm{id}$, we have $\varphi^-(p(\varphi(\{a\})))=\{a\}$. Furthermore: $$\begin{array}{clcl}
& c_p\cap\varphi(\{a\})=\varphi(\{a\}) & \quad{\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}}\quad
& \exists b\in c_p.\ b=\varphi(a)\\
{\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}}& a \in {\{a'\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}\;|\;\varphi(a')\in c_p\}}
& {\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}}& a\in\varphi^-(c_p)
\end{array}$$ Together, this shows that $\varphi^-\circ p\circ\varphi(\{a\})=\{a\}\cap\varphi^-(c_p)$.
\[theorem:contraction\] Views preserve contraction: for any domain $d$, if $p(\varphi(d)){\subseteq}\varphi(d)$, then ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)(d){\subset}d$.
Recall the definition of $\varphi^-(c)$ as ${\{a\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}\;|\;\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(a)\in c\}}$. It clearly follows that $|\varphi^-(c)|\leq|c|$. Similarly, we know that $|\varphi(c)|=|c|$. From $p(\varphi(d))\subset \varphi(d)$, we know that $|p(\varphi(d))|<|\varphi(d)|$. Together, this yields $|{\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)(d)|<|\varphi(d)|=|d|$. We have already seen in Theorem \[theorem:derivedprop\] that ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)(d){\subseteq}d$, so we can conclude that ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)(d){\subset}d$.
#### **Completeness.**
\[sec:completeness\] Weak completeness, as introduced above, is the minimum required for a constraint solver to be complete. A weakly complete propagator does not have to prune variable domains, it only has to check if an assigned domain is a solution of the constraint. The success of constraint propagation however crucially depends on strong propagators that prune variable domains.
The strongest possible inference that a single propagator can do establishes *domain consistency* (also known as *generalized arc consistency*): a domain $d$ is domain consistent for a constraint $c$, iff for all variables $x_i$ and all values $v_i\in d(x_i)$, there exist values $v_j\in d(x_j)$ for all other variables $x_j$ such that the assignment $(x_1\mapsto v_1,\dots,x_i\mapsto v_i,\dots,x_n\mapsto v_n)$ is a solution of $c$.
A propagator is *domain complete* (or simply complete) for a constraint $c$ if it establishes domain consistency. More formally, a propagator $p$ is complete for a constraint $c$ iff for all domains $d$, we have $p(d){\subseteq}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(c\cap d)}}$. A complete propagator thus removes all assignments from $d$ that are inconsistent with $c$.
We will now prove that propagators derived from complete propagators are also complete. In Sect. \[sec:views\_for\_integer\_variables\], we will extend this result to weaker notions of completeness, such as [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}})$]{} and [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$]{} completeness.
For this proof, we need two auxiliary definitions. A constraint $c$ is a *$\varphi$ constraint* iff for all $a\in c$, there is a $b\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}$ such that $a=\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(b)$. A view $\varphi$ is *[dom injective]{}* iff $\varphi^-({\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(c)}})={\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(\varphi^-(c))}}$ for all $\varphi$ constraints $c$.
For the completeness proof, we need a lemma that states that any view is [dom injective]{}.
By definition of $\varphi^-$ and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(\cdot)}}$, we have $\varphi^-({\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(c)}})={\{a\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}\;|\;\forall x.\exists b\in
c.\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(a)(x)=b(x)\}}$. As $c$ is a $\varphi$ constraint, we can find such a $b$ that is in the range of $\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}$, if and only if there is also a $b'\in\varphi^-(c)$ such that $\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(b')=b$. Therefore, we get ${\{a\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}\;|\;\forall x.\exists
b'\in\varphi^-(c).a(x)=b'(x)\}}={\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(\varphi^-(c))}}$.
Furthermore, we need a lemma that states that views commute with set intersection: For any view $\varphi$, the equation $\varphi^-(c_1\cap c_2)=\varphi^-(c_1)\cap\varphi^-(c_2)$ holds.
By definition of $\varphi^-$, we have $\varphi^-(c_1\cap c_2)={\{a\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}\;|\;\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(a)\in c_1\land \varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(a)\in c_2\}}$. As $\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}$ is a function, this is equal to ${\{a\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}\;|\;\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(a)\in c_1\}}\cap{\{a\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}\;|\;\varphi_{\ensuremath{\mathit{Asn}}}(a)\in c_2\}}=\varphi^-(c_1)\cap\varphi^-(c_2)$.
\[thm:completeness\] If $p$ is complete for $c$, then ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ is complete for $\varphi^-(c)$.
By monotonicity of $\varphi$ and completeness of $p$, we know that $\varphi^-\circ p\circ\varphi(d) {\subseteq}\varphi^-({\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(c \cap \varphi(d))}})$. We now use the fact that $\varphi^-$ is [dom injective]{} and commutes with set intersection: $$\begin{aligned}
&\varphi^-({\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(c \cap \varphi(d))}}) = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(\varphi^-(c \cap \varphi(d)))}} =\\
&{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(\varphi^-(c) \cap \varphi^-(\varphi(d)))}} = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(\varphi^-(c) \cap d)}}
\end{aligned}$$
Boolean Variables: Transformation {#sec:views_for_boolean_variables}
=================================
This section discusses views and derived propagators for Boolean variables where ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}=\{0,1\}$. Not surprisingly, the only view apart from identity for Boolean variables captures negation. That is, using a *negation view* on $x$ defines $\varphi_x(v)=1-v$ for $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Var}}}$ and $v\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}$.
Negation views are more widely applicable than one would initially believe. They demonstrate how views can be used systematically to obtain implementations of constraint variants by *transformation*.
#### **Boolean connectives.**
The immediate application of negation views is to derive propagators for all Boolean connectives from just three propagators: A negation view for $x$ in $x=y$ yields a propagator for $\neg x=y$. From disjunction $x\vee y=z$ one can derive conjunction $x\wedge y=z$ with negation views on $x$, $y$, $z$, and implication $x\rightarrow y=z$ with a negation view on $x$. From equivalence $x\leftrightarrow y=z$ one can derive exclusive or $x{\oplus}y=z$ with a negation view on $z$.
As Boolean constraints are widespread in models, it pays off to optimize frequently occurring cases. One important propagator is disjunction $\bigvee_{i=1}^n x_i=y$ for arbitrarily many variables; again conjunction can be derived with negation views on the $x_i$ and on $y$. Another important propagator is for the constraint $\bigvee_{i=1}^n x_i=1$, stating that the disjunction must be true. A propagator for this constraint is essential as the constraint occurs frequently and as it can be implemented efficiently using watched literals, see for example [@minion:wl]. With views and derived propagators all implementation work is readily reused for conjunction. This shows a general advantage of views: effort put into optimizing a single propagator directly pays off for all other propagators derived from it.
#### **Boolean cardinality.**
Like the constraint $\bigvee_{i=1}^n x_i=1$, the Boolean cardinality constraint $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i \geq c$ occurs frequently and can be implemented efficiently using watched literals (requiring $c+1$ watched literals, Boolean disjunction corresponds to the case where $c=1$). But also a propagator for $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i \leq c$ can be derived using negation views with the following transformation: $$\begin{array}{rclcl}
\sum_{i=1}^n x_i \leq c &\iff& -\sum_{i=1}^n x_i \geq -c
&\iff& n-\sum_{i=1}^n x_i \geq n-c \\
&\iff& \sum_{i=1}^n 1-x_i \geq n-c
&\iff& \sum_{i=1}^n \neg x_i \geq n-c \\
\end{array}$$
#### **Reification.**
Many reified constraints (such as ${\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i=c\right)\Leftrightarrow b}$) also exist in a negated version (such as ${\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i\neq
c\right)\Leftrightarrow b}$). Deriving the negated version is trivial by using a negation view on the Boolean control variable $b$. This contrasts nicely with the effort without views: either the entire code must be duplicated or the parts that perform checking whether the constraint or its negation is entailed must be factorized out and combined differently for the two variants.
Integer Variables: Generalization, Bounds Consistency, Specialization {#sec:views_for_integer_variables}
=====================================================================
Common views for finite domain integer variables capture linear transformations of the integer values. In [@SchulteTack:Advances:2006], the following views are introduced for a variable $x$ and values $v$: a *minus view* on $x$ is defined as $\varphi_x(v)=-v$, an *offset view* for $o\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}$ on $x$ is defined as $\varphi_x(v)=v+o$, and a *scale view* for $a\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}$ on $x$ is defined as $\varphi_x(v)=a\cdot v$.
Propagators for integer variables offer a greater degree of freedom concerning their level of completeness. While Boolean propagators most often will be domain complete, bounds completeness is important for integer propagators. Before we discuss transformation and generalization techniques for deriving integer propagators, we study how bounds completeness is affected by views.
#### **Bounds consistency and bounds completeness.**
There are several different notions of bounds consistency in the literature (see [@ChoiHarveyLeeStuckey:AI:2006] for an overview). For our purposes, we distinguish [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathcal D}})$]{}, [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}})$]{}, and [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$]{} consistency:
- A domain $d$ is *[$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathcal D}})$]{} consistent* for a constraint $c$, iff for all variables $x_i$ there exist $v_j\in d(x_j)$ for all other variables $x_j$ such that $\{x_1\mapsto v_1,\dots,x_i\mapsto\min(d(x_i)),\dots,x_n\mapsto
v_n\}\in c$ and analogously for $x_i\mapsto\max(d(x_i))$.
- A domain $d$ is *[$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}})$]{} consistent* for a constraint $c$, iff for all variables $x_i$, there exist integers $v_j$ with $\min(d(x_j))\leq v_j\leq\max(d(x_j))$ for all other variables $x_j$ such that $\{x_1\mapsto
v_1,\dots,x_i\mapsto\min(d(x_i)),\dots,x_n\mapsto v_n\}\in c$ and analogously for $x_i\mapsto\max(d(x_i))$.
- A domain $d$ is *[$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$]{} consistent* for a constraint $c$, iff for all variables $x_i$, there exist real numbers $v_j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ with $\min(d(x_j))\leq v_j\leq\max(d(x_j))$ for all other variables $x_j$ such that $\{x_1\mapsto
v_1,\dots,x_i\mapsto\min(d(x_i)),\dots,x_n\mapsto v_n\}\in c_{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ and analogously for $x_i\mapsto\max(d(x_i))$, where $c_{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ is $c$ relaxed to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ (for constraints like arithmetics where relaxation makes sense).
A propagator $p$ is bounds($X$) complete for its associated constraint $c_p$, iff $p(d)$ is bounds($X$) consistent for $c_p$ for every domain $d$ that is a fixpoint of $p$. We use an equivalent definition based on the *strongest convex domain* that contains a constraint, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(c)=\min{\{d\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Dom}}}\;|\;c{\subseteq}d\text{ and }d\text{ convex}\}}$. A convex domain maps each variable to an interval, so that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(c)(x)=\{\min_{a\in c}(a(x)),\dots,\max_{a\in c}(a(x))\}$. Note that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(c)$ is weaker than the strongest domain that contains $c$: ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(c)\supseteq{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}(c)}}$ for all constraints $c$. In the same way as Benhamou [@BenhamouHeterogeneous] and Maher [@Maher:ICLP:02], we define
- $p$ is [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathcal D}})$]{} complete for $c$ iff $p(d){\subseteq}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(c\cap d)$.
- $p$ is [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}})$]{} complete for $c$ iff $p(d){\subseteq}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(c\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(d))$.
- $p$ is [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$]{} complete for $c$ iff $p(d){\subseteq}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(c_{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}(d))$, where ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}(d)$ is the convex hull of $d$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$, and $c_{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ is $c$ relaxed to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$.
#### **Bounds completeness of derived propagators.**
Theorem \[thm:completeness\] states that propagators derived from domain complete propagators are domain complete. A similar theorem holds for bounds completeness, if views commute with ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(\cdot)$ in the following ways:
A view $\varphi$ is *interval injective* iff $\varphi^-({\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(c))={\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(\varphi^-(c))$ for all $\varphi$ constraints $c$. It is *interval bijective* iff it is interval injective and $\varphi({\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(d))={\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(\varphi(d))$ for all domains $d$.
Proving bounds completeness of derived propagators is now similar to proving domain completeness. We only formulate [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}})$]{} completeness.
If $p$ is [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}})$]{} complete for $c$ and $\varphi$ is interval bijective, then ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ is [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}})$]{} complete for $\varphi(c)$.
By monotonicity of $\varphi$ and [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}})$]{} completeness of $p$, we know that $\varphi^-\circ p\circ\varphi(d) {\subseteq}\varphi^-({\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(c \cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(\varphi(d))))$. We now use the fact that both $\varphi$ and $\varphi^-$ commute with ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}$ and intersection: $$\begin{aligned}
&\varphi({\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(c \cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(\varphi^{-1}(d)))) = \varphi({\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(c \cap \varphi^{-1}({\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(d)))) =\\
&{\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(\varphi(c \cap \varphi^{-1}({\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(d)))) = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(\varphi(c) \cap \varphi(\varphi^{-1}({\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(d)))) = \\
&{\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(\varphi(c) \cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{conv}}}(d))\end{aligned}$$
The proof for [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathcal D}})$]{} is analogous, but we only require interval injectivity for the view. With an interval injective view, one can also derive [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$]{} complete propagators from [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$]{} or [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}})$]{} complete propagators. Table \[tab:completenessviewbijectivity\] summarizes how completeness depends on view bijectivity.
-------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------
*propagator*
*interval bijective* *interval injective* *arbitrary*
domain domain domain domain
[$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathcal D}})$]{} [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathcal D}})$]{} [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathcal D}})$]{} weakly
[$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}})$]{} [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}})$]{} [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$]{} weakly
[$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$]{} [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$]{} [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$]{} weakly
-------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------
: Completeness of derived propagators[]{data-label="tab:completenessviewbijectivity"}
The views for integer variables presented at the beginning of this section have the following properties: minus and offset views are interval bijective, whereas a scale view for $a\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}$ on $x$ is always interval injective and only interval bijective if $a=1$ or $a=-1$ (in which cases it coincides with the identity view or a minus view, respectively). An important consequence is that a [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}})$]{} complete propagator for the constraint $\sum_{i}x_i=c$, when instantiated with scale views for the $x_i$, results in a [$\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$]{} complete propagator for $\sum_i a_ix_i=c$.
#### **Transformation.**
Like the negation view for Boolean variables, minus views for integer variables help to derive propagators following simple transformations: for example, $\min(x,y)=z$ can be derived from $\max(x,y)=z$ by using minus views for $x$, $y$, and $z$.
Transformations through minus views can improve performance in subtle ways. Consider a ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{bounds}({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}})}}$ consistent propagator for multiplication $x\times y=z$. Propagation depends on whether zero is still included in the domains of $x$, $y$, or $z$. Testing for inclusion of zero each time the propagator is executed is not very efficient. Instead, one would like to rewrite the propagator to special variants where $x$, $y$, and $z$ are either strictly positive or negative. These variants can propagate more efficiently, in particular because propagation can easily be implemented to be idempotent (see Section \[sec:extended\_properties\_of\_derived\_propagators\]). Implementing three different propagators (all variables strictly positive, $x$ or $y$ strictly positive, only $z$ strictly positive) seems excessive. Here, a single propagator assuming that all views are positive is sufficient, the others can be derived using minus views.
#### **Generalization.**
Offset and scale views are useful for generalizing propagators. Generalization has two key advantages: simplicity and efficiency. A more specialized propagator is often simpler to implement than a generalized version. The possibility to use the specialized version when the full power of the general version is not required may save space and time during execution.
The propagator for a linear equality constraint $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i=c$ is efficient for the common case that the linear equation has only unit coefficients. The more general case $\sum_{i=1}^n a_i x_i=c$ can be derived by using scale views for $a_i$ on $x_i$ (This of course also holds true for linear inequality and disequality rather than equality). Similarly, a propagator for ${\operatorname{alldifferent}(x_i)}$ can be generalized to ${\operatorname{alldifferent}(c_i+x_i)}$ by using offset views for $c_i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}$ on $x_i$. Likewise, a propagator for the element constraint ${\langle c_1,\ldots,c_n\rangle\left[x\right]}=y$ can be generalized to ${\langle c_1,\ldots,c_n\rangle\left[x+o\right]}=y$ with an offset view, where $o\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}$ provides a useful offset for the index variable $x$. It is important to recall that propagators are derived: in Gecode, the above generalizations are applied to domain as well as bounds complete propagators.
#### **Specialization.**
We employ *constant views* to specialize propagators. A constant view behaves like a fixed variable. In practice, specialization has two advantages: Fewer variables are needed, which means less space consumption. And specialized propagators can be compiled to more efficient code, if constants are known at compile time.
Examples for specialization are a propagator for binary linear inequality $x+y\leq c$ derived from a propagator for $x+y+z\leq c$ by using a constant 0 for $z$; a Boolean propagator for $x\land y{\ensuremath{\leftrightarrow}}1$ from $x\land y{\ensuremath{\leftrightarrow}}z$ and constant 1 for $z$; a propagator for the element constraint ${\langle c_1,\ldots,c_n\rangle\left[y\right]}=z$ derived from a propagator for ${\langle x_1,\ldots,x_n\rangle\left[y\right]}=z$; a reified propagator for $(x=c){\ensuremath{\leftrightarrow}}b$ from $(x=y){\ensuremath{\leftrightarrow}}b$ and a constant $c$ for $y$; a propagator for counting $|{\{i\;|\;x_i=y\}}|=c$ from a propagator for $|{\{i\;|\;x_i=y\}}|=z$; and many more.
We have to extend our model to support constant views. Propagators may now be defined with respect to a superset of the variables, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Var}}}'\supseteq{\ensuremath{\mathit{Var}}}$. A constant view for the value $k$ on a variable $z\in{\ensuremath{\mathit{Var}}}'\setminus{\ensuremath{\mathit{Var}}}$ translates between the two sets of variables as follows: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\varphi^-(c) &=& {\{{\ensuremath{{a}_{|{\ensuremath{\mathit{Var}}}}}}\;|\;a\in c\}}\\
\varphi(c) &=& {\{a[k/z]\;|\;a\in c\}}\\
\end{array}$$ Here, $a[k/z]$ means augmenting the assignment $a$ so that it maps $z$ to $k$, and ${\ensuremath{{a}_{|{\ensuremath{\mathit{Var}}}}}}$ is the functional restriction of $a$ to the set ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Var}}}$. It is important to see that this definition preserves failure: if a propagator returns a failed domain $d$ that maps $z$ to the empty set, then $\varphi^-(d)$ is the empty set, too.
#### **Indexicals.**
Views that perform arithmetic transformations are related to indexicals [@CarlssonOttossonEa:97; @VanHentenryckSaraswatEa:98]. An indexical is a propagator that prunes a single variable and is defined in terms of range expressions. A view is similar to an indexical with a single input variable. However, views are not used to build propagators directly, but to derive new propagators from existing ones. Allowing the full expressivity of indexicals for views would imply giving up our completeness results.
Another related concept are arithmetic expressions, which can be used for modeling in many systems (such as ILOG Solver [@PugetLeconte:95]). In contrast to views, these expressions are not used for propagation directly and, like indexicals, yield no completeness guarantees.
Set Variables: Channeling {#sec:views_for_set_variables}
=========================
Set constraints deal with variables whose domains are sets of finite sets. This powerset lattice is a Boolean algebra, so typical constraints are constructed from the Boolean primitives disjunction (union), conjunction (intersection), and negation (complement), and the relations equality and implication (subset).
#### **Transformation and Specialization.**
As for Boolean and integer variables, views on set variables enable transformation and specialization. Using *complement views* (analogous to Boolean negation) on $x,y,z$ with a propagator for $x\cap y=z$ yields a propagator for $x\cup y=z$. A complement view on $y$ gives us $x\setminus y=z$. Constant views like the empty set or the universe enable specialization; for example, $x \cap y = z$ implements set disjointness if $z$ is the constant empty set.
#### **Channeling views.**
A channeling view changes the type of the values that a variable can take. Our model already accommodates for this as a view $\varphi_x$ maps elements between different sets ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}'$.
An important channeling view is a *singleton view* on an integer variable $x$, defined as $\varphi_x(v)=\{v\}$. It presents an integer variable as a singleton set variable. Many useful constraints involve both integer and set variables, and some of them can be expressed with singleton views. The simplest constraint is $x\in y$, where $x$ is an integer variable and $y$ a set variable. Singleton views let us implement it as $\{x\}\subseteq y$, and just as easily give us the negated and reified variants. Obviously, this extends to $\{x\}\diamond y$ for all other set relations $\diamond$.
Singleton views can also be used to derive pure integer constraints from set propagators. For example, the constraint $\text{same}([x_1,\dots,x_n],[y_1,\dots,y_m])$ states that the two sequences of integer variables take the same values. With singleton views, $\bigcup_{i=1}^n \{x_i\} = \bigcup_{j=1}^m \{y_j\}$ implements this constraint.
#### **Channeling between domain implementations.**
Most systems approximate finite set domains as convex sets defined by a lower and an upper bound [@Gervet:97]. However, Hawkins et al. [@Hawkins:JAIR:2005] introduced a complete representation for the domains of finite set variables using ROBDDs. Channeling views can translate between interval- and ROBDD-based implementations. We can derive a propagator on ROBDD-based variables from a set-interval propagator, and thus reuse set-interval propagators for which no efficient ROBDD representation exists.
Extended Properties of Derived Propagators {#sec:extended_properties_of_derived_propagators}
==========================================
This section discusses how views can be composed, how derived propagators behave with respect to idempotence and subsumption, and how events can be used to schedule derived propagators. Finally, we discuss the relation between views and path consistency.
#### **Composing views.**
A derived propagator permits further derivation: ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}({\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi'}}}(p))$ for two views $\varphi,\varphi'$ is perfectly acceptable, properties like correctness and completeness carry over. For instance, we can derive a propagator for $x-y=c$ from a propagator for $x+y=0$ by combining an offset view and a minus view on $y$.
#### **Idempotent propagators.**
A propagator is idempotent iff $p(p(d)) = p(d)$ for all domains $d$. Some systems require all propagators to be idempotent, others apply optimizations if the idempotence of a propagator is known [@SchulteStuckey:TOPLAS:2007]. If a propagator is derived from an idempotent propagator, the result is idempotent again:
If $p(p(d))=p(d)$ for a propagator $p$ and a domain $d$, then, for any view $\varphi$, ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)({\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)(d))={\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)(d)$.
Function composition is associative, so we can write ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)({\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)(d))$ as $\varphi^-\circ p\circ(\varphi\circ\varphi^-)\circ p\circ\varphi(d)$. We know that $\varphi\circ\varphi^-=\mathrm{id}$ for all domains that contain only assignments on which $\varphi^-$ is fully defined, meaning that $|\varphi^-(d)|=|d|$. As we first apply $\varphi$, this is the case here, so we can remove $\varphi\circ\varphi^-$, leaving $\varphi^-\circ p\circ p\circ\varphi(d)$. As $p$ is idempotent, this is equivalent to $\varphi^-\circ p\circ\varphi(d)={\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)(d)$.
#### **Subsumption.**
A propagator is subsumed for a domain $d$ iff for all stronger domains $d'\subseteq d$, $p(d')=d'$. Subsumed propagators do not contribute any propagation in the remaining subtree of the search, and can therefore be removed. Deciding subsumption is coNP-complete in general, but for most propagators an approximation can be decided easily. This can be used to optimize propagation.
\[theorem:subsumtion\] $p$ is subsumed by $\varphi(d)$ iff ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ is subsumed by $d$.
The definition of $\varphi$ gives us that $\forall d'\subseteq d.\ \varphi^-(p(\varphi(d'))) = d'$ is equivalent with $\forall d'\subseteq d.\ \varphi^-(p(\varphi(d'))) = \varphi^-(\varphi(d')$. As $\varphi^-$ is a function, and because it is contraction-preserving (see Theorem \[theorem:contraction\]), this is equivalent with $\forall d'\subseteq d.\ p(\varphi(d')) = \varphi(d')$. Because all $\varphi(d')$ are subsets of $\varphi(d)$, we can rewrite this to $\forall d''\subseteq \varphi(d).\ p(d'') = d''$, concluding the proof.
#### **Events.**
Many systems control propagator invocation using *events* (for a detailed discussion, see [@SchulteStuckey:TOPLAS:2007]). An event describes how a domain changed. Typical events for finite domain integer variables are: the variable $x$ becomes fixed ($\mathrm{fix}(x)$); the lower bound of variable $x$ changes ($\mathrm{lbc}(x)$); the upper bound of variable $x$ changes ($\mathrm{ubc}(x)$); the domain of variable $x$ changes ($\mathrm{dmc}(x)$). In some systems, $\mathrm{lbc}(x)$ and $\mathrm{ubc}(x)$ are collapsed into one event, $\mathrm{bc}(x)=\mathrm{lbc}(x)\lor\mathrm{ubc}(x)$. Events are monotone: if $\mathrm{events}(d,d'')$ is the set of events occurring when the domain changes from $d$ to $d''$ (with $d''{\subseteq}d$), then we have $\mathrm{events}(d,d'')=\mathrm{events}(d,d')\cup\mathrm{events}(d',d'')$ for any $d''{\subseteq}d'{\subseteq}d$. Propagators are associated with *event sets*: A propagator $p$ depends on an event set $\mathit{es}(p)$ iff
1. for all $d$ if $p(d)\neq p(p(d))$, then $\mathrm{events}(d,p(d))\cap\mathit{es}(p)\neq\emptyset$
2. for all $d,d'$ where $p(d)=d$, $d'{\subseteq}d$, $p(d')\neq d'$, then $\mathrm{events}(d,d')\cap\mathit{es}(p)\neq\emptyset$
If a propagator $p$ depends on $\mathit{es}(p)$, what event set does ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ depend on? We can construct a safe approximation of $\mathit{es}({\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p))$: If $\mathrm{fix}(x)\in\mathit{es}(p)$, put $\mathrm{fix}(x)\in\mathit{es}({\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p))$. For any other event $e\in\mathit{es}(p)$, put $\mathrm{dmc}(x)\in\mathit{es}({\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p))$. This is correct because $\varphi_x$ is injective. If $\varphi_x$ is monotone with respect to the order on ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Val}}}_x$, $a<b {\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}}\varphi_x(a)<\varphi_x(b)$, we can also use bounds events. If $\varphi_x$ is anti-monotone with respect to that order, we have to switch $\mathrm{lbc}$ with $\mathrm{ubc}$.
#### **Arc and path consistency.**
Instead of regarding a view $\varphi$ as *transforming* a constraint $c$, we can regard $\varphi$ as *additional* constraints, implementing the decomposition. Assuming ${\ensuremath{\mathit{Var}}}=\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}$, we use additional variables $x'_1,\dots,x'_n$. Instead of $c$, we have $c'=c[x_1/x'_1,\dots,x_n/x'_n]$, which enforces the same relation as $c$, but on $x'_1\dots x'_n$. Finally, we have $n$ *view constraints* $c_{\varphi,i}$, each equivalent to the relation $\varphi_i(x_i)=x'_i$. The solutions of the decomposition model, restricted to the $x_1\dots x_n$, are exactly the solutions of the original view-based model.
Assume the equality constraint $c\equiv(x=y)$. In order to propagate $c'\equiv(x=y+1)$, we could use a domain complete propagator $p$ for $c$ and a view $\varphi$ with $\varphi_x(v)=v$, $\varphi_y(v)=v+1$. The alternative model would be defined with additional variables $x'$ and $y'$, a view constraint $c_{\varphi,x}$ for $x'=x$, a view constraint $c_{\varphi,y}$ for $y'-1=y$, and $c[x/x',y/y']$, yielding $x'=y'$.
Every view constraint $c_{\varphi,i}$ shares exactly one variable with $c$ and no variable with any other $c_{\varphi,i}$. Thus, the constraint graph is Berge-acyclic, and we can reach a fixpoint by first propagating all the $c_{\varphi,i}$, then propagating $c[x_1/x'_1,\dots,x_n/x'n]$, and then again propagating the $c_{\varphi,i}$. This is exactly what $\varphi^-\circ p\circ\varphi$ does. In this sense, views can be seen as a way for specifying a *perfect order of propagation*, which is usually not possible in constraint programming systems.
If ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ is domain complete for $\varphi^-(c)$, then it achieves *path consistency* for $c[x_1/x'_1,\dots,x_n/x'_n]$ and all the $c_{\varphi,i}$ in the decomposition model.
Limitations {#sec:limitations}
===========
Although views are widely applicable, they are no silver bullet. This section explores some limitations of the presented architecture.
#### **Beyond injective views.**
Views as defined in this paper are required to be injective. This excludes some interesting views, such as a view for the absolute value of a variable, or a view of a variable modulo some constant. None of the basic proofs makes use of injectivity, so non-injective views can be used to derive (bounds) complete, correct propagators.
However, event handling changes when views are not injective:
- A domain change event on a variable does not necessarily translate to a domain change event on the view. For instance, given a domain $d$ with $d(x)=\{-1,0,1\}$, removing the value $-1$ from $x$ is a domain change event on $x$, but not on $\operatorname{abs}(x)$.
- A domain change event on a variable may result in a value event on the view. For instance, removing $0$ instead of $-1$ in the above example results in $d(x)=\{-1,1\}$, but in $\operatorname{abs}(x)$ there is only a single value left.
These effects may lead to unnecessary propagtor invocations, or even to incorrect behavior if a propagator relies on the accuracy of the reported event. As propagators in Gecode may assume that events are crisp in this sense, we decided not to allow non-injective views.
#### **Multi-variable views.**
Some multi-variable views that seem interesting for practical applications do not preserve contraction, for instance a view on the sum or product of two variables. The reason is that removing a value through the view would have to result in removing a *tuple* of values from the actual domain. As domains can only represent cartesian products, this is not possible in general. For views that do not preserve contraction, Theorem \[theorem:subsumtion\] does not hold. That means that a propagator $p$ cannot easily detect subsumption any longer, as it would have to detect it for ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ instead of just for itself, $p$. In Gecode, propagators report whether they are subsumed, so that they are not considered for propagation again. This optimization is vital for performance, so we only allow contraction-preserving views.
For contraction-preserving views on multiple variables, all our theorems still hold. Some useful views we could identify are
- A set view of Boolean variables $[b_1,\dots,b_n]$, behaving like ${\{i\;|\;b_i=1\}}$.
- An integer view of Boolean variables $[b_1,\dots,b_n]$, where $b_i$ is 1 iff the integer has value $i$.
- The inverse views of the two views above.
These views are of limited use, and the decomposition approach will probably work just as well in these cases.
#### **Propagator invariants.**
Propagators typically rely on certain invariants of a variable domain implementation. If idempotence or completeness of a propagator depend on these invariants, channeling views lead to problems, as the actual variable implementation behind the view may not respect the same invariants.
For example, a propagator for interval-based finite set variables can assume that adjusting the lower bound of a variable does not affect its upper bound. If this propagator is instantiated with a channeling view for an ROBDD-based set variable, this invariant is violated: if, for instance, the current domain is $\{\{1,2\},\{3\}\}$, and you add $1$ to the lower bound, the $3$ is removed from the upper bound (in addition to $2$ being added to the lower bound). A propagator that relies on the invariant may lose idempotence.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Our experiments in [@SchulteTack:Advances:2006] showed that deriving propagators using views incurs no runtime overhead. Here, we present empirical evidence for two more facts: views are highly applicable in real-world constraint programming systems, and they are clearly superior to a decomposition-based approach.
#### **Applicability.**
The Gecode library [@Gecode:2008] makes heavy use of views. Table \[tab:applicability\] shows the number of generic propagators implemented in Gecode, and the number of derived instances. On average, every generic propagator results in 3.59 propagator instances. Propagators in Gecode account for more than 40000 lines of code and documentation. As a rough estimate, generic propagators with views save around 100000 lines of code and documentation to be written, tested, and maintained. On the other hand, the views are implemented in less than 8000 lines of code, yielding a 1250% return on investment.
*Variable type* *Generic propagators* *Derived propagators* *Ratio*
----------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ---------
Integer 69 230 3.34
Boolean 23 72 3.13
Set 24 114 4.75
*Overall* 116 416 3.59
: Applicability of views: number of generic vs. derived propagators[]{data-label="tab:applicability"}
#### **Views vs. decomposition.**
In order to relate derived propagators to arc and path consistency, Sect. \[sec:extended\_properties\_of\_derived\_propagators\] decomposed a derived propagator ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\varphi}}}(p)$ into additional variables and propagators for the individual $\varphi_x$ and $p$. Of course, one has to ask why we advertise variable views instead of always using decomposition. Table \[tab:decomposition\_vs\_views\] shows the runtime and space requirements of several benchmarks implemented in Gecode. The numbers were obtained on a Intel Pentium IV at 2.8 GHz running Linux and Gecode 2.1.1. The figures illustrate that derived propagators clearly outperform the decomposition, both in runtime and space.
------------------- -------- ---------- -------- --------
*Benchmark*
Alpha 91.25 83.22 405.62 167.32
Eq-20 1.37 70.03 613.61 219.95
Queens 100 24.72 2110.00 705.10 103.03
Golf 8-4-9 310.40 10502.00 211.47 231.64
Steiner triples 9 135.72 957.03 108.38 100.03
------------------- -------- ---------- -------- --------
: Runtime and space comparison: derived propagators vs. decomposition[]{data-label="tab:decomposition_vs_views"}
Conclusion and Future Work {#sec:conclusion}
==========================
The paper has developed variable views as a technique to derive perfect propagator variants. Such variants are ubiquitous, and the paper has shown how to systematically derive propagators using techniques such as transformation, generalization, specialization, and channeling.
We have presented a model of views that allowed us to prove that derived propagators are indeed perfect: they inherit correctness and domain completeness from their original propagator, and preserve bounds completeness given additional properties of views.
As witnessed by the empirical evaluation, deriving propagators saves huge amounts of code to be written and maintained in practice, and is clearly superior to decomposing constraints into additional variables and simple propagators.
For future work, it will be interesting to investigate how views can be generalized, even if that means that derived propagators are not perfect any more.
#### **Acknowledgements.**
We thank Mikael Lagerkvist and Gert Smolka for fruitful discussions about views and helpful comments on a draft of this paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Fix a simple complex Lie group $G$ and a principal $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$ subalgebra of $\textrm{Lie }(G)$. Then the moduli space of semi-stable, topologically trivial $G$-Higgs bundles on a hyperbolic, spin Riemann surface acquires a marked point. This is the unique $\mathbb{C}^\times$-fixed point on the Hitchin section. We describe a universal analytic family of deformations which provides holomorphic Darboux coordinates in a neighbourhood of the section. This is a special case of a more general deformation-theoretic construction in the spirit of Kuranishi theory. As a toy example of the latter we consider the tautological family of centralisers over the Kostant slice.'
address: 'Sector for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, INRNE, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Tsarigradsko Chaussee 72, Sofia 1784, Bulgaria'
author:
- Peter Dalakov
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: A Universal Family of Deformations for the Uniformising Higgs bundle
---
Introduction
============
Motivating example
------------------
The affine line of companion matrices $$\Sigma =
\left\{
\begin{pmatrix}
0&\alpha\\ 1&0\\
\end{pmatrix}, \alpha\in{\mathbb{C}}\right\}\subset {\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$$ provides a section for $-\det: {\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}\to {\mathbb{C}}\simeq {\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}\sslash SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})\simeq {\mathfrak{t}}/({\mathbb{Z}}/2)$, where ${\mathfrak{t}}$ is the Cartan subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$. Nigel Hitchin observed ([@hitchin_sd]) that $\Sigma$ can be promoted to a $(3g_X-3)$-dimensional family of Higgs fields on the vector bundle $K^{1/2}_X\oplus K^{-1/2}_X$, where $X$ is a Riemann surface of genus $g_X\geq 2$. The Higgs fields in this family are given by the above formula but with $\alpha\in H^0(X,K^2_X)$. This observation has numerous far-reaching consequences and generalisations. On the other hand, the tautological family of centralisers over $\Sigma$ is isomorphic to $T_{{\mathfrak{t}}/({\mathbb{Z}}/2)}$ and can be trivialised by $${\mathbb{C}}^2\simeq
\left\{
\begin{pmatrix}
0&\alpha\\ 1&0\\
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
0&\alpha\xi\\
\xi&0\\
\end{pmatrix}\right\} \subset {\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}\times{\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}.$$ The trace gives a complex symplectic form on ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}\times {\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$, and the above trivialisation provides Darboux coordinates for the bundle of centralisers. Among other things, in this note we show how to construct a $(6g_X-6)$-dimensional family of Higgs bundles by twisting appropriately the above formula.
Background
----------
Let $G$ be a simple complex Lie group, and $X$ a smooth, compact Riemann surface of genus at least two. A $G$-Higgs bundle on $X$ is a pair $({{\bf P}},\theta)$, where ${{\bf P}}$ is a holomorphic principal $G$-bundle, and $\theta\in H^0(X,{\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}\otimes K_X)$. The moduli space $M_{Dol}(G)$ of topologically trivial, semi-stable $G$–Higgs bundles on $X$ was constructed by Hitchin ([@hitchin_sd], [@hitchin_sb]) and Simpson ([@hbls],[@moduli2]). It admits a proper map, $\chi$, called *the Hitchin map*, to a vector space, ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}$, . The Hitchin map admits a section which is a “global analogue” of the well-known “Kostant slice” from Lie theory. The latter generalises the notion of “companion matrices” and is a section of the adjoint quotient morphism $\textrm{Lie } G ={\mathfrak{g}}\to {\mathfrak{g}}\sslash G$. The Kostant section is not canonical, but depends on a choice of Lie-algebraic data (). Similarly, Hitchin’s section depends on such a choice, as well as on a choice of a theta-characteristic $\zeta= K_X^{1/2}$. We assume that these choices are fixed once and for all, and hence shall talk about *the* Hitchin section. The interested reader can find more details in the original paper [@hitchin_teich], as well as in [@don-pan] or [@ngo]. It should be noted that $M_{Dol}(G)$ is a holomorphic symplectic variety, $\chi$ is a complex Lagrangian fibration, and the section is Lagrangian.
With the choice of a principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ and a theta-characteristic the moduli space acquires a marked point as follows. There is a natural ${\mathbb{C}}^\times$-action on $M_{Dol}(G)$, given by $\lambda\cdot [({{\bf P}},\theta)]=[({{\bf P}},\lambda\theta)]$ ([@hbls], [@hitchin_sd]). The marked point is the unique ${\mathbb{C}}^\times$-fixed point lying on the (image of the) Hitchin section. In the special case $G=SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ it appeared in Hitchin’s original paper [@hitchin_sd] (Example 1.5 on p.8) as the first nontrivial example of a stable Higgs bundle. We call it “the uniformising Higgs bundle” (the terminology goes back to [@simpson_uniformisation]) since the Hermitian-Yang-Mills metric on this bundle is obtained from the uniformising metric of the curve $X$. In physics (the logarithm of) this metric is known as a Toda field. This is also an example of a “system of Hodge bundles” in the terminology of [@hbls]. It corresponds, by the non-abelian Hodge theorem ([@hbls]) to a variation of Hodge strutures, and in fact, a very special one, a $G$-oper. The uniformising Higgs bundle carries a (regular) nilpotent Higgs field, i.e., belongs to the “global nilpotent cone” $\chi^{-1}(0)$, the $0$-fibre of the Hitchin map. More about systems of Hodge bundles and uniformisation can be found in [@hitchin_sd], [@simpson_uniformisation], [@hitchin_teich], [@hbls], [@simpson_iterated].
All these special properties of the uniformising Higgs bundle impose restrictions on its deformation theory. Their rôle is discussed in Section \[prelim\].
Results and contents of the paper
---------------------------------
The main result in this paper is contained in Section \[main\_example\], where we describe a universal analytic family of deformations of the uniformising Higgs bundle, with base the germ $\left( {\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\times{\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee, 0\right)$. Here ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee$ is the dual vector space to the Hitchin base. Our family has the property that the holomorphic symplectic form on $M_{Dol}(G)^{reg}$ induces the canonical symplectic form on ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\times{\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee$, so we obtain holomorphic Darboux coordinates in an analytic neighbourhood of $[({{\bf P}},\theta)]$. As a by-product, we obtain a formula for the flow of the Hitchin section under linear Hamiltonian functions on ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}$. This generalises an unpublished observation of C.Teleman for the case of structure group $GL(n,{\mathbb{C}})$ ([@teleman_langlands]).
Our approach uses several analytical pieces of data. First, we work with (analytic) differential graded Lie algebras (dgla), so holomorphic bundles are described in terms of their Dolbeault operators. And second, we use a small amount of Hodge theory. On the other hand, our final formulae are polynomial and are of Lie-algebraic origin, so a purely algebraic description of the flow may also be feasible.
Section \[centralisers\] is devoted to a toy-version of the main example: we give there a trivialisation of the tautological family of centralisers over the Kostant slice.
In Section \[prelim\] we make some general remarks about deformation theory via dgla’s. We also describe the special features of the controlling dgla and sketch a general strategy that one can follow in order to understand such deformation problems.
The results from Sections \[centralisers\] and \[main\_example\] are a consequence of the special form of the dgla’s controlling the corresponding deformation problems. In Section \[symplectic\_kur\] we give sufficient conditions on the controlling dgla under which similar (weaker) results hold.
The remaining sections are supplementary. In Section \[Lie\] we recall results from Lie theory and set up notation, and in Appendix \[Kuranishi\_Theory\] we review for our reader’s convenience the basics of Kuranishi theory. In Section \[conventions\] we give a glossary of notation.
Our main results are as follows.
Let ${\textrm{MC}}_{L^\bullet}$ (respectively ${\textrm{Def}}_{L^\bullet}$) denote the Maurer-Cartan (respectively, deformation) functor of a dgla $L^\bullet$, and let $pr$ be the natural projection ${\textrm{MC}}_{L^\bullet}\to{\textrm{Def}}_{L^\bullet}$. Suppose $L^1=L'\oplus L''$ satisfies assumptions $(1)$, $(2)$, $(3)$ from Section \[symplectic\_kur\]. The two inclusions (resp. projections) are denoted by ${\iota}'$, ${\iota}''$ (resp. $\pi'$, $\pi''$). Let ${\mathcal{H}}^1={\mathcal{H}}'\oplus {\mathcal{H}}''\subset L^1$ be “harmonic representatives” of $H^1(L^\bullet)$ (see \[Kuranishi\_Theory\]) and let ${{\bf H}}:L^1\to {\mathcal{H}}^1$ be the corresponding projection, ${{\bf H}}={{\bf H}}'+{{\bf H}}''$. Let ${\mathbb{F}}_{L^\bullet}:{\textrm{Art}_{\mathbb{C}}}\to {\textrm{Sets}}$ be the formal Kuranishi map. We define a functor ${\mathbb{S}}_L= {\textrm{MC}}_{L^\bullet}\cap \ker\left[(1-{{\bf H}}')\pi' \right]:{\textrm{Art}_{\mathbb{C}}}\to{\textrm{Sets}}$.
Let $L^\bullet$ be a dgla with $L^3=0$, $H^2(L^\bullet)=0$ and $L^1=L'\oplus L''$, satisfying $(1)$, $(2)$, $(3)$ from Section \[symplectic\_kur\]. Let $P{\iota}''$ be a splitting of $d_1'$ and $\pi:L^2\to {\textrm{Im }}d_1'$ a projection. Assume that the formal series $\Gamma\in L^1\widehat{\otimes}\varprojlim \textrm{Sym}^\bullet({\mathcal{H}}^{1\vee})/{\mathfrak{m}}^k $ defined by $\Gamma(h,v):=(h, (1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)^{-1}(v))$ satisfies $[\Gamma,\Gamma]\in {\textrm{Im }}d_1'\widehat{\otimes}\varprojlim \textrm{Sym}^\bullet({\mathcal{H}}^{1\vee})/{\mathfrak{m}}^k$. Then:
- The natural transformation $$\Phi: {\mathbb{S}}_L\to \underline{{\mathcal{H}}}^1= \underline{{\mathcal{H}}}'\oplus\underline{{\mathcal{H}}}''$$ $$\Phi_A(h,v)= (h,(1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)v)\in {\mathcal{H}}^1\otimes {\mathfrak{m}}_A$$ is an isomorphism in ${\textrm{FArt}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ and $\Phi^{-1}=\Gamma$. The composition $$\textrm{pr }\circ {\mathbb{F}}_L^{-1}\circ \Phi \colon {\mathbb{S}}_L\to {\textrm{Def}}_L$$ is étale. If moreover $L^\bullet$ is normed and ${\textrm{Im }}d_1'\subset L^2$ is closed, then ${\mathbb{S}}_L$ is prorepresented by the germ $({\mathcal{S}},0)$, where $${\mathcal{S}}= {\textrm{MC}}(L)\cap \ker\left[(1-{{\bf H}}')\pi' \right]\subset {\mathcal{H}}'\oplus L'',$$ and $\Phi: ({\mathcal{S}},0)\simeq ({\mathcal{H}}^1,0)$.
- Suppose that $L'$ and $L''$ are in (weak) duality by a pairing $\langle\ ,\ \rangle$ and let $\omega_{can}$ be the canonical symplectic form on $L^1$. Then $\Gamma^*\omega_{can} = \omega_{can}$, provided ${\textrm{Im }}P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h\subset {\mathcal{H}}'^\perp$ for all $h\in{\mathcal{H}}'$. In the normed case, $\Phi:{\mathcal{S}}\to {\mathcal{H}}^1$ gives holomorphic Darboux coordinates on $({\mathcal{S}},0)$.
Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a simple complex Lie algebra, $\{y,{\mathfrak{h}}, x\}$ a principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ subalgebra, and $P$ the canonical splitting of ${\textrm{ad} }_y$ determined by it. Let $\pi$ be the projection onto ${\textrm{Im }}{\textrm{ad} }_y$, $\Sigma= y+{\mathfrak{z}}(x)$ the Kostant slice and $I$ the tautological family of centralisers. Then $$\Phi : {\mathcal{S}}\equiv I\vert_{\Sigma}\to {\mathfrak{z}}(x)\times {\mathfrak{z}}(y)$$ $$\Phi(h,u)= (h,(1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)u)$$ is an isomorphism. Moreover, $$\Phi(h,u)= (h, u +P[h,u])$$ and $$\Gamma(h,v):= \Phi^{-1}(h,v) = \left(h,\left(\sum_{k=0}^{{\mathpzc{h}}}(-1)^k\left(P\circ {\textrm{ad} }_h \right)^k\right)(v)\right),$$ where ${\mathpzc{h}}$ is the Coxeter number. Finally, $\Gamma^*\omega_{can}=\omega_{can}$, where $\omega_{can}$ denotes the canonical symplectic form on ${\mathfrak{g}}\times {\mathfrak{g}}$, as well as its restrictions to $I$ and ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)\times{\mathfrak{z}}(y)$.
Let $({{\bf P}},\theta)$ denote the uniformising Higgs bundle. The notation and assumptions are from Section \[main\_example\], in particular, we denote by $P$ the splitting of ${\textrm{ad} }\theta$ induced by a principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$-subalgebra. Consider the holomorphic family of Higgs bundles $$\Gamma: {\mathcal{H}}'\times {\mathcal{H}}'' \longrightarrow A^{1,0}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\oplus A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}),$$ $$\Gamma(h,v)= \left(h,\Phi_h^{-1}(v)\right) = \left(h, \sum_{k=0}^{{\mathpzc{h}}}(-1)^k\left((s^{-1}P{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1)\circ ad_{h} \right)^k(v) \right),$$ where $(h,v)\in {\mathcal{H}}'\times{\mathcal{H}}''\simeq H^1(L^\bullet)\simeq{\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\times{\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee $ and $$\Phi_h= 1+s^{-1}(P{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1)\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h\in {\textrm{End}}(A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})).$$ The family $\Gamma$ is a miniversal deformation of the uniformising Higgs bundle $({{\bf P}},\theta)$. An explicit description of ${\mathcal{H}}'\times{\mathcal{H}}''\subset A^1({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})$ is given in Theorem \[exponential\].
There exists an open neighbourhood ${\mathcal{U}}\subset{\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\times{\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee$ containing $0$, for which $\Gamma\vert_{{\mathcal{U}}}$ is a universal deformation. Moreover, $\Gamma^\ast\omega_{can}= \omega_{can}$.
At this point it may seem utterly unclear why is it possible to describe such a family of deformations. In short, the reason is the very special nature of our marked point, and, respectively, of the controlling dgla. In Section \[prelim\], after reviewing the basics of deformations via dglas, we describe why our results are in fact natural.
Acknowledgements
----------------
I would like to thank Tony Pantev, Carlos Simpson, Meng-Chwan Tan and Stefano Guerra for discussions, comments and feedback.
Deformations via dgla’s {#prelim}
=======================
Basics
------
We start with some remarks on deformation theory via differential graded Lie algebras. This is by now very classical, and there are many great references. The ones which seem both pedagogical and closest to our purposes are [@fukaya_def], [@goldman-millson], [@maurer], [@manetti_complex]. We state only the bare minimum of results and definitions, without motivate them in any way. All vector spaces and tensor products are over ${\mathbb{C}}$.
A *differential graded Lie algebra* (dgla) is a triple $(L^\bullet,d,[\ , \ ])$. Here $L^\bullet =\bigoplus_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}} L^k[-k]$ is a graded vector space, endowed with a bracket $[\ ,\ ]: L^i\times L^j\to L^{i+j}$. The bracket is graded skew-symmetric and satisfies a graded Jacobi identity. Finally, $d:L^\bullet\to L^{\bullet+1}$ is a differential ($d^2=0$), which is a graded derivation of the bracket. The *set of Maurer-Cartan elements* in a dgla is the zero set of the quadric ${\mathcal{Q}}:L^1\to L^2$, ${\mathcal{Q}}(u)=du+\frac{1}{2}[u,u]$. We write ${\textrm{MC}}(L):= {\mathcal{Q}}^{-1}(0)$. To a dgla $L^\bullet$ one associates a Maurer-Cartan functor ${\textrm{MC}}_{L^\bullet}: {\textrm{Art}_{\mathbb{C}}}\to {\textrm{Sets}}$, defined as $${\textrm{MC}}_{L^\bullet}(A)= {\textrm{MC}}(L^\bullet\otimes A) = \left\{ u\in L^1\otimes {\mathfrak{m}}_A : du+\frac{1}{2}[u,u]=0 \right\}.$$ Given $\gamma\in L^1$, one can check ([@goldman-millson], Section 1.3) that $d_\gamma:= d+{\textrm{ad} }\gamma\in Der^1L$ satisfies $(d+{\textrm{ad} }\gamma)^2={\textrm{ad} }{\mathcal{Q}}(\gamma)$, and hence, if $\gamma\in {\textrm{MC}}(L)={\mathcal{Q}}^{-1}(0)$, $d_\gamma$ is a differential, giving a new dgla structure on $L^\bullet$. There is a Lie algebra homomorphism $L^0\to{\mathfrak{aff}}(L^1)$ (the affine vector fields on $L^1$), given by $\lambda\mapsto \left(\gamma\mapsto - d_\gamma(\lambda)\right)$, and this affine vector field preserves the set of Maurer-Cartan elements. We define an action of $\exp(L^0\otimes {\mathfrak{m}}_A)$ on $L^1\otimes {\mathfrak{m}}_A$ by $$\exp(\lambda): u\mapsto \exp({\textrm{ad} }\lambda)(u)+\frac{I-\exp({\textrm{ad} }\lambda)}{{\textrm{ad} }\lambda}(d\lambda)$$ and define the deformation functor ${\textrm{Def}}_{L^\bullet}: {\textrm{Art}_{\mathbb{C}}}\to {\textrm{Sets}}$ by $${\textrm{Def}}_{L^\bullet} (A)= {\textrm{MC}}_{L^\bullet} (A)/ \exp(L^0\otimes {\mathfrak{m}}_A) .$$ Then ${\textrm{MC}}_{L^\bullet}(A)$ can be considered as (the set of objects of) a groupoid, whose morphisms are determined by the gauge action; this is often referred to as *the Deligne-Goldman-Millson groupoid*. Details about it can be found in any of the references, e.g., Section 2.2. of [@goldman-millson]. Deformation problems are described by deformation functors ${\textrm{Art}_{\mathbb{C}}}\to {\textrm{Sets}}$, assigning to $A\in{\textrm{Art}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ the set of isomorphism classes of deformations over $\textrm{Spec} A$. We say that a problem is governed (controlled) by a dgla, if its deformation functor is isomorphic to ${\textrm{Def}}_{L^\bullet}$ for some dgla $L^\bullet$.
A dgla is called *normed* ([@gm_kur]), if it is endowed with a norm, with respect to which $d$ and $[,]$ are continuous. It is called an *analytic* dgla, if moreover it is endowed with continuous splitting $\delta$ , compatible with the other sructures. See Appendix \[Kuranishi\_Theory\] or [@gm_kur] for the definition of splitting and details about compatibility.
If $L^\bullet$ is normed, by a *holomorphic family* of deformations of ${\textrm{Def}}_{L^\bullet}({\mathbb{C}})$ over a (pointed) complex manifold $(o,{\mathcal{U}})$ we mean a holomorphic map $\Gamma: {\mathcal{U}}\to {\textrm{MC}}(L)\subset L^1$, $\Gamma(o)=0$. Holomorphicity makes sense even if $L^1$ is infinite dimensional, since it means continuous differentiability together with ${\mathbb{C}}$-linearity of ${\textrm{d}}\Gamma$. If ${\mathcal{U}}$ is an open subset of a vector space and $\Gamma$ is a polynomial map, then holomorphicity makes sense even if $L^1$ has no topology.
One defines analogously deformations over a germ of an analytic subspace of ${\mathbb{C}}^N$ or more general analytic spaces, see e.g. [@fukaya_def], section 8.2. The Kodaira-Spencer map $\textrm{KS}: T_o {\mathcal{U}}\to H^1(L^\bullet)$ is defined by $\textrm{KS}(\xi)=[\xi(\Gamma)(o)]$, where $\xi$ is thought of as a derivation.
Broader Context of the Paper
----------------------------
One of the main outcomes of this paper is the explicit description of a convenient universal family of deformations of a particular marked point in a particular moduli space. Why is this possible at all? The reason is the very special nature of our marked point, i.e., the very special form of the controlling differential graded Lie algebra $L^\bullet$. This “speciality” manifests itself in three ways:
1. The dgla $L^\bullet$ is the total complex of a double complex. The bigrading (by Hodge type) and its interaction with the bracket put a restriction on the set of Maurer-Cartan elements.
2. The HYM metric provides a space $L^1\supset {\mathcal{H}}^1\simeq H^1(L^\bullet)$ of harmonic representatives. It comes with a decomposition ${\mathcal{H}}^1\simeq {\mathcal{H}}'\oplus {\mathcal{H}}''$ into Lagrangian subspaces which *consist of Maurer-Cartan elements*. The natural maps to ${\textrm{Def}}_L$ are étale onto their images, see \[etale\].
3. The dgla $L^\bullet$ has an extra (finite length) grading and one of the differentials of the double complex is a shift with respect to it.
Item $(1)$ holds for the dgla controlling the deformations of any Higgs bundle. Items $(2)$ and $(3)$ are related to the fact that $({{\bf P}},\theta)$ is a ${\mathbb{C}}^\times$-fixed point and hence, by the non-abelian Hodge theorem, corresponds to a (polarised) ${\mathbb{C}}$-VHS ([@hbls]). The latter carries two pieces of data: polarisation and Hodge filtration. Item $(2)$ uses the particular form of the polarisation and the Hodge structure on $H^1(L^\bullet)$. The grading in item $(3)$ is inherited from the Hodge filtration on the associated ${\mathbb{C}}$-VHS. It is well-known that for a smooth projective variety with a ${\mathbb{C}}^\times$-action, the tangent space at an isolated fixed point decomposes into “incoming” and “outgoing” directions. The situation here is analogous, with ${\mathcal{H}}'\simeq {\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{H}}''\simeq {\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee$) corresponding to incoming (resp. outgoing) directions. We now argue that in such a situation there is a natural strategy for writing a (semi-universal) family of deformations.
For that we look at the above three items from a more general perspective, which is partially influenced by the discussion of monads in [@donaldson_kronheimer] (Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.1).
Suppose that $L^2$ and $L=L'\oplus L''$ are two complex vector spaces and that ${\mathcal{Q}}:L\to L^2$ is an origin-preserving, “off-diagonal” quadratic map. This means that ${\mathcal{Q}}= {\mathcal{Q}}_1 +\frac{1}{2}{\mathcal{Q}}_2$, where ${\mathcal{Q}}_1= {\mathcal{Q}}_1'+{\mathcal{Q}}_1''\in {\textrm{Hom}}(L, L^2)$ and ${\mathcal{Q}}_2\in\textrm{Hom}(L'\otimes L'', L^2)$. Consider the quadric $M={\mathcal{Q}}^{-1}(0)\subset L$ and its “tangent bundle” $T_M=\ker {\textrm{d}}{\mathcal{Q}}\vert_{M}\subset L\times L$, ${\textrm{d}}{\mathcal{Q}}_\lambda= {\mathcal{Q}}_1 + \lambda\lrcorner{\mathcal{Q}}_2$. [^1] The quadric $M$ contains lots of affine spaces. In particular, $T_{M,0}=\ker{\mathcal{Q}}_1$ contains two distinguished subspaces, $T'= \ker{\mathcal{Q}}_1'\subset M$ and $T''=\ker{\mathcal{Q}}_1''\subset M$. The addition map $L\times L\to L$ identifies $p_2^*L''\vert_{L'}\subset T_L$ with $L$ and $T_M\cap p_2^*L''\vert_{L'\times\{0\}}$ with the “slice” $E:= M\cap (T'\times L'')$. The latter is a family of vector spaces parametrised by $T'$. One may require (or look for conditions) that $E$ be a vector bundle (possibly, after suitable completion), so that all fibres $E_h$, $h\in T'$ will be isomorphic to $E_0=T''$. Suppose now $P:\textrm{Im}{\mathcal{Q}}_1''\to L''$ is a splitting of the linear map ${\mathcal{Q}}_1''$, and that $\pi:L^2\to \textrm{Im}{\mathcal{Q}}_1''$ is a projection onto its image. Then the family of linear maps $\Phi_h= 1 + P\pi (h\lrcorner{\mathcal{Q}}_2)$ gives an identification $\Phi:E\simeq T'\times T''$, or rather, $E\vert_{\mathcal{U}}\simeq {\mathcal{U}}\times T''$, for some set ${\mathcal{U}}$ around $0\in T'$, determined by the condition that $\Phi_h$ be invertible. If $L$ is equipped with a topology in which the inverse function theorem holds, then ${\mathcal{U}}$ can be taken to be an (analytic) open set. If there is a (weak) duality pairing $L'\times L''\to {\mathbb{C}}$, and $L$ is equipped with the corresponding canonical symplectic form $\omega_{can}$, then, under certain mild “orthogonality” conditions, $(\Phi^{-1})^\ast\omega_{can}=\omega_{can}\vert_{T'\times T''}$.
We shall apply this general strategy to the Maurer-Cartan quadric ${\mathcal{Q}}(x)=dx+\frac{1}{2}[x,x]$. It is here that Item $(3)$ enters: the choice of a principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$-subalgebra gives a natural splitting $P$ of the differential ${\mathcal{Q}}_1''={\textrm{ad} }\theta$, and the formal series for $\Phi^{-1}$ terminates due to the finite length of the filtration, i.e., the nilpotence of $\theta$. Due to Item (2), we have harmonic representatives of $H^{1}(L^\bullet)$ and can restrict $\Phi^{-1}$ to the subspace ${\mathcal{H}}^1$.
This construction is formally similar to the standard construction of the Kuranishi family, but the rôle of Green’s operator ${{\bf G}}$ is played by the much simpler splitting $P$.
Symplectic Kuranishi Map {#symplectic_kur}
========================
In this section we abstract some basic properties of the dgla’s which occur in our examples of interest and explore their deformation theory.
Consider a dgla, $L^\bullet$, whose $L^1$-term admits a non-trivial decomposition into a direct sum $L^1=L'\oplus L''$, such that the two subspaces are:
1. Isotropic for the bracket: $[L',L']=0=[L'',L'']$\[condition1\]
2. Preserved under ${\textrm{ad} }L^0$: $[L^0,L']\subset L'$, $[L^0,L'']\subset L''$.\[condition2\]
Hence $(L^\bullet,d)$ contains as a subcomplex (not sub-dgla!) the total complex of $$\xymatrix{L''\ar[r]^{d_1'} &L^2 \\ L^0\ar[u]^-{d_0''}\ar[r]^{d_0'}& L'\ar[u]^{d_1''}}.$$ If $L^\bullet$ is an analytic dgla, we assume that the two subspaces $L'$ and $L''$ are closed, and the (co)product is in the category of topological vector spaces. We denote by $d_k'$ the horizontal differentials, and by $d_k''$ the vertical ones. Notice that $\ker d_1'\subset L''$ and $\ker d_1''\subset L'$.
\[lie\_dgla\] Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a complex Lie algebra and let $L^\bullet = \oplus_k L^k[-k]$, where $L^0={\mathfrak{g}}$, $L^1={\mathfrak{g}}\oplus {\mathfrak{g}}$, $L^2={\mathfrak{g}}$. Fix $y\in{\mathfrak{g}}$ and endow $L^\bullet$ with differentials $d_0=({\textrm{ad} }_y,0)^T$, $d_1=(0,{\textrm{ad} }_y)$. There is a unique bracket on $L^\bullet$ for which the above assumptions hold and which coincides with the Lie bracket on $L^0$.
\[higgs\_dgla\] Let $X$ be a smooth compact curve, $E$ a holomorphic vector bundle on it, and $\theta\in H^{0}(X,{\underline{End} }E\otimes K_X)$ a Higgs field. Let $L^\bullet = \bigoplus_{p+q=\bullet} A^{p,q}({\underline{End} }E)$ with differential ${\overline{\partial}}_E+{\textrm{ad} }\theta$. Then we can take $L' = A^{1,0}({\underline{End} }E)$, $L''= A^{0,1}({\underline{End} }E)$. The conditions on the bracket are satisfied for type reasons.
Finally, we impose the following crucial assumption
1. \[condition3\] Suppose ${\textrm{Im }}d_1'\subset L^2$ is split. Suppose that $L^\bullet$ admits a splitting $\delta$ (see Appendix \[Kuranishi\_Theory\]) for which the direct sum decomposition of $L^1$ induces a non-trivial decomposition of ${\mathcal{H}}^1$ into ${\mathcal{H}}^1 = {\mathcal{H}}'\oplus {\mathcal{H}}''$ and ${\mathcal{H}}''=\ker d_1'$. Fix one such $\delta$. Denote by ${{\bf H}}= {{\bf H}}' + {{\bf H}}'':L^1\to {\mathcal{H}}^1$ the harmonic projection.
\[etale\] Suppose that $H^2(L^\bullet)=0$ and $(1)$, $(2)$, $(3)$ hold. Then there exist natural morphisms in ${\textrm{FArt}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ $$\underline{{\mathcal{H}}}'[-1] \subset{\textrm{MC}}_{L^\bullet}\to {\textrm{Def}}_{L^\bullet}$$ $$\underline{{\mathcal{H}}}''[-1] \subset{\textrm{MC}}_{L^\bullet}\to {\textrm{Def}}_{L^\bullet}$$ which are étale onto their images.
*Proof:*\
By $(1)$ we have $\ker d'\subset {\textrm{MC}}(L)$ and $\ker d''\subset {\textrm{MC}}(L)$. But ${\mathcal{H}}'\subset\ker d''$ and ${\mathcal{H}}''\subset\ker d'$, and the resulting inclusions ${\mathcal{H}}'\subset {\textrm{MC}}(L)$ and ${\mathcal{H}}''\subset{\textrm{MC}}(L)$ induce the above-stated morphisms in ${\textrm{FArt}_{\mathbb{C}}}$. Since $H^2(L^\bullet)=0$ (obstructions vanish), the Kuranishi map equals the identity on ${\textrm{MC}}_L\cap \underline{{\mathcal{H}}}^1 $, and the (formal) Kuranishi functor ${\mathbb{K}}_L$ equals $\underline{{\mathcal{H}}}^1 $. By [@gm_kur], Section 3 or [@maurer], Theorem 4.7 (see also the Appendix \[Kuranishi\_Theory\]) we have an étale morphism $$\xymatrix@1{{\mathbb{K}}_L\ar[r]^-{{\mathbb{F}}^{-1}}& {\mathbb{Y}}_L={\textrm{MC}}_L\cap\ker \delta \ar[r]& {\textrm{Def}}_L}.$$ We shall now digress and make some elementary remarks on dgla’s with vanishing $L^3$ and $H^2(L^\bullet)$.
Let $L^\bullet$ be a dgla with $L^3=0$ and $H^2(L^\bullet)=0$. Let $\widetilde{\delta}:L^2\to L^1$ be a splitting of $d_1$, that is, $d_1{\widetilde{\delta}}=1_{L^2}$. Fix a subspace ${\mathcal{H}}^1\subset L^1$, isomorphic to $H^1(L^\bullet)$, and consider the formal power series $\Gamma \in L^1\widehat{\otimes}\varprojlim \textrm{Sym}^\bullet({\mathcal{H}}^{1\vee})/{\mathfrak{m}}^k$, $\Gamma= \sum _{k=1}^\infty \Gamma_k$, where $\Gamma_k\in L^1\otimes {\mathfrak{m}}^k/{\mathfrak{m}}^{k-1}$ is defined inductively by $$\label{series2}
\Gamma_1(x) =x, \
\Gamma_k(x)= -\frac{1}{2}{\widetilde{\delta}}\sum_{n=1}^{k-1}[\Gamma_n(x),\Gamma_{k-n}(x)].$$ Then $\Gamma$, thought of as a formal map $({\mathcal{H}}^1,0)\to L^1$, determines a formal miniversal family of deformations of ${\textrm{Def}}_L({\mathbb{C}})$ over $({\mathcal{H}}^1,0)$.
If $L^\bullet$ is a normed dgla and the above series converges in some neighbourhood, ${\mathcal{U}}$, of $0\in {\mathcal{H}}^1$, then the corresponding family $\Gamma: {\mathcal{U}}\to L^1$ is a miniversal analytic family of deformations of ${\textrm{Def}}_L({\mathbb{C}})$.
In coordinates $\Gamma$ is described as follows. We fix a basis, $\{t_i\}$, $i=1...d$, of $({\mathcal{H}}^1)^\vee$. Then $\Gamma= \sum _{k=1}^\infty \Gamma_k \in L^1\widehat{\otimes} {\mathbb{C}}\llbracket t_1,\ldots, t_d \rrbracket $, and $\Gamma_k = \sum_{|J|=k}\Gamma_{J,k}t^J$, where $J$ is a multi-index.
*Proof:*\
This is a statement about power series which can be related to some classical deformation-theoretic calculations (see, e.g. [@kodaira_nirenberg_spencer] or [@kuranishi_complete]) . Since the proof is easy and instructive, we are going to give it here anyway.
On one hand, reading the Maurer-Cartan equation “up to order $k$” we see that any formal power series solution has to satisfy $$d_1\Gamma_k + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{k-1}[\Gamma_n,\Gamma_{k-n}]=0.$$ On the other hand, applying $d_1$ to both sides of the proposed recursive formula for $\Gamma_k$ we get $$d_1\Gamma_k = -\frac{1}{2}d{\widetilde{\delta}}\sum_{n=1}^{k-1}[\Gamma_n,\Gamma_{k-n}] = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{k-1}[\Gamma_n,\Gamma_{k-n}].$$ By construction (\[series2\]), the (formal or analytic) Kodaira-Spencer map of this family is the identity, and hence it is isomorphic to the Kuranishi family, which is a miniversal deformation. See e.g., [@fukaya_def] or Appendix \[Kuranishi\_Theory\] for other references and comments. We emphasise that this family *need not* be *the* Kuranishi family.\
Kuranishi theory for dgla’s (or $L_\infty$-algebras) is based on a choice of “splitting” (or passing to a minimal model), see Appendix \[Kuranishi\_Theory\] for the relevant definitions. This involves a degree $-1$ endomorphism of $L^\bullet$, $\delta$, which in particular satisfies $d\delta +\delta d = 1-{{\bf H}}$, where ${{\bf H}}$ is a “harmonic projection”. There is a well-known power-series solution of the Maurer-Cartan equation (the inverse of the formal Kuranishi map, see the Appendix \[Kuranishi\_Theory\]), known from the works of Kuranishi, Kodaira-Nirenberg-Spencer, Huebschmann-Stasheff and many others. It is given exactly by the above formula (\[series2\]) but with $\delta$ instead of ${\widetilde{\delta}}$ (i.e., by (\[series\])). The latter formula involves only $\delta_2$ and none of the other $\delta_i$! To verify that the series (\[series\]) gives a formal solution, one proceeds essentially as in the above proof. The main difference is that now instead of $d_1{\widetilde{\delta}}=1$ we have $d_1\delta_2 = 1 -\delta_3 d_2 -{{\bf H}}_2$. But ${{\bf H}}_2=0$ since $H^2(L^\bullet)=0$, and the term involving $\delta_3 d_2$ vanishes due to the fact that $d$ is a derivation of the bracket, combined with associativity (graded Jacobi identity). If $L^3=0$, this latter term is not present at all, so $d_1\delta_2 = 1$. Since the series involves only $\delta_2$, we could start with any splitting (and ignore the remaining $\delta_i$) and will still get a formal solution.
We now return to our discussion of dgla’s with a decomposition and state a version of the above theorem based on splitting $d_1'$ only.
Let $L^\bullet$ be a dgla with $H^2(L^\bullet)=0$ and $L^3=0$, satisfying the assumptions $(1)$, $(2)$ and $(3)$. Let $\pi: L^2\to \textrm{Im}d_1'$ be a projector and $P{\iota}''$ a splitting of $d_1'$, so the linear map $
{\widetilde{\delta}}= \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\ P\pi
\end{array}
\right) : L^2 \longrightarrow L^1$ satisfies $d_1{\widetilde{\delta}}= \pi$.
\[triv\_formal\_analytic\] The formal power series $\Gamma \in L^1\widehat{\otimes}\varprojlim \textrm{Sym}^\bullet({\mathcal{H}}^{1\vee})/{\mathfrak{m}}^k$ given by $$\label{series3}
\Gamma (h,v) = \left( \begin{array}{r}
h\\ (1 + P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)^{-1}(v)
\end{array}
\right) = \left( \begin{array}{r}
h\\ v
\end{array}
\right) + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} (-1)^{k-1}\left( \begin{array}{r}
0\\ (P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)^{k-1}(v)
\end{array}
\right),$$ $(h,v)\in {\mathcal{H}}'\oplus {\mathcal{H}}''$, is a formal deformation of ${\textrm{Def}}_{L^\bullet}({\mathbb{C}})$ over $({\mathcal{H}}^1,0)$ if and only if $[\Gamma,\Gamma]\in {\textrm{Im }}d_1'\widehat{\otimes}\varprojlim \textrm{Sym}^\bullet({\mathcal{H}}^{1\vee})/{\mathfrak{m}}^k$.
If moreover $L^\bullet$ is a normed dgla and ${\textrm{Im }}d_1'\subset L^2$ is closed, then there exists a neighbourhood of the origin, ${\mathcal{U}}\subset {\mathcal{H}}^1$, such that the family $\Gamma: {\mathcal{U}}\to L^1$ is a miniversal analytic family of deformations of ${\textrm{Def}}_{L^\bullet}({\mathbb{C}})$.
*Proof:*\
The formal statement is proved exactly as in the previous theorem. Indeed, due to the isotropy of the bracket and the choice of ${\widetilde{\delta}}$, the formula (\[series2\]) reduces to the formula (\[series3\]). But since here $d{\widetilde{\delta}}=\pi$, we have that $\Gamma$ satisfies $d\Gamma = -\pi [\Gamma,\Gamma]$, which coincides with the Maurer-Cartan equation if and only if the right hand side is $[\Gamma,\Gamma]$, i.e., $(\pi-1)[\Gamma,\Gamma]= 0$.
For the analytic statement notice that the power series is essentially the geometric series, and since ${\textrm{ad} }$, $\pi$ and $P$ are continuous, the series will converge for $h$ sufficiently small, that is, for $x=(h,v)\in {\mathcal{U}}= B_\epsilon\times {\mathcal{H}}''$, where $B_\epsilon\ni 0$ is a ball of sufficiently small radius $\epsilon$. The Kodaira-Spencer map of the family is the identity, so it is miniversal by Theorem 1.3.3., [@fukaya_def].
\[nilpotent\_cor\] Let $L^\bullet$ be as in the statement of the theorem, and assume that $\pi$, $P$, ${\textrm{ad} }$ extend to continuous linear maps on some completion $\widehat{L}^\bullet$. Let $\delta$ be a compatibly chosen splitting of $\widehat{L}^\bullet$. If $P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h$ is (locally) nilpotent for all $h\in {\mathcal{H}}'$, then $\Gamma: {\mathcal{H}}^1\to L^1\subset \widehat{L}^1$ is a miniversal analytic family of deformations of ${\textrm{Def}}_L({\mathbb{C}})$.
*Proof:*\
If $P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h$ is locally nilpotent for all $h$, then $(1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)^{-1}({\mathcal{H}}'')\subset L\subset \widehat{L}$.
\[symplectic\_slice\] Let $L^\bullet$ be a dgla satisfying assumptions $(1)$, $(2)$, $(3)$. Let $P{\iota}''$ be a splitting of $d_1'$ and $\pi:L^2\to {\textrm{Im }}d_1'$ a projector. Assume that $L^3=0$, $H^2(L^\bullet)=0$, and $[\Gamma,\Gamma]\in {\textrm{Im }}d_1'\widehat{\otimes}\varprojlim \textrm{Sym}^\bullet({\mathcal{H}}^{1\vee})/{\mathfrak{m}}^k$.
Let ${\mathbb{S}}_L\in {\textrm{FArt}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ be the functor ${\mathbb{S}}_L= {\textrm{MC}}_L\cap \ker\left[(1-{{\bf H}}')\pi' \right]$. Then $$\Phi: {\mathbb{S}}_L\to \underline{{\mathcal{H}}}^1= \underline{{\mathcal{H}}}'\oplus\underline{{\mathcal{H}}}''$$ $$\Phi_A(h,v)= (h,(1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)v)\in {\mathcal{H}}^1\otimes {\mathfrak{m}}_A$$ is an isomorphism in ${\textrm{FArt}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ and $\Phi^{-1}=\Gamma$. The composition $$\textrm{pr }\circ {\mathbb{F}}_L^{-1}\circ \Phi : {\mathbb{S}}_L\to {\textrm{Def}}_L$$ is étale. If additionally $L^\bullet$ is a normed and ${\textrm{Im }}d_1'\subset L^2$ is closed, then ${\mathbb{S}}_L$ is prorepresented by the germ $({\mathcal{S}},0)$, where $${\mathcal{S}}= {\textrm{MC}}(L)\cap \ker\left[(1-{{\bf H}}')\pi' \right]\subset {\mathcal{H}}'\oplus L'',$$ and $\Phi: ({\mathcal{S}},0)\simeq ({\mathcal{H}}^1,0)$.
*Proof:*\
We have that $(h,v)\in {\textrm{MC}}_L(A)\cap \ker\left[(1-{{\bf H}}')\pi' \right](A)$ $\Longleftrightarrow$ $h\in{\mathcal{H}}'\otimes {\mathfrak{m}}_A$ and $v\in \ker (d'+{\textrm{ad} }_h)$.
Now, $1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h$ maps $\ker (d'+{\textrm{ad} }_h)$ to $\ker d'$, since on the former ${\textrm{ad} }_h$ equals $-d'$, and $1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h$ equals $(1-Pd')$, the projector onto $\ker d'$. Since ${\mathfrak{m}}_A$ is nilpotent, $1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h$ is invertible for all $h$, and hence it maps injectively $\ker (d'+{\textrm{ad} }_h)$ to $\ker d'$. The condtion $(\pi-1)[\Gamma,\Gamma]=0$ means, by Theorem \[triv\_formal\_analytic\] that if $(h,v)\in {\mathcal{H}}^1\otimes {\mathfrak{m}}_A= ({\mathcal{H}}'\oplus\ker d')\otimes {\mathfrak{m}}_A$, then $(h, (1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)^{-1}v)\in {\textrm{MC}}_L(A)$, i.e., belongs to ${\mathbb{S}}_L(A)$. Hence $\Phi_A$ is an isomorphism.
The composition $\textrm{pr }\circ {\mathbb{F}}^{-1}\circ \Phi$ is étale since $\Phi$ is an isomorphism and $\textrm{pr}\circ {\mathbb{F}}^{-1}$ is étale by [@gm_kur], Section 3 or [@maurer], Theorem 4.7.
For the next two corollaries, assume that $\widehat{L}^\bullet$ is a normed dgla, which is the completion of a dgla $L^\bullet$ with respect to some norm. Also, assume that $\delta$ is a (compatibly chosen) splitting and that $P$, $\pi$ and ${\textrm{ad} }$ extend to continuous operators on $\widehat{L}^\bullet$.
Let both $L^\bullet$ and $\widehat{L}^\bullet$ satisfy the assumptions of the theorem. Then, if $P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h$ is (locally) nilpotent for all $h\in {\mathcal{H}}'$, the slice ${\mathcal{S}}$ satisfies ${\mathcal{S}}= \Phi^{-1}({\mathcal{H}}^1)\subset L^1\subset \widehat{L}^1$.
Let $L^\bullet$ be a normed dgla satisfying the assumptions of the Theorem, except possibly the condition $[\Gamma,\Gamma]\in {\textrm{Im }}d_1'\widehat{\otimes}\varprojlim \textrm{Sym}^\bullet({\mathcal{H}}^{1\vee})/{\mathfrak{m}}^k$. Then $\Phi : ({\mathcal{S}},0)\simeq ({\mathcal{H}}',0)\times {\mathcal{H}}''$ is a holomorphic vector bundle isomorphism over $({\mathcal{H}}',0)$ if and only if $[\Gamma,\Gamma]\in {\textrm{Im }}d_1'\widehat{\otimes}\varprojlim \textrm{Sym}^\bullet({\mathcal{H}}^{1\vee})/{\mathfrak{m}}^k$. In particular, if $\dim L^\bullet <\infty$, $\dim\ker (d'+{\textrm{ad} }_h)$ is constant in a (connected) neighbourhood of $0\in {\mathcal{U}}\subset {\mathcal{H}}'$ if and only if ${\textrm{ad} }_h (1 + P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)^{-1}(v)\in \textrm{Im }d_1'$ for all $h\in {\mathcal{U}}$ and all $v\in {\mathcal{H}}''$.
*Proof:*\
By the proof of Theorem \[triv\_formal\_analytic\] $(1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)$ is invertible for $h\in B_\epsilon$, some $\epsilon>0$. By the inverse function theorem, its inverse is analytic in some (possibly smaller) open, which we shall still denote by $B_\epsilon$. By the proof of Theorem \[symplectic\_slice\] ${\textrm{MC}}(L)\cap\ker\left[(1-{{\bf H}}')\pi' \right]$ is a family of kernels, which we have trivialised by a holomorphic family of projectors. But by [@banach_bundles], §1, Theorem 1.5, Theorem 2.7 and §3, the image of a holomorphic family of projectors is a Banach vector bundle. Thus ${\mathcal{S}}\cap B_\epsilon\oplus L''$ is a Banach vector bundle precisely when $\Phi$ is an isomorphism. Let us underline here that $\dim H^\bullet(L^\bullet)<\infty$, so both the base and the fibre of this vector bundle are finite dimensional vector spaces! Of course, if also $\dim L^\bullet<\infty$, then ${\mathcal{S}}\cap B_\epsilon\oplus L''$ is a vector bundle if and only if $\textrm{rk}(1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)=const$ on $B_\epsilon$.
Since ${\mathcal{H}}^1$ is finite dimensional, probably some clarification is needed reagrding the appearance of Banach vector bundles. Our setup is the following. We have a holomorphic family of linear maps between two (possibly) infinite dimensional vector spaces, $L''$ and $L^2$, *a priori* without topology: this is ${\mathcal{H}}'\to \textrm{Hom}(L'', L^2)$, $h\mapsto (d_1' + {\textrm{ad} }_h)$. We are interested in the collection of kernels, ${\mathcal{S}}$. We gave conditions for the kernels to be of finite, constant dimension ($=\dim {\mathcal{H}}''$) and gave an explicit formal trivialisation, $\Phi$, of ${\mathcal{S}}$. If we want to put a topology on ${\mathcal{S}}$, make it into an honest vector bundle and have that $\Phi$ be a vector bundle trivialisation, then we have to pass to a completion of $L^\bullet$. In the intended applications $\Phi_h$ is in fact a polynomial in $h$ due to nilpotence, and ${\mathcal{S}}\subset L^1\subset \widehat{L}^1$.
We are ultimately interested in situations where the “local moduli space” corresponding to ${\textrm{Def}}_{L^\bullet}$ is symplectic, and the symplectic form is induced by a (constant) symplectic form on $L^1$ for which the two subspaces $L'$ and $L''$ are isotropic. The motivating example is the case when $L^1$ is a (weak) cotangent bundle.
Let $L^\bullet$ be as in Theorem \[symplectic\_slice\]. Let $\omega$ be a skew-symmetric bilinear form on $L^1$ for which the subspaces $L'$ and $L''$ are isotropic. Then $(\Phi^{-1})^*\omega$ vanishes on the subbundles ${\mathcal{H}}^1\times{\mathcal{H}}'\subset T_{{\mathcal{H}}^1}$ and ${\mathcal{H}}^1\times{\mathcal{H}}''\subset T_{{\mathcal{H}}^1}$. Moreover, $(\Phi^{-1})^*\omega$ on ${\mathcal{H}}^1$ is invariant under translations along ${\mathcal{H}}''$.
*Proof:* Let $\widetilde{\Phi}^{-1}$ denote the holomorphic map ${\mathcal{H}}'\to \textrm{End }(L^2)$, $h\mapsto \Phi_h^{-1} = (1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)^{-1}$. Then $({\textrm{d}}\Phi^{-1})_{(h,v)}(\xi',\xi'')= (\xi',0) + (0,({\textrm{d}}\widetilde{\Phi}^{-1})_h(\xi'')(v))+(0,\Phi_h^{-1}(\xi''))$, so ${\textrm{d}}\Phi^{-1}$ preserves $\ker d_1'$ and $\ker d_1''$ and the first statment follows. But the second of the three terms vanishes identically due to assumption $(1)$: $({\textrm{d}}\widetilde{\Phi}^{-1})_h(\xi'')(v)=-P\pi[\xi'',v]=0$, and so $(\Phi^{-1})^*\omega_{(h,v)}$ is independent of $v\in {\mathcal{H}}''$.
\[triv\_symp\] Let $L^\bullet$ (resp. $\widehat{L}^\bullet$) be a dgla, satisfying the assumptions of Theorem \[symplectic\_slice\]. Suppose that $L'$ and $L''$ are placed in (weak) duality by a pairing $\langle\ ,\ \rangle$ and let $\omega_{can}$ be the canonical symplectic form on $L^1=L'\oplus L''$. If $\textrm{Im }P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h \subset {\mathcal{H}}'{^\perp}$ for all $h\in {\mathcal{H}}'$, then $(\Phi^{-1})^*\omega_{can} = \omega_{can}$. In the normed case, $\Phi:{\mathcal{S}}\to {\mathcal{H}}^1$ gives holomorphic Darboux coordinates on $({\mathcal{S}},0)$.
*Proof:*\
The canoncial symplectic form on $L^1$ is $\omega_{can}((\xi',\xi''),(\eta',\eta''))= \langle\xi',\eta'' \rangle -\langle\xi'',\eta'\rangle$. Using the formula for ${\textrm{d}}\Phi^{-1}$ from the previous Lemma and the isotropy of ${\mathcal{H}}'$ and ${\mathcal{H}}''$ we get $$(\Phi^{-1})^\ast\omega_{can}((\xi',\xi''),(\eta',\eta''))=\langle\xi', \Phi^{-1}(\eta'') \rangle -\langle \Phi^{-1}(\xi''),\eta'\rangle.$$ Substituting $(1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)^{-1} =1 -P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h(1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)^{-1}$ into the previous formula and using the orthogonality assumption we get $(\Phi^{-1})^*\omega_{can}((\xi',\xi''),(\eta',\eta''))= \langle\xi',\eta'' \rangle -\langle\xi'',\eta'\rangle$.
With the above assumptions, ${\mathcal{S}}$ is a Lagrangian foliation, with space of leaves (the germ of) ${\mathcal{H}}'$. Such a foliation carries a torsion-free flat connection along the leaves. Since $T^\vee_{{\mathcal{H}}'}\simeq {\mathcal{S}}$ (as symplectic manifolds), the affine structures on the leaves is induced by the vector space structure on the fibres, and we have described it in terms of the controlling dgla.
Lie-algebraic preliminaries {#Lie}
===========================
We review here some relevant facts from Lie theory mostly to set up notation. Details can be found in [@cg] or [@kostant]. Let $G$ be a simple complex Lie group, ${\mathfrak{g}}=\textrm{Lie}(G)$ and $\textrm{rank}({\mathfrak{g}})=l$. An element of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is *regular* if its centraliser is of the smallest possible dimension, $l$. An element $\varphi\in {\mathfrak{g}}$ is *semisimple* (respectively, *nilpotent*) if ${\textrm{ad} }_\varphi\in {\textrm{End}}({\mathfrak{g}})$ is semisimple (respectively, nilpotent). If ${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathfrak{s}}{\mathfrak{l}}(l+1)$, the regular elements are trace-free matrices with a single Jordan block per eigenvalue. A regular nilpotent $\varphi$ is one which is conjugate to a single Jordan block with zeros on the diagonal. We denote by ${\mathfrak{g}}^{reg}$, ${\mathfrak{g}}^{ss}$ and ${\mathfrak{g}}^{reg,ss}$ the sets of regular, semisimple and regular semisimple elements of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. One has ${\mathfrak{g}}^{reg,ss}\subset {\mathfrak{g}}^{reg}\subset{\mathfrak{g}}$ and ${\mathfrak{g}}\backslash{\mathfrak{g}}^{reg,ss}\subset {\mathfrak{g}}$ is a divisor while ${\mathfrak{g}}\backslash{\mathfrak{g}}^{reg}\subset {\mathfrak{g}}$ is of codimension 3.
The notion of a regularity makes sense for reductive Lie algebras as well. In particular, if ${\varphi}\in{\mathfrak{g}}{\mathfrak{l}}(n,{\mathbb{C}})^{reg}$, its centraliser ${\mathfrak{z}}(\varphi)$ is spanned by $\{\varphi,\varphi^2,\ldots, \varphi^{n}\}$. We do not have such a convenient description of the centraliser for other Lie algebras.
By the Jacobson-Morozov lemma any nilpotent $x\in {\mathfrak{g}}$ can be embedded in an ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$-subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. A \[principal\] *principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ subalgebra* is one which is spanned by two *regular* nilpotent elements, $x$ and $y$, and a semisimple ${\mathfrak{h}}\in{\mathfrak{g}}$. The inclusion ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}{\hookrightarrow}{\mathfrak{g}}$ exponentiates to a homomorphism $\varrho: SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})\to G$, a “principal homomorphism”. The maximal compact $SU(2)\subset SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ maps to a compact form of $G$. Under the adjoint action of ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ ${\mathfrak{g}}$ decomposes into $l$ odd-dimensional irreducible representations: $$\label{decomp}
{\mathfrak{g}}= \bigoplus_{i=1}^{l} W_{m_i},\ W_{m_i}= Sym^{2m_i}({\mathbb{C}}^2),$$ where ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ is the standard representation of ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$. The spaces $W_{m_i}$ are $(2m_i+1)$-dimensional, so the restriction $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})\to Aut(W_{m_i})$ of the adjoint representation to each $W_{m_i}$ factors through $PGL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$. The restriction to the maximal compact makes $W_{m_i}$ into a representation of $PSU(2)=SO(3)$. On each $W_{m_i}$ the eigenvalues of ${\textrm{ad} }_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ are even integers $2m$, where $-m_i\leq m \leq m_i$. The highest weight vectors span the centraliser ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)$. We shall label the eigenspaces by *half* of the corresponding eigenvalue and shall let ${\mathfrak{g}}_m$ stand for the eigenspace of ${\textrm{ad} }_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ with eigenvalue $2m$. The decomposition $$\label{lie_grading}
{\mathfrak{g}}= \bigoplus_{m=-{\mathpzc{h}}}^{{\mathpzc{h}}} {\mathfrak{g}}_m,$$ is called *the principal grading* of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. The filtration ${\mathcal{W}}_\bullet{\mathfrak{g}}$, ${\mathcal{W}}_p{\mathfrak{g}}= \oplus_{2m\leq p}{\mathfrak{g}}_{m}$ is the canonical (Deligne) filtration of the nilpotent endomorphism ${\textrm{ad} }_y$. Intersecting \[decomp\] and \[lie\_grading\] we get a bigrading ${\mathfrak{g}}= \oplus {\mathfrak{g}}_{k,i}= {\mathfrak{g}}_k\cap W_{m_i}$. Then ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)=\oplus_i {\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}$ and ${\mathfrak{z}}(y)=\oplus_i {\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}$.
The numbers $m_i$ are the *exponents* of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ (or $G$). For a simple Lie algebra they are all distinct except if ${\mathfrak{g}}=D_{2n}$, when the largest exponent has multiplicity two. We order the exponents, so that $m_i\leq m_j$ for $i<j$ and for the most part we shall write $W_i$ instead of $W_{m_i}$. In particular, as $G$ is simple, $m_1=1$ and $W_1={\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ is the principal subalgebra.
The motivating example is the $l$-th symmetric power embedding ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}{\hookrightarrow}{\mathfrak{s}}{\mathfrak{l}}(l+1,{\mathbb{C}})$. Notice that it maps the standard generators $\{y_0 = E_{21}, h_0= E_{11}-E_{22}, x_0= E_{12}\}$ of ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ to the $(l+1)\times (l+1)$ matrices $\{y, h, x\}$, where $y = \sum_{p=1}^l E_{p+1,p}$, $h= \sum_{p=1}^{l+1}(l-2p+2)E_{p,p}$ and $x= \sum_{p=1}^{l}p(l-p+1) E_{p,p+1}$. In particular, $x\neq y^T$!
Let ${\mathbb{C}}[{\mathfrak{g}}]^G\subset{\mathbb{C}}[{\mathfrak{g}}]$ be the ring of $G$-invariants for the adjoint action. The GIT quotient is ${\mathfrak{g}}\sslash G:= \textrm{Spec } {\mathbb{C}}[{\mathfrak{g}}]^G$, and its points correspond to *closures* of $G$-orbits. The closure of each $G$-orbit contains a unique open (regular) and a unique closed (semisimple) orbit. By a theorem of Chevalley, ${\mathbb{C}}[{\mathfrak{g}}]^G$ is isomorphic to a polynomial ring, i.e., ${\mathfrak{g}}\sslash G$ is non-cannonically isomorphic to a vector space. We can fix one such isomorphism by choosing a basis for the $G$-invariant polynomials on ${\mathfrak{g}}$, say $\{p_1,\ldots,p_l\}$, $\deg(p_i)= m_i +1$. We assume that our choice of invariant polynomials is compatible with the decomposition ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)= \oplus_i {\mathfrak{z}}(x)\cap W_i$ induced by the principal subalgebra. This means that there exists a basis for ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)$ consisting of highest weight vectors $v_i\in W_i\cap {\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i}$, such that $p_i(y+a_1v_1+ \ldots + a_lv_l)=a_i$. This gives an identification ${\mathbb{C}}[{\mathfrak{g}}]^G\simeq {\mathbb{C}}[p_1,\ldots,p_l]$ and the Chevalley projection ${\mathfrak{g}}\to {\mathfrak{g}}\sslash G$ can be interpreted as a map ${\mathfrak{g}}\to {\mathbb{C}}^l$. For ${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathfrak{g}}{\mathfrak{l}}(n,{\mathbb{C}})$ this map sends a matrix to the (non-leading) coefficients of its characteristic polynomial.
Let ${\mathfrak{t}}\ni {\mathfrak{h}}$ be a Cartan subalgebra and $W$ the corresponding Weyl group. Chevalley proved that ${\mathfrak{t}}{\hookrightarrow}{\mathfrak{g}}$ induces an isomorphism ${\mathfrak{t}}/W\simeq {\mathfrak{g}}\sslash G$. In [@kostant] it is shown that the adjoint quotient ${\mathfrak{g}}\to {\mathfrak{t}}/W$ becomes an isomorphism when restricted to *the Kostant slice* $\Sigma= y + {\mathfrak{z}}(x)\subset {\mathfrak{g}}^{reg}$. Thus $\Sigma$ provides a splitting ${\mathfrak{t}}/W\to {\mathfrak{g}}$ of the Chevalley projection. We shall also write ${{\bf s}}$ for the affine-linear map ${{\bf s}}: {\mathfrak{z}}(x)\to \Sigma$, ${{\bf s}}(a)=a+y$.
We shall use one particular principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$-subalgebra $\{y,{\mathfrak{h}},x\}$ which is the standard one in the literature on opers ([@frenkel]) and which we describe now.
Fix Chevalley generators $\{f_i, h_i, e_i\}$, ${\mathfrak{t}}= {\textrm{span}}\{h_i\}$, $i=1\ldots l$, and assume $\kappa(e_i,f_i)>0$. Fix positive roots $\Delta^+$. Let $\rho^\vee= \sum_i \rho_i^\vee h_i $ be the dual Weyl vector, i.e., half the sum of the positive coroots. We take $y = \sum_i f_i$, a regular nilpotent element, and ${\mathfrak{h}}=2\rho^\vee\in {\mathfrak{t}}$. The unique $x$ for which ${\textrm{span}}\{x,2\rho^\vee,y\}\simeq {\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ is $x= \sum_i 2\rho^\vee_i e_i$.
The choice of Chevalley generators determines a split and a compact real form of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ ([@bourbaki_lie_cpct],IX.16 §3). The former is the real subalgebra generated by $\{e_i,f_i,h_i\}$. The latter is the $+1$ eigenspace of the *anti-linear* extension, $\eta$, of $e_j\mapsto - f_j$, $f_j\mapsto - e_j$, $h_j\mapsto -h_j$. The $+1$ eigenspace is generated by $\{ih_j, e_j-f_j, i (e_j+f_j)\}$. Notice that $\eta$ is only a vector space involution, not a Lie algebra one. In the classical cases, $-\eta$ is hermitian conjugation, so we often write $u^*$ for $-\eta(u)$. Our special choice of a principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ need not be “aligned” with the choice of generators: the standard copy of ${\mathfrak{su}}(2)\subset {\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ is *not* mapped to the compact form determined by the generators $\{e_i,h_i,f_i\}$. All compact forms are conjugate, and it is easy to determine the anti-linear involution preserving this one. It is the anti-linear extension of $e_j\mapsto - \frac{1}{2\rho^\vee_j}f_j$, $f_j\mapsto - 2\rho^\vee_j e_j$, $h_j\mapsto -h_j$. Its $+1$ eigenspace is spanned by $\{\frac{i}{2\rho_j}h_j, e_j-\frac{1}{2\rho_j}f_j, i (e_j+\frac{1}{2\rho_j}f_j)\}$.
The pairing $(u,v) = -\kappa(u, \eta(v)) =\kappa(u,v^\ast)$ is an hermitian inner product on ${\mathfrak{g}}$, and $ad_u^* = ad_{u^*}$, where ${\textrm{ad} }_u^\ast$ is the adjoint of ${\textrm{ad} }_u\in {\textrm{End}}{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ with respect to it. It is probably well-known that the different irreducible representations $W_i$ are orthogonal with respect to this inner product, but for lack of reference we have proved it in [@thesis].
Notice that by construction the principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ (and all the representations $W_i$) are all real with respect to $\eta$ and in particular $y^*=x, {\mathfrak{h}}^*={\mathfrak{h}}$.
Universal Centralisers {#centralisers}
======================
Consider now the tautological family of centralisers of regular elements $$I=\left\{(v,u): [v,u]=0, v\in{\mathfrak{g}}^{reg},u\in {\mathfrak{g}}\right\}\subset {\mathfrak{g}}^{reg}\times{\mathfrak{g}}.$$ The projection $\textrm{pr}_1:I\to {\mathfrak{g}}^{reg}$ makes this locally closed subvariety into a rank $l$ vector bundle, a subbundle of the trivial bundle $T_{{\mathfrak{g}}^{reg}} $. The group $G$ acts on $I$ diagonally by the adjoint action, and the quotient is *the universal centraliser*. It is a hamiltonian reduction of $T^\vee_{{\mathfrak{g}}}\simeq_\kappa T_{\mathfrak{g}}$, and $I\sslash G\simeq T_{{\mathfrak{t}}/W}$ is a symplectic isomorphism. On the other hand, $ I\sslash G\simeq I\vert_{y+{\mathfrak{z}}(x)}= {{\bf s}}^*I$, and we shall see that the choice of a principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ provides a natural trivialisation ${{\bf s}}^*I\simeq {\mathfrak{z}}(x)\times {\mathfrak{z}}(y)$, with the the property that the symplectic form on $I\vert_{y+{\mathfrak{z}}(x)}\subset T_{\mathfrak{g}}$ pulls back to the standard symplectic form on ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)\times {\mathfrak{z}}(y)$.
The subspace ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)\simeq \textrm{coker}({\textrm{ad} }_y)$ provides a splitting, $P\in{\textrm{Hom}}(\textrm{Im }{\textrm{ad} }_y,{\mathfrak{g}})$, of ${\textrm{ad} }_y$. To compute $P$ in examples one can use that each $W_{m_i}$ is an irreducible ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$-representation, so a suitable multiple of ${\textrm{ad} }_x$ inverts ${\textrm{ad} }_y$ on ${\textrm{Im }}({\textrm{ad} }_y)$. For the actual coefficient, depending on $m_i$ and $k$, see [@fulton_harris], Lecture 11. The bigrading of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ provides natural projections $\pi: {\mathfrak{g}}\to \textrm{Im }{\textrm{ad} }_y$ and $p^r_p:{\mathfrak{g}}_r\to {\mathfrak{g}}_{r,p}$. Note that $\pi, p^r_p\in {\textrm{End}}_0({\mathfrak{g}})$, while $P\in {\textrm{End}}_1({\mathfrak{g}})$. Consequently, for all $h\in {\mathfrak{z}}(x)$, $P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h\in{\textrm{End}}_2 ({\mathfrak{g}})$ and is hence nilpotent. Note in passing that in this setup we also have a natural splitting of ${\textrm{ad} }_x$, say $Q\in \textrm{Hom}({\textrm{Im }}({\textrm{ad} }_x),{\mathfrak{g}})$, ${\textrm{ad} }_x\circ Q=1$.
We now formulate a technical Lemma.
\[induction\] Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a simple complex Lie algebra, $\{y,{\mathfrak{h}}, x\}$ a principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ subalgebra, and $P$ the canonical splitting of ${\textrm{ad} }_y$ determined by it. Let $0\neq h\in{\mathfrak{z}}(x)$. Then, $\forall k\geq 0$, $${\textrm{ad} }_h(P{\textrm{ad} }_h)^k({\mathfrak{z}}(y))\subset {\textrm{Im }}{\textrm{ad} }_y.$$ Equivalently, $\forall k\geq 0$, $(P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)^k({\mathfrak{z}}(y)) = (P{\textrm{ad} }_h)^k({\mathfrak{z}}(y))$.
*Proof:*\
For notational simplicity assume that ${\mathfrak{g}}\neq D_{2n}$. This is the only simple Lie algebra with a repeated exponent (the largest exponent appears twice), and in that case the proof is exactly as the one that follows below, but one has to choose the two $W_i$’s corresponding to the maximal exponent in a way that they be orthogonal with respect to the inner product induced by the Killing form.
We work by induction on $k$, and use an observation from Clebsch-Gordan theory of $\textrm{SL}(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ ([@hitchin_teich], p.458) regarding commutators of elements from different $W_i$. Namely, $$pr^{m+n}_p\left( [{\mathfrak{g}}_{m,i},{\mathfrak{g}}_{n,j}] \right) = 0 \textrm{ unless } m_i + m_j + m_p = 1\textrm{ mod } 2$$
For the base case $k=1$ we have to show that ${\textrm{ad} }_h: {\mathfrak{z}}(y)\to Im(ad_y)$. Let $v\in{\mathfrak{z}}(y)$. Since ${\mathfrak{z}}= \oplus_i {\mathfrak{z}}(y)\cap W_i$, and similarly for ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)$, we may assume $v\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_j,j}\subset {\mathfrak{z}}(y)$ and $h\in V_{m_i}={\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i} \subset {\mathfrak{z}}(x)$. Then $[h,v]=[e_{m_i},e_{-m_j}]\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i-m_j}$, where $e_{m_i}$ (resp. $e_{-m_j}$) is a highest (resp. lowest) weight vector in $W_i$ (resp. $W_j$). We claim that this commutator can never be in some $V_{m_p}={\mathfrak{g}}_{m_p,p}$, that is $pr^{m_i-m_j}_{m_i-m_j}([e_{m_i},e_{-m_j}])=0 .$ Indeed, if there were such a term, there would be an exponent $m_p$, such that $m_i-m_j = m_p$ and $m_i + m_j+m_p =1 \textrm{ mod }2$, which would mean that $2m_i=1\textrm{mod }2$. So the base case is proved and $P\circ\pi\circ{\textrm{ad} }_h(v)= P\circ {\textrm{ad} }_h(v)\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i-m_j+1}$.
For the inductive step, let $(P\circ\pi\circ{\textrm{ad} }_h)^k(v)=\left( P\circ ad_\eta \right)^k(v)$, $k\geq 1$. Then we can write it as a linear combination of elements in the $(km_{i}-m_j +k)$-th graded piece of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Such an element has a nonzero projection in some $W_{p_k}$ if $$m_{i}+m_j+m_{p_1}=2l_1+1,\ m_{i}+m_{p_1}+m_{p_2}=2l_2+1,\ldots m_{i}+m_{p_{k-1}}+m_{p_k}=2l_k+1,$$ where $l_r\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. Adding these up gives $$\label{parity1}
km_{i} + m_j + 2 \sum_{s=1}^{k-1}m_{p_s} + m_{p_k} = \sum_{r=1}^k 2l_r+1$$ If ${\textrm{ad} }_h\left( P\circ ad_h \right)^k(v)$ has a nonzero projection in some $V_{m_l}$, then it must be the case that $$(k+1)m_{i}- m_{j} + k = m_l,\ m_{i} + m_{p_k}+ m_l = 1 \textrm{ mod }2,$$ and adding these we get $$\label{parity2}
(k+2)m_i + m_{p_k} - m_{j} + k = 1\textrm{ mod }2.$$ Finally, adding (\[parity1\]) and (\[parity2\]) we get an equality of the form $\textrm{even} + k = \sum_{r=1}^{k+1} \textrm{odd}_r,$ which is impossible since $k$ and $k+1$ are always of opposite parity.
We now reconsider Example \[lie\_dgla\] with $y$ being the regular nilpotent element from the principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$-subalgebra. Then $H^0(L^\bullet)={\mathfrak{z}}(y)$, $\ker d_1={\mathfrak{g}}\oplus {\mathfrak{z}}(y)$, ${\textrm{Im }}(d_0)= ({\textrm{Im }}({\textrm{ad} }_y),0)$ and so $H^1(L^\bullet)\simeq {\mathfrak{z}}(x)\oplus {\mathfrak{z}}(y)$. Thus $L^\bullet$ satisfies the assumptions $(1)$, $(2)$,$(3)$ from \[symplectic\_kur\], with ${\mathcal{H}}'={\mathfrak{z}}(x)$ and ${\mathcal{H}}''={\mathfrak{z}}(y)$. We also have $${\textrm{MC}}(L) = \{(h,v): v\in {\mathfrak{z}}(y+h) \} = ({{\bf s}}\times 1)^\ast I \subset {\mathfrak{g}}\times {\mathfrak{g}}$$
\[major\_lie\] Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a simple complex Lie algebra, $\{y,{\mathfrak{h}}, x\}$ a principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ subalgebra, and $P$ the canonical splitting of ${\textrm{ad} }_y$ determined by it. Then $$\Phi : {\mathcal{S}}\equiv I\vert_{\Sigma}\to {\mathfrak{z}}(x)\times {\mathfrak{z}}(y)$$ $$\Phi(h,u)= (h,(1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h)u)$$ is an isomorphism. Moreover, $$\Phi(h,u)= (h, u +P[h,u])$$ and $$\Gamma(h,v):= \Phi^{-1}(h,v) = \left(h,\left(\sum_{k=0}^{{\mathpzc{h}}}(-1)^k\left(P\circ {\textrm{ad} }_h \right)^k\right)(v)\right),$$ where ${\mathpzc{h}}$ is the Coxeter number. Finally, $\Gamma^*\omega_{can}=\omega_{can}$, where $\omega_{can}$ denotes the canonical symplectic form on ${\mathfrak{g}}\times {\mathfrak{g}}$, as well as its restrictions to $I$ and ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)\times{\mathfrak{z}}(y)$.
*Proof:*\
Since $P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h$ is nilpotent for all $h\in {\mathfrak{z}}(x)$, then $1+P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h$ is invertible. Then $\Phi$ is an isomorphism by Theorem \[triv\_formal\_analytic\] applied to Example \[lie\_dgla\]: the series (\[series3\]) is convergent for all $h\in{\mathcal{U}}={\mathfrak{z}}(x)$ and is actually a polynomial of degree at most ${\mathpzc{h}}$. But by Lemma \[induction\] this polynomial equals the one from the statement of the Theorem. The condition $(\pi-1)[\Gamma,\Gamma]=0$ clearly holds, since all elements from the Kostant slice are regular. Finally, the statement about the symplectic form holds by Proposition \[triv\_symp\], applied to the dgla under consideration. Indeed, the Killing form is non-zero only on ${\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}\times {\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}$ and ${\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}\times {\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}$, while $P\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h\in{\textrm{End}}_2({\mathfrak{g}})$, so the orthogonality condition from \[triv\_symp\] is satisfied.
Let ${\mathfrak{g}}=A_1={\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ with the standard generators $y=E_{21}$, $2\rho^\vee=E_{11}-E_{22}$, $x=E_{12}$. Then $P(y)=\rho^\vee$, $P(h)=-x$ and $\Gamma:{\mathbb{C}}^2\simeq {\mathfrak{z}}(x)\times {\mathfrak{z}}(y)\to {\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}\times{\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ is given by $$\Gamma(h,v)= (y+ \alpha x, \xi y+ \alpha\xi x)= \left(
\begin{pmatrix}
0&\alpha\\ 1&0\\
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
0&\alpha\xi\\
\xi&0\\
\end{pmatrix}
\right), \ \alpha,\xi\in{\mathbb{C}}.$$
The uniformising Higgs bundle {#main_example}
=============================
The Uniformising Higgs bundle {#the-uniformising-higgs-bundle}
-----------------------------
Let us fix a theta-characteristic $K^{1/2}_X$. This is a line bundle $\zeta\in\textrm{Pic}^{g-1}_X$, together with an isomorphism $\zeta^{\otimes 2}\simeq K_X$. It is well-known that such a $\zeta$ always exists: $\zeta$ is a spin-structure and $X$ is spin, since $w_2(X)=0$. There are $2^{2g}$ choices of $\zeta$: the different theta-characteristics form a torsor over the points of order 2 in ${\textrm{Pic}}^0_X$. Consider the $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$-Higgs pair $(\zeta\oplus \zeta^{-1},\theta_0)$, $\theta_0=\left( \begin{array}{rr}
0& 0\\ 1&0\\
\end{array}\right)$, where $1$ is considered as a global section of $\zeta^{-2}\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_X} K_X$. Consider then $\underline{Isom}(\zeta\oplus \zeta^{-1},{\mathcal{O}}^{\oplus 2}_X)$, the $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$-frame bundle of $\zeta\oplus \zeta^{-1}$, and set ${{\bf P}}= \underline{Isom}(\zeta\oplus \zeta^{-1},{\mathcal{O}}^{\oplus 2}_X)\times_{\varrho}G$. Assuming all the Lie-algebraic data from Section \[Lie\] fixed, we equip ${{\bf P}}$ with the Higgs field $\theta= {\textrm{d}}\varrho(\theta_0)$, which can be identified with the matrix $y={\textrm{d}}\varrho(y_0)=\sum_i f_i\in{\mathfrak{g}}$. We shall discuss this identification in more detail in the next subsection.
Specifying a complex structure on $X$ is equivalent to specifying a conformal class of Riemannian metrics. A metric $g$ within that class induces an hermitian metric on all tensor powers $K_X^{\otimes m}$, and more generally, on $\zeta^{\otimes m}= K^{m/2}_X$, $m\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, so we get a reduction of the structure group of ${{\bf P}}$ to $U(1)=\varrho(U(1))\subset G$. If $\nabla$ is the corresponding Chern connection, $F(\nabla)$ its curvature, and $F_1$ the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection, then Hitchin’s equation $$F(\nabla)+[\theta,\theta^\ast]=0$$ reduces to ($\textrm{rk } {\mathfrak{g}}$ copies of) the equation $F_1-4i\omega_X=0$. In other words, the $U(1)$-reduction gives the harmonic metric for $({{\bf P}},\theta)$ if and only if the Gauss curvature $K_g=-4$. This is shown for $G=SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ in [@hitchin_sd]. The extension to other groups is trivial and will be clear from the discussion that follows. It can also be deduced from the functoriality (with respect to $G$) of non-abelian Hodge theory. From the works of Poincaré and Koebe it is known that there is a unique such metric in a given conformal class: it descends from the standard hyperbolic metric on the upper half-plane after identifying the latter (biholomorphically) with the universal cover, $\widetilde{X}$, of $X$. In this sense the harmonic (Hermite-Yang-Mills) metric on $({{\bf P}},\theta)$ “is” the uniformising metric, and we call $({{\bf P}},\theta)$ *the uniformising Higgs bundle*, following Simpson ([@simpson_uniformisation]).
The choice of a Killing form and a compact real form determine an hermitian product on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ (see Section \[Lie\]). The harmonic reduction of ${{\bf P}}$ gives rise to an hermitian inner product on ${\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}$, which is the harmonic metric for the Higgs (vector) bundle $({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}},{\textrm{ad} }\theta)$. We also get $L^2$-inner products on $A^p({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}\otimes K_X)$ for various $p$.
The infinitesimal deformations of the uniformising Higgs bundle (as well as those of any Higgs bundle, [@Biswas-Ramanan]) are computed by the Dolbeault complex $$\xymatrix@1 { {\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}\ar^-{{\textrm{ad} }\ \theta}[r]\ & \ {\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}{\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}}K_X}.$$ Taking its Dolbeault resolution and passing to global sections we obtain the double complex
$$\xymatrix{A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\ar[r]^-{-{\textrm{ad} }\theta} & A^{1,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\\
A^{0,0}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\ar[r]^-{{\textrm{ad} }\theta}\ar[u]^{{\overline{\partial}}} & A^{1,0}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\ar[u]^{{\overline{\partial}}} },$$ whose total complex is $$\label{dolbeault}
\xymatrix@1{ 0\ar[r]&\ A^0({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\ar^-{d_0}[r]&\ A^{1,0}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\oplus A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\ar^-{d_1}[r]&\ A^{1,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\ar[r]&\ 0}$$ with differentials $d_0=\left( \begin{array}{c}
{\textrm{ad} }\theta\\
{\overline{\partial}}_{{{\bf P}}}\\
\end{array}\right)$, $d_1= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
{\overline{\partial}}_{{{\bf P}}}, &- {\textrm{ad} }\ \theta\\
\end{array}\right)$.
The dgla controlling the deformations of $[({{\bf P}},\theta)]\in M_{Dol}(G)$ is the deformation complex (\[dolbeault\]), i.e., $L^\bullet=A^\bullet({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})$, with $d= {\overline{\partial}}_{{\bf P}}+ {\textrm{ad} }\theta$ and the standard bracket. Notice that one can think of $\theta$ either as a twisted section of ${\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}$, or as 1-form with values in ${\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}$, and alternating between the two viewpoints may cause sign changes. The complex (\[dolbeault\]) is a slightly generalised version of Example \[higgs\_dgla\], and it is immediate to see that conditions (\[condition1\]) and (\[condition2\]) from Section \[symplectic\_kur\] are satisfied. The Maurer-Cartan equation is $$\label{MC1}
{\overline{\partial}}_{{{\bf P}}} h + [ \theta + h,v ] = 0,$$ $(h,v)\in A^{1,0}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\oplus A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})$. One sees immediately that if $(h,v)\in{\textrm{MC}}(L^\bullet)$ and $h$ is holomorphic for ${\overline{\partial}}_{{{\bf P}}}$, then $v\in{\mathfrak{z}}(\theta+h)$. This suggests that we can use the results and setup from Sections \[symplectic\_kur\] and \[centralisers\]. For that, we have to identify harmonic representatives of $H^1(L^\bullet)$ and see if condition () from Section \[symplectic\_kur\] is satisfied. First we discuss the structure of ${\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}$ in more detail.
Filtrations, gradings and adjoints
----------------------------------
The homomorphisms between filtered (graded) objects in an abelian category carry a filtration (grading), and hence the principal gradings on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and ${\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}$ induce gradings on their respective endomorphisms. In particular, we have ${\textrm{ad} }\in {\textrm{Hom}}_0({\mathfrak{g}},{\textrm{End}}({{\mathfrak{g}}}))$, i.e., ${\textrm{ad} }\in{\textrm{Hom}}({\mathfrak{g}}_m,\textrm{End}_m({\mathfrak{g}}))$ for all $m$. For the adjoint bundle and its endomorphism bundle we have $${\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}= \bigoplus_{m=-{\mathpzc{h}}}^{\mathpzc{h}}{\textrm{ad} }_m{{\bf P}}= \bigoplus_{m=-{\mathpzc{h}}}^{\mathpzc{h}}{\mathfrak{g}}_m\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}K_X^{\otimes m},$$
$${\underline{End} }({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})= \bigoplus_{m=-{\mathpzc{h}}}^{\mathpzc{h}}{\underline{End} }_m({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}) = \bigoplus_{m=-{\mathpzc{h}}}^{\mathpzc{h}}\textrm{End}_m({\mathfrak{g}}){\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}K^{\otimes m}_X,$$ and *mut.mut.* for ${\mathcal{A}}^{p,q}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^{p,q}({\underline{End} }({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}))$.
Tensoring with powers of $K_X$ we obtain plenty of trivial bundles: for all $m\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $${\textrm{ad} }_m{{\bf P}}{\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}}K_X^{-m}={\mathfrak{g}}_m{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}{\mathcal{O}}_X,$$ $${\underline{End} }_m({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}){\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}}K_X^{-m}= \textrm{End}_m({\mathfrak{g}}){\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}{\mathcal{O}}_X.$$ For every $m\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $K^m\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_X} K^{-m}$ has a canonical section $1_m$, namely, the image of $1\in {\mathbb{C}}= H^0(X,{\mathcal{O}}_X)$ under ${\mathcal{O}}_X\simeq K^m\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_X} K^{-m}$ and we have a commutative diagramme
$$\scalebox{0.95}{
\xymatrix{
{\mathfrak{g}}_{m}\ar[r]^-{\otimes 1_m}\ar[d]^-{\textrm{ad}}&\Gamma(X,{\textrm{ad} }_m{{\bf P}}\otimes K_X^{-m})\ar[d]^-{\textrm{ad}}\ar[dr]& \\
\textrm{End}_m{\mathfrak{g}}\ar[r]^-{\otimes 1_m}&\Gamma(X, {\underline{End} }_m({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\otimes K_X^{-m})\ar[r]^-{{\iota}}&{\textrm{Hom}}_{C^\infty} (A^\bullet({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}),A^\bullet({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}\otimes K_X^{-m})) . }}$$ In particular, for every $m\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ there are inclusions $${\mathfrak{g}}_m{\hookrightarrow}{\textrm{End}}_m {\mathfrak{g}}{\hookrightarrow}\Gamma({\underline{End} }_m({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\otimes K_X^{-m}){\hookrightarrow}{\textrm{Hom}}_{C^\infty} (A^{\bullet}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}),A^{\bullet}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}\otimes K_X^{-m})),$$ $${\mathfrak{g}}_m\ni \lambda\mapsto {\iota}({\textrm{ad} }_\lambda{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1_m)\in {\textrm{Hom}}_{C^\infty} (A^{\bullet}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}),A^{\bullet}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}\otimes K_X^{-m})) .$$ For readability, we may occasionally suppress ${\iota}$ or the subscript $m$ in $1_m$.
We get similar inclusions if we fix a Kähler metric $h\in A^{0,1}(K_X)$ with Kähler form $\omega_X\in A_X^{1,1}$: $$\xymatrix@1{ {\mathfrak{g}}_m\ar[r]^-{\otimes \omega_m} & A_X^{1,1}({\textrm{ad} }_m{{\bf P}}\otimes K_X^{-m}) }$$ and $$\xymatrix@1{ {\mathfrak{g}}_m\ar[r]^-{\otimes h _m} & A_X^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }_m{{\bf P}}\otimes K_X^{-m+1}) }.$$
The natural isomorphism ${\mathcal{A}}^0 = {\mathcal{A}}^{1,0}(K^{-1}_X)$ gives rise to a “shift isomorphism” $s: A^{\bullet,\bullet}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}{\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}}K_X^{-m})\simeq A^{\bullet+1,\bullet}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}{\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}}K_X^{-m-1}) $. Again, we are going to suppress $s$ occasionally, but one should keep in mind that for $S\in {\textrm{End}}_{-1}{\mathfrak{g}}$, ${\overline{\partial}}(s{\iota}S) + (s{\iota}S){\overline{\partial}}=0$, in particular, ${\overline{\partial}}$ *anti-commutes* with ${\textrm{ad} }_\lambda$. This is a consequence of [@voisin1], Remark 5.11 : the ${\overline{\partial}}$ operators on ${\mathcal{A}}^{p,q}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^{0,q}(K^{\otimes p})$ differ by $(-1)^p$.
We now make some comments on adjoints and Hodge stars in order to clarify conventions.
We are going to denote the hermitian metric on $T_X$ by $h$. In a local chart $(U,z)$ it is given by $h={{\bf h}}dz\otimes {d\overline{z}}$, and the Kähler form is $\omega_X=\frac{i}{2}{{\bf h}}dz\wedge {d\overline{z}}$. The Riemannian metric $g$ on $T_{X,{\mathbb{R}}}$ can be extended *sesqui-linearly* to an hermitian pairing $g_{\overline{{\mathbb{C}}}}$ on $T_{X,{\mathbb{C}}}$, which can then be restricted to $T_X^{1,0}$. Similarly for $T_{X,{\mathbb{C}}}^\vee$ and its exterior powers. The pairing on $T_{X,{\mathbb{C}}}^\vee$ equals *half* of the direct sum of hermitian metrics on ${\mathcal{A}}^{1,0}\oplus {\mathcal{A}}^{0,1}$: see for example, [@voisin1], Lemma 5.6 or [@huybrechts_cg], Lemma 1.2.17. The Riemannian metric $g$ induces a dual metric, $g^\vee$ on $T_{X,{\mathbb{R}}}^\vee$, and, consequently, hermitian metrics $\widetilde{h}$ (on $K_X$) and $(g^\vee)_{\overline{{\mathbb{C}}}}$ (on $T^\vee_{X,{\mathbb{C}}}$). One can check easily that $(g^\vee)_{\overline{{\mathbb{C}}}}=(g_{\overline{{\mathbb{C}}}})^\vee$. However, $\widetilde{h}= 4h^\vee$, where $h^\vee={{\bf h}}^{-1}\partial_z\otimes\partial_{{\overline{z}}}$ is the dual metric to $h$.
We are going to use the convention that the Hodge star is *anti-linear*, $\ast: A^{p,q}\to A^{1-p,1-q}$, satisfying $\beta\wedge\ast\alpha= g(\beta,\alpha)_{\overline{{\mathbb{C}}}\ } \omega_X$. On $1$-forms $\ast$ coincides with conjugation up to $\pm i$: we have $\ast\alpha = i\overline{\alpha}$ for $\alpha\in A^{1,0}$. An hermitian bundle, $E$, comes with an anti-linear isomorphism $\# :E\simeq E^\vee$, $e\mapsto \langle\ ,e \rangle$, where $\langle\ ,\rangle$ is the hermitian metric. Notice that for $\alpha\in \Gamma_U (T^\vee_{X,{\mathbb{C}}})$, $\#\alpha = -\frac{\ast \alpha\wedge}{\omega_X}$. We extend $\ast$ by $\#$ and define $\ast: A^{p,q}(E)\to A^{1-p,1-q}(E^\vee)$ by $\ast(\alpha\otimes e)= \ast\alpha\otimes e^{\#}$.
Let $L$ and $M$ be hermitian line bundles on $X$, $U\subset X$ a trivialising analytic open set, and $\lambda\in H^{0}(U,L)\simeq {\textrm{Hom}}_U(M, M\otimes L)$ a nowhere vanishing section. Then it is immediate to check that $$\lambda^\ast = \|\lambda\|^2 \lambda^\vee =\#\lambda.$$ Here $\lambda^\ast\in A^0({\textrm{\underline{Hom}}}(L\otimes M, M))$ is the hermitian adjoint of $\lambda$ and $\lambda^\vee=\lambda^{-1}\in {\textrm{Hom}}_U(L\otimes M,M)$ is the unique section pairing to $1$ with $\lambda$. In particular, for a (nonvanishing) section $\lambda\in H^{0}(U,K_X)$ we have $\#\lambda=\frac{1}{2}\lambda^\ast$
Let $^\ast$ be a real structure on a vector bundle $E$ (compatible with the hermitian structure). We extend $^\ast$ to $A^{p,q}(E)$ by *complex conjugation*: $(\alpha\otimes v)^\ast= \overline{\alpha}\otimes v^\ast$. In particular, if $(U,z)$ is a local chart on $X$ and $\theta=\theta_z dz\in A^{1,0}(U,{\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})$, we have $\theta^\ast= \theta_z^\ast d{\overline{z}}= i\theta_z^\ast \ast dz$. This agrees with the conventions in [@hitchin_sd]; in [@hbls] the same quantity is denoted by $\overline{\theta}$.
As a special case, let us consider $1\in H^0({\mathcal{O}}_X)\subset A^{1,0}({\textrm{\underline{Hom}}}(M,M\otimes K^{-1}_X))$, where $M$ is an arbitrary hermitian line bundle. It is immediate to check that $1^\ast = h = {{\bf h}}dz\otimes {d\overline{z}}\in A^{0,1}({\textrm{\underline{Hom}}}(M\otimes K^{-1}_X,M))$. Here $1^\ast$ means, naturally, $(s(1))^\ast= (1_1)^\ast$. More generally, given $\lambda\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{-1}$, $\lambda\otimes 1 = s(\lambda{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1_{-1})\in A^{1,0}(X,{\textrm{ad} }_{-1}{{\bf P}})$ and we have $(\lambda\otimes 1)^\ast = \lambda^\ast\otimes h\in A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }_1{{\bf P}})$. Similarly $ ({\textrm{ad} }_\lambda \otimes 1 )^\ast= ({\textrm{ad} }_{\lambda^*}\otimes h)\in A^{0,1}({\underline{End} }_1{\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})$. If we have two elements $\mu,\lambda\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{-1}$, then $[\mu\otimes 1,(\lambda\otimes 1)^\ast]=-2i[\mu,\lambda^\ast]{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}\omega_X$.
Finally, we can consider ${\textrm{ad} }_\lambda{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1$ as an operator acting on $A^\bullet({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})$, in which case its adjoint then is $\frac{1}{2}{\textrm{ad} }_{\lambda^\ast}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1$. More pedantically, $\left( {\iota}s\ {\textrm{ad} }_\lambda{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1_{-1} \right)^\ast = \frac{1}{2}{\iota}{\textrm{ad} }_{\lambda^\ast}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1_{1}$.
Harmonic Representatives of cohomology {#harmonic_reps_coho}
--------------------------------------
Now we return to the Dolbeault complex (\[dolbeault\]). We have $$\label{dolbeault_triv}
\scalebox{0.85}{
\xymatrix@1{ 0\ar[r]&\ \bigoplus_mA^0({\textrm{ad} }_m{{\bf P}})\ar^-{d_0}[r]&\ \bigoplus_m A^{1,0}({\textrm{ad} }_m{{\bf P}})\oplus A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }_m{{\bf P}})\ar^-{d_1}[r]&\ \bigoplus_mA^{1,1}({\textrm{ad} }_m{{\bf P}})\ar[r]&\ 0},}$$ with differentials $d_0=\left( \begin{array}{c}
{\textrm{ad} }_y\otimes 1\\
{\overline{\partial}}\\
\end{array}\right)$ and $d_1= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
{\overline{\partial}}, & {\textrm{ad} }_y\otimes 1\\
\end{array}\right)$. For legibility, we have suppressed the obvious part of the nomenclature: ${\textrm{ad} }_y\otimes 1$ stands for ${\iota}{\textrm{ad} }\theta= {\iota}s\ {\textrm{ad} }_y\otimes 1_{-1}$ and the Dolbeault operator ${\overline{\partial}}$ is $\oplus_m {\overline{\partial}}_{K^m}$, the direct sum of the Dolbeault operators on ${\textrm{ad} }_m{{\bf P}}={\mathfrak{g}}_m{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}K^{\otimes m}_X$.
\[H1\] Let ${\mathfrak{g}}=\textrm{Lie}(G)$ be a simple complex Lie algebra, equipped with $\{x,2\rho^\vee,y\}$ as in Section \[Lie\], so ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)\simeq \oplus_i {\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}$ and ${\mathfrak{z}}(y)=\oplus_i {\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}$, where ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\pm m_i,i}={\mathfrak{g}}_{\pm m_i}\cap W_i$. Let $({{\bf P}},\theta)$ be the uniformising $G$-Higgs bundle, equipped with the Hermite-Yang-Mills metric and let $L^\bullet$ be the Dolbeault complex (\[dolbeault\_triv\]). Then $$H^1(L^\bullet)\simeq {\mathcal{H}}^1(L^\bullet) \subset A^{1,0}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\oplus A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}),$$ where $${\mathcal{H}}^1(L^\bullet)= \oplus_i{\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}{\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}( K_X^{m_i})\bigoplus \oplus_i{\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}{\mathcal{H}}^{0,1}( K^{-m_i}_X).$$ Hence $${\mathcal{H}}^1(L^\bullet)\simeq {\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}({\mathfrak{z}}(x)_{{\bf P}})\oplus {\mathcal{H}}^{0,1}({\mathfrak{z}}(y)_{{\bf P}})\simeq {\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\oplus {\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee,$$ where ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}=H^0(X,{\mathfrak{t}}\otimes K_X/W)$ denotes the Hitchin base.
The vector bundles ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)_{{\bf P}}$ and ${\mathfrak{z}}(y)_{{\bf P}}$ are (the obvious) twists of the centralisers ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)$ and ${\mathfrak{z}}(y)$ by ${{\bf P}}$: ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)_{{\bf P}}= \oplus {\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}K_X^{m_i}$ and ${\mathfrak{z}}(y)_{{\bf P}}= \oplus {\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}K_X^{-m_i}$. Since $K_X^{m}$ are hermitian, we can talk about harmonic represenatives of their cohomology, hence the notation. Explicitly, ${\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}({\mathfrak{z}}(x)_{{\bf P}})= \oplus_i {\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}{\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}(X,K_X^{m_i})$ and ${\mathcal{H}}^{0,1}({\mathfrak{z}}(y)_{{\bf P}})= \oplus_i {\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}{\mathcal{H}}^{0,1}(X,K_X^{-m_i})$. Recall that $\dim {\mathfrak{g}}_{\pm m_i,i}=1$. We are assuming a fixed basis for the $G$-invariant polynomials on ${\mathfrak{g}}$, which fixes, by duality, bases for the spaces ${\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}$, as discussed in Section \[Lie\]. These give rise to bases of ${\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}$: either by taking hermitian conjugates or by applying ${\textrm{ad} }_y^{2m_i}$ (the two choices differ by a combinatorial coefficient). The identification ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\simeq H^0(X,\bigoplus_i K_X^{m_i+1})$ depends on the choice of invariants polynomials. The identification ${\mathcal{H}}^1(L^\bullet)\simeq {\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}({\mathfrak{z}}(x)_{{\bf P}})\oplus {\mathcal{H}}^{0,1}({\mathfrak{z}}(y)_{{\bf P}})$ depends on the choice of basis for ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\pm m_i,i}$ and uses the hermitian metric.
*Proof:*\
For the purposes of the proof, let us denote the summands in the decomposition $${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathfrak{z}}(x)\oplus \left( \textrm{Im}({\textrm{ad} }_x)\cap \textrm{Im}({\textrm{ad} }_y)\right) \oplus{\mathfrak{z}}(y)$$ by subscripts $x$, $o$ and $y$, so ${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathfrak{g}}_{x}\oplus {\mathfrak{g}}_{o}\oplus {\mathfrak{g}}_y$. Use combinations of subscripts to denote projections on pairs of summands. If $\sigma=(\sigma',\sigma'')^T\in \ker d_1\subset A^1({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})$, then $$\sigma= d_0(P\otimes 1 (\sigma '_{oy})) + (\sigma '_x,0)^T + (0,\sigma_{y}'')^T, \ {\overline{\partial}}\sigma '_x=0.$$ The first summand is a coboundary and the second term is never a coboundary, as ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)\simeq {\textrm{coker}}(ad_y)$. The last summand, however, can contain a ${\overline{\partial}}$-exact term. By the Hodge decomposition on $A^p(X,K^m_X)$, we can write $\sigma''_{y}\in A^{0,1} ({\mathfrak{z}}(y)_{{\bf P}})$ as $\sigma''_{y}= {\overline{\partial}}\left({\overline{\partial}}^*{{\bf G}}\sigma''_{y}\right) + {{\bf H}}(\sigma''_{y})$, where ${{\bf G}}$ is Green’s operator. Thus altogether $$\sigma= (\sigma',\sigma'')^T = d_0\left(P{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1 (\sigma'_{oy}) + {\overline{\partial}}^*{{\bf G}}\sigma''_{y} \right) + (\sigma'_x,{{\bf H}}\sigma_{y}'')^T,$$ ${\overline{\partial}}\sigma'_x=0$, and we obtain $$\ker d_1 =\textrm{Im}d_0 \bigoplus \oplus_i{\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}{\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}( K_X^{m_i-1})\bigoplus \oplus_i{\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}{\mathcal{H}}^{0,1}( K^{-m_i+1}_X).$$ The second and third direct summands are hence isomorphic to $H^1(L^\bullet)$, and are identified (via shifts) with ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\oplus{\mathcal{B}}^\vee_{\mathfrak{g}}$. In the next proposition we show that these are actually the harmonic representatives for $H^1(L^\bullet)$. Explicitly, the isomorphism $H^1(L^\bullet) \simeq {\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}(\oplus_i K_X^{m_i})\oplus {\mathcal{H}}^{0,1}(\oplus_i K^{-m_i}_X)$ is given by $$[\sigma]=[(\sigma',\sigma'')]\mapsto (\sigma'_x,{{\bf H}}\sigma_{y}'').$$
Using the explicit knowledge of the differentials of $L^\bullet$, one can check easily that $H^2(L^\bullet)=0=H^0(L^\bullet)$. Moreover, $\textrm{Aut}({{\bf P}},\theta)=Z(G)$, i.e., the pair has no “extra” automorphisms (it is regularly stable). This can be deduced for instance from Proposition 3.1.5 (ii), [@bei-drin] and the non-abelian Hodge theorem ([@hbls]). Hence $[({{\bf P}},\theta)]$ corresponds to a smooth point of $M_{Dol}(G)$. Of course, this is already contained in [@hitchin_teich] for the case when $G$ is of adjoint type.
\[harmonic\] The vector space ${\mathcal{H}}^1(L^\bullet)={\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}(L^\bullet)\oplus {\mathcal{H}}^{0,1}(L^\bullet)$ is the space of harmonic representatives of $H^1(L^\bullet)$. That is, $${\mathcal{H}}^1(L^\bullet)= \ker d_1\cap \ker d_0^\ast\simeq H^1(L^\bullet).$$
*Proof:*\
We have $$d_0^* =\left({\textrm{ad} }^\ast_{\theta},{\overline{\partial}}^* \right) = \left(2\ s^{-1} {\textrm{ad} }_x{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1,{\overline{\partial}}^* \right):A^{1,0}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\oplus A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\to A^0({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}),$$ and $\sigma\in \ker d_0^*$ implies $$\sigma=(\sigma',\sigma'')^T = (\sigma'_x,0)^T+ (0,\sigma''_{y})^T + \left(-\frac{1}{2}(Q{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1)({\overline{\partial}}^*\sigma''_{xo}),\sigma''_{xo} \right)^T,\ {\overline{\partial}}^*\sigma''_{y}=0.$$ Applying the Hodge decompositions $A^{0,1}(K^{-m_i+1}_X)=\textrm{Im}{\overline{\partial}}\oplus{\mathcal{H}}^{0,1}(K^{-m_i+1})$ and $A^{1,0}(K^{m_i+1}_X)= {\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}\oplus \textrm{Im}{\overline{\partial}}^\ast$ to $\sigma_y''$ and $\sigma'_x$, respectively, we get $$\ker d_0^\ast =\textrm{Im}d_1^\ast \bigoplus \oplus_i{\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}{\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}( K_X^{m_i})\bigoplus \oplus_i{\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}{\mathcal{H}}^{0,1}( K^{-m_i}_X),$$ and the result follows.
For the proofs of Theorem \[H1\] and Proposition \[harmonic\] it is not essential that the principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ is related in a specific way to some fixed Chevalley generators, but it is essential that principal subalgebra is real, the compact anti-involution maps ${\mathfrak{g}}_k$ to ${\mathfrak{g}}_{-k}$, and the different $W_i$’s are mutually orthogonal.
The induced complex symplectic form on $${\mathcal{H}}^1(L^\bullet) \subset A^{1,0}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\oplus A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})$$ is the canonical symplectic form on ${\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}({\mathfrak{z}}(x)_{{\bf P}})\oplus {\mathcal{H}}^{0,1}({\mathfrak{z}}(y)_{{\bf P}})$ and agrees, up to Lie-theoretic normalisation factors, with the canonical symplectic form on ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\oplus {\mathcal{B}}^\vee_{\mathfrak{g}}$.
*Proof:*\
This is essentially clear from the construction. The Killing form $\kappa$ places ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)$ and ${\mathfrak{z}}(y)$ in duality. Next, the complex symplectic form on $H^1(L^\bullet)$ is induced by the (weak) duality pairing $$\left( A^{1,0}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\oplus A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\right)^{\times 2}\to A^{1,1}\to {\mathbb{C}},$$ $$((u,\alpha),(v,\beta))\mapsto \int_X \kappa(u\wedge\beta)) - \kappa(v\wedge\alpha).$$ Evaluating it on pairs of harmonic representatives of $H^0(K^{m_i+1})$ and $H^1(T^{m_i}_X)$, say, $ (u_i,\alpha_i)$, $(v_i, \beta_i)$, we get an expression of the form $\sum_i \kappa(e_{m_i},e_{-m_i})(\beta_i(u_i)- \alpha_i(v_i))$, where $e_{m_i}$ and $e_{-m_i}$ are bases of the 1-dimensional vector spaces ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\pm m_i,i}$. If they are dual bases, then the pairing will coincide with the canoncial symplectic form on ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\oplus {\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee$, otherwise there will be extra coefficients $\kappa(e_{m_i},e_{-m_i})$.
The Symplectic Kuranishi slice
------------------------------
Now we apply the results from the previous sections to the deformation theory of the uniformising Higgs bundle.
\[exponential\] Keep the notation and assumptions from the previous sections. Consider the holomorphic family of Higgs bundles $$\Gamma: {\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\times{\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee \longrightarrow A^{1,0}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\oplus A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}),$$ $$\Gamma(h,v)= \left(h,\Phi_h^{-1}(v)\right) = \left(h, \sum_{k=0}^{{\mathpzc{h}}}(-1)^k\left((s^{-1}P{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1)\circ ad_{h} \right)^k(v) \right),$$ where $$(h,v)\in \oplus_i{\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}{\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}( K_X^{m_i})\bigoplus \oplus_i{\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}{\mathcal{H}}^{0,1}( K^{-m_i}_X)\simeq {\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\times{\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee$$ and $$\Phi_h= 1+s^{-1}(P{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1){\textrm{ad} }_h\in {\textrm{End}}(A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})).$$ The family $\Gamma$ is a miniversal deformation of the uniformising Higgs bundle $({{\bf P}},\theta)$. There exists an open neighbourhood ${\mathcal{U}}\subset{\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\times{\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee$ containing $0$, for which $\Gamma\vert_{{\mathcal{U}}}$ is a universal deformation. Moreover, $\Gamma^\ast\omega_{can}= \omega_{can}$.
Clearly, we also have a formal version of $\Gamma$, i.e., a functor of Artin rings $\underline{\Gamma}: \underline{{\mathcal{B}}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\times\underline{{\mathcal{B}}}^\vee_{\mathfrak{g}}\to {\textrm{Def}}_L$, given by the same formula as above. As everywhere above, ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}$ should be understood in terms of harmonic representatives.
*Proof:*\
From subsection \[harmonic\_reps\_coho\] we know that the dgla $L^\bullet$ satisfies conditions $(1)$,$(2)$ and $(3)$ from Section \[symplectic\_kur\], and that $H^2(L^\bullet)=0=L^3$. In the notation of Section \[symplectic\_kur\], $d_1'=ad\theta$, and we have a splitting, $s^{-1}P{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1$. By Lemma \[induction\], the geometric series for $\Phi_h^{-1}$ reduces to the given formula, i.e., $\pi$ drops out of the expressions. The condition $(\pi-1)[\Gamma,\Gamma]=0$ holds (essentially) for the same reasons as in Section \[centralisers\]: since $h$ (resp. $v$) is a highest (resp. lowest) weight vector, none of the sections from $[\Gamma,\Gamma]$ will be contained in $A^{1,1}({\mathfrak{z}}(y)_{{{\bf P}}})$. The Kodaira-Spencer map of this family is the identity, so, by [@fukaya_def], Theorem 1.3.3. this is a miniversal family. Since $({{\bf P}},\theta)$ is regularly stable, we obtain a universal family by restricting the domain of $\Gamma$.
Finally, the statement that $\omega_{can}$ pulls back to $\omega_{can}$ follows from Theorem \[triv\_symp\]. The conditions in that theorem are satisfied (essentially) for the same reason as before: the pairing $A^{1,0}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\times A^{0,1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\to {\mathbb{C}}$ is obtained by combining cup product $A^{1,0}(K^{m_i})\times A^{0,1}(K^{-m_i})\to A^{1,1}\to {\mathbb{C}}$ with the Killing form $\kappa:{\mathfrak{g}}\times{\mathfrak{g}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$. But the Killing form is non-zero only on ${\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}\times {\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}$ and ${\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}\times {\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}$, and since $s^{-1}(P\otimes 1) \pi{\textrm{ad} }_h$ has degree 2 (with respect to the principal grading), the orthogonality condition from \[triv\_symp\] is satisfied.
The description of the family from Theorem \[exponential\] is constructive, and one can write $\Gamma$ explicitly once the Lie-algebraic data are fixed. After all, $\Gamma$ is simply a “twisted” version of the analogous formula from Section \[centralisers\] (see the example there.)
We now rephrase the result and draw some easy corollaries.
Denote, as in Section \[symplectic\_kur\], ${\mathcal{S}}={\textrm{MC}}(L)\cap\ker[(1-{{\bf H}}')\pi']$. Then $\Phi=\Gamma^{-1}:{\mathcal{S}}\to {\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\times {\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee$ provides Darboux coordinates on ${\mathcal{S}}$.
Notice, once again, that if we want to consider ${\mathcal{S}}$ with its (somewhat useless) structure of a (germ of a) subvariety of an infinite-dimensional vector space, we should first complete $L^\bullet$ with respect to a suitable (Hölder or Sobolev) norm. However, $\Gamma({\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\times{\mathcal{B}}^\vee_{\mathfrak{g}})\subset A^1({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})$ since $s^{-1}(P{\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}}1)\pi{\textrm{ad} }_h$ is nilpotent. See also Corollary \[nilpotent\_cor\].
In [@hitchin_teich], N.Hitchin constructed a section, ${\mathfrak{s}}:{\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\to M_{Dol}(G)$ as a “global version” of Kostant’s section ${\mathfrak{t}}/W\to {\mathfrak{g}}$. We have identified ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\simeq\oplus_i {\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}(X,K^{m_i}_X)$, and have embedded the latter into $A^{1,0}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})$ via the basis vectors $e_{m_i}$, spanning ${\mathfrak{z}}(x)$. The section then is the holomorphic family of Higgs bundles, whose underlying bundle is ${{\bf P}}$, and which carries the Higgs field $\theta+\sum_i e_{m_i} \alpha_i$, $\alpha_i\in{\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}(X,K^{m_i}_X)$ . In terms of deformation functors, the section is given by ${\mathfrak{s}}:\underline{{\mathcal{B}}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\to A^{1}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\to{\textrm{Def}}_L$, ${\mathfrak{s}}(h)=(h,0)$.
What we give here is a somewhat non-canonical description of the section. To construct the section, one only needs a choice of theta-characteristic, $\zeta$, and a principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$-subalgebra. For a more detailed and geometric treatment, see [@hitchin_teich], [@don-pan], [@ngo].
The restriction of $\Gamma$ to ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\times\{0\}$ is the Hitchin section. If we regard elements of ${\mathcal{B}}^\vee_{\mathfrak{g}}\simeq \oplus {\mathcal{H}}^{0,1}(K^{-m_i}_X)$ as linear Hamiltonian functions on the base, we get that $\Gamma(h,v)=\exp_{X_v}({\mathfrak{s}}(h))$, where $X_v$ is the Hamiltonian vector field, corresponding to $v$.
*Proof:* We have $\Gamma(h,0)= (h,0)={\mathfrak{s}}(h)$ by construction. The rest is immediate from the Theorem.
Because of the above, one may refer to $\Gamma$ as a “holomorphic exponential map”.
We can also look at the image of $\{0\}\times{\mathcal{B}}^\vee_{\mathfrak{g}}$ under $\Gamma$. This is a family of Higgs bundles for which the Higgs field is constant (as a smooth twisted endomorphism), while the holomorphic structure varies in ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee$. For instance, if ${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$, the underlying vector bundles are extensions of $\zeta$ by $\zeta^{-1}$. They all come with a canonical inclusion ${\mathbb{C}}{\hookrightarrow}H^0({\underline{End} }E\otimes K_X)$, and the Higgs field is the image of $1\in{\mathbb{C}}$.
Recall from Section \[centralisers\] that $ I\sslash G\simeq I\vert_{y+{\mathfrak{z}}(x)}= {{\bf s}}^*I$, where $I$ is the tautological family of centralisers and coincides with the set of Maurer-Cartan elements for a certain dgla. There is a “global version” of this statement. More precisely, recall that a “regular Higgs field” is one which is an everywhere regular section of ${\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}\otimes K$, i.e., pointwise it takes values in ${\mathfrak{g}}^{reg}$.
The image of the exponential map consists of all regular Higgs bundles in the connected component of the uniformising Higgs bundle.
*Proof:*\
Since the values of $\Gamma$ are regular by construction, the nontrivial statement is the opposite inclusion. We claim that every Higgs pair with a regular Higgs field is isomorphic to one in the image of $\Gamma$. Suppose $({{\bf Q}},{\varphi})$ is such a Higgs bundle. Then there exists a $C^\infty$-isomorphism ${\textrm{ad} }{{\bf Q}}{\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}}K_X\simeq_{C^\infty}{\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}{\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}}K_X$, and ${\overline{\partial}}_{{\bf Q}}= {\overline{\partial}}_{{\bf P}}+\xi$. Since ${\varphi}$ is regular, it can be conjugated to ${\mathfrak{s}}(\chi({\varphi}))$. This replaces ${\overline{\partial}}_{{\bf Q}}$ by a gauge-equivalent Dolbeault operator, ${\overline{\partial}}_{{\bf P}}+ v$, and the Maurer-Cartan equation states that $v\in{\mathfrak{z}}({\mathfrak{s}}(\chi({\varphi})))$, i.e., $({\mathfrak{s}}(\chi({\varphi})),v)\in{\mathcal{S}}\simeq {\mathcal{H}}^1(L^\bullet)$. Notice that we are not making any claim regarding stability of our bundles.
In unpublished notes ([@teleman_langlands]) C.Teleman proved the same result for $GL(n,{\mathbb{C}})$.
Appendix: Kuranishi Theory {#Kuranishi_Theory}
==========================
In this subsection we recall some relevant facts from formal and analytic Kuranishi theory. Our main references will be [@gm_kur], [@goldman-millson] and [@maurer], and, to a lesser extent, [@fukaya_def] and [@kontsevich_def].
Suppose $L^\bullet$ is a dgla equipped with a *splitting* $\delta$. This is a linear map $\delta \in {\textrm{Hom}}^{-1}(L^\bullet,L^\bullet)$ which satisfies $\delta^2=0$, $d=d\delta d$ and $\delta= \delta d \delta$. Notice that while $d$ is a derivation of the bracket, $\delta$ *a priori* need not be compatible with the bracket in any way. In fact, if $L^\bullet$ admits a splitting which is a derivation, then it is *formal* ([@kosarew], Theorem 4.2.1.). For comparison, any choice of splitting gives an isomorphism between $L^\bullet$ and $H^\bullet(L)$ as $L_\infty$-algebras: see e.g., [@kontsevich_def] or [@fukaya_def].
Specifying a splitting is equivalent to specifying a “Hodge decomposition” $L^\bullet = {\mathcal{B}}^\bullet\oplus {\mathcal{H}}^\bullet \oplus{\mathcal{C}}^\bullet$, where ${\mathcal{B}}^\bullet = {\textrm{Im }}(d)$, ${\mathcal{C}}^\bullet = {\textrm{Im }}(\delta)$, ${\mathcal{H}}^\bullet= \ker d\cap \ker \delta\simeq H^\bullet(L^\bullet)$ and ${\mathcal{H}}^\bullet\oplus{\mathcal{C}}^\bullet =\ker \delta$. The map $\delta$ gives a (co)chain homotopy between ${{\bf H}}=\textrm{pr}_{{\mathcal{H}}}$ and the identity, i.e., $d\delta +\delta d =1-{{\bf H}}$. This can also be written as $\textrm{pr}_{{\mathcal{B}}} + \textrm{pr}_{{\mathcal{H}}} + \textrm{pr}_{{\mathcal{C}}} = 1$ since $d\delta = pr_{{\mathcal{B}}}$ and $\delta d= pr_{{\mathcal{C}}}$. The choice of splitting gives a decomposition of $(L^\bullet,d)$ into a sum of 1-term complexes ${\mathcal{H}}^i[-i]$ and 2-term contractible complexes $\xymatrix@1{{\mathcal{C}}^i\ar[r]^-{d}&{\mathcal{B}}^{i+1}}$.
For a given $\psi\in {\mathcal{B}}^\bullet$, the equation $d{\varphi}=\psi$ has unique solution, ${\varphi}= \delta\psi$ *in* ${\mathcal{C}}[-1]^\bullet$. However, if ${\mathcal{H}}^\bullet\neq (0)$, this equation will have infinitely many solutions in $\ker \delta[-1]=({\mathcal{H}}^\bullet\oplus{\mathcal{C}}^\bullet)[-1]$, since ${\varphi}= {{\bf H}}({\varphi}) +\delta\psi$, and the harmonic part ${{\bf H}}({\varphi})$ can be arbitrary.
One approaches the Maurer-Cartan equation $d{\varphi}= - \frac{1}{2}[{\varphi},{\varphi}]$ in a similar way: we look for all ${\varphi}\in L^1$ such that ${\varphi}= {{\bf H}}({\varphi}) - \frac{1}{2}\delta[{\varphi},{\varphi}]$. They constitute the zero locus of $$M:L^1\to {\mathcal{B}}^1\oplus{\mathcal{C}}^1$$ $$M({\varphi}) = (1-{{\bf H}})\left({\varphi}+\frac{1}{2}\delta[{\varphi},{\varphi}]\right) = (1-{{\bf H}})(F({\varphi})),$$ where $F({\varphi})= {\varphi}+\frac{1}{2}\delta [{\varphi},{\varphi}]$ is the *Kuranishi map* $F:L^1\to L^1$. So $$\label{slice}
\ker\delta ={\mathcal{H}}^1\oplus {\mathcal{C}}^1\supset \left\{{\varphi}:\ {\varphi}= {{\bf H}}({\varphi}) - \frac{1}{2}\delta[{\varphi},{\varphi}] \right\}=M^{-1}(0)= F^{-1}({\mathcal{H}}^1).$$ *A prirori* ${\varphi}\in F^{-1}({\mathcal{H}}^1)$ is *not* a Maurer-Cartan element. There is, however, an obvious necessary condition that Maurer-Cartan elements have to satisfy: $ d{\varphi}= - \frac{1}{2}[{\varphi},{\varphi}] \Rightarrow {{\bf H}}[{\varphi},{\varphi}]=0$. Hence we define $k:L^1\to{\mathcal{H}}^2$ by $k({\varphi})={{\bf H}}[{\varphi},{\varphi}]$ and look at the set $ F^{-1}({\mathcal{H}}^1)\cap k^{-1}(0)$ and at its image under $F$, $K_L := F(F^{-1}({\mathcal{H}}^1)\cap k^{-1}(0))\subset {\mathcal{H}}^1$.
Loosely speaking, if we work formally (or analytically), then (the germ of) $ F^{-1}({\mathcal{H}}^1)\cap k^{-1}(0)$ consists of all Maurer-Cartan elements in (some neighbourhood of zero in) ${\mathcal{H}}^1\oplus{\mathcal{C}}^1$ and provides a semi-universal family of deformations of ${\textrm{Def}}_L({\mathbb{C}})$.
We first make some remarks about the Kuranishi map. Since $\delta(F(x))=\delta(x)$, we have that $F(\ker\delta)\subset \ker\delta$, and, by (\[slice\]), $F^{-1}({\mathcal{H}}^1)\subset \ker\delta$. Next, the “slice” $Y_L:={\mathcal{Q}}_L^{-1}(0)\cap\ker\delta$, consisting of Maurer-Cartan elements in $\ker\delta$, gets mapped to ${\mathcal{H}}^1$ by $F$. Indeed, $y\in Y_L \Rightarrow dF(y)=\frac{1}{2}{{\bf H}}[y,y]\in {\mathcal{B}}^2\cap{\mathcal{H}}^2=(0)$, so $F(Y_L)\subset {\mathcal{H}}^1$. Moreover, $Y_L= F_{\vert Y}^{-1}({\mathcal{H}}^1)\subset M^{-1}(0)\cap k^{-1}(0)$, so $F(Y_L)\subset K_L$. Notice that $F$, considered as a quadratic map between vector spaces (or subsets thereof) need *not* be invertible!
The next diagramme illustrates the different inclusions: $$\xymatrix{Y_L={\textrm{MC}}(L)\cap\ker\delta\ar@{^{(}->}[r]\ar[d]&F^{-1}({\mathcal{H}}^1)\cap k^{-1}(0)\ar@{^{(}->}[r]\ar[d]&F^{-1}({\mathcal{H}}^1)\ar@{^{(}->}[r]\ar[d]&\ker\delta\ar@{^{(}->}[r]\ar[d]&L^1\ar[d]^-{F}\\
F(Y_L)\ar@{^{(}->}[r]&K_L\ar@{^{(}->}[r]&{\mathcal{H}}^1\ar@{^{(}->}[r]&\ker\delta\ar@{^{(}->}[r]&L^1\\
}.$$
In order to say more, we need a topology.
First we turn to the formal setup and define a functor ${\mathbb{Y}}_L= {\textrm{MC}}_L\cap\ker\delta\in{\textrm{FArt}_{\mathbb{C}}}$, $$\mathbb{Y}_L(A)=Y_{L\otimes{\mathfrak{m}}_A} =\left\{ \eta\in \ker \delta\otimes {\mathfrak{m}}_A: d\eta+\frac{1}{2}[\eta,\eta]=0 \right\}.$$
For every element in ${\textrm{MC}}_L(A)$ there is a unique gauge transformation, taking it to ${\mathbb{Y}}_L(A)$, see e.g. [@simpson_eyssidieux], Lemma 2.6. This is a variant of the so-called Uhlenbeck slice (Coulomb gauge). Slice theorems have been widely used in gauge theory since the late 1970’s, most notably by Atiyah–Hitchin–Singer, Taubes and Uhlenbeck and before that by Parker and Mitter–Viallet.
The Kuranishi map gives rise to a functor ${\mathbb{F}}\in {\textrm{Fun}}(\underline{L}^1,\underline{L}^1)$, given by the same formula as before, *mut. mut.* One shows, using artinian induction, that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is an *isomorphism*, see e.g., [@gm_kur], Lemma 3.1 or [@maurer], Lemma 4.2.
The *Kuranishi functor* ${\mathbb{K}}_L\in{\textrm{FArt}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ is defined as the kernel of $k\circ {\mathbb{F}}^{-1}\in{\textrm{Fun}}(\underline{{\mathcal{H}}}^1,\underline{{\mathcal{H}}}^2)$: $${\mathbb{K}}_L(A)= K_{L\otimes{\mathfrak{m}}_A}= \left\{ x : {{\bf H}}([{\mathbb{F}}_A^{-1}(x),{\mathbb{F}}_A^{-1}(x)])=0 \right\} \subset {\mathcal{H}}^1\otimes {\mathfrak{m}}_A .$$
Applying the earlier considerations to $L\otimes{\mathfrak{m}}_A$, we see that ${\mathbb{F}}\in{\textrm{Fun}}({\mathbb{Y}}_L,{\mathbb{K}}_L)$, and it is in fact an isomorphism ([@gm_kur], Section 3 or [@maurer], Proposition 4.6). Then $$\xymatrix@1{{\mathbb{K}}_L\ar[r]^-{{\mathbb{F}}^{-1}}& {\mathbb{Y}}_L \ar[r]& {\textrm{Def}}_L}$$ is shown to be étale: see [@gm_kur], Section 3 or [@maurer], Theorem 4.7 for further details. The functor ${\mathbb{Y}}_L$ is called a *formal miniversal deformation* or *formal Kuranishi space*. The isomorphism class of ${\mathbb{Y}}_L$ is independent of the choice of $\delta$ and quasi-isomorphic dgla’s have isomorphic ${\mathbb{Y}}_L$’s ([@gm_kur]) It is clear that ${\mathbb{Y}}_L$ is pro-representable, i.e., ${\mathbb{Y}}_L= h_R$, for a complete local algebra $R$. An explicit description of $R$ can be obtained by fixing a basis of ${\mathcal{H}}^1$, say $\{\eta_1,\ldots,\eta_d\}$, with dual basis $\{t_1,\ldots,t_d\}$, and then taking $R={\mathbb{C}}\{t_1,\ldots,t_d\}/{\mathcal{I}}$. The ideal ${\mathcal{I}}$ is generated by the components of ${{\bf H}}[\sum_i t_i\eta_i,\sum_j t_j\eta_j]=0$ with respect to some basis of ${\mathcal{H}}^2$. If $L$ is formal, then ${\mathbb{K}}_L$ is the quadratic cone in $\underline{{\mathcal{H}}}^1$ determined by cup product. If $H^2(L)=0$, ${\mathbb{K}}_L=\underline{{\mathcal{H}}}^1$ and $R={\mathbb{C}}\{t_1,\ldots,t_d\}$. If $H^0(L)=0$, then ${\textrm{Def}}_L$ is pro-representable.
If $L^\bullet$ itself carries a topology we can go beyond the formal level and exhibit a germ of a complex space whose local ring completed at the origin prorepresents ${\mathbb{K}}_L$. Suppose $L^\bullet$ is an *analytic dgla* in the sense of [@gm_kur]. This means that $L^\bullet$ is a *normed dgla* (i.e., for all $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$ there is a norm $\| \|_i$ on $L^i$ with respect to which $d$ and $[ , ]$ are continuous) and the completion $\widehat{L}^\bullet$ is equipped with a continuous splitting, $\delta$. In the case of “usual” Hodge theory, the norms are the Sobolev norms and $\delta = {\overline{\partial}}^\ast {{\bf G}}$, where ${{\bf G}}$ is Green’s operator. In the case of deformations of a complex manifold or deformations of a holomorphic vector bundle the norms are Hölder norms. The splitting $\delta$ has to be compatible with the inclusion $L^\bullet\subset \widehat{L}^\bullet$, which means two things. First, we assume that ${\mathcal{H}}= \ker d\cap \ker\delta\subset L\subset \widehat{L}$. And second, we assume that the three projections preserve $L^\bullet\subset\widehat{L}^\bullet$ and $\textrm{pr}_{{\mathcal{B}}}L=d(L[-1])$. Such a $\delta$ induces a splitting of $L^\bullet$ as well.
Then, by the implicit function theorem for Banach spaces $F: \widehat{L}^1\to \widehat{L}^1$ is an analytic isomorphism between open balls around the origin: we have ${\textrm{d}}F_\xi = 1 + \delta{\textrm{ad} }_\xi$, and ${\textrm{d}}F_0=1$ (see [@gm_kur], Lemma 2.2). We can introduce now the analytic versions of all of the above functors. First set $${\mathcal{Y}}= Y_{\widehat{L}} =\left\{ \eta: \delta \eta=0, d\eta+\frac{1}{2}[\eta,\eta]=0 \right\} \subset {\mathcal{H}}^1\oplus \widehat{{\mathcal{C}}}^1.$$ Notice that ${\mathcal{Y}}$ is an algebraic subset of the (possibly) infinite-dimensional vector space $\ker\delta ={\mathcal{H}}^1\oplus \widehat{{\mathcal{C}}}^1$. Next, let $${\mathcal{K}}= K_{\widehat{L}} = \left\{ x \in {\mathcal{H}}^1 : {{\bf H}}([F^{-1}(x),F^{-1}(x)])=0\right\}\subset {\mathcal{H}}^1.$$ The previous discussion, applied to $\widehat{L}$, gives $F({\mathcal{Y}})\subset {\mathcal{K}}$.
The generalised Kuranishi’s theorem ([@gm_kur], Theorem 2.3) states that the Kuranishi map induces an analytic isomorphism of germs $F: ({\mathcal{Y}},0)\simeq ({\mathcal{K}},0)$, and hence the functors ${\mathbb{K}}_L$ and ${\mathbb{Y}}_L$ are prorepresented by $\widehat{{\mathcal{O}}}_{({\mathcal{K}},0)}$. To prove it one must show that for some open ball $B_0 \subset \widehat{L}^1$ we have $F^{-1}({\mathcal{K}}\cap B_0) = B_0'\cap F^{-1}({\mathcal{H}}^1)\cap k^{-1}(0)\subset {\mathcal{Y}}$. Indeed, if $F(\xi)\in {\mathcal{H}}^1$ and ${{\bf H}}[\xi,\xi]=0$, we get immediately that $\delta F(\xi) =\delta(\xi) 0$. Then $$dF(\xi)= d\xi + \frac{1}{2}d\delta[\xi,\xi] = 0 = \left( d\xi+\frac{1}{2}[\xi,\xi]\right) -\frac{1}{2}\delta d[\xi,\xi].$$ We have to show that the last summand is zero. The fact that $d$ is a derivation, combined with the Jacobi identity shows that $\delta d[\xi,\xi]$ satisfies $$\left(1+\delta {\textrm{ad} }_\xi\right)\delta d[\xi,\xi] =0.$$ But if $\xi$ is small, ${\textrm{d}}F_\xi = 1+\delta {\textrm{ad} }_\xi $ is invertible, so $\delta d[\xi,\xi] =0$.
Finally, we turn to the question of the miniversal family. For simplicity, we discuss only the unobstructed case, i.e, the case when ${\mathcal{K}}={\mathcal{H}}^1$. If we fix a basis of ${\mathcal{H}}^1$, as above, then $\widehat{{\mathcal{O}}}_{({\mathcal{K}},0)} \simeq {\mathbb{C}}\llbracket t_1,\ldots, t_d \rrbracket$. The inverse of the Kuranishi map gives a formal family of deformations of ${\textrm{Def}}_L({\mathbb{C}})$ over $({\mathcal{H}}^1,0)$, $$\Gamma\in L^1\widehat{\otimes} {\mathbb{C}}\llbracket t_1,\ldots, t_d \rrbracket,$$ $$\Gamma = \sum _{k=1} \Gamma_k,\ \Gamma_k := \sum_{ |J|=k}t^J \Gamma_J,$$ $J$ is a multi-index, and $\Gamma_k$ are determined inductively: for $x= \sum_{i}t_i\eta_i\in{\mathcal{H}}^1$, $$\label{series}
\Gamma_1(x) = x,\ \Gamma_2(x) = -\frac{1}{2}\delta [\Gamma_1,\Gamma_1],\ \ldots, \Gamma_k = -\frac{1}{2}\delta\sum_{n=1}^{k-1}[\Gamma_n,\Gamma_{k-n}].$$ This series has been known for a long time (in various contexts and different levels of generality), see e.g., [@kuranishi_complete], [@kodaira_defo], [@stasheff], [@fukaya_def], and can be thought of as a reincarnation of Picard’s method of solving ODE’s by iterations.
In the case of a normed dgla, one shows first that the series converges (in $\widehat{L}$) in a sufficiently small poly-disk around the origin. Next, using elliptic estimates, one proves that the family can be modified so that the convergence takes place in $L$. The prototypical example is the Kodaira-Spencer dgla, and the convergence was proved in [@kodaira_nirenberg_spencer]. In [@itagaki] the author proves the convergence of this series in the case of the Barannikov-Kontsevich construction, which contains our setup as a special case.
Glossary of Notation {#conventions}
====================
${\textrm{Art}_{\mathbb{C}}}$: the category of local Artin ${\mathbb{C}}$-algebras with residue field ${\mathbb{C}}$\
$A$: an Arting ring\
${\mathcal{A}}^{p}$, ${\mathcal{A}}^{p,q}$: sheaves of smooth forms of type $p$ (resp. $(p,q)$)\
$A^{p}=H^0(X,{\mathcal{A}}^p)$, $A^{p,q}=H^0(X,{\mathcal{A}}^{p,q})$: global sections\
${\textrm{ad} }_u=[u,\ ]={\textrm{ad} }u$\
${\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}= {{\bf P}}\times_{{\textrm{ad} }}{\mathfrak{g}}$: the adjoint bundle of ${{\bf P}}$\
${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}= H^0(X,{\mathfrak{t}}\otimes K_X/W)\simeq \oplus_i H^0(X,K_X^{m_i+1})$ the Hitchin base \[hitchin\_base\]\
${\mathcal{B}}^i\subset L^i$ boundaries; used only in Appendix \[Kuranishi\_Theory\]\
$B_\epsilon$: Ball of radius $\epsilon$, Section \[symplectic\_kur\]\
${\mathcal{C}}^i\subset L^i$: a complement to $\ker d_i$, used only in Appendix \[Kuranishi\_Theory\]\
$d$ or $d_i$: differentials of a complex (always increasing the degree)\
${\textrm{d}}$: differential of a map\
${\textrm{Def}}_{L^\bullet}$: the deformation functor of a dgla $L^\bullet$\
$\delta$: splitting of a dgla, Appendix \[Kuranishi\_Theory\]\
$\Delta^+$: positive simple roots, Section \[Lie\]\
$e_i$: “upper nilpotent” Chevalley generators $\{e_i,h_i,f_i\}$\
$e_{m_i}$: basis vectors for the 1-dimensional subspaces ${\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i}$\
${\textrm{End}}$ (resp. ${\underline{End} }$): Endomorphisms (resp. sheaf endomorphisms);\
${\textrm{End}}_m$: $m$-th graded piece of ${\textrm{End}}$\
${\textrm{FArt}_{\mathbb{C}}}$: functors ${\mathcal{F}}: {\textrm{Art}_{\mathbb{C}}}\to {\textrm{Sets}}$ for which ${\mathcal{F}}({\mathbb{C}})=\{\ast\}$\
$f_i$: “lower nilpotent” Chevallety generators $\{e_i,h_i,f_i\}$\
$\Phi$: trivialisation of the symplectic Kuranishi slice\
$G$: simple complex Lie group\
${{\bf G}}$: Green’s operator\
${\mathfrak{g}}=\textrm{Lie }G$: simple Lie algebra\
${\mathfrak{g}}_o=Im({\textrm{ad} }_x)\cap Im({\textrm{ad} }_y)$\
${\mathfrak{g}}_m$: $m$-th graded piece of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ with respect to the principal grading\
${\mathfrak{g}}_{k,i}={\mathfrak{g}}_k\cap W_{m_i}$\
${\mathfrak{g}}_x={\mathfrak{z}}(x)$: the centraliser of $x\in{\mathfrak{g}}$\
$g$: a Riemannian metric on the curve $X$\
$g_{\overline{{\mathbb{C}}}}$: the anti-linear extension of $g$ to $T_{X,{\mathbb{C}}}$\
$g_X$: the genus of the curve $X$\
$\Gamma = \Phi^{-1}$: the (formal) inverse of the trivialisation of the symplectic Kuranishi slice\
$\Gamma$: the global section functor\
${{\bf H}}$ harmonic projection, ${{\bf H}}'$, ${{\bf H}}''$ the two components of ${{\bf H}}$\
${\mathcal{H}}$ harmonic representatives of cohomology\
${\mathfrak{h}}$: one of the elements of a principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$-subalgebra $\{y,{\mathfrak{h}},x\}$\
$\mathpzc{h}$: Coxeter number (largest exponent) of $G$\
$h$: Hermitian metric on $T_X^\vee$\
${{\bf h}}$: the matrix of the Hermitian metric $h$, a positive real-valued function\
$(h,v)\in L'\oplus L''=L^1$ a typical element\
$h_i$: semisimple elements among the Chevalley generators $\{e_i,h_i,f_i \}$\
$I$ bundle of centralisers\
${\iota}: \Gamma({\underline{End} }_m({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}})\otimes K_X^{-m}){\hookrightarrow}{\textrm{Hom}}_{C^\infty} (A^{\bullet}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}),A^{\bullet}({\textrm{ad} }{{\bf P}}\otimes K_X^{-m}))$\
${\iota}', {\iota}''$: the canonical inclusions of $L'$ and $L''$ into $L=L'\oplus L''$, Section \[symplectic\_kur\]\
${{\bf k}}:{\mathfrak{t}}/W\to {\mathfrak{g}}$: Kostant section, Section \[centralisers\]\
${\mathbb{K}}$: formal Kuranishi functor, Appendix \[Kuranishi\_Theory\], Section \[symplectic\_kur\]\
${\mathcal{K}}$: analytic Kuranishi functor\
$K_X$ canonical bundle of $X$\
$\kappa$: Killing form\
$l=\textrm{rk}({\mathfrak{g}})$: the rank of ${\mathfrak{g}}$\
$m_i$: the exponents of ${\mathfrak{g}}$\
$M={\mathcal{Q}}^{-1}(0)$: the vanishing set of the quadric ${\mathcal{Q}}$, Section \[introduction\].\
$M_{Dol}(G)$: the Dolbeault moduli space\
${\mathfrak{m}}_A$: the maximal ideal of $A$\
${\textrm{MC}}(L)={\mathcal{Q}}^{-1}(0)$: Maurer-Cartan elements of a dgla $L$, Section \[prelim\]\
${\textrm{MC}}_L$, the Maurer-Cartan functors of $L$, Section \[prelim\]; ${\textrm{MC}}_L(A)={\textrm{MC}}(L\otimes A)$\
$o$: marked point\
${\mathcal{O}}_X$: the structure sheaf of $X$\
$\{p_1,\ldots, p_l\}$: basis of homogeneous invariant polynomials on ${\mathfrak{g}}$\
$P$: splitting of ${\textrm{ad} }_y$ determined by the choice of principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$\
${{\bf P}}$ the uniformising Higgs bundle, ${{\bf P}}={{\bf F}}\times_{{\textrm{ad} }(\varrho)}G$; also a principal bundle (in general)\
$pr$: the canonical projection ${\textrm{MC}}_L\to {\textrm{Def}}_L$\
$pr^k_n$: the projection ${\mathfrak{g}}_k\to {\mathfrak{g}}_{k,n}$, associated with a choice of ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$-subalgebra, Section \[Lie\]\
$\pi$: a projection $L^2\to {\textrm{Im }}d'$ in a dgla with a splitting as in Section \[symplectic\_kur\].\
$\pi',\pi''$: projections to the two factors $L=L'\oplus L''$ in a dgla with a decomposition as in Section \[symplectic\_kur\].\
$pr_i$: projection onto the $i$-th factor in a Cartesian product\
$Q$: splitting of ${\textrm{ad} }_x$ determined by the choice of principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$\
${\mathcal{Q}}$: a quadric; also the Maurer-Cartan quadric ${\mathcal{Q}}(u)=du +\frac{1}{2}[u,u]$\
$\varrho:SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})\to G$ principal embedding\
$\rho$: Weyl vector, $\rho^\vee$: dual Weyl vector (half the sum of positive coroots)\
${\mathbb{S}}$: formal symplectic Kuranishi slice, Section \[symplectic\_kur\]\
${\mathcal{S}}$: analytic symplectic Kuranishi slice\
$s$: shift, Section \[main\_example\]\
${{\bf s}}: {\mathfrak{z}}(y){\hookrightarrow}{\mathfrak{g}}$: affine-linear map, a variant of Kostant’s section\
${\mathfrak{s}}:{\mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}\to M_{Dol}(G)$ Hitchin’s section\
$\Sigma\subset {\mathfrak{g}}$: Kostant’s slice, Section \[Lie\]\
${\mathfrak{t}}\subset {\mathfrak{g}}$ Cartan subalgebra
$\underline{V}$: the functor $\underline{V}(A)=V\otimes {\mathfrak{m}}_A$, $V$ a vector space\
$\omega_{can}$: the canonical symplectic form on $V\times W$, where $V$ and $W$ are two spaces in (weak) duality\
$\omega$ or $\omega_X$: Kähler form on $X$\
$W$: Weyl group\
$W_i\subset {\mathfrak{g}}$: irredicible representations for the principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$ action on ${\mathfrak{g}}$\
${\mathcal{W}}_\bullet{\mathfrak{g}}$ : Deligne filtration on ${\mathfrak{g}}$, Section \[Lie\]\
$x\in {\mathfrak{g}}$: regular nilpotent, part of a principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$-subalgebra $\{x,h,y\}$\
$X$ smooth projective curve (over ${\mathbb{C}}$) of genus at least two\
$y\in {\mathfrak{g}}$: regular nilpotent, part of a principal ${\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})}$-subalgebra $\{x,h,y\}$, $y=\sum_i f_i$\
${\mathbb{Y}}$: formal Kuranishi slice Appendix \[Kuranishi\_Theory\], Section \[symplectic\_kur\]\
${\mathcal{Y}}$: analytic Kuranishi slice, Appendix \[Kuranishi\_Theory\], Section \[symplectic\_kur\]\
${\mathfrak{z}}$: centraliser\
${\mathfrak{z}}(x)={\mathfrak{g}}_x=\oplus {\mathfrak{g}}_{m_i,i} $\
${\mathfrak{z}}(y)={\mathfrak{g}}_y= \oplus {\mathfrak{g}}_{-m_i,i}$\
$\zeta$: theta-characteristic\
$1_m$: the canonical section of ${\mathcal{O}}_X\simeq K^m_X\otimes K^{-m}_X$
[^1]: If $L$ is infinite-dimensional and is not equipped with topology we do not have a notion of vector bundle, hence the use of inverted commas.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A linearly coupled chain of spin-polarized quantum dots is investigated under the condition that the number of electrons is equal to or less than the number of the dots. The chemical potential of the system, $\mu_{N}=E(N)-E(N-1)$, satisfies, $(\mu_{N}+\mu_{N_{\ell}+2-N)}/2 \approx V+2t$ ($N$, $N_{\ell}$, $V$, $E(N)$ and $t$ are the number of electrons, the number of dots, and the strength of nearest neighbor electron-electron interactions, the total groundstate energy and the hopping integral between two adjacent dots). This property will be reflected in the spacing between the conductance peaks. The electron density structures are determined using a quantum Monte Carlo method. As the number of electrons is varied several correlated structures are found that are commensurate/incommensurate with the periodic dot system. Hartree-Fock theory fails to predict the correct electronic structures of this system because several nearly degenerate solutions exist.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, Korea University, Seoul 136-701, Korea'
- 'Department of Physics, Hanyang University, Kyunggi-do, Ansan 425-791, Korea'
- 'Department of Physics, Korea University, Seoul 136-701, Korea'
author:
- Kicheon Kang
- 'Min-Chul Cha'
- 'S.-R. Eric Yang'
title: Linear Chain of Coupled Quantum Dots
---
[2]{} Recent advances in nano-fabrication techniques have made it possible to make quantum dots [@K; @Kas]. These structures have several similarities to atoms and are called artificial atoms. The physical parameters of these systems may be controlled easily: the electron density can be varied significantly by the substrate voltage $V_{g}$ and the range of electron-electron interactions can be controlled by changing the distance to the metallic layer. When these artificial atoms are coupled structures similar to a molecule may arise. Recently numerous groups have started to investigate whether coupled two-dot systems really have molecular properties. Properties of a two-dot system have been studied both experimentally[@Kou; @Wau; @Bli; @Vaa; @Hof] and theoretically[@Mat; @Gol]. When many dots are coupled an artificial one-dimensional crystal may be created. It is possible to couple up to ten or more dots together since the size of the total system can be made smaller than the phase coherence length. Such a system has energy bands separated by energy gaps, and transport properties of such a periodic crystal have been investigated experimentally [@Kou2].
When the length of such a periodic crystal is infinite the system exhibts many intriguing properties. Depending of the values of the physical parameters the system can have properties of a Luttinger liquid or a generalized Wigner crystal [@yang]. It is unclear whether these properties remain in a finite system of coupled dots. The purpose of this paper is to examine general properties of a linear chain of spin-polarized dots under the condition $N\leq N_{\ell}$. We find the following properties. The chemical potential of the system satisfies, $(\mu_{N}+\mu_{N_{\ell}+2-N})/2 \approx V+2t$. This property of the chemical potential is reflected in the spacing between the conductance peaks [@SBA]. The electron density structures, determined by a quantum Monte Carlo method, show several types of commensurate/incommensurate structures as the number of electrons is varied. The groundstate electronic properties of these structures cannot be described by mean field theory (Hartree-Fock theory) except for a few isolated cases. The reason for this failure is the existence of many nearly degenerate solutions.
As shown by recent experiments when $N \leq N_{\ell}$ the system can be easily spin-polarized [@Kou2]. The Hamiltonian of such a coupled dots is given by [@com1] $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& H_t +H_V \nonumber \\
&=& -t \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\ell}-1}(c^{+}_{i+1}c_{i}+c^{+}_{i}c_{i+1})+2tN \\
& & +V\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\ell}-1}n_{i}n_{i+1} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The operator $c_{i}(c^{+}_{i})$ destroys (creates) an electron in the $i$-th dot. The term $2tN$ allows to measure single particle energies form zero.
The presence of the end sites at $1$ and $N_{\ell}$ breaks particle-hole symmetry. However, the system can be mapped into a ring of $(N_{\ell}+1)$-coupled dots by imposing the periodic boundary condition $c_{N_{\ell}+2}=c_{1}$ and requiring the electron occupation number at the site $N_{\ell}+1$ to be zero: $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&-t \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\ell}+1}(c^{+}_{i+1}c_{i}+c^{+}_{i}c_{i+1})\nonumber \\
& &+V\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\ell}+1}n_{i}n_{i+1}+w_{N_{\ell}+1}n_{N_{\ell}+1}+2tN.\end{aligned}$$ When the strength of the impurity potential energy, $w_{N_{\ell}+1}$, is large and positive the occupation number at the site $N_{\ell}+1$ will be zero. We rewrite the Hamiltonian using the hole creation and hole occupation number operators $h_{i}^{+}=c_{i}$ and $m_{i}=1-n_{i}$: $$\begin{aligned}
H=H'+(V+2t)(2N-N_{\ell}-1),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H'&=&t \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\ell}+1}(h^{+}_{i+1}h_{i}+h^{+}_{i}h_{i+1})\nonumber \\
& &+V\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\ell}+1}m_{i}m_{i+1}\nonumber \\
& &+w_{N_{\ell}+1}(1-m_{N_{\ell}+1})+2tN_{h}.\end{aligned}$$ The quantity $N_{h}$ is the total number of holes, equal to $N_{\ell}+1-N$. From this transformation we find the relation $$\begin{aligned}
E(N)=E'(N_{\ell}+1-N)+(V+2t)(2N-N_{\ell}-1),\end{aligned}$$ where $E(N)$ is the groundstate energy of $H$ with $N$ electrons, and $E'(N)$ denotes the counterpart of $H'$. For sufficiently large $N_{\ell}$ the impurity contributions to the groundstate energies are negligible in both $H$ and $H'$, and we may set $$\begin{aligned}
E'(N)\approx E(N)\end{aligned}$$ >From this it follows $$\begin{aligned}
(\mu_{N}+\mu_{N_{\ell}+2-N})/2\approx V+2t.\end{aligned}$$ For comparison it should be noted that complete electron-hole symmetry of a ring of $N_{\ell}$ dots leads to $$\begin{aligned}
(\mu_{N}+\mu_{N_{\ell}+1-N})/2=V+2t. \label{eq:ring}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the second subscript in Eq. (\[eq:ring\]) contains 1 instead of 2. In a finite linear chain or in the presence of disorder this relation is not valid because electron-hole symmetry is broken.
We have solved Eq. (1) by a Hartree-Fock method. The ground state is determined by the following equations $$H_{HF} |k\rangle = \epsilon_k |k\rangle$$ Here the Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_{HF}&=&-t\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\ell}-1} (c_i^{\dagger}c_{i+1}+ c_{i+1}^{\dagger}c_i)
+ \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\ell}} X_i c_i^{\dagger}c_i\nonumber\\
& &-V\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\ell}-1}\langle n_{i+1}\rangle \langle n_{i}\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ where $$X_i = V(\langle n_{i+1}\rangle + \langle n_{i-1}\rangle) .$$ The electron density $\{ \langle n_i\rangle \}$ and the Hartree-Fock eigenstates $\{ |k\rangle \}$ should be determined self-consistently. Note that $ \langle n_0\rangle = \langle n_{N_{\ell}+1}\rangle=0$. The total energy of $N$-electron system is given in terms of the Hartree-Fock eigenstates $\{| k\rangle \}$ : $$E(N) = \sum_{k=1}^N \epsilon_k - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k,q=1}^N
\left( \langle kq |H_V| kq\rangle - \langle kq |H_V| qk\rangle \right),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\langle kq |H_V| kq\rangle &=& 2V \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\ell}-1} |a_{i}(k)|^2
|a_{i+1}(q)|^2 , \\
\langle kq |H_V| qk\rangle &=& 2V \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\ell}-1}
a_{i}(k)^{*}a_{i}(q)a_{i+1}(k)^{*}a_{i+1}(q) . \end{aligned}$$ The amplitude of the $k$th eigenstate at site $i$ is $a_{i}(k)$.
Fig. 1 displays the lowest HF solutions for an odd value of $N_{\ell}=7$. Since they have nearly degenerate energies we must include quantum fluctuations to find the true groundstate. Fig. 2 displays the density profiles obtained using a quantum Monte Carlo method [@Hir]. We used typically 500 000 - 1 000 000 Monte Carlo steps to measure the values and the statistical error is about the size of the symobols. Quantum Monte Carlo and HF results differ significantly. The HF theory overestimates the repulsive interactions, and consequently favors structures with more oscillations. A commensurate structure is found at $N=4$. Generally, when $N_{\ell}$ is odd a commensurate state exists for $N=(N_{\ell}+1)/2$. This type of states have interesting optical properties [@yang]. Quantum Monte Carlo results show that the number of peaks is equal to $N$ when $N\leq N_{\ell}/2$. The number of minima is equal to $N_{\ell}-N$ for $N > N_{\ell}/2$.
Fig. 3 displays quantum Monte Carlo density profiles for an even value of $N_{\ell}=14$. In both cases the following structures are present: $(\bullet, \bullet, \circ, \bullet, \bullet, \circ)$, $(\circ, \circ, \bullet, \circ, \bullet, \circ, \circ, \bullet)$ where the symbols $\bullet$ and $\circ$ denote relatively large and small occupation numbers. HF or classical theory fails to predict these structures. Note that when $N_{\ell}/N >1/2$ the occupation number increases as the site index moves away from the center and the values of $n_{i}$ are large at $i=1$ and $N_{\ell}$. This is because the electrons feel strong mutual repulsion. The opposite is true for $N_{\ell}/N <1/2$. Note that, in contrast to infinite systems, the groundstates do not resemble a liquid state even for $V=1$. Generally when $N_{\ell}$ is even a commensurate (periodic) state is absent, since two classically degenerate state exists. Again we note that the number of peaks is $N$ when $N\leq N_{\ell}/2$, and the number of minima is $N_{\ell}-N$ when $N>N_{\ell}/2$.
The inset in Fig. 4 displays $N$ versus $\mu_{N}$ for $N_{\ell}=15$ and $V=4$. The distance between the $(N+1)$-th and $N$-th peaks is equal to $\mu_{N+1}-\mu_{N}$ [@SBA]. The constant charging model would fail to account for these results since the separations between the peaks are not a constant. We have tested the accuracy of Eq. (7) numerically by plotting $(\mu_{N}+\mu_{N_{\ell}+2-N})/2$ as a function of $N$. We see in Fig. 5 that even for small $N_{\ell}$ Eq. (7) is well satisfied.
Kouwenhoven [*et al.*]{}[@Kou2] have shown that their experimental data are better described by assuming presence of some disorder. We have also carried out a similar calculation in the presence of an impurity, and find that our result is in qualitative agreement with that of Kouwenhoven [*et al.*]{}[@com2] It would be interesting to test the validity of Eq. (5) experimentally in a clean coupled-dot system without impurities. Strong correlation effects should be more visible in conductance positions the larger the ratio $V/t$ is. A finite chain of linearly coupled quantums dots is well suited for observing both commensurate/incommensurate electronic structures.
This work has been supported by the KOSEF under grant 961-0207-040-2 and the Ministry of Education under grant BSRI-96-2444. M.C.C. has been supported in part by the Ministry of Education under grant BSRI-96-2448 and by the KOSEF under grant 961-0202-008-2. K.K. was partially supported by KOSEF-POST-DOC program. S.R.E.Y. thanks L. P. Kouwenhoven for sending preprints.
For recent reviews see L. P. Kouwenhoven and P. L. McEuen, in [*Nano-Science and Technology*]{}, editor G. Timp, (to be published); H. van Houten, C. W. Beenakker, and A. A. M. Staring, in [*Single Charge Tunneling*]{}, edited by H. Grabert and M. H. Devoret (Plenum, New York, 1992); D. v. Averin and K.K. Likharev, in [*Mesoscopic Phenomena in Solids*]{}, edited by B. L. Altshuker, P.A. Lee, and R. Webb (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1991); U. Merkt, Adv. Solid state Phys. [**30**]{}, 77 (1990), M.A.Kastner, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**64**]{}, 849 (1992); Phys. Today [**46**]{}, No.1, 24 (1993). L. Kouwenhoven, Science [**268**]{}, 1440 (1995). F. R. Waugh, M. J. Berry, D. J. Mar, R. M. Westervelt, K. L. Campman, and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 705 (1995). R. H. Blick, R. J. Haug, J. Weis, D. Pfannkuche, K. v. Klitzing, and K. Ebert, Phys. Rev.B [**53**]{}, 7899 (1996). N. C. van der Vaart, S. F. Godijn, Y. V. Nazarov, C. J. P. M. Harmans, J. E. Mooji, L. W. Molenkamp, and C. T. Foxon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 4702 (1995). F. Hofmann, T. Heinzel, D. A. Wharam, J. P. Kotthaus, G. Böhm,W. Klein, G. Tränkle, and G. Weimann, Phys. Rev.B, [**51**]{}, 13872 (1995). K. A. Matveev, L. I. Glazman, and H. U. Baranger, Phys. Rev.B, [**53**]{}, 1034, (1996). J. M. Golden and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 16757 (1996). L. P. Kouwenhoven, F. W. J. Hekking, B. J. van Wess, and C. J. P. M. Harmans, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 361, (1990). R. J. Haug, J. M. Hong, and K. Y. Lee, Surf. Sci. [**263**]{}, 415 (1992). S.-R. Eric Yang, Phys. Rev. B, to be published (1997), and references therein. U. Sivan, R. Berkovits, Y. Aloni, O. Prus, A. Auerbach, and G. Ben-Yoseph, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 1123 (1996); S.-R. Eric Yang, A. H. MacDonald, and M. D. Johnson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 3194 (1993). When $N \leq N_l$ and in the presence of a strong magnetic field electrons will be spin-polarized so that no dot can contain more than one electron. In this case the system can be described our tight binding Hamiltonian (Eq.(1)), and the effect of the shape of the dot can be included in the hopping parameter $t$. J. E. Hirsch, R. L. Sugar, D. J. Scalapino, and R. Blankenbecler, Phys. Rev. B [**26**]{}, 5033 (1982). Kouwenhoven [*et al.*]{} interpretate their data using a non-interacting model, i.e. their system seems to be in the regime $V/t \leq 1$. In such a case we find, in agreement with them, that the total energies come in pairs of two when an impurity is present.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Hans J. Fahr'
- 'John D. Richardson'
- Daniel Verscharen
bibliography:
- 'electrons\_shocked.bib'
date: 'Received 21 January 2015; accepted 9 May 2015'
title: 'The electron distribution function downstream of the solar-wind termination shock: Where are the hot electrons?'
---
Introduction
============
The majority of the plasma-physics literature on shocks essentially considers general flux-conservation requirements only, leading to the well-known Rankine-Hugoniot relations [e.g., see @serrin59; @hudson70; @baumjohann96; @gombosi98; @diver01]. These relations, however, do not explicitly formulate the internal microphysical processes that generate internal entropy during the conversion from the upstream regime into the downstream plasma. The missing physics in this description evidently leads to the well-known phenomenon that the set of Rankine-Hugoniot relations is a mathematically unclosed system of equations. Therefore, these relations can only provide unequivocal solutions if additional physical relations are added to the system, such as the assumption of an adiabatic reaction of the plasma ions during their compression into the higher-density regime on the downstream side [e.g., @erkaev00].
The solar-wind termination shock is a particular example of a plasma shock for which microphysical effects play an important role. According to recent studies, pick-up ions have a crucial influence on overall shock physics at the solar-wind termination shock. They are a thermodynamically important additional plasma component, since they extract a significant fraction of the upstream kinetic energy in the form of thermal energy at the termination shock [see @decker08]. @zank10 and @fahr07 [@fahr10; @fahr11a] have studied kinetic features of this multicomponent shock transition and found relations between upstream and downstream ion distribution functions that are different for solar-wind protons and pick-up protons. Although these studies discuss the required overadiabatic reaction of pick-up ions, a satisfying explanation of all plasma properties observed by Voyager-2 [@richardson08] is still lacking as demonstrated by @chalov13. The latter authors show that assuming a significant difference in the behavior of solar-wind electrons compared to protons, namely as an independent plasma fluid, leads to an explanation of most of the observed plasma data presented by @richardson08 in a satisfying manner.
To achieve this result in their parameterized study, @chalov13 had to include preferential heating of the solar-wind electrons during the shock passage by a factor of about ten stronger than the proton heating. This type of electron heating at the potential jump of fast-mode shocks had been realized earlier by @leroy84, @tokar86, and @schwartz88, and the phenomenon of shock-heated electrons also appears in plasma-shock simulations when electrons are treated kinetically [see @lembege03; @lembege04]. In these cases, the plasma electrons demagnetize due to two-stream and viscous interactions and attain downstream-to-upstream temperature ratios of 50 and more.
@leroy82 and @goodrich84 follow a different approach. In their treatments, the plasma electrons carry drifts perpendicular to the shock normal ($z$-direction) different from the ion motion as a reaction to the shock-electric field. These drifts establish an electric current $j_{\perp }$ , which is responsible for the change of the surface parallel magnetic field $B_{\parallel }$ in the form $4\pi j_{\perp }/c=\mathrm dB_{\parallel }/\mathrm dz$. To achieve the same consistency, @fahr12 describe the conditions of the upstream and downstream plasma in the bulk frame systems with a frozen-in magnetic field. In this framework, the Liouville-Vlasov theorem describes all relevant downstream plasma quantities as an instantaneous kinetic reaction in the velocity distribution function during the transition from upstream to downstream. The excessive electron heating is then the result of the mass- and charge-specific reactions to the electric shock ramp, as shown in the semikinetic models of the multifluid termination shock by @fahr12 and @fahr13. According to these studies, electrons enter the downstream side as a strongly heated plasma fluid with negligible mass density that dominates the downstream plasma pressure.
In this paper, we demonstrate why the Voyager-1/-2 spacecraft did not detect these theoretically suggested hot electrons [see @richardson08] when they penetrated into the heliosheath plasma. For the purpose of clarification, we analyze the downstream plasma conditions in more detail under which the detection of preferentially heated electrons would have to take place.
Theoretical description of downstream electrons {#sect_theor}
===============================================
In the following section, we shall start from a theoretical description of solar-wind electrons expected downstream of the termination shock [@fahr13]. We treat them as a separate plasma species, which reacts in a very specific manner to the electric-field structure connected with the shock before adapting to the downstream plasma bulk frame. In the shock-at-rest system, the shock electric potential ramp decelerates the upstream protons from the upstream bulk velocity $U_{1}$ to the downstream bulk velocity $U_{2,\mathrm p}$, which is comparable to the center-of-mass flow $U_{2}^{\ast }\simeq U_{2,\mathrm p}(1+s\sqrt{m/M})$, where $s$ is the shock compression ratio and $m,M$ denote the masses of electrons and protons, respectively. The downstream magnetic field is frozen-in into the center-of-mass flow, and all plasma components are eventually comoving with the center-of-mass flow [@chashei13]. The electrons, on the other hand, react in a completely different way to this electric potential. First, they attain a strong “overshoot” velocity $U_{2,\mathrm e}$ which then relaxes rapidly to the center-of-mass bulk velocity $U_{2}^{\ast }$ enforced by the frozen-in magnetic field. During this relaxation process, the plasma generates randomized thermal velocity components through the action of the two-stream instability or the Buneman instability as well as by pitch-angle scattering [see @chashei13; @chashei14; @fahr14].
Under the assumptions of an instantaneous reaction of the electrons to the electric potential and randomization of the overshoot energy by the Buneman instability and pitch-angle scattering to an isotropic distribution in the downstream bulk frame, we obtain [@fahr13; @fahr15] the following expression for the electron pressure $P_{2,\mathrm e}$ on the downstream-side of the shock: $$\label{el_pressure}
P_{2,\mathrm e}=\frac{M}{m}\frac{s^{2}-1}{s}\frac{U_{1}^{2}}{c_{1,\mathrm e}^{2}}\left[A(\alpha
)\sin ^{2}\alpha +B(\alpha )\cos ^{2}\alpha \right]P_{1,\mathrm p}.$$ The indices $\mathrm p$ and $\mathrm e$ denote proton- or electron-relevant quantities, and the indices $1$ and $2$ denote upstream and downstream quantities, respectively. The parameter $U$ denotes the bulk velocity, and $s$ is the shock compression ratio. The parameter $c_{1,\mathrm e}$ is the average electron thermal velocity on the upstream side, where we assume that solar-wind electrons and protons have equal temperatures. We denote the magnetic tilt angle between the shock normal and the upstream magnetic field as $\alpha $. The functions $A(\alpha )$ and $B(\alpha )$ are given in @fahr13. In the limit of vanishing thermal pressures and dominating magnetic pressures, the self-consistent compression ratio $s$ turns out to be $s=1$ [see @fahr13 Eq. 18]. Instead of treating the calculated velocity moment $P_{2,\mathrm e}$ of the distribution function, we focus on the distribution function $f_{2,\mathrm e}$ itself to derive the expected electron particle fluxes $g_{2,\mathrm e}$ as the relevant observable for the Voyager-1/-2 instrumentation. As motivated in @fahr13, we assume that the downstream nonequilibrium distribution function $f_{2,\mathrm e}$ is a general kappa-distribution. This convenient choice represents the transition from a thermal core to a suprathermal tail distribution. The kappa-distribution is given by $$\label{el_distribution}
f_{\mathrm e}(v)=\frac{n_{\mathrm e}}{\pi ^{3/2}\kappa _{\mathrm e}^{3/2}\Theta_{\mathrm e}^3}\frac{\Gamma (\kappa
_{\mathrm e}+1)}{\Gamma (\kappa _{\mathrm e}-1/2)}\left[1+\frac{v^{2}}{\kappa _{\mathrm e}\Theta _{\mathrm e}^{2}}%
\right]^{-\left(\kappa _{\mathrm e}+1\right)},$$ where $n_{\mathrm e}$ is the electron number density, $\Theta _{\mathrm e}$ is the velocity width of the thermal core, and $\kappa _{\mathrm e}$ is the specific electron kappa parameter with a range of $3/2\leq \kappa _{2,\mathrm e,}\leq \infty$. The symbol $\Gamma =\Gamma (x)$ denotes the Gamma function of the argument $x$.
In the next step, we determine the adequate value of $\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}$ for electrons downstream of the shock associated with a pressure given by Eq. (\[el\_pressure\]). For this purpose, we determine the associated pressure $P_{2,\mathrm e,\kappa }$ (i.e., the pressure resulting as the second velocity moment of the above distribution, Eq. (\[el\_distribution\]), see @heerikhuisen08) that is equal to the pressure given by Eq. (\[el\_pressure\]) (i.e., the electron pressure found in the multifluid approach by @fahr13). We obtain the following relation for $P_{2,\mathrm e,\kappa }$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{el_pressure2}
P_{2,\mathrm e,\kappa }(\kappa )=n_{2,\mathrm e}\frac{m}{2}\Theta _{2,\mathrm e}^{2}\frac{\kappa
_{2,\mathrm e}}{\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}-3/2}\\
=\frac{M}{m}\frac{s^{2}-1}{s}\frac{U_{1}^{2}}{c_{1,\mathrm e}^{2}}[A(\alpha )\sin ^{2}\alpha +B(\alpha )\cos ^{2}\alpha %
]P_{1,\mathrm p}.\end{gathered}$$ As shown in @fahr13, we can define the factor $\Pi$ by $$\label{Theta}
\Theta _{2,\mathrm e}^{2}= \Pi \frac{3KT_{1,\mathrm p}}{m}=\Pi \frac{3P_{1,\mathrm p}}{n_{1,\mathrm p}m},$$ where $P_{1,\mathrm p}$ is the upstream solar-wind proton pressure. The factor $\Pi $ describes the change of thermal core velocities from upstream to downstream. We quantify this factor later in Section \[calc\_pi\]. Using an upstream proton temperature of $T_{1,\mathrm p}=2\times 10^{4}\,\mathrm K$ and $\Pi\approx 1$, we obtain an average energy for the thermal core electrons of $\left\langle \epsilon _{\mathrm e,\mathrm c}\right\rangle=(1/2)m\Theta _{2,\mathrm e}^{2}=K T_{1,\mathrm p}=1.72\,\mathrm{eV}$.
From the above relation Eq. (\[el\_pressure2\]), we first obtain: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{el_density}
\frac{n_{2,\mathrm e}}{2}\Pi \frac{3P_{1,\mathrm p}}{n_{1,\mathrm p}}\frac{\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}}{\kappa
_{2,\mathrm e}-3/2}\\
=\frac{M}{m}\frac{s^{2}-1}{s}\frac{U_{1}^{2}}{c_{1,\mathrm e}^{2}}[A(\alpha )\sin ^{2}\alpha +B(\alpha )\cos ^{2}\alpha ]P_{1,\mathrm p},\end{gathered}$$ which further simplifies to $$\label{el_density3}
\frac{\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}}{\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}-3/2}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{1}{\Pi }\frac{M}{m}%
\frac{s^{2}-1}{s^{2}}\frac{U_{1}^{2}}{c_{1,\mathrm e}^{2}}\Lambda(\alpha)$$ in the region behind the shock, where $U_{2,\mathrm e}\approx U_{2,\mathrm p}$, using the short notation $\Lambda(\alpha)\equiv A(\alpha)\sin^2\alpha +B(\alpha)\cos^2\alpha$.
Relating the thermal velocity $c_{1,\mathrm e}$ of the upstream electrons to the thermal velocity $c_{1,\mathrm p}$ of the upstream protons through $T_{1,\mathrm p}=T_{1,\mathrm e}$, we obtain $$\label{el_density4}
\frac{\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}}{\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}-3/2}=\frac{2}{3\Pi }\frac{s^{2}-1}{s^{2}}%
\frac{U_{1}^{2}}{c_{1,p}^{2}}\Lambda(\alpha).$$ We assume that the upstream solar-wind Mach number of the protons (i.e., $\mu _{1,\mathrm p}\equiv U_{1}/c_{1,\mathrm p}$) is of order 8, which then leads to $$\label{el_kappa}
\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\frac{1}{\Pi }\frac{s^{2}-1}{s^{2}}%
8^{2}\Lambda (\alpha )}{\frac{1}{\Pi }\frac{s^{2}-1}{s^{2}}8^{2}\Lambda
(\alpha )-3/2}.$$ The termination-shock compression ratio observed by Voyager-2 is $s\simeq 2.5$ [@richardson08], which leads to $$\label{el_kappa2}
\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{54\Lambda (\alpha )/\Pi }{54\Lambda (\alpha
)/\Pi -3/2}.$$ In the case of a perpendicular shock (i.e., $\alpha \simeq 90^{\circ }$), $\Lambda (\pi /2)=A(\pi /2)=s$ leading to $$\label{el_kappa3}
\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{135/\Pi }{135/\Pi -3/2}.$$ Assuming a value of $\Pi =1$, we obtain the result $\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}=1.517$. This kappa index $\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}$ for the shocked downstream solar-wind electrons characterizes a highly suprathermal electron spectrum with a power-law nearly falling off as $v^{-5}$ as shown in Eq. (\[el\_distribution\]). Consequently, we can write for the resulting distribution function of the downstream electrons, $$\label{el_distribution3}
f_{2,\mathrm e}(v)=\frac{n_{2,\mathrm e}}{\pi ^{3/2}\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}^{3/2}\Theta_{2,\mathrm e}^3}\frac{\Gamma
(\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}+1)}{\Gamma (\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}-1/2)}\left[1+\frac{v^{2}}{\kappa_{2,\mathrm e}\Theta _{2,\mathrm e}^{2}}\right]^{-(\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}+1)}$$ with $\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}\simeq 1.517$.
The distribution function in Eq. (\[el\_distribution3\]) is easily transformed into the spectral electron flux $g_{2,\mathrm e}(v)=4\pi v^{3}f_{2,\mathrm e}(v)$. We normalize velocities as $x=v/\Theta _{2,\mathrm e}$ and find $$\label{g2e}
g_{2,\mathrm e}(x)=\frac{4n_{2,\mathrm e}}{\pi ^{1/2}\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}^{3/2}}\frac{\Gamma
(\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}+1)}{\Gamma (\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}-1/2)}x^{3}\left[1+\frac{x^{2}}{\kappa
_{2,\mathrm e}}\right]^{-(\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}+1)}.$$ In Figure \[figure1\], we show these spectral electron fluxes for different indices $\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}$.
Electric equilibrium potential
==============================
In the following, we calculate the electric equilibrium potential $\Phi $ up to which a spacecraft charges up when entering the heliosheath under the assumption that both electrons and protons have kappa-distributions and that emission processes are negligible in the plasma. @fahr13 show that all ions (solar-wind as well as pick-up ions) treated as one fluid can be characterized as one joint kappa-function with a joint kappa-index $\kappa _{2,\mathrm i}\simeq 2,$ depending on the pick-up ion abundance downstream of the shock [see Figure 2 of @fahr13]. Therefore, we describe electrons with Eq. (\[el\_distribution3\]) and protons with the following distribution downstream of the shock: $$f_{2,\mathrm i}(v)=\frac{n_{2,\mathrm i}}{\pi ^{3/2}\kappa _{2,\mathrm i}^{3/2}\Theta_{2,\mathrm i}^3}\frac{\Gamma
(\kappa _{2,\mathrm i}+1)}{\Gamma (\kappa _{2,\mathrm i}-1/2)}\left[1+\frac{v^{2}}{\kappa
_{2,\mathrm i}\Theta _{2,\mathrm i}^{2}}\right]^{-(\kappa _{2,\mathrm i}+1)}.$$ We assume that quasineutrality prevails outside of perturbed Debye regions, i.e., $n_{2,\mathrm e}=n_{2,\mathrm i}$.
Any metallic body embodied in the heliosheath plasma downstream of the shock charges up to an electric equilibrium potential $\Phi _{2}$ , which guarantees equal fluxes of ions and electrons reaching the metallic surface of this body per unit time (geometry taken to be planar). This behavior leads to the following requirement (after dropping downstream indices “2” for simplification): $$\begin{gathered}
\beta _{\mathrm e}(\Phi )\iiint (v\cos \theta
)f_{\mathrm e}(v)v^{2}\,\mathrm dv\,\mathrm d\phi \sin \theta\,\mathrm d\theta \\
=\beta _{\mathrm i}(\Phi )\iiint (v\cos \theta )f_{\mathrm i}(v)v^{2}\,\mathrm dv\,\mathrm d\phi \sin \theta\,\mathrm d\theta,\end{gathered}$$ where $\beta _{\mathrm e}(\Phi )$ and $\beta _{\mathrm i}(\Phi )$ denote the Boltzmann screening factors for electrons and ions, respectively. These factors describe the fraction of particles that can reach the wall against the electric potential $\Phi$. The assumption of isotropic distribution functions leads to $$\beta _{\mathrm e}(\Phi )\int f_{\mathrm e}(v)v^{3}\,\mathrm dv=\beta _{\mathrm i}(\Phi )\int
f_{\mathrm i}(v)v^{3}\,\mathrm dv.$$ We expect that the resulting equilibrium potential $\Phi$ only affects the lowest-energy part of the distribution functions. Therefore, the Gaussian core of the kappa-distributed particles is the only screened population, leading to $$\frac{\beta _{\mathrm e}(\Phi )}{\beta _{\mathrm i}(\Phi )}=\frac{\exp \left(+2e\Phi /m\Theta
_{\mathrm e}^{2}\right)}{\exp \left(-2e\Phi /M\Theta _{\mathrm i}^{2}\right)}=\frac{\int f_{\mathrm i}(v)v^{3}\,\mathrm dv}{\int f_{\mathrm e}(v)v^{3}\,\mathrm dv},$$ which can be rewritten as $$\exp \left[2e\Phi \left(\frac{1}{m\Theta _{\mathrm e}^{2}}+\frac{1}{M\Theta _{\mathrm i}^{2}}\right)\right]=
\frac{\int f_{\mathrm i}(v)v^{3}\,\mathrm dv}{\int f_{\mathrm e}(v)v^{3}\,\mathrm dv}.$$ We solve the remaining integrals in the above expression with $\Theta_{2,\mathrm i}/\Theta_{2,\mathrm e}\approx m/M$, leading to $$\frac{\int f_{\mathrm i}(v)v^{3}\,\mathrm dv}{\int f_{\mathrm e}(v)v^{3}\,\mathrm dv}=\frac{\Gamma (\kappa
_{\mathrm i}+1)}{\Gamma (\kappa _{\mathrm i}-1/2)}\frac{\Gamma (\kappa _{\mathrm e}-1/2)}{\Gamma
(\kappa _{\mathrm e}+1)}\frac{\sqrt{\kappa_{\mathrm e}m}\left(\kappa_{\mathrm e}-1\right)}{\sqrt{\kappa_{\mathrm i}M}\left(\kappa_{\mathrm i}-1\right)}.$$ We find (with $\Pi=\Theta_{2,\mathrm e}^2/\Theta_{1,\mathrm e}^2\approx 1$) $$\exp \left[\frac{2e\Phi }{mU_{1}^{2}}\left(\frac{U_{1}^{2}}{\Theta _{\mathrm e}^{2}}+\frac{%
mU_{1}^{2}}{M\Theta _{\mathrm i}^{2}}\right)\right]=\exp \left[\frac{2e\Phi }{MU_{1}^{2}}\left(\mu
_{1,\mathrm e}^{2}+\mu _{1,\mathrm i}^{\ast 2}\right)\right],$$ where $\mu _{1,\mathrm e}$ and $\mu _{1,\mathrm i}^{\ast }$ denote the upstream solar-wind electron and pick-up ion Mach numbers. These numbers are given by values of the order $\mu _{1,\mathrm e}\simeq 10$ and $\mu _{1,\mathrm i}^{\ast }\simeq 3$. Therefore, $$\exp \left(\frac{2e\Phi }{MU_{1}^{2}}10^{2}\right)=\frac{\Gamma (\kappa
_{\mathrm i}+1)}{\Gamma (\kappa _{\mathrm i}-1/2)}\frac{\Gamma (\kappa _{\mathrm e}-1/2)}{\Gamma
(\kappa _{\mathrm e}+1)}\frac{\sqrt{\kappa_{\mathrm e}m}\left(\kappa_{\mathrm e}-1\right)}{\sqrt{\kappa_{\mathrm i}M}\left(\kappa_{\mathrm i}-1\right)},$$ which leads to the following potential $$\label{phi}
\Phi =\frac{MU_{1}^{2}}{200e}\ln \left[\frac{\Gamma (\kappa
_{\mathrm i}+1)}{\Gamma (\kappa _{\mathrm i}-1/2)}\frac{\Gamma (\kappa _{\mathrm e}-1/2)}{\Gamma
(\kappa _{\mathrm e}+1)}\frac{\sqrt{\kappa_{\mathrm e}m}\left(\kappa_{\mathrm e}-1\right)}{\sqrt{\kappa_{\mathrm i}M}\left(\kappa_{\mathrm i}-1\right)} \right].$$ As a consistency check, we note that this expression leads to the classical plasma-physics formula for $\Phi =\Phi _{\mathrm c}$ in the limit of Maxwellian distributions (i.e., $\kappa _{\mathrm e}=\kappa_{\mathrm i}\rightarrow \infty $) with identical temperatures $T_{\mathrm i}=T_{\mathrm e}=MU_{1}^{2}/200K$.
In Figure \[figure2\], we show the resulting electric potential $\Phi $ as a function of the prevailing kappa-index $\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}$ of the shock-heated downstream electrons. This profile shows that the expected equilibrium potential drops to values of $\Phi \leq -30\,\mathrm V$ in the range of expected indices $1.5\leq \kappa _{\mathrm e}\leq 2$. This potential does not allow electrons with energies below $30\,\mathrm{eV}$ to reach the detector.
Degenerated Debye length
========================
The degeneration of the Debye length is a direct consequence of highly nonthermal kappa-type distribution functions. The electric screening by plasma-electron distributions with a largely extended power-law tail is significantly less efficient compared to the screening by Maxwellian thermal electrons with temperature $T_{\mathrm e}$. Maxwellian thermal electrons lead to the classical Debye-screening length of $\lambda _{\mathrm D}=\sqrt{KT_{\mathrm e}/4\pi ne^{2}}$. The effect of degenerating Debye lengths has been recognized and emphasized by @treumann04, finding that the resulting Debye length $\lambda_{\mathrm D}^{\kappa }$ may easily increase by factors of $\lambda _{\mathrm D}^{\kappa
}/\lambda _{\mathrm D}\geq 10^{6}$ for low electron kappa-indices of $\kappa _{\mathrm e}\simeq 1.5$. With a more relaxed approach, yet along the lines of these authors’ discussion, we obtain the following very similar conclusions.
For the description of the effective screening of kappa electrons, we simply replace the Maxwellian temperature $T_{\mathrm e}$ by the corresponding electron kappa temperature $T_{\mathrm e}^{\kappa }$, which is given by $$\label{kTkappa}
KT_{\mathrm e}^{\kappa }=\frac{P_{\mathrm e}^{\kappa }}{n_{\mathrm e}}=\frac{m}{2}\Theta_{\mathrm e} ^{2}\frac{%
\kappa _{\mathrm e}}{\kappa _{\mathrm e}-3/2}.$$ Consequently, we find $$\lambda _{\mathrm D}^{\kappa }/\lambda _{\mathrm D}=\sqrt{T_{\mathrm e}^{\kappa }/T_{\mathrm e}}=\sqrt{\frac{m}{2}\Theta_{\mathrm e} ^{2}\frac{\kappa _{\mathrm e}}{\kappa _{\mathrm e}-3/2}/KT_{\mathrm e}}.$$ Assuming that the core of the kappa distribution is identical to the Maxwellian core (i.e., $m\Theta_{\mathrm e} ^{2}=2KT_{\mathrm e}$), we obtain the following result for the effective Debye length: $$\label{lambdakappa}
\lambda _{\mathrm D}^{\kappa }=\lambda _{\mathrm D}\sqrt{\frac{\kappa _{\mathrm e}}{\kappa _{\mathrm e}-3/2}}.$$
This modified Debye length has an interesting effect on the propagation of plasma waves. The general dispersion relation for electron-acoustic plasma waves [e.g., see @chen74 Eq. (4-48)] is given by $$\frac{\omega }{k}=\sqrt{\frac{KT_{\mathrm e}^{\kappa }}{M}\frac{1}{1+\left(k\lambda
_{\mathrm D}^{\kappa }\right)^{2}}+\frac{KT_{\mathrm i}}{M}}.$$ In the general case of $T_{\mathrm e}^{\kappa }\gg T_{i}$ , and for very small wavevector values of $k\equiv 2\pi /\lambda \ll 2\pi /\lambda _{\mathrm D}^{\kappa }$, this dispersion relation allows for a branch of electron-acoustic waves that propagate with a phase/group velocity of $$\frac{\omega }{k}=\frac{\partial \omega }{\partial k}=\sqrt{\frac{%
KT_{\mathrm e}^{\kappa }}{M}}=\sqrt{\frac{m}{2M}\Theta _{\mathrm e}^{2}\frac{\kappa _{\mathrm e}}{\kappa
_{\mathrm e}-3/2}}.$$ This branch is a special kappa-mode propagating with a typical phase or group velocity that directly depends on the electron kappa index $\kappa _{\mathrm e}$. Testing plasma acoustic waves in this range of large wavelengths should hence directly reveal the prevailing kappa index $\kappa _{\mathrm e}$ and, therefore, the character of the suprathermal downstream electrons.
On the other hand, the limit of larger wavevectors with $k\equiv 2\pi /\lambda \geq 2\pi
/\lambda _{\mathrm D}^{\kappa }$ allows for a branch of nonpropagating waves (i.e., standing oscillations) with plasma eigenfrequencies given by $$\frac{\omega }{k}=\sqrt{\frac{KT_{\mathrm e}^{\kappa }}{M}\frac{1}{\left(k\lambda
_{\mathrm D}^{\kappa }\right)^{2}}}.$$ With Eqs. (\[kTkappa\]) and (\[lambdakappa\]), we can write $$\omega =\sqrt{\frac{KT_{\mathrm e}^{\kappa }}{M\lambda _{\mathrm D}^{\kappa 2}}}=\sqrt{%
\frac{\frac{m}{2}\Theta _{\mathrm e}^{2}\frac{\kappa _{\mathrm e}}{\kappa _{\mathrm e}-3/2}}{M\lambda
_{\mathrm D}^{2}\left(\frac{\kappa _{\mathrm e}}{\kappa _{\mathrm e}-3/2}\right)}}=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi ne^{2}}{M}}%
=\omega _{\mathrm p}$$ for these oscillations. Under these conditions, the plasma, surprisingly enough, does not oscillate with the electron plasma frequency $\omega _{\mathrm e}$, but it does oscillate with the ion plasma frequency $\omega _{\mathrm p}$, which is a phenomenon that only quite rarely occurs in nature. The plasma oscillations recently registered by Voyager-1 [@gurnett13], which were interpreted as electron plasma oscillations, may perhaps be reinterpreted as this type of ion plasma oscillations. As such, they would allow us to infer environmental plasma densities of the order $n\simeq (m/M)0.1\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}\leq 10^{-4}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$.
Calculation of $\Pi$ in view of the downstream electron instabilities {#calc_pi}
=====================================================================
In Section \[sect\_theor\], we introduced the quantity $\Pi $ (see Eq. (\[Theta\])), which denotes the ratio of the thermal core widths, $\Pi =\Theta _{2,\mathrm e}^{2}/\Theta _{1,\mathrm e}^{2}$. Until this point, we did not determine a reasonable value for $\Pi$. Previous expressions based on an upstream-downstream transformation of thermal-core velocities [@fahr13] appear to be irrelevant since their calculation relies on the assumption that upstream core electrons are independently transformed simply into downstream core electrons according to the Liouville-Vlasov theorem. In reality, however, all upstream electrons overshoot to the downstream side where the action of instabilities, such as the two-stream instability or the Buneman instability, redistribute and isotropize them. In the case of the two-stream instability [e.g., see @chen74], electrons can excite ion oscillations as long as their velocities are greater than the thermal core velocities of the protons. This fast relaxation of the electron distribution function toward the downstream ion distribution function then leads to a quasiequilibrium distribution.
Consistent forms of such quasi-equilibria between particle distribution functions and turbulence power spectra have been investigated in Section 2.5 in @fahr11b and, for steady state conditions, by @yoon11 [@yoon12] and @zaheer13. In all of these cases, the asymptotic state results in kappa distributions. Also, in our case, as a result of a shock-induced electron injection with velocity-space diffusion and relaxation described by a phase-space transport equation of the type $$\frac{\partial f_{\mathrm e}}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{v^{2}}\frac{\partial }{\partial v}%
\left(v^{2}D_{vv}\frac{\partial f_{\mathrm e}}{\partial v}\right)+\frac{f_{\mathrm e}-f_{\mathrm p}}{\tau _{\mathrm{ep}}},$$ we expect solutions in form of kappa distributions. In fact, as shown by @treumann04, this kind of transport equations leads to a quasi-equilibrium distribution in the form of a kappa distribution with a thermal core given by the downstream ion velocities: $\Theta
_{2,\mathrm e}^{2}(f_{\mathrm p})\simeq 2P_{2,\mathrm p}/n_{2,\mathrm e}m$. We finally find [using Eq. (4) in @fahr13] $$\Pi =\Theta _{2,\mathrm e}^{2}/\Theta _{1,\mathrm e}^{2}=\frac{2P_{2,\mathrm p}n_{1}m}{%
3P_{1,\mathrm p}n_{2,\mathrm e}m}=\frac{2}{9}\left[2A(s,\alpha )+B(s,\alpha )\right]$$ with $A(s,\alpha )=\sqrt{\cos ^{2}\alpha +s^{2}\sin ^{2}\alpha }$ and $B(s,\alpha )=s^{2}/A^{2}(s,\alpha )$.
The above expression for a perpendicular shock with $s=2.5$ [@richardson08] leads to $\Pi (\alpha =\pi /2)=1.33$. This finally shows that the quantity $\Pi$ is, in fact, of order unity, verifying ** all of our above results that we calculated for $\Pi =1$. Using this more precise value for $\Pi$, Eq. (\[el\_kappa3\]) leads to a marginally different value for the kappa-index of $\kappa _{2,\mathrm e}=1.522$.
Summary and conclusions
=======================
Previous studies suggest that strongly-heated solar-wind electrons should appear in measurements as accelerated suprathermal particles downstream of the termination shock. However, these electrons were not observed by Voyager in the heliosheath. We investigate this apparent contradiction and find that heliosheath electrons are distributed according to a kappa-type distribution function with an extended suprathermal tail (see Figure 1). These highly suprathermal kappa-distributed electrons lead to a strong negative charging of all metallic bodies exposed to this plasma environment, consequently also charging up the Voyager spacecraft.
A spacecraft potential of the order $-30\,\mathrm V,$ as calculated in Figure \[figure2\], has a significant effect on the Voyager electron measurements in the heliosheath. Under these conditions, it repels thermal electrons in the energy range below 30 eV, leading to an increase in the previously determined upper limit of 3 eV [@richardson08] for the electron temperature. The ions, on the other hand, are accelerated into the Faraday cups. The difference in the derived bulk speeds, however, is negligible: corrected for a -30 V potential, the radial downstream proton bulk velocity increases from 130 km/s to about 132 km/s.
In addition, this suprathermal distribution of downstream electrons also results in an unusually enlarged Debye length. As a consequence of this effect, the phase velocity $v_{\phi
}=\omega /k$ of electrostatic plasma waves depends on the effective kappa temperature of the electrons in the heliosheath plasma environment. The detection of these plasma waves allows us to infer the effective kappa electron temperature as an observable quantity. These distributions also permit a type of nonpropagating standing waves with the ion plasma frequency $\omega _{\mathrm p}$ as their eigen frequency.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In stochastic thermodynamics, the entropy production of a thermodynamic system is defined by the irreversibility measured by the logarithm of the ratio of the path probabilities in the forward and reverse processes. We derive the relation between the irreversibility and the entropy production starting from the deterministic equations of motion of the whole system consisting of a physical system and a surrounding thermal environment. The physical system is driven by a nonconservative force. The derivation assumes the Markov approximation that the environmental degrees of freedom equilibrate instantaneously. Our approach concerns the irreversibility of the whole system not only the irreversibility of the physical system only. This approach provides a guideline for the choice of the proper reverse process to a given forward process. We demonstrate our idea with an example of a charged particle in the presence of a time-varying magnetic field.'
author:
- 'Hyun-Myung Chun'
- Jae Dong Noh
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: Microscopic theory for the time irreversibility and the entropy production
---
Introduction
============
Over the past few decades, many efforts have been devoted to establishing thermodynamics for general nonequilibrium systems [@Evans:1993tm; @Gallavotti:1995wv; @Jarzynski:1997uj; @Oono:1998uj; @Sekimoto:1998uf; @Lebowitz:1999tv; @Crooks:1999ta; @Hatano:2001uc; @Seifert:2005vb; @Speck:2005wp]. Among them, stochastic thermodynamics is one of the most widely used approaches [@Seifert:2008gv; @Seifert:2012es]. In stochastic thermodynamics, dynamics of a system surrounded by a thermal environment is described as a stochastic process governed by the Langevin equation or the master equation. Thermodynamic quantities such as heat, work, and entropy production are defined at the stochastic trajectory level in the way consistent with classical thermodynamics [@Sekimoto:1998uf; @Hatano:2001uc; @Seifert:2005vb; @Esposito:2012jt].
Suppose that a system, whose configuration is denoted by $\bm{s}$, evolves along a stochastic path $ {{\mathsf{s}[\tau]}}= \{\bm{s}(t)|0\leq t\leq\tau\}$ in contact with a thermal environment. A time evolution is accompanied by the entropy production, which is decomposed into the sum $\Delta S_{\rm tot}({{\mathsf{s}[\tau]}}) = \Delta S_{\rm sys}({{\mathsf{s}[\tau]}}) + \Delta S_{\rm
env}({{\mathsf{s}[\tau]}})$. In stochastic thermodynamics, the system entropy change $\Delta S_{\rm sys}$ is taken as the difference of the Shannon entropy of the system while the environment entropy change is taken as $$\label{eq:defEnvEP}
\Delta S_{\text{env}}=
\ln\frac{\mathcal{P}({{\mathsf{s}[\tau]}}|\bm{s}(0))}
{\mathcal{P}^\dagger({{\mathsf{s}^\dagger[\tau]}}|\bm{s}^\dagger(0))} ,$$ where $\mathcal{P}({{\mathsf{s}[\tau]}}|\bm{s}(0))$ denotes the conditional path probability of a system following the path ${{\mathsf{s}[\tau]}}$ to a given initial configuration $\bm{s}(0)$ and $\mathcal{P}^\dagger$ denotes the conditional path probability of a system following the time reversed path ${{\mathsf{s}^\dagger[\tau]}}$ to a given initial configuration $\bm{s}^\dagger(0)$ in the reverse process [@Lebowitz:1999tv; @Seifert:2005vb; @Esposito:2010bd; @Lee:2013to; @Kwon:2016kc] (detailed notations will be explained later). The Boltzmann constant $k_B$ is set to unity throughout the paper. From the definition of the entropy production, stochastic thermodynamics predicts several fluctuation theorems [@Lebowitz:1999tv; @Crooks:1999ta; @Hatano:2001uc; @Seifert:2005vb; @Speck:2005wp] for the statistical properties of the entropy production and related quantities, which have been examined experimentally [@Wang:2002hw; @Carberry:2004fk; @Trepagnier:2004wr; @Wang:2005fe; @Douarche:2005tk; @Douarche:2005un].
The entropy production in is written in terms of the time irreversibility of the system. It is interesting to note that $\Delta
S_{\rm env}$ is determined by the irreversibility of the system only. There have been several attempts to show the consistency of the entropy production of stochastic thermodynamics with that of classical thermodynamics. The consistency was first suggested for a stochastic system by invoking an analogy to a chemical reaction system [@Schnakenberg:1976wb]. For master equation systems, the entropy production in is shown to be consistent with the second law of thermodynamics [@Lebowitz:1999tv]. For Langevin equation systems, the expression in leads to the Clausius relation $\Delta S_{\rm env} = \frac{\Delta Q}{T}$ where $\Delta Q$ is the heat dissipated into the thermal environment of temperature $T$ [@Seifert:2005vb].
Despite the consistency at the phenomenological level, the entropy production in terms of the path irreversibility still remains to be verified microscopically. Maes and Netočný tried to establish the relation for a thermal equilibrium case by considering Hamiltonian dynamics for a coupled system consisting of a physical system and a surrounding environment [@Maes:2003tc]. Under the Markov approximation that the degrees of freedom of the environment should equilibrate instantaneously, they showed that the irreversibility of the physical system is equal to the change in the entropy of the environment. More recently, the similar approach is applied to discrete systems described by the master equation [@Hinrichsen:2011tz; @Ziener:2015kl].
In this paper, we extend the approach of Ref. [@Maes:2003tc] to a system which is driven by an arbitrary force and surrounded by a thermal environment. We obtain the expression for the entropy production starting from the deterministic equations of motion and using the Markov approximation. The expression is shown to be the same as the one obtained from the Langevin equation formalism. The entropy production in depends crucially on the choice the reverse process. Especially, when the driving force depends on the velocity as in the Lorentz force, different choices lead to different expressions for the entropy production. Our approach provides a systematic way for the proper choice of a reverse process. We apply our approach to a charged particle in the presence of the time-varying magnetic field.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec2\], we introduce the setting of the problem. We consider deterministic Newtonian dynamics for a total that consists of a physical system of interest and a surrounding environment. The physical system is driven by a nonconservative force. We coarse-grain the environmental degrees of freedom to derive the effective dynamics of the system by adopting the Markov approximation. In Sec. \[sec3\], we derive the expression for the irreversibility. We will show that the irreversibility is the same as that obtained from the Langevin equation approach. In order to calculate the irreversibility, one needs to introduce a reverse process. We suggest a rule for the choice of a proper reverse process. The dependence on the choice of a reverse process is significant when the driving force depends on the velocity. We explain the rule for the Lorentz force system in Sec. \[sec4\]. We summarize our results in Sec. \[sec:Discussion\].
Coarse graining {#sec2}
===============
We consider a classical system $\mathcal{S}$ described by $N$ Cartesian coordinates $x_{1\leq i\leq N}$ for position and $v_{1\leq i \leq N}$ for velocity. The system interacts with an environment $\mathcal{E}$, which is described by $(M-N)$ Cartesian coordinates $x_{N<i\leq M}$ and $v_{N<i\leq M}$ for position and velocity, respectively. The configuration of the total system $\mathcal{U}$ corresponds to a point in the $2M$-dimensional phase space $\Omega$. The phase space point is denoted by $\bm{c} = (\bm{X},\bm{V})$ where $\bm{X} \equiv (x_1,\cdots,x_N, x_{N+1},\cdots,x_M)$ and $\bm{V} \equiv (v_1,\cdots,v_N,v_{N+1},\cdots,v_M)$. Similarly, the configuration of the system $\mathcal{S}$ corresponds to a point $\bm{s} =(\bm{x},\bm{v})$ in the $2N$-dimensional phase space with $\bm{x}=(x_1,\cdots,x_N)$ and $\bm{v}=(v_1,\cdots,v_N)$. The total system evolves in time following the deterministic Newtonian equations of motion: $$\label{eq:EqofMotion}
\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_i &= v_i \\
\dot{v}_i &=
\begin{cases}
-\frac{\partial \Phi(\bm{X})}{\partial x_i} +
f_i(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}) & (1\leq i \leq N), \vspace{2mm} \\
-\frac{\partial \Phi(\bm{X})}{\partial x_i} & (N<i\leq M),
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi(\bm{X})$ is a potential energy function of the total system and $\bm{f}(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}) =
(f_1(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}),\cdots,f_N(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}))$ is an additional nonconservative driving force applied to the system. It may include $L$ control parameters denoted by $\bm{\lambda} = \bm{\lambda}(t) = (\lambda_1(t),\cdots,\lambda_L(t))$, each of which may depend on time. We set all masses to be unity without loss of generality. If the total system starts with a configuration $\bm{c}$ at time $t$, its subsequent state is determined uniquely by the equations of motion. Let $\mathcal{T}_{\Delta t}(\bm{c};t)$ be the configuration after the time interval $\Delta t$, which will be referred to as a trajectory function.
![Dynamics in the $2M$-dimensional configuration space of the whole system $\mathcal{U}$ and the coarse-grained $2N$-dimensional configuration space of the system $\mathcal{S}$. The constant energy surface $\Omega_E$ is divided into the subsets $V(\bm{s};E)$. The diagram in the left hand side represents the deterministic time evolution of $\mathcal{U}$ followed by the equilibration according to the Markov approximation. The gray scale of the shading reflects the probability density. The darker the area is, the higher the probability density is. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The total energy of $\mathcal{U}$ is given by $H(\bm{c}) =
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^M v_i^2 + \Phi(\bm{X})$. All the states of same energy $E$ constitute a constant energy surface $\Omega_E\equiv\{\bm{c}|H(\bm{c})=E\} \subset \Omega$. The total energy is not conserved in the presence of the driving force. If $\bm{c}\in
\Omega_E$, then the configuration $\bm{c}' = \mathcal{T}_{dt}(\bm{c};t)$ belongs to another energy surface $\Omega_{E+dE}$ where $$\label{delE}
dE = H(\bm{c}') - H(\bm{c}) = \sum_i f_i(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}(t)) v_i dt .$$ Figure \[fig1\] illustrates the jump between energy surfaces.
The aim of this section is to derive the effective dynamics of the system out of the deterministic dynamics of the whole system. This can be done by coarse-graining the degrees of freedom of the environment. The most successful method is to introduce the Markovian approximation that the degrees of freedom of the environment equilibrate instantaneously to a given system configuration [@Maes:2003tc; @Hinrichsen:2011tz]. The assumption is valid in the limiting case where the environment relaxes infinitely faster than the system [@Pigolotti:2008wd; @Puglisi:2010ud; @Hinrichsen:2011tz; @Santillan:2011gu; @Esposito:2012jt; @Bo:2014bq; @Ziener:2015kl; @Wang:2016ho]. We adopt the Markov approximation to obtain the effective dynamics.
The coarse-graining is done by the mapping $$\pi(\bm{c}) = \bm{s},$$ which decimates the degrees of the freedom of the environment. For a given $\bm{c}\in \Omega_E$, the corresponding system configuration $\bm{s} = \pi(\bm{c})$ is unique. On the other hand, there are many states in $\Omega_E$ that are coarse-grained to the same state $\bm{s}$. The set of all such states are denoted by $$V(\bm{s};E) \equiv \{\bm{c}|\pi(\bm{c})=\bm{s} \mbox{ and } H(\bm{c})=E\} \
.$$ These subsets are represented as the rectangular regions in Fig. \[fig1\].
We are interested in the transition probability that the system configuration jumps from $\bm{s}$ to $\bm{s}'$ in the infinitesimal time interval $dt$ given that the whole system is distributed according to the probability distribution $P(\bm{c})$ in the energy surface $\Omega_E$ initially. Such a transition is accompanied with the energy change $dE = \sum_i f_i v_i dt$. It can be written as
$$\label{eq:TransitionProb}
W_{dt}(\bm{s}\rightarrow \bm{s}';E,t)
= \frac{\int_{V(\bm{s};E)}d\bm{c}
\int_{V(\bm{s}';E+dE)}d\bm{c}'
P(\bm{c}) \delta(\bm{c}'- \mathcal{T}_{dt}(\bm{c};t))}
{\int_{V(\bm{s};E)}d\bm{c} P(\bm{c})}$$
where $\delta(\cdot)$ is the Dirac delta function, and $\int_{V(\bm{s};E)}d\bm{c}$ represents the integration over the space $V(\bm{s};E)$. The denominator is the probability that the system $\mathcal{S}$ is in the configuration $\bm{s}$, while the numerator is the joint probability that the system is at $\bm{s}$ initially and at $\bm{s}'$ after the time interval $dt$.
The Markov approximation simplifies the transition probability greatly. Since the environment is assumed to be in the equilibrium state, $P(\bm{c})$ is uniform within each $V(\bm{s};E)$ sector [@Maes:2003tc]. Thus the factors $P(\bm{c})$ in the denominator and the numerator cancel each other. The remaining factor in the numerator is equal to the volume of $V_{dt}(\bm{s}\to\bm{s}';E,t)$ that is defined as $$V_{dt}(\bm{s}\rightarrow \bm{s}';E,t)
=\{ \bm{c} | \bm{c}\in V(\bm{s};E) \mbox{ and }
\pi(\mathcal{T}_{dt}(\bm{c};t))=\bm{s}' \}.$$ It is the subset of $V(\bm{s};E)$ consisting of configurations $\bm{c} \in
V(\bm{s};E)$ that are coarse-grained to $\bm{s}'$ after time $dt$. Therefore, the transition probability is given by $$\label{eq:TransitionProb2}
W_{dt}(\bm{s}\rightarrow \bm{s}';E,t)
=\frac{|V_{dt}(\bm{s}\rightarrow \bm{s}';E,t)|}{|V(\bm{s};E)|},$$ where $|(\cdot)|$ denotes the volume of the set $(\cdot)$ in the phase space. The time evolution under the Markov approximation is illustrated in Fig. \[fig1\]. The transition probability depends on $t$ explicitly because of the $t$ dependence of the trajectory function $\mathcal{T}_{dt}(\bm{c};t)$.
Irreversibility {#sec3}
===============
In this section, we quantify the time irreversibility by comparing the transition probability of a trajectory ${{\mathsf{s}[\tau]}}$ in a given dynamical process, called the forward process, with the that of a time-reversed trajectory denoted by ${{\mathsf{s}^\dagger[\tau]}}= \{\bm{\epsilon s}(\tau-t) | 0 \leq t \leq \tau\}$ in the corresponding reverse process. Here, $\bm{\epsilon}$ is the time-reversal operator that changes the sign of all the velocity coordinates. That is, $\bm{\epsilon
s} = (\bm{x},-\bm{v})$ for $\bm{s} = (\bm{x},\bm{v})$.
We first remark on the issue in defining the reverse process to a given forward process. Consider, for example, a charged particle in the presence of the uniform magnetic field $\bm{B}$. Many literatures take it granted that the magnetic field should be flipped ($\bm{B}\to -\bm{B}$) in the reverse process because they are the time-reversal counterpart to each other [@Kampen:2011vs; @Risken:1996vl]. On the other hand, some studies claim that one should use the same field $\bm{B}$ on the ground that the irreversibility is meaningful when a trajectory and its time-reversed trajectory are compared in the setting [@Ganguly:2013vk; @Chaudhuri:2014vf; @Kwon:2016kc; @Chaudhuri:2016ke]. Such a difficulty arises when the driving force $\bm{f}$ depends explicitly on the velocity so that it breaks the time-reversal symmetry. We will provide an argument that guides us to choose the appropriate reverse process for a general driving force $\bm{f}$.
Consider a forward process with a driving force $\bm{f}(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda})$ for a time interval $0\leq t \leq \tau$. Suppose that the system evolves along a trajectory ${{\mathsf{s}[\tau]}}: \bm{s}(t_0=0) \to \cdots \to \bm{s}(t_l) \to \cdots \to
\bm{s}(t_n=\tau)$ with $t_l = l dt$. The forward trajectory is to be compared with the time-reversed one ${{\mathsf{s}^\dagger[\tau]}}: \bm{s}^\dagger(t_0) \to \cdots \to \bm{s}^\dagger(t_l) \to \cdots \to
\bm{s}^\dagger(t_n)$ with $\bm{s}^\dagger(t_l) = \bm{\epsilon
s}(t_{n-l}=\tau-t_l)$ in the reverse process. Since the driving force $\bm{f}$ works on the system, the whole system $\mathcal{U}$ jumps from one energy surface $\Omega_E$ to the other $\Omega_{E+dE}$ with $dE$ in in each step \[see also Fig. \[fig1\]\]. In defining the reverse process with the choice of the driving force $\bm{f}^\dagger(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}^\dagger)$, we require that not only the system $\mathcal{S}$ should return back from $\bm{\epsilon s}(t_{l+1})$ to $\bm{\epsilon s}(t_l)$ and but also the whole system $\mathcal{U}$ from $\Omega_{E+dE}$ to $\Omega_{E}$ for each $l$ in the reverse process. The energy surface requirement constraints the possible form of $\bm{f}^\dagger(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}^\dagger)$. The work $dE^\dagger$ done by $\bm{f}^\dagger$ in the reverse process should cancel $dE$, which yields $$\sum_i f_i^\dagger (\bm{\epsilon s},\bm{\lambda}^{\dagger}(t)) (-dx_i)
= -\sum_i f_i (\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}(\tau-t)) dx_i$$ up to the leading order in $dt$. It suggests that the driving force in the reverse process should be chosen as $$\label{eq:ReverseForce2}
\bm{f}^\dagger(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}^\dagger(t)) =
\bm{f}(\bm{\epsilon} \bm{s},\bm{\lambda}(\tau-t)).$$
The meaning of this choice is clear. The forces acting on the system at each time step constitute a sequence $\{\bm{F}_0,\ldots,\bm{F}_l,\ldots,\bm{F}_n\}$ with $\bm{F}_l =
\bm{f}(\bm{s}(t_l),\bm{\lambda}(t_l))$. The choice in implies that the forces in the reverse process constitute the sequence $\{\bm{F}^\dagger_0,\ldots,\bm{F}^\dagger_l,\ldots,\bm{F}^\dagger_n\}$ with $\bm{F}^\dagger_l = \bm{f}^\dagger(\bm{s}^\dagger(t_{l}),
\bm{\lambda}^\dagger(t_{l})) = \bm{f}(\bm{s}(t_{n-l}),\bm{\lambda}(t_{n-l})) =
\bm{F}_{n-l}$. The system is acted on by the [*same force values*]{} in the time-reversed order. Note that $\bm{f}^\dagger$ has a [different function form]{} from $\bm{f}$ when $\bm{f}$ depends on the velocity $\bm{v}$. An explicit example involving a charged particle in the presence of the magnetic field will be discussed in Sec. \[sec4\]. Another important property of the choice is that every trajectory ${{\mathsf{c}[\tau]}}=\{{{\bm{c}}}(t)|0\leq t\leq\tau\}$ of the whole system $\mathcal{U}$ in the forward process is traced back in the reverse process. Formally we have $$\label{eq:Property}
\mathcal{T}_{t}^\dagger ( \bm{\epsilon} \mathcal{T}_{t}(\bm{c};0);\tau-t)
= \bm{\epsilon} \bm{c}$$ with the trajectory function $\mathcal{T}^\dagger$ of the reverse process.
Once the reverse process is defined, the transition probability during the infinitesimal time interval is given by $$W_{dt}^\dagger(\bm{s}\to\bm{s}';E,t) =
\frac{ | V_{dt}^\dagger(\bm{s}\to\bm{s}';E,t) | }{ | V(s;E) | } ,$$ where $$V_{dt}^\dagger(\bm{s}\to \bm{s}';E,t) =
\{ \bm{c} | \bm{c}~\in V(\bm{s};E)
\mbox{ and } \pi(\mathcal{T}^\dagger_{dt}(\bm{c},t)) = \bm{s}'\} \ .$$ Thus, the irreversibility, given by the log ratio of the path probabilities as appeared in the right hand side of , is given by the sum of $$\label{eq:Irreversibility1}
dI = \ln\frac{W_{dt}(\bm{s}\to\bm{s}';E,t)}
{W_{dt}^\dagger(\bm{\epsilon}\bm{s}'\to\bm{\epsilon}\bm{s};E+dE,\tau-t)}
= dI_1 + dI_2 \ ,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
dI_1 = &\ln\frac{|V(\bm{\epsilon} \bm{s}';E+dE)|}{|V(\bm{s};E)|} \\
dI_2 = &\ln\frac{|V_{dt}(\bm{s}\rightarrow \bm{s}';E,t)|}
{|V_{dt}^\dagger(\bm{\epsilon} \bm{s}'\rightarrow \bm{\epsilon} \bm{s};
E+dE,\tau-t)|}.
\end{aligned}$$ Using the property in , one finds that $V_{dt}^\dagger(\bm{\epsilon} \bm{s}'\to\bm{\epsilon}\bm{s};E+dE,\tau-t)
=\bm{\epsilon} \mathcal{T}_{dt}(V(\bm{s}\to\bm{s}';E,t))$. One also finds that $V(\bm{\epsilon s};E) = \bm{\epsilon} V(\bm{s};E)$ and that the phase space volume is invariant under the operation of $\bm{\epsilon}$. Therefore, the irreversibility is given by $$\label{eq:Irreversibility2}
\begin{aligned}
dI_1 = & \ln\frac{|V(\bm{s}';E+dE)|}{|V(\bm{s};E)|} \\
dI_2 = & \ln\frac{|V(\bm{s}\to\bm{s}';E,t)|}
{|\mathcal{T}_{dt}(V(\bm{s}\to\bm{s}';E,t))|}.
\end{aligned}$$ We stress that $dI$ in measures the time irreversibility of the whole system including the physical system and the environment. The choice in guarantees that the environment returns to the original energy surface in the reverse process.
The subspace $V(\bm{s};E)$ comprises the accessible states of the environment to a given system state $\bm{s}$ in the energy surface $\Omega_E$. Thus, $\ln |V(\bm{s},E)|$ is the Boltzmann entropy of the environment and $dI_1$ in Eq. (\[eq:Irreversibility2\]) is equal to the change in the entropy of the environment. It can also be written in the Clausius form in the weak coupling limit. The energy $E$ of the total system $\mathcal{U}$ is decomposed into the sum $E = E_{\rm sys} + E_{\rm env} + E_{\rm int}$, where $E_{\rm
sys}~(E_{\rm env})$ is the energy of the system (environment) and $E_{\rm int}$ is the interaction energy between them. In the weak coupling limit, $E_{\rm int}$ is negligible so that $E \simeq E_{\rm sys} + E_{\rm env}$. Hence, we have $\ln | V(\bm{s};E) | = S_{\rm env}(E_{\rm env} =
E-E_{\rm sys}(\bm{s}))$ and $\ln |V(\bm{s'};E+dE)| = S_{\rm env} (E_{\rm env} = E+dE - E_{\rm sys}(\bm{s'}))$, where $S_{\rm env}(E_{\rm env})$ denotes the entropy of the environment as a function of the energy. We note that $dE$ is the work done by the driving force on the system. The first law of thermodynamics implies that $E_{\rm sys}(\bm{s}') -
E_{\rm sys}(\bm{s}) = dE - dQ$ where $dQ$ denotes the heat dissipated to the environment. Consequently, we obtain that $$\label{dI1res}
dI_1 = \frac{dQ}{T} ,$$ where $T = \left( \partial S_{\rm env}/\partial E_{\rm env} \right)^{-1}$ is the temperature of the environment. Extension to systems at strong coupling with the environment would be interesting [@Seifert:2016ik], which we do not pursue in this work.
The quantity $dI_2$ involves the expansion rate of the phase space volume during the time evolution. It is determined by the determinant of the Jacobian matrix $\mathsf{J} = \partial \bm{c}'/\partial \bm{c}$ with $\bm{c}' =
\mathcal{T}_{dt}(\bm{c};t)$ for $\bm{c} \in V(\bm{s};E)$. The Jacobian matrix $\mathsf{J}$ is a block matrix of size $2M\times 2M$ in the form of $$\mathsf{J}=\begin{pmatrix}
\mathsf{A} & \mathsf{B} \\
\mathsf{C} & \mathsf{D}
\end{pmatrix}$$ where $A_{mn}=(\partial x'_m/\partial x_n) = \delta_{mn}$, $B_{mn}=(\partial x'_m/\partial v_n)=\delta_{mn} dt$, $$C_{mn}=\frac{\partial v_m'}{\partial x_n} =
\left(-\frac{\partial^2\Phi}{\partial x_m \partial x_n}
+\sum_{i,j=1}^N\delta_{im}\delta_{jn}\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial
x_j}\right)dt ,$$ and $$\label{eq:MatrixD}
D_{mn}=\frac{\partial v'_m}{\partial v_n} = \delta_{mn}
+\sum_{i,j=1}^N\delta_{im}\delta_{jn}\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial v_j}dt\\$$ are the submatrices of size $M\times M$ ($m,n=1,\cdots,M$) up to the first order in $dt$, where $\delta_{mn}$ is the Kronecker delta symbol. The determinant of the block matrix is given by $\det(\mathsf{J})=\det(\mathsf{D})\det(\mathsf{A}-\mathsf{B}
\mathsf{D}^{-1}\mathsf{C})$ [@Silvester:2000wl]. Note that $\mathsf{A}=\mathsf{I}$, $\mathsf{B} = (dt) \mathsf{I}$, $\mathsf{C} = O(dt)$, and $\mathsf{D} = \mathsf{I} + \mathcal{O}(dt)$. Thus, we obtain that $\det(\mathsf{J})=\det(\mathsf{D})
=\prod_{m=1}^M D_{mm} = 1+dt\sum_{i=1}^N
\partial f_i/ \partial v_i$ up to $\mathcal{O}(dt)$, which yields that $$\label{dI2res}
dI_2 = \ln \det{\mathsf{J}}^{-1} =
-dt \left(\nabla_{\bm{v}} \cdot \bm{f}\right)$$ with the shorthand notation $(\nabla_{\bm{v}} \cdot \bm{f}) \equiv
\sum_{i=1}^N \partial f_i / \partial v_i$. Combining and , we finally obtain $$\label{eq:Irreversibility3}
dI = \frac{dQ}{T}
-dt \left[\nabla_{\bm{v}} \cdot \bm{f}(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda})\right] \ .$$
When the driving force does not depend on the velocity, then the irreversibility in is equal to the change in the entropy of the environment $dS_{\rm env}$. The same is true even in the presence of the velocity-dependent force as long as it has the vanishing divergence with respect to the velocity ($\nabla_{\bm{v}} \cdot \bm{f}=0$). The additional contribution becomes nonzero when $\nabla_{\bm{v}} \cdot \bm{f} \neq 0$. The thermodynamic meaning of the additional term remains unknown yet.
We now show that the irreversibility in based on the deterministic dynamics incorporated with the Markovian approximation and the weak coupling limit is reproduced in the phenomenological Langevin equation approach. Consider the Langevin equations $$\label{eq:ForwardLangevin}
\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_i &= v_i\\
\dot{v}_i &= f_{{\rm c},i}(\bm{x}_s)
+f_i(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda})-\gamma v_i +\xi_i(t) \ .
\end{aligned}$$ In comparison with , interactions with the environment are treated with the damping force and the thermal white noise satisfying $\langle\xi_i(t)\rangle=0$ and $\langle\xi_i(t)\xi_j(t')\rangle=2\gamma T \delta_{ij}\delta(t-t')$. The system is driven by the conservative force denoted by $\bm{f}_{\rm c}(\bm{s})$ and the nonequililbrium driving force $\bm{f}$. The Langevin equations for the reverse process are given by $$\label{eq:ReverseLangvin}
\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_i &= v_i\\
\dot{v}_i &= f_{{\rm c},i}
+f_i^\dagger(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}^\dagger)-\gamma v_i +\xi_i(t) \ .
\end{aligned}$$
The Onsager-Machlup formalism allows one to write down the path probability for the Langevin equation system [@Onsager:1953uv]. Using the formalism, we obtain the logarithm of the path probability ratio of the forward and reverse processes during the infinitesimal time interval $dt$. It is given by $$\begin{aligned}\label{eq:EP_stochastic}
dI = &\frac{dQ}{T}-dt\nabla_{\bm{v}}\cdot
\left[\bm{f}(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda})-\delta{\bm{f}}\right] +
\frac{\delta\bm{f}}{\gamma T} \circ d\bm{v} \\
& + \frac{dt}{\gamma T} \delta\bm{f} \cdot \left[-\bm{f}_{\rm c}(\bm{s}) -\bm{f}(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda})
+\delta{\bm{f}}-\gamma\bm{v}\right],
\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta\bm{f} \equiv [\bm{f}(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda})
-\bm{f}^\dagger(\bm{\epsilon}\bm{s},
\bm{\lambda}^\dagger)]/2$ and the notation $()\circ d\bm{v}$ stands for the stochastic integral in the Stratonovich sense [@Gardiner:2010tp] (see Appendix \[sec:appendixA\] for derivation).
When we choose the driving force $\bm{f}^\dagger$ in the reverse process according to , $\delta\bm{f}$ is identically zero and the two irreversibilities in and become the same. Our theory substantiates the Langevin equation approach under the choice of .
Charged particle under the Lorentz force {#sec4}
========================================
The irreversibility in depends crucially on the definition of the reverse process to a given forward process. We have proposed that the force $\bm{f}^\dagger$ should be chosen as in on the ground that the whole system should move back to the original energy surface in the reverse process. This choice is characterized by the fact that the sequence of the force values in the reversed process is the same as that in the forward process in the time-reversed order. In order to stress that the force [*values*]{} are the same, we refer to this choice as the V rule. There is an alternative choice where the function [*form*]{} of the force is taken to be the same [@Ganguly:2013vk; @Chaudhuri:2014vf; @Kwon:2016kc; @Chaudhuri:2016ke]. It is formulated as $$\label{Frule}
\bm{f}^\ddagger(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}^\ddagger(t)) = \bm{f}(\bm{s},
\bm{\lambda}(\tau-t))$$ In order to distinguish it from $\bm{f}^\dagger$ according to the V rule, we use the superscript ${}^\ddagger$. This choice will be referred to as the F rule. The merit of the F rule is that the forward and the reverse processes are compared in the same physical system characterized by the driving force of same form. When the force depends on the velocity, the forces in the reverse processes $\bm{f}^\dagger$ and $\bm{f}^\ddagger$ are different, so are the irreversibility. In this section, we compare the two choices for a charged particle under the Lorentz force.
Consider a charged particle of mass $m$ and of charge $q$ in the three-dimensional space with cylindrical symmetry around the $\hat{z}$ direction. The time-dependent magnetic field $\bm{B}(t) =
bt\hat{z}$ is applied to the $z$ direction with a constant $b>0$. According to the Maxwell equation $\nabla_{\bm{x}} \times \bm{E} = -\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\bm{B}$, the time-varying magnetic field induces the electric field $\bm{E}(\bm{x}) = \frac{1}{2}b (y \hat{x} - x \hat{y}) = -\frac{1}{2}b
r\hat{\theta}$ with $r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ and the unit vector $\hat{\theta}$ in the azimuthal direction. The electric field line circulates around the origin in the clockwise direction. The particle is then applied to the Lorentz force $$\bm{f}(\bm{x},\bm{v},\bm{\lambda}(t)) =
q \bm{v} \times \bm{B}(t) + q \bm{E}(\bm{x}) \ .$$ The field strengths are regarded as the parameters $\bm{\lambda}$.
According to the V rule the force $\bm{f}^\dagger$ in the reverse process is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{f}^\dagger(\bm{x},\bm{v},\bm{\lambda}^\dagger(t)) & =
\bm{f}(\bm{x},-\bm{v},\bm{\lambda}(\tau-t)) \\
& = -q \bm{v}\times \bm{B}(\tau-t) + q \bm{E}(\bm{x}) \ .
\end{aligned}$$ It amounts to the situation that the particle is subject to the Lorentz force under the fields $$\bm{B}^\dagger(t) = -\bm{B}(\tau-t) , \
\bm{E}^\dagger(\bm{x}) = \bm{E}(\bm{x}) .$$ Note that the magnetic field is flipped to the opposite direction. We compare the field configurations in the forward and the reverse processes in Fig. \[fig2\]. The electro-magnetic fields in the reverse process also satisfy the Maxwell’s equation, $\nabla_{\bm x}\times \bm{E}^\dagger =
-\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \bm{B}^\dagger$.
On the other hand, the reverse process force according to the F rule, denoted by $\bm{f}^\ddagger$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{f}^\ddagger(\bm{x},\bm{v},\bm{\lambda}^\ddagger(t)) & =
\bm{f}(\bm{x},\bm{v},\bm{\lambda}(\tau-t)) \\
& = q \bm{v}\times \bm{B}(\tau-t) + q \bm{E}(\bm{x}) \ .
\end{aligned}$$ It corresponds to a Lorentz-like force under the fields $$\bm{B}^\ddagger(t) = \bm{B}(\tau-t) , \
\bm{E}^\ddagger(\bm{x}) = \bm{E}(\bm{x}) .$$ These fields do not satisfy the Maxwell’s equation, $\nabla_{\bm x}\times \bm{E}^\ddagger \neq
-\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \bm{B}^\ddagger$. Namely, the reverse process in the F rule is an artificial process with non-physical electro-magnetic fields.
![Magnetic and electric field configurations in the forward process (left) and in the reverse process according to the V rule (middle) and the F rule (right). The varying width of an arrow stands for the change of the magnetic field strength in time.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The consistency with electromagnetism suggests that the V rule be the proper way to define the reverse process for systems driven by a velocity-dependent force. Under the V rule, the irreversibility consists of the Clausius entropy change of the environment and the additional term $-dt
[\nabla_{\bm{v}} \cdot \bm{f}]$. We do not know whether the additional term can be related to any thermodynamic quantity. In nature, the magnetic Lorentz force is the unique example of a velocity-dependent force among the fundamental forces. If we restrict ourselves to the fundamental Lorentz force, the additional term vanishes because the magnetic Lorentz force is divergence-free. Then, the irreversibility reduces to the conventional entropy production of the environment. One may consider velocity-dependent forces. However, they are not the fundamental forces but the phenomenological forces [@Cerino:2015cc].
Summary {#sec:Discussion}
=======
In stochastic thermodynamics, the entropy production is given by the logarithm of the ratio of the path probabilities of the system. In this work, we derived the connection between the irreversibility and the entropy production starting from the microscopic deterministic equations of motion of the whole system $\mathcal{U}$ consisting of a physical system $\mathcal{S}$ and an environment $\mathcal{E}$. The key assumption behind the connection is the Markovian approximation that the environmental degrees of freedom equilibrates so fast that they are always in the equilibrium state to a given configuration of $\mathcal{S}$. Our approach is an extension of those in Refs. to systems having the continuous degrees of freedom and being driven by an external force. We have shown that the irreversibility derived from the microscopic point of view has the same expression as the entropy production of the corresponding Langevin equation system.
It is crucial to consider a proper reverse process to a given forward process in characterizing the time irreversibility. In this work, we suggest the V rule that the sequence of the force values in the reverse process should be the same as that in the forward process in the time-reversed order. It is formulated in . This rule is favored because it guarantees that the whole system returns to the original energy surface in the reverse process. This choice is contrasted to the F rule in , where the force in the reverse process has the same function form as the force in the forward process. The two choices are compared for a charged particle in the presence of time-varying magnetic field and the induced electric field.
This work was supported by the the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. 2016R1A2B2013972). We thank Prof. Hyunggyu Park and Prof. Chulan Kwon for helpful discussions.
Irreversibility in the Langevin system {#sec:appendixA}
======================================
In this Appendix, we derive the relation for the entropy production in the Langevin system. The forward dynamics and the reverse dynamics of the system are governed by Eq. (\[eq:ForwardLangevin\]) and Eq. (\[eq:ReverseLangvin\]) respectively. Suppose that the system evolves from a configuration $\bm{s}=(\bm{x},\bm{v})$ to $\bm{s}'=(\bm{x}',\bm{v}')$ during the infinitesimal time interval $[t:t+dt]$ in the forward dynamics. Such a transition occurs with the transition probability denoted by $W_{dt}(\bm{s}\to\bm{s}';t)$. Similarly, $W_{dt}^\dagger(\bm{\epsilon}\bm{s}'\to\bm{\epsilon}\bm{s};t)$ denotes the transition probability in the reverse process. During the time interval, the control parameters change from $\bm{\lambda}(t)$ to $\bm{\lambda}(t+dt)$ in the forward dynamics and from $\bm{\lambda}^\dagger(\bar{t}-dt)$ to $\bm{\lambda}^\dagger(\bar{t})$ in the reverse dynamics with $\bar{t}=\tau-t$.
With the help of the Onsager-Machlup formalism [@Onsager:1953uv], the transition probabilities can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
W_{dt}(\bm{s}\to\bm{s}';t)
=&\frac{\delta(d\bm{x}-\bm{v}dt)}{(4\pi\gamma T dt)^{N/2}}\\
\times &e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma T dt}
\left\{d\bm{v} + dt\left[\nabla_{\bm{x}}\phi
-\bm{f}(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}(t))+\gamma\bm{v}
\right]\right\}^2}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
W_{dt}^\dagger(\bm{\epsilon}\bm{s}'\to\bm{\epsilon}\bm{s};\bar{t})
=&\frac{\delta(d\bm{x}-\bm{v}'dt)}{(4\pi\gamma T dt)^{N/2}}\\
\times& e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma T dt}
\left\{d\bm{v} + dt\left[\nabla_{\bm{x}'}\phi
-\bm{f}^\dagger(\bm{\epsilon}\bm{s}',\bm{\lambda}^\dagger(\bar{t}))
-\gamma\bm{v}'\right]\right\}^2}
\end{aligned}$$ with $d\bm{x}=\bm{x}'-\bm{x}$ and $d\bm{v}=\bm{v}'-\bm{v}$. Keeping the terms up to $\mathcal{O}(dt)$, we obtain that the irreversibility $dI = \ln W_{dt}(\bm{s}\to \bm{s}';t) /
W_{dt}^\dagger(\bm{\epsilon s}'\to \bm{\epsilon s};\bar{t})$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}\label{eq:EP_app}
dI = &-\frac{\bm{v}}{T}\circ\left\{d\bm{v}
+ dt\left[\nabla_{\bm{x}}\phi-\bm{f}(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}(t))
+\delta\bm{f}\right]\right\}\\
&+\frac{\delta\bm{f}}{\gamma T}\circ\left\{d\bm{v}
+dt\left[\nabla_{\bm{x}}\phi-\bm{f}(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}(t))
+\delta\bm{f}\right]\right\}\\
&-dt\nabla_{\bm{v}}\cdot
\left[\bm{f}(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}(t))-\delta\bm{f}\right]
\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta\bm{f}
=[\bm{f}(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}(t))-\bm{f}^\dagger
(\bm{\epsilon}\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}^\dagger(\bar{t}))]/2$ and the notation $d\bm{v}\circ\bm{v}
=d\bm{v}\cdot\left[\bm{v}+(\bm{v}+d\bm{v})\right]/2$ stands for the stochastic integral in the Stratonovich sense [@Gardiner:2010tp].
According to stochastic thermodynamics, the heat dissipated to the environment is given by [@Sekimoto:1998uf] $$\label{eq:heat_app}
dQ = \left[-d\bm{v} - dt\nabla_{\bm{x}}\phi
+dt\bm{f}(\bm{s},\bm{\lambda}(t))\right] \circ \bm{v} .$$ Substituting the part in the first line in and rearranging all the terms, we obtain .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
---
[**Interactions of cultures and top people of Wikipedia\
from ranking of 24 language editions** ]{}\
Young-Ho Eom$^{1}$, Pablo Aragón$^{2}$, David Laniado$^{2}$, Andreas Kaltenbrunner$^{2}$, Sebastiano Vigna$^{3}$, Dima L. Shepelyansky$^{1,*}$\
\
[2]{} [*Barcelona Media Foundation, Barcelona, Spain*]{}\
[3]{} [*Dipartimento di Informatica, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy*]{}\
$\ast$ Webpage: www.quantware.ups-tlse.fr/dima
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
Wikipedia is a huge global repository of human knowledge, that can be leveraged to investigate interwinements between cultures. With this aim, we apply methods of Markov chains and Google matrix, for the analysis of the hyperlink networks of 24 Wikipedia language editions, and rank all their articles by PageRank, 2DRank and CheiRank algorithms. Using automatic extraction of people names, we obtain the top 100 historical figures, for each edition and for each algorithm. We investigate their spatial, temporal, and gender distributions in dependence of their cultural origins. Our study demonstrates not only the existence of skewness with local figures, mainly recognized only in their own cultures, but also the existence of global historical figures appearing in a large number of editions. By determining the birth time and place of these persons, we perform an analysis of the evolution of such figures through 35 centuries of human history for each language, thus recovering interactions and entanglement of cultures over time. We also obtain the distributions of historical figures over world countries, highlighting geographical aspects of cross-cultural links. Considering historical figures who appear in multiple editions as interactions between cultures, we construct a network of cultures and identify the most influential cultures according to this network.
$\phantom{.}$
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The influence of digital media on collective opinions, social relationships, and information dynamics is growing significantly with the advances of information technology. On the other hand, understanding how collective opinions are reflected in digital media has crucial importance. Among such a medium, Wikipedia, the open, free, and online encyclopedia, has crucial importance since it is not only the largest global knowledge repository but also the biggest collaborative knowledge platform on the Web. Thanks to its huge size, broad coverage and ease of use, Wikipedia is currently one of the most widely used knowledge references. However, since its beginning, there have been constant concerns about the reliability of Wikipedia because of its openness. Although professional scholars may not be affected by a possible skewness or bias of Wikipedia, students and the public can be affected significantly [@Rosenzweig2006; @Lavsa2011]. Extensive studies have examined the reliability of contents [@Giles2005; @Rosenzweig2006; @Lavsa2011], topic coverage [@Kittur2009], vandalism [@Priedhorsky2007], and conflict [@Yasseri2012; @Yasseri2013; @Laniado2011] in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is available in different language editions; 287 language editions are currently active. This indicates that the same topic can be described in hundreds of articles written by different language user groups. Since language is one of the primary elements of culture [@Unesco], collective cultural biases may be reflected on the contents and organization of each Wikipedia edition. Although Wikipedia adopts a “neutral point of view" policy for the description of contents, aiming to provide unbiased information to the public [@NPOV], it is natural that each language edition presents reality from a different angle. To investigate differences and relationships among different language editions, we develop mathematical and statistical methods which treat the huge amount of information in Wikipedia, excluding cultural preferences of the investigators.
Cultural bias or differences across Wikipedia editions have been investigated in previous research [@ref3new; @Callahan2011; @Hecht2009; @Hecht2010; @Nemoto2011; @Warnck-Wang2012; @Massa2012]. A special emphasis was devoted to persons described in Wikipedia articles [@Callahan2011] and their ranking [@Zhirov2010; @Eom2013EPJB]. Indeed, human knowledge, as well as Wikipedia itself, was created by people who are the main actors of its development. Thus it is rather natural to analyze a ranking of people according to the Wikipedia hyper-link network of citations between articles (see network data description below). A cross-cultural study of biographical articles was presented in [@Aragon2012], by building a network of interlinked biographies. Another approach was proposed recently in [@Eom2013PLOS]: the difference in importance of historical figures across Wikipedia language editions is assessed on the basis of the global ranking of Wikipedia articles about persons. This study, motivated by the question “Is an important person in a given culture also important in other cultures?", showed that there are strong entanglements and local biases of historical figures in Wikipedia. Indeed, the results of the study show that each Wikipedia edition favors persons belonging to the same culture (language), but also that there are cross-Wikipedia top ranked persons, who can be signs of entanglement between cultures. These cross-language historical figures can be used to generate inter-culture networks demonstrating interactions between cultures [@Eom2013PLOS]. Such an approach provides us novel insights on cross-cultural differences across Wikipedia editions. However, in [@Eom2013PLOS] only 9 Wikipedia editions, mainly languages spoken in European, have been considered. Thus a broader set of language editions is needed to offer a more complete view on a global scale. We note that the analysis of persons’ importance via Wikipedia becomes more and more popular. This is well visible from the appearance of new recent studies for the English Wikipedia [@stonybrook] and for multiple languages [@hidalgo]. The analysis of coverage of researchers and academics via Wikipedia is reported in [@tahaadded].
Here we investigate interactions and skewness of cultures with a broader perspective, using global ranking of articles about persons in 24 Wikipedia language editions. According to Wikipedia [@wikilist1] these 24 languages cover 59 percent of world population. Moreover, according to Wikipedia [@wikilist2], our selection of 24 language editions covers the 68 percent of the total number of 30.9 millions of Wikipedia articles in all 287 languages. These 24 editions also cover languages which played an important role in human history including Western, Asian and Arabic cultures.
On the basis of this data set we analyze spatial, temporal, and gender skewness in Wikipedia by analyzing birth place, birth date, and gender of the top ranked historical figures in Wikipedia. We identified overall Western, modern, and male skewness of important historical figures across Wikipedia editions, a tendency towards local preference (i.e. each Wikipedia edition favors historical figures born in countries speaking that edition’s language), and the existence of global historical figures who are highly ranked in most of Wikipedia editions. We also constructed networks of cultures based on cross-cultural historical figures to represent interactions between cultures according to Wikipedia.
To obtain a unified ranking of historical figures for all 24 Wikipedia editions, we introduce an average ranking which gives us the top 100 persons of human history. To assess the alignment of our ranking with previous work by historians, we compare it with the Hart’s list of the top 100 people who, according to him, most influenced human history [@hart]. We note that Hart “ranked these 100 persons in order of importance: that is, according to the total amount of influence that each of them had on human history and on the everyday lives of other human beings”.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
In this research, we consider each Wikipedia edition as a network of articles. Each article corresponds to a node of the network and hyperlinks between articles correspond to links of the network. For a given network, we can define an adjacency matrix $A_{ij}$. If there is a link (one or more) from node (article) $j$ to node (article) $i$ then $A_{ij}=1$, otherwise, $A_{ij}=0$. The out-degree $k_{out}(j)$ is the number of links from node $j$ to other nodes and the in-degree $k_{in}(j)$ is the number of links to node $j$ from other nodes. The links between articles are considered only inside a given Wikipedia edition, there are no links counted between editions. Thus each language edition is analyzed independently from others by the Google matrix methods described below. The transcriptions of names from English to the other 23 selected languages are harvested from WikiData (http://dumps.wikimedia.org/wikidatawiki) and not directly from the text of articles.
To rank the articles of a Wikipedia edition, we use two ranking algorithms based on the articles network structure. Detailed descriptions of these algorithms and their use for Wikipedia editions are given in [@Zhirov2010; @2dmotor; @Eom2013EPJB; @frahm]. The methods used here are described in [@Eom2013PLOS]; we keep the same notations.
Google matrix {#google-matrix .unnumbered}
-------------
First we construct the matrix $S_{ij}$ of Markov transitions by normalizing the sum of the elements in each column of $A$ to unity ($S_{ij}=A_{ij}/\sum_i A_{ij}$, $\sum_i S_{ij}=1$) and replacing columns with zero elements by elements $1/N$ with $N$ being the matrix size. Then the Google matrix is given by the relation $G_{ij}=\alpha S_{ij}+(1-\alpha)/N$, where $\alpha$ is the damping factor [@Meyer2006]. As in [@Eom2013PLOS] we use the conventional value $\alpha=0.85$. It is known that the variation of $\alpha$ in a range $0.5 \leq \alpha < 0.95$ does not significantly affect the probability distribution of ranks discussed below (see e.g. [@Zhirov2010; @Eom2013EPJB; @Meyer2006]).
PageRank algorithm {#pagerank-algorithm .unnumbered}
------------------
PageRank is a widely used algorithm to rank nodes in a directed network. It was originally introduced for Google web search engine to rank web pages of the World Wide Web based on the idea of academic citations [@Brin1998]. Currently PageRank is used to rank nodes of network systems from scientific papers [@Chen2007] to social network services [@Kwak2010], world trade [@wtrade] and biological systems [@Kandiah2013]. Here we briefly outline the iteration method of PageRank computation. The PageRank vector $P(i,t)$ of a node $i$ at iteration $t$ in a network with $N$ nodes is given by
$$P(i,t) = \sum_j G_{ij} P(j,t-1) = (1-\alpha)/N +
\alpha\sum_{j} A_{ij}P(j,t-1)/k_{out}(j) \; . \label{eq2}$$
The stationary state $P(i)$ of $P(i,t)$ is the PageRank of node $i$. More detailed information about the PageRank algorithm is described in [@Meyer2006]. Ordering all nodes by their decreasing probability $P(i)$, we obtain the PageRank ranking index $K(i)$. In qualitative terms, the PageRank probability of a node is proportional to the number of incoming links weighted according to their own probability. A random network surfer spends on a given node a time given on average by the PageRank probability.
CheiRank algorithm {#cheirank-algorithm .unnumbered}
------------------
In a directed network, outgoing links can be as important as ingoing links. In this sense, as a complementary to PageRank, the CheiRank algorithm is defined and used in [@Chepelianskii2010; @Zhirov2010; @2dmotor]. The CheiRank vector $P^*(i,t)$ of a node at iteration time $t$ is given by
$$P^*(i) = (1-\alpha)/N + \alpha\sum_{j} A_{ji}P^*(j)/k_{in}(j)
\label{eq3}$$
Same as the case of PageRank, we consider the stationary state $P^*(i)$ of $P^*(i,t)$ as the CheiRank probability of node $i$ with $\alpha=0.85$. High CheiRank nodes in the network have large out-degree. Ordering all nodes by their decreasing probability $P^*(i)$, we obtain the CheiRank ranking index $K^*(i)$. The PageRank probability of an article is proportional to the number of incoming links, while the CheiRank probability of an article is proportional to the number of outgoing links. Thus a top PageRank article is important since other articles refer to it, while a top CheiRank article is highly connected because it refers to other articles.
2DRank algorithm {#drank-algorithm .unnumbered}
----------------
PageRank and CheiRank algorithms focus only on in-degree and out-degree of nodes, respectively. The 2DRank algorithm considers both types of information simultaneously to rank nodes with a balanced point of view in a directed network. Briefly speaking, nodes with both high PageRank and CheiRank get high 2DRank ranking. Consider a node $i$ which is $K_i$-th ranked by PageRank and ${K^*}_i$ ranked by CheiRank. Then we can assign a secondary ranking $K'_i=max\{K_i,{K^*}_i\}$ to the node. If $K'_i<K'_j$, then node $j$ has lower 2DRank and vice versa. A detailed illustration and description of this algorithm is given in [@Zhirov2010].
We note that the studies reported in [@Eom2013PLOS] show that the overlap between top CheiRank persons of different editions is rather small and due to that the statistical accuracy of this data is not sufficient for determining interactions between different cultures for the CheiRank list. Moreover, CheiRank, based on outgoing links only, selects mainly persons from such activity fields like sports and arts where the historical trace is not so important. Due to these reasons we restrict our study to PageRank and 2DRank. It can be also interesting to use other algorithms of ranking, e.g. LeaderRank [@leaderrank], but here we restrict ourselves to the methods which we already tested, leaving investigation of other raking methods for further studies.
Data preparation {#data-preparation .unnumbered}
================
We consider 24 different language editions of Wikipedia: English (EN), Dutch (NL), German (DE), French (FR), Spanish (ES), Italian (IT), Portuguese (PT), Greek (EL), Danish (DA), Swedish (SV), Polish (PL), Hungarian (HU), Russian (RU), Hebrew (HE), Turkish (TR), Arabic (AR), Persian (FA), Hindi (HI), Malaysian (MS), Thai (TH), Vietnamese (VI), Chinese (ZH), Korean (KO), and Japanese (JA). The Wikipedia data were collected in middle February 2013. The overview summary of each Wikipedia is represented in Table \[table1\].
We understand that our selection of Wikipedia editions does not represent a complete view of all the 287 languages of Wikipedia editions. However, this selection covers most of the largest language editions and allows us to perform quantitative and statistical analysis of important historical figures. Among the 20 largest editions (counted by their size, taken at the middle of 2014) we have not considered the following editions: Waray-Waray, Cebuano, Ukrainian, Catalan, Bokmal-Riksmal, and Finish.
First we ranked all the articles in a given Wikipedia edition by PageRank and 2DRank algorithms, and selected biographical articles about historical figures. To identify biographical articles, we considered all articles belonging to “Category:living people”, or to “Category:Deaths by year” or “Category:Birth by year” or their subcategories in the English Wikipedia. In this way, we obtained a list of about 1.1 million biographical articles. We identified birth place, birth date, and gender of each selected historical figure based on DBpedia [@DBpedia] or a manual inspection of the corresponding Wikipedia biographical article, when for the considered historical figure no DBpedia data were available. We then started from the list of persons with their biographical article’s title on the English Wikipedia, and found the corresponding titles in other language editions using the inter-language links provided by WikiData. Using the corresponding articles, identified by the inter-languages links in different language editions, we extracted the top 100 persons from the rankings of all Wikipedia articles of each edition. At the end, for each Wikipedia edition and for each ranking algorithm, we have information about the top 100 historical figures with their corresponding name in the English Wikipedia, their birth place and date, and their gender. All 48 lists of the top 100 historical figures in PageRank and 2DRank for the 24 Wikipedia editions and for the two ranking algorithms are represented in [@ourwikipage] and Supporting Information (SI). The original network data for each edition are available at [@ourwikipage]. The automatic extraction of persons from PageRank and 2DRank listings of articles of each edition is performed by using the above whole list of person names in all 24 editions. This method implies a significantly higher recall compared to the manual selection of persons from the ranking list of articles for each edition used in [@Eom2013PLOS].
We attribute each of the 100 historical figures to a birth place at the country level (actual country borders), to a birth date in year, to a gender, and to a cultural group. Historical figures are assigned to the countries currently at the locations where they were born. The cultural group of historical figures is assigned by the most spoken language of their birth place at the current country level. For example, if someone was born in “Constantinople” in the ancient Roman era, since the place is now Istanbul, Turkey, we assign her/his birth place as “Turkey” and since Turkish is the most spoken language in Turkey, we assign this person to the Turkish cultural group. If the birth country does not belong to any of the 24 cultures (languages) which we consider, we assign WR (world) as the culture of this person. We would like to point out that although a culture can not be defined only by language, we think that language is a suitable first-approximation of culture. All lists of top 100 historical figures with their birth place, birth date, gender, and cultural group for each Wikipedia edition and for each ranking algorithm are represented in [@ourwikipage]. A part of this information is also reported in SI.
To apply PageRank and 2DRank methods, we consider each edition as the network of articles of the given edition connected by hyper-links among the articles (see the details of ranking algorithms in Section Methods). The full list of considered Wikipedia language editions is given in Table \[table1\]. Table \[table2\] represents the top 10 historical figures by PageRank and 2DRank in the English Wikipedia. Roughly speaking, top PageRank articles imply highly cited articles in Wikipedia and top 2DRank articles imply articles which are both highly cited and highly citing in Wikipedia. In total, we identified 2400 top historical figures for each ranking algorithm. However, since some historical figures such as [*Jesus*]{}, [*Aristotle*]{}, or [*Napoleon*]{} appear in multiple Wikipedia editions, we have 1045 unique top PageRank historical figures and 1616 unique top 2Drank historical figures.
We should note that the extraction of persons and their information from a Wikipedia edition is not an easy task even for the English edition, and much more complicated for certain other language editions. Therefore, the above automatic method based on 1.1 million English names and their corresponding names seems to us to be the most adequate approach. Of course, it will miss people who do not have a biographical article on the English Wikipedia. Cross-checking investigation is done for Korean and Russian Wikipedia, which are native languages for two authors, by manually selecting top 100 persons from top lists of all articles ordered by PageRank and 2DRank in both Wikipedia editions. We find that our automatic search misses on average only 2 persons from 100 top persons for these two editions (the missed names are given in SI). The errors appear due to transcription changes of names or missing cases in our name-database based on English Wikipedia. For Western languages the number of errors is presumably reduced since transcription remains close to English. Based on the manual inspection for the Korean and the Russian Wikipedia, we expect that the errors of our automatic recovery of the top people from the whole articles ordered by PageRank and 2DRank are on a level of two percent.
We also note that our study is in compliance with Wikipedia’s Terms and Conditions.
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
Above we described the methods used for the extraction of the top 100 persons in the ranking list of each edition. Below we present the obtained results describing the spatial, temporal and gender distributions of top ranked historical figures. We also determine the global and local persons and obtain the network of cultures based on the ranking of persons from a given language by other language editions of Wikipedia.
Spatial distribution {#spatial-distribution .unnumbered}
--------------------
The birth places of historical figures are attributed to the country containing their geographical location of birth according to the present geographical territories of all world countries. The list of countries appeared for the top 100 persons in all editions is given in Table \[table3\]. We also attribute each country to one of the 24 languages of the considered editions. This attribution is done according to the language spoken by the largest part of population in the given country. Thus e.g. Belgium is attributed to Dutch (NL) since the majority of the population speaks Dutch. If the main language of a country is not among our 24 languages, then this country is attributed to an additional section WR corresponding to the remaining world (e.g. Ukraine, Norway are attributed to WR). If the birth place of a person is not known, then it is also attributed to WR. The choice of attribution of a person to a given country in its current geographic territory, and as a result to a certain language, may have some fluctuations due to historical variations of country borders (e.g. Immanuel Kant was born in the current territory of Russia and hence is attributed to Russian language). However, the number of such cases is small, being on a level of 3.5 percent (see Section “Network of cultures” below). We think that the way in which a link between person, language and country is fixed by the birth place avoids much larger ambiguity of attribution of a person according to the native language which is not so easy to fix in an automatic manner.
The obtained spatial distribution of historical figures of Wikipedia over countries is shown in Fig. \[fig1\]. This averaged distribution gives the average number of top 100 persons born in a specific country as birth place, with averaging done over our 24 Wikipedia editions. Thus an average over the 24 editions gives for Germany (DE) approximately 9.7 persons in the top 100 of PageRank, being at the first position, followed by USA with approximately 9.5 persons. For 2DRank we have USA at the first position with an average of 9.8 persons and Germany at the second with an average of 8.0 persons.
Western (Europe and USA) skewed patterns are observed in both top PageRank historical figures (Fig \[fig1\]. (A)) and top 2DRank historical figures (Fig. \[fig1\]. (B)). This Western skewed pattern is remarkable since 11 Wikipedia editions of the 24 considered editions are not European language editions. Germany, USA, Italy, UK and France are the top five birth places of top PageRank historical figures among 71 countries. On the other hand, USA, Germany, UK, Italy and Japan are top five birth places of the top 2DRank historical figures among 91 countries.
In Fig. \[fig2\] we show the world map of countries, where color indicates the number of persons from a given country among the $24 \times 100$ top persons for PageRank and 2DRank. Additional figures showing these distributions for different centuries are available at [@ourwikipage].
We also observed local skewness in the spatial distribution of the top historical figures for the PageRank (2DRank) ranking algorithm as shown in Fig. \[fig3\]A (in Fig. \[fig3\]B). For example, 47 percent of the top PageRank historical figures in the English Wikipedia were born in USA (25 percent) and UK (22 percent) and 56 percent of the top historical figures in the Hindi Wikipedia were born in India. A similar strong locality pattern of the top historical figures was observed in our previous research [@Eom2013PLOS]. However it should be noted that in the previous study we considered the native language of the top historical figure as a criterion of locality, while in the current study we considered ’birth place’ as criterion of locality.
Regional skewness, the preferences of Wikipedia editions for historical figures who were born in geographically or culturally related countries, is also observed. For example, 18 (5) of the top 100 PageRank historical figures in the Korean (Japanese) Wikipedia were born in China. Also 9 of the top 100 PageRank historical figures in the Persian Wikipedia were born in Saudi Arabia. The distribution of top persons from each Wikipedia edition over world countries is shown in Fig. \[fig3\]A and Fig. \[fig3\]B. The countries on a horizontal axis are grouped by clusters of corresponding language so that the links inside a given culture (or language) become well visible.
To observe patterns in a better way at low numbers of historical figures, we normalized each column of Fig. \[fig3\]A and Fig. \[fig3\]B corresponding to a given country. In this way we obtain a rescaled distribution with better visibility for each birth country level as shown in Fig. \[fig3\]C and Fig. \[fig3\]D, respectively. We can observe a clear birth pattern of top PageRank historical figures born in Lebanon, Libya, Oman, and Tunisia in the case of the Arabic Wikipedia, and historical figures born in N. Korea appearing not only in the Korean but also in the Japanese Wikipedia.
In the case of the top 2DRank historical figures shown in Fig. \[fig3\]B and Fig. \[fig3\]D, we observe overall patterns of locality and regions being similar to the case of PageRank, but the locality is stronger. In short, we observed that most of the top historical figures in Wikipedia were born in Western countries, but also that each edition shows its own preference to the historical figures born in countries which are closely related to the corresponding language edition.
Temporal distribution {#temporal-distribution .unnumbered}
---------------------
The analysis of the temporal distribution of top historical figures is done based on their birth dates. As shown in Fig. \[fig4\]A for PageRank, most of historical figures were born after the 17th century on average, which shows similar pattern with world population growth [@populgrowth]. However, there are some distinctive peaks around BC 5th century and BC 1st century for the case of PageRank because of Greek scholars ([*Socrates, Plato,*]{} and [*Herodotus*]{}), Roman politicians ([*Julius Caesar, Augustus*]{}) and Christianity leaders ([*Jesus, Paul the Apostle,*]{} and [*Mary (mother of Jesus)*]{}). We also observe that the Arabic and the Persian Wikipedia have more historical figures than Western language Wikipedia editions from AD 6th century to AD 12th century. For the case of 2DRank in Fig. \[fig4\]B, there is only one small peak around BC 1C, which is also smaller than the peak in the case of PageRank, and all the distribution is dominated by a strong growth on the 20th century.
The distributions of the top PageRank historical figures over the 24 Wikipedia editions for each century are shown in Fig. \[fig4\]C. The same distribution, but normalized to unity over all editions for each century, is shown in Fig. \[fig4\]E. The Persian (FA) and the Arabic (AR) Wikipedia have more historical figures than other language editions (in particular European language editions) from the 6th to the 12th century due to Islamic leaders and scholars. On the other hand, the Greek Wikipedia has more historical figures in BC 5th century because of Greek philosophers. Also most of western-southern European language editions, including English, Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and Greek, have more top historical figures because they have [*Augustine the Hippo*]{} and [*Justinian I*]{} in common. Similar distributions obtained from 2DRank are shown in Fig. \[fig4\]D and Fig. \[fig4\]F respectively.
The data of Figs. \[fig4\]E,F clearly show well pronounced patterns, corresponding to strong interactions between cultures: from BC 5th century to AD 15th century for JA, KO, ZH, VI; from AD 6th century to AD 12th century for FA, AR; and a common birth pattern in EN,EL,PT,IT,ES,DE,NL (Western European languages) from BC 5th century to AD 6th century. In Fig.S1 in SI we show distributions of historical figures over languages according to their birth place. In this case the above patterns become even more pronounced.
At a first glance from Figs. \[fig4\]E,F we observe for persons born in AD 20th century a significantly more homogeneous distribution over cultures compared to early centuries. However, as noted in [@Eom2013PLOS], each Wikipedia edition favors historical figures speaking the corresponding language. We investigate how this preference to same-language historical figures changes in time. For this analysis, we define two variables $M_{L,C}$ and $N_{L,C}$ for a given language edition $L$ and a given century $C$. Here $M_{L,C}$ is the number of historical figures born in all countries being attributed to a given language $L$, and $N_{L,C}$ is the total number of historical figures for a given century $C$ and a given language edition $L$. For example, among the 21 top PageRank historical figures from the English Wikipedia, who were born in AD 20th century, two historical figures (Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI) were not born in English speaking countries. Thus in this case $N_{EN,20}=21$ and $M_{EN,20}=19$. Fig \[fig5\] represents the ratio $r_{L,C}=M_{L,C}/N_{L,C}$ for each edition and each century. In ancient times (i.e. before AD 5th century), most historical figures for each Wikipedia edition are not born in the same language region except for the Greek, Italian, Hebrew, and Chinese Wikipedia. However, after AD 5th century, the ratio of same language historical figures is rising. Thus, in AD 20th century, most Wikipedia editions have significant numbers of historical figures born in countries speaking the corresponding language. For PageRank persons and AD 20th century, we find that the English edition has the largest fraction of its own language, followed by Arabic and Persian editions while other editions have significantly large connections with other cultures. For the English edition this is related to a significant number of USA presidents appearing in the top 100 list (see [@Zhirov2010; @Eom2013EPJB]). For 2DRank persons the largest fractions were found for Greek, Arabic, Chinese and Japanese cultures. These data show that even in age of globalization there is a significant dominance of local historical figures for certain cultures.
Gender distribution {#gender-distribution .unnumbered}
-------------------
From the gender distributions of historical figures, we observe a strong male-skewed pattern across many Wikipedia editions regardless of the ranking algorithm. On average, $5.2 (10.1)$ female historical figures are observed among the 100 top PageRank (2DRank) persons for each Wikipedia edition. Fig. \[fig6\] shows the number of top female historical figures for each Wikipedia edition. Thai, Hindi, Swedish, and Hebrew have more female historical figures than the average over our 24 editions in the case of PageRank On the other hand, the Greek and the Korean versions have a lower number of females than the average. In the case of 2DRank, English, Hindi, Thai, and Hungarian Wikipedia have more females than the average while German, Chinese, Korean, and Persian Wikipedia have less females than the average. In short, the top historical figures in Wikipedia are quite male-skewed. This is not surprising since females had little chance to be historical figures for most of human history. We compare the gender skewness to other cases such as the number of female editors in Wikipedia (9 percent) in 2011 [@Wikipedians] and the share of women in parliaments, which was 18.7 percent in 2012 by UN Statistics and indicators on women and men [@UN_Women2012], the male skewness for the PageRank list is stronger in the contents of Wikipedia [@Lam2011]. However, the ratio of females among the top historical figures is growing by time as shown in Fig. \[fig6\] C. It is notable that the peak in Fig. \[fig6\]C at BC 1st is due to “Mary (mother of Jesus)”. In the 20th century 2DRank gives a larger percentage of women compared to PageRank. This is due to the fact that 2DRank has a larger fraction of singers and artists comparing to PageRank (see [@Zhirov2010; @Eom2013EPJB]) and that the fraction of women in these fields of activity is larger.
Global historical figures {#global-historical-figures .unnumbered}
-------------------------
Above we analyzed how top historical figures in Wikipedia are distributed in terms of space, time, and gender. Now we identify how these top historical figures are distributed in each Wikipedia edition and which are global historical figures. According to previous research [@Eom2013PLOS], there are some global historical figures who are recognized as important historical figures across Wikipedia editions. We identify global historical figures based on the ranking score for a given person determined by her number of appearances and ranking index over our 24 Wikipedia editions.
Following [@Eom2013PLOS], the ranking score $\Theta_{P,A}$ of a historical figure $P$ is given by
$$\Theta_{P,A} = \sum_{E} (101-R_{P,E,A}) \label{eq1}$$
Here $R_{P,E,A}$ is the ranking of a historical figure $P$ in Wikipedia edition $E$ by ranking algorithm $A$. According to this definition, a historical figure who appears more often in the lists of top historical figures for the given 24 Wikipedia editions or has higher ranking in the lists gets a higher ranking score. Table \[table4\] represents the top 10 global historical figures for PageRank and 2DRank. [*Carl Linnaeus*]{} is the 1st global historical figure by PageRank followed by [*Jesus, Aristotle*]{}. [*Adolf Hitler*]{} is the 1st global historical figure by 2DRank followed by [*Michael Jackson, Madonna (entertainer)*]{}. On the other hand, the lists of the top 10 local historical figures ordered by our ranking score for each language are represented in SI Tables S1-S25 and [@ourwikipage].
The reason for a somewhat unexpected PageRank leader [*Carl Linnaeus*]{} is related to the fact that he laid the foundations for the modern biological naming scheme so that plenty of articles about animals, insects and plants point to the Wikipedia article about him, which strongly increases the PageRank probability. This happens for all 24 languages where [*Carl Linnaeus*]{} always appears on high positions since articles about animals and plants are an important fraction of Wikipedia. Even if in a given language the top persons are often politicians (e.g. [*Napoleon, Barak Obama*]{} at $K=1,2$ in EN), these politicians have mainly local importance and are not highly ranked in other languages (e.g. in ZH [*Carl Linnaeus*]{} is at $K=1$, [*Napoleon*]{} at $K=3$ and [*Barak Obama*]{} is at $K=24$). As a result when the global contribution is counted over all $24$ languages [*Carl Linnaeus*]{} appears on the top PageRank position.
Our analysis suggests that there might be three groups of historical figures. Fig. \[fig7\] shows these three groups of top PageRank historical figures in Wikipedia: (i) global historical figures who appear in most of Wikipedia editions ($N_A \geq 18$) and are highly ranked ($\langle K \rangle \leq 50$) for each Wikipedia such as Carl Linnaeus, Plato, Jesus, and Napoleon (Right-Top of the Fig. 7A); (ii) local-highly ranked historical figures who appear in a few Wikipedia editions ($N_A<18$) but are highly ranked ( $\langle K \rangle \leq 50$ ) in the Wikipedia editions in which they appear, such as Tycho Brahe, Sejong the Great, and Sun Yat-sen (Left-Top of the Fig. 7A); (iii) locally-low ranked historical figures who appear in a few Wikipedia editions ($N_A<18$) and who are not highly ranked ($\langle K \rangle > 50$). Here $N_A$ is the number of appearances in different Wikipedia editions for a given person and $\langle K \rangle$ is the average ranking of the given persons across Wikipedia editions for each ranking algorithm. In the case of 2DRank historical figures, due to the absence of global historical figures, most of them belong to two types of local historical figures (i.e. local-highly ranked or local-lowly ranked).
Following ranking of persons via $\Theta_{P,A}$ we determine also the top global female historical figures, presented in Table \[table5\] for PageRank and 2DRank persons. The full lists of global female figures are available at [@ourwikipage] (63 and 165 names for PageRank and 2DRank).
The comparison of our 100 global historical figures with the top 100 from Hart’s list [@hart] gives an overlap of 43 persons for PageRank and 26 persons for 2DRank. We note that for the top 100 from the English Wikipedia we obtain a lower overlap of 37 (PageRank) and 4 (2DRank) persons. Among all editions the highest overlaps with the Hart list are 42 (VI), 37 (EN,ES,PT,TR) and 33 (IT), 32 (DE), 31 (FR) for PageRank; while for 2DRank we find 18 (EL) and 17 (VI). We give the overlap numbers for all editions at [@ourwikipage]. This shows that the consideration of 24 editions provides us the global list of the top 100 persons with a more balanced selection of top historical figures. Our overlap of the top 100 global historical figures by PageRank with the top 100 people from Pantheon MIT ranking list [@hidalgo] is 44 percent, while the overlap of this Pantheon list with Hart’s list is 43 percent. We note that the Pantheon method is significantly based on a number of page views while our approach is based on the network structure of the whole Wikipedia network. The top 100 persons from [@stonybrook] are not publicly available but nevertheless we present the overlaps between the top 100 persons from the lists of Hart, Pantheon, Stony-Brook and our global PageRank and 2DRank lists in SI Figs.S2,S3 (we received the Stony-Brook list as a private message from the authors of [@stonybrook]). We have an average overlap between the 4 methods on a level of 40 percent (2DRank is on average lower by a few percent), we find a larger overlap between our PageRank list and the Stony-Brook list since the Stony-Brook method, applied only for the English Wikipedia, is significantly based on PageRank.
We also compared the distributions of our global top 100 persons of PageRank and 2DRank with the distribution of Hart’s top 100 over centuries and over 24 languages with the additional WR category (see Fig.S4 in SI). We find that these 3 distributions have very similar shapes. Thus the largest number of persons appears in centuries AD 18th, 19th, 20th for the 3 distributions. Among languages, the main peaks for the 3 distributions appear for EN, DE, IT, EL, AR, ZH. The deviations from Hart’s distribution are larger for the 2DRank list. Thus the comparison of distributions over centuries and languages shows that the PageRank list has not only a strong overlap with the Hart list in the number of persons but that they also have very similar statistical distributions of the top 100 persons over centuries and languages.
The overlap of the top 100 global persons found here with the previous study [@Eom2013PLOS] gives 54 and 47 percent for PageRank and 2DRank lists, respectively. However, we note that the global list in [@Eom2013PLOS] was obtained from the top 30 persons in each edition while here we use the top 100 persons.
It is interesting to note that for the top 100 PageRank universities from the English Wikipedia edition the overlap with Shanghai top 100 list of universities is on a even higher level of 75 percent [@Zhirov2010].
Finally, we note that the ranking of historical figures using the whole PageRank (or 2DRank) list of all Wikipedia articles of a given edition provides a more stable approach compared to the network of biographical articles used in [@Aragon2012]. Indeed, the number of nodes and links in such a biographical network is significantly smaller compared to the whole network of Wikipedia articles and thus the fluctuations become rather large. For example, from the biographical network of the Russian edition one finds as the top person [*Napoleon III*]{} (and even not [*Napoleon I*]{}) [@Aragon2012], who has a rather low importance for Russia. In contrast to that the present study gives us the top PageRank historical figure of the Russian edition to be [*Peter the Great*]{}, that has much more historical grounds. In a similar way for FR the results of [@Aragon2012] give at the first position [*Adolf Hitler*]{}, that is rather strange for the French culture, while we find a natural result [*Napoleon*]{}.
Network of cultures {#network-of-cultures .unnumbered}
-------------------
We consider the selected top persons from each Wikipedia edition as important historical figures recognized by people who speak the language of that Wikipedia edition. Therefore, if a top person from a language edition $A$ appears in another edition $B$, then we can consider this as a ’cultural’ influence from culture $A$ to $B$. Here we consider each language as a proxy for a cultural group and assign each historical figure to one of these cultural groups based on the most spoken language of her/his birth place at the country level. For example, [*Adolf Hitler*]{} was born in modern Austria and since German language is the most spoken language in Austria, he is considered as a German historical figure in our analysis. This method may lead to some misguiding results due to discrepancy between territories of country and cultures, e.g. [*Jesus*]{} was born in the modern State of Palestine (Bethlehem), which is an Arabic speaking country. Thus [*Jesus*]{} is from the Arabic culture in our analysis while usually one would say that he belongs to the Hebrew culture. Other similar examples we find are: [*Charlemagne*]{} (Belgium - Dutch), [*Immanuel Kant*]{} (Russia - Russian, while usually he is attributed to DE), [*Moses*]{} (Egypt - Arabic), [*Catherine the Great*]{} (Poland - Polish, while usually she would be attributed to DE or RU).
In total there are such 36 cases from the global PageRank list of 1045 names (these 36 names are given in SI). However, in our knowledge, the birth place is the best way to assign a given historical figure to a certain cultural background computationally and systematically and with the data we have available. In total we have only about 3.4 percent of cases which can be discussed and where a native speaking language can be a better indicator of belonging to a given culture. For the global 2DRank list of 1616 names we identified 53 similar cases where an attribution to a culture via a native language or a birth place could be discussed (about 3.3 percent). These 53 names are given in SI. About half of such cases are linked with birth places in ancient Russian Empire where people from Belarus, Litvania and Ukraine moved to RU, IL, PL, WR. However, the percentage of such cases is small and the corresponding errors also remain small.
Based on the above assumption and following the approach developed in [@Eom2013PLOS], we construct two weighted networks of cultures (or language groups) based on the top PageRank historical figures and top 2DRank historical figures respectively. Each culture (i.e. language) is represented as a node of the network, and the weight of a directed link from culture $A$ to culture $B$ is given by the number of historical figures belonging to culture $B$ (e.g. French) appearing in the list of top 100 historical figures for a given culture $A$ (e.g. English). The persons in a given edition, belonging to the language of the edition, are not taken into account since they do not create links between cultures. In Table \[table6\] we give the number of such persons for each language. This table also gives the number of persons of a given language among the top 100 persons of the global PageRank and 2DRank listings.
For example, there are 5 French historical figures among the top 100 PageRank historical figures of the English Wikipedia, so we can assign weight 5 to the link from English to French. Fig. \[fig8\]A and Fig. \[fig8\]B represent the constructed networks of cultures defined by appearances of the top PageRank historical figures and top 2DRank historical figures, respectively. In total we have two networks with 25 nodes which include our 24 editions and an additional node WR for all the other world cultures.
The Google matrix $G_{ij}$ for each network is constructed following the standard rules described in [@Eom2013PLOS] and in the Methods Section. In a standard way we determine the PageRank index $K$ and the CheiRank index $K^*$ that order all cultures according to decreasing PageRank and CheiRank probabilities (see Methods and Fig.S5. in SI). The structure of matrix elements $G_{KK'}$ is shown in Fig. \[fig9\].
To identify which cultures (or language groups) are more influential than others, we calculated PageRank and CheiRank of the constructed networks of cultures by considering link weights. Briefly speaking, a culture has high PageRank (CheiRank) if it has many ingoing (outgoing) links from (to) other cultures (see Methods). The distribution of cultures on a PageRank-CheiRank plane is shown in Fig. \[fig10\]. In both cases of PageRank and 2DRank historical figures, historical figures of English culture (i.e. born in English language spoken countries) are the most influential (highest PageRank) and German culture is the second one (Fig. \[fig10\]A,B). Here we consider the historical figures for the whole range of centuries. Fig. \[fig10\] represents the detailed features of how each culture is located on the plane of PageRank ranking $K$ and CheiRank ranking $K*$ based on the top PageRank historical figures (Fig. \[fig10\]A) and top 2DRank historical figures (Fig. \[fig10\]B). Here $K$ indicates the ranking of a given culture ordered by how many of its own top historical figures appear in other Wikipedia editions, and $K^*$ indicates the ranking of a given culture according to how many of the top historical figures in the considered culture are from other cultures. As described above, English is on ($K=1$, $K^*=19$) and German is on ($K=2$, $K^*=21$) in the case of PageRank historical figures (Fig. \[fig10\]A). In the case of 2DRank historical figures, English is on ($K=1$, $K^*=14$) and German is on ($K=2$, $K^*=9$).
It is important to note that there is a significant difference compared to the previous study [@Eom2013PLOS]: there, only 9 editions had been considered and the top positions were attributed to the world node WR which captured a significant fraction of the top persons. This indicated that 9 editions are not sufficient to cover the whole world. Now for 24 editions we see that the importance of the world node WR is much lower (it moves from $K=1$ for 9 editions [@Eom2013PLOS] to $K=4$ and $3$ in Fig. \[fig10\]A and Fig. \[fig10\]B). Thus our 24 editions cover the majority the world. Still it would be desirable to add a few additional editions (e.g. Ukraine, Baltic Republics, Serbia etc.) to fill certain gaps.
It is interesting to note that the ranking plane of cultures $(K,K^*)$ changes significantly in time. Indeed, if we take into account only persons born before the 19th century then the ranking is modified with EN going to 4th (Fig. \[fig10\]C for PageRank figures) and 6th position (Fig. \[fig10\]C for 2DRank figures) while the top positions are taken by IT, DE, FR and DE, IT, AR, respectively.
At the same time, we may also argue that for cultures it is important not only to be cited but also to be communicative with other cultures. To characterize communicative properties of nodes on the network of cultures shown in Fig. \[fig8\] we use again the concepts of PageRank, CheiRank and 2DRank for these networks as described in Methods and [@Eom2013PLOS]. Thus, for the network of cultures of Fig. \[fig8\], the 2DRank index of cultures highlights their influence in a more balanced way taking into account their importance (incoming links) and communicative (outgoing links) properties in a balanced manner.
Thus we find for all centuries at the top positions Greek, Turkish and Arabic (for PageRank persons) and French, Russian and Arabic (for 2DRank persons). For historical figures before the 19th century, we find respectively Arabic, Turkish and Greek (for PageRank) and Arabic, Greek and Hebrew (for 2DRank). The high position of Turkish is due to its close links both with Greek culture in ancient times and with Arabic culture in more recent times. We see also that with time the positions of Greek in 2DRank improves due to a global improved ranking of Western cultures closely connected with Greece.
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
By investigating birth place, birth date, and gender of important historical figures determined by the network structure of Wikipedia, we identified spatial, temporal, and gender skewness in Wikipedia. Our analysis shows that the most important historical figures across Wikipedia language editions were born in Western countries after the 17th century, and are male. Also, each Wikipedia edition highlights local figures so that most of its own historical figures are born in the countries which use the language of the edition. The emergence of such pronounced accent to local figures seems to be natural since there are more links and interactions within one culture. This is also visible from to the fact that in many editions the main country for the given language is at the first PageRank position among all articles (e.g. Russia in RU edition) [@Eom2013PLOS]. Despite such a locality feature, there are also global historical figures who appear in most of the considered Wikipedia editions with very high rankings. Based on the cross-cultural historical figures, who appear in multiple editions, we can construct a network of cultures which describes interactions and entanglement between cultures.
It is very difficult to describe history in an objective way and due to that it was argued that history is “an unending dialogue between the past and present” [@Carr1961]. In a similar way we can say that history is an unending dialogue between different cultural groups. We use a computational and data mining approach, based on rank vectors of the Google matrix of Wikipedia, to perform a statistical analysis of interactions and entanglement of cultures. We find that this approach can be used for selecting the most influential historical figures through an analysis of collectively generated links between articles on Wikipedia. Our results are coherent with studies conducted by historians [@hart], with an overlap of 43% of important historical figures. Thus, such a mathematical analysis of local and global historical figures can be a useful step towards the understanding of local and global history and interactions of world cultures. Our approach has some limitations, mainly caused by the data source and by the difficulty of defining culture boundaries across centuries. The ongoing improvement of structured content in Wikipedia through the WikiData project, eventually in conjunction with additional manual annotation, should allow to deal with these limitations. Furthermore, it would be useful to perform comparisons with other approaches to measure the interactions of cultures, such as the analysis of language crossings of multilingual users [@hale].
Influence of digital media on information dissemination and social collective opinions among the public is growing fast. Our research across Wikipedia language editions suggests a rigorous mathematical way, based on Markov chains and Google matrix, for the identification of important historical figures and for the analysis of interactions of cultures at different historical periods and in different world regions. We think that a further extension of this approach to a larger number of Wikipedia editions will provide a more detailed and balanced analysis of interactions of world cultures.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This research is supported in part by the EC FET Open project “New tools and algorithms for directed network analysis” (NADINE $No$ 288956).
Supporting Information {#supporting-information .unnumbered}
======================
Supporting Information file presents Figure S1 with PageRank and CheiRank probabilities for networks of cultures of Fig. \[fig8\], lists of top 100 global PageRank and 2DRank names; Tables S1-S25 of top 10 names of given language and remained world from the global PageRank and 2DRank ranking lists of persons ordered by the score $\Theta_{P,A}$ of Eq.(\[eq1\]). Additional lists of all 100 ranked names for all 24 Wikipedia editions and corresponding network link data for each edition are given at [@ourwikipage].
[99]{}
Rosenzweig R (2006) [*Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future and the past*]{}, Journal of American History [**93**]{}(1), 117 Lavsa SM, Corman SL, Culley CM, Pummer TL (2011) [*Reliability of Wikipedia as a medication information source for pharmacy students*]{}, Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning [**3**]{}(2): 154-158 Giles J (2005) [*Internet encylopedia go head to head*]{}, Nature, [**438**]{}, 900 Kittur A, Chi EH, Suh B (2009) [*What’s in Wikipedia?: mapping topics and conflict using socially annotated category structure*]{}, In Proc. of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’09, ACM, New York Priedhorsky R, Chen J, Lam STK, Panciera K, Terveen L and Riedl J (2007). [*Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia*]{}, In Proceedings of the Intl. Conf. on Supporting Group Work, 295, ACM, New York Yasseri T, Sumi R, Rung A, Kornai A, Kertész J (2012) [*Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia*]{}, PLoS ONE [**7**]{}(6): e38869 Yasseri T, Spoerri A, Graham M, Kertész J (2013) [*The most controversial topics in Wikipedia: a multilingual and geographical analysis*]{} arXiv:1305.5566 \[physics.soc-ph\] Laniado D, Tasso R, Volkovich Y. Kaltenbrunner A (2011) [*When the wikipedians talk: Network and tree structure of Wikipedia discussion pages*]{}, Proc. of ICWSM UNESCO World Report (2009) [*Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue*]{}, Available: [ http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/resources/report/the-unesco-world-report-on-cultural-diversity ]{} Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. Retrived May 12, 2014 from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral\_point\_of\_view]{} Pfeil U, Zaphiris P, Ang C A, (2006) [*Cultural Differences in Collaborative Authoring of Wikipedia*]{}, J. Computer-Mediated Comm. [**12(1)**]{}: 88 Callahan ES, Herriing SC (2011) [*Cultural bias in Wikipedia content on famous persons*]{}, Journal of the American society for information science and technology [**62**]{}: 1899 Hecht B, Gergle D (2009) [*Measuring self-focus bias in community-maintained knowledge repositories*]{} Proc. of the Fourth Intl Conf. Communities and technologies, ACM, New York :11 Hecht B, Gergle D (2010) [*The Tower of Babel Meets Web 2.0: User-Generated Content and Its Applications in a Multilingual Context*]{}, Proc. of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’10, Atlanta, ACM, New York Nemoto K, Gloor PA (2011) [*Analyzing cultural differences in collaborative innovation networks by analyzing editing behavior in different-language Wikipedias*]{} Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences [**26**]{}: 180 Warncke-Wang M, Uduwage A, Dong Z, Riedl J (2012) [*In search of the ur-Wikipedia: universality, similarity, and translation in the Wikipedia inter-language link network*]{}, Proceedings of the 8th Intl. Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym 2012), ACM, New York Massa P, Scrinzi F (2012) [*Manypedia: Comparing language points of view of Wikipedia communities*]{}, Proceedings of the 8th Intl. Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym 2012), ACM, New York Warncke-Wang M, Uduwage A, Dong Z, Riedl J (2012) [*In search of the ur-Wikipedia: universality, similarity, and translation in the Wikipedia inter-language link network*]{}, Proceedings of the 8th Intl. Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym 2012), ACM, New York No 20 Zhirov AO, Zhirov OV, Shepelyansky DL (2010) [*Two-dimensional ranking of Wikipedia articles*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. B [**77**]{}: 523 Eom YH, Frahm KM, Bencźur A, Shepelyansky DL (2013) [*Time evolution of Wikipedia network ranking*]{} Eur. Phys. J. B, [**86**]{}:482 Aragón P, Laniado D, Kaltenbrunner A, Volkovich Y (2012) [*Biographical social networks on Wikipedia: a cross-cultural study of links that made history*]{}, Proc. of the 8th Intl. Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym 2012), ACM, New York No 19 Eom YH, Shepelyansky DL (2013) [*Highlighting Entanglement of Cultures via Ranking of Multilingual Wikipedia Articles*]{}, PLoS ONE, [**8**]{}(10): e74554 Skiena S, Ward CB (2013) [*Who is Bigger?: Where Historical Figures Really Rank*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK MIT Pantheon project. Available: [http://pantheon.media.mit.edu]{}. Accessed 2014 May 12. Samoilenko A, Yasseri T (2014) [*The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics*]{}, EPJ Data Sci. [**3**]{}: 1 Wikipedia: List of languages by number of native speakers. Retrived May 12, 2014 from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_languages\_by\_number\_of\_native\_speakers]{} Wikipedia: Wikipedia . Retrived May 12, 2014 from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia]{} Hart MH (1992) [*The 100: ranking of the most influential persons in history*]{}, Citadel Press, N.Y. Ermann L, Chepelianskii AD, Shepelyansky DL (2012) [*Toward two-dimensional search engines*]{}, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**45**]{}: 275101 Ermann L, Frahm KM, Shepelyansky DL (2013) [*Spectral properties of Google matrix of Wikipedia and other networks*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. D [**86**]{}: 193 Langville AM, Meyer CD (2006) [*Google’s PageRank and Beyond: The Science of Search Engine Rankings*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton Brin S, Page L (1998) [*The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine*]{} Computer Networks and ISDN Systems [**30**]{}: 107 Chen P, Xie H, Maslov S, Redner S (2007) [*Finding scientific gems with Googleś PageRank algorithm*]{} Jour. Informetrics, [**1**]{}: 8 Kwak H, Lee C, Park H, Moon S (2010) [*What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?*]{}, Proc. 19th Int. Conf. WWW2010, ACM, New York :591 Ermann L, Shepelyansky DL (2011) [*Google matrix of the world trade network*]{}, Acta Physica Polonica A [**120(6A)**]{}, A158 Kandiah V, Shepelyansky DL (2013) [*Google matrix analysis of DNA sequences*]{}, PLoS ONE [**8(5)**]{}: e61519 Chepelianskii AD (2010) [*Towards physical laws for software architecture*]{} arXiv:1003.5455 \[cs.SE\] Lü L, Zhang Y-C, Yeung CH, Zhou T (2011) [*Leaders in social networks, the delicious case*]{}, PLoS ONE [**6(6)**]{}: e21202 . Accessed 2014 May 12 Top wikipeople. Available: [http://www.quantware.ups-tlse.fr/QWLIB/topwikipeople/. Accessed 2014 May 12.]{} United States Census Bureau. Retrieved May 12, 2014 from [ http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table\_history.php]{} Wikipedia: Wikipedians. Retrived May 12, 2014 from [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians]{} Statistics and indicators on women and men by United Nation. [http://unstats.un.org/unsd/Demographic/products/indwm/]{} (accesible May 12, 2014) Lam STK, Uduwage A, Dong Z, Sen S (2011) [*WP:clubhouse?: an exploration of Wikipedia’s gender imbalance*]{} Proc. of the 7th Intl. Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration, WikiSym’11, Moutain View Carr EH (1961) [*What is History?*]{}, Vintage Books, New York Hale SA (2014) [*Multilinguals and Wikipedia editing*]{}. Proc. 6th Annual ACM Web Science Conf. [**1**]{}, 99 (ACM New York)
$\phantom{.}$
\[figure1\]
{width="0.92\columnwidth"}
\[figure2\]
{width="0.92\columnwidth"}
\[figure3\]
{width="0.9\columnwidth"}
\[figure4\]
{width="0.95\columnwidth"}
\[figure5\]
\[figure6\]
{width="0.9\columnwidth"}
\[figure7\]
{width="0.95\columnwidth"}
\[figure8\]
{width="0.95\columnwidth"}
\[figure9\]
\[figure10\]
$\phantom{.}$
\[table1\]
$\phantom{.}$
\[tableENFigures\]\[table2\]
$\phantom{.}$
\[tableCountry\]\[table3\]
$\phantom{.}$
\[tableGlobalFigure10\]\[table4\]
$\phantom{.}$
\[tableWomen\]\[table5\]
$\phantom{.}$
\[tablelocalfigures\]\[table6\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A novel notion of unpredictable strings is revealed and utilized to define deterministic unpredictable sequences on a finite number of symbols. We prove the first law of large strings for random processes in discrete time, which confirms that there exists the uncountable set of unpredictable realizations. The hypothesis on the second law of large strings is formulated, which is relative to the Bernoulli theorem. Theoretical and numerical backgrounds for the phenomenon are provided.'
address:
- '$^{a}$Department of Mathematics, Middle East Technical University, 06800 Ankara, Turkey'
- '$^*$Corresponding Author Tel.:+90 312 210 5355'
author:
- 'Marat Akhmet$^{*,a}$'
- 'Astrit Tola$^{a}$'
title: '**Unpredictable Strings**'
---
Unpredictable strings, Unpredictable sequences, Discrete random processes, The first law of large strings, The second law of large strings, Bernoulli process.
Introduction
============
We have developed the concept of strong relation between deterministic chaos and random dynamics in our recent papers [@Akh51]-[@Akh53]. This time, the notions of unpredictable strings of symbols and infinite unpredictable sequences with unpredictable strings of unbounded lengths are introduced. The definitions strongly relate to the concept of the unpredictable point [@Akh16a]-[@Akh19S]. A numerical simulation of the Bernoulli process is performed to demonstrate that the realization is a part of an unpredictable sequence. A numerical analysis confirms that specific properties for the random dynamics are valid, the first and second laws of large (unpredictable) strings. Besides, a Matlab algorithm to construct sequences with inductively increasing lengths of unpredictable strings is provided.
The unpredictable strings {#Intro}
=========================
In this section, we introduce the main concept of this paper, unpredictable strings, and utilize them to determine unpredictable sequences. Let $a_i$, $i=0,1,2,...$, be an infinite sequence of symbols. The diagram in Figure \[fig2.3\] illustrates the definition.
A finite array $(a_s,a_{s+1},...,a_{s+k})$, where $s$ and $k$ are positive integers, is said to be an unpredictable string of length $k$ if $a_i=a_{s+i}$, for $i=0,1,2,...,k-1$, and $a_k \neq a_{s+k}$.
![The illustration of the unpredictable string of length $k$.[]{data-label="fig2.3"}](a200.eps){height="4cm"}
\[01\] The sequence $a_i$ is unpredictable if it admits unpredictable strings with arbitrary large lengths.
\[02\] [@Akh18] The sequence $a_i$ is unpredictable if there exist sequences $\zeta _n$, $\eta_n$ of positive integers both of which diverge to infinity such that $a_{\zeta_n+l} = a_l$, $l=0,1,2,...,\eta_n-1$, and $a_{\zeta_n+\eta_n} \neq a_{\eta_n}$, for each $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
\[03\] The Definitions \[01\] and \[02\] are equivalent.
Let sequence $a_i$ be unpredictable. Then the finite arrays $(a_{\zeta_n},a_{\zeta_n+1},...,a_{\zeta_n+\eta_n})$ are unpredictable strings of length $\eta_n$, for each natural $n$. Thus the sequence admits unpredictable strings with arbitrary large lengths.
Conversely let $a_i$ be a sequence that admits unpredictable strings of arbitrary large lengths, i. e., there is a sequence $i_n$, $n=1,2,3,...$, such that the finite arrays $(a_{i_n},a_{i_n+1},...,a_{i_n+k})$ are unpredictable strings. By setting $\zeta _n=i_n$ and $\eta_n=i_n+k$ we deduce that the sequence $a_i$ is unpredictable in light of Definition \[02\]. $\Box$
Fix a positive integer $k$ and denote by $S_k$ the sets of all indexes $s$ such that the strings $(a_s,a_{s+1},...,a_{s+k})$ are unpredictable within the sequence $a_i, i = 1, 2, ... $, which is not necessarily unpredictable.
\[1\] The sets $S_l$ and $S_q$ do not intersect if $l < q$.
Assume, on contrary, that sets $S_l$ and $S_q$ have a common element $s.$ Then, we have that $a_l\neq a_{s+l}$ if $s\in S_l$ and $a_{l}=a_{s+l}$ if $s\in S_q$. This contradiction completes the prove. $\Box$
\[2\] Assume that $a_i$ is an unpredictable sequence. Then each $a_j$ with positive $j$ is the first element of an unpredictable string, if $a_j = a_0$.
Assume the opposite. Then one can show that the sequence $\alpha$ is periodic one. That is not unpredictable sequence. $\Box$
Numerical analysis of the Bernoulli process {#Bern}
===========================================
In this section, we will scrutinize the realizations of Bernoulli processes, by considering them as sequences consisting of the digits 1 and 0 with positive probabilities.
First, we will build unpredictable strings of inductively increasing lengths by using fixed complex vectors, $v_1,v_2,...,v_r$.
Let us set $a_0=random(\{v_1,v_2,...,v_r\})$ and $a_1=random(\{v_1,v_2,...,v_r\})$. Then for increasing $k=1,2,3,...$, we define $a_{m(k)+j}=a_j$, for $j<k$, and $a_{m(k)+j}=random(\{v_1,v_2,...,v_r\}-a_j)$, for $j=k$, where $m(k+1)=m(k)+k$ with $m(1)=2$.
The immediately following Algorithm \[Algseq\] is the scalar case for $r=2$, $v_1=0$ and $v_2=1$. The sequence $(0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, ...)$ is a result of the algorithm application
Let us introduce several characteristics that are of usage for analyses of finite realizations. For fixed natural number $m$, consider a finite realization, $a_i, i = 0, 1, ..., m$. Denote by $K(m)$ the largest length of unpredictable strings in the array. For every $k$ between $1$ and $K(m)$, denote by $q_k$ the number of $k-$lengthy unpredictable strings within the array, by $\xi_k$ the largest index such that $(a_{\xi_k}, a_{\xi_{k+1}}, ..., a_{\xi_k+k})$ is an unpredictable string within the array, and by $N(m)$ the number of all unpredictable strings, which have a non-empty intersection with the array.
Next, we provide statistical results on the realization, which are obtained by Matlab simulations for the Bernoulli process with probability $p = 0.6$ and $m = 9 \times 10^5$. We have evaluated values of $K(n)$, $\xi_{K(n)}$ and $N(n)/n$, for each $n$ from $1$ to $m$. Ten samples of the simulations are provided in Table \[tab7\]. According to the full data obtained in simulations, the realization can be considered as part of an unpredictable sequence, since there are unpredictable strings with increasing lengths. Moreover, $N(n)/n \approx p$, if $n$ is large.
$n$ $K(n)$ $\xi_{K(n)}$ $ N(n)/n$
-------- -------- -------------- -----------
50 10 20 0.72
200 10 20 0.58
500 10 228 0.586
2000 14 1008 0.596
10000 14 3469 0.6031
20000 18 19206 0.5995
100000 21 74683 0.6014
500000 21 401088 0.6003
800000 21 663684 0.6001
900000 28 874766 0.5686
: The values ${K(n)}$, $\xi_{K(n)}$ and $N(n)/n$ for the finite realization.[]{data-label="tab7"}
Laws of large strings
=====================
In this section, we consider a discrete-time random process $\textbf{X}(n)$ with the finite state space of $r$ different symbols $s_1, s_2,..., s_r.$ The function admits values $s_i$ with positive probabilities $p_i$, $i=1,2,...,r$, which sum is equal to the unit. A realization $\alpha$ of the process is the sequence $a_i$, $i=1,2,...$, and a finite realization $\alpha_m$ is the array $a_i$, $i=1,2,...,m$. We claim that stochastic processes with discrete-timeand finite-state spaces satisfy the following theorem.
(the first law of large strings) The discrete time random process $\textbf{X}(n)$ with the finite state space admits uncountable set of realizations, which are unpredictable sequences in the sense of Definition \[01\].
Let us consider the space $\Sigma_r $ of infinite sequences of finite set of symbols $s_1, s_2,..., s_r,$ with the metric $$\begin{aligned}
d(\xi,\zeta)={\Sigma}_{k=0}^\infty\dfrac{|\xi_k-\zeta_k|}{2^k},\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi = (\xi_0\xi_1\xi_2...), \zeta = (\zeta_0\zeta_1\zeta_2...)$. The Bernoulli shift $\sigma$ on $\Sigma_r$ is defined as $\sigma(\xi_0\xi_1\xi_2...) =(\xi_1\xi_2\xi_3...)$. The map is continuous and $\Sigma_r$ is a compact metric space [@Wiggins].
It is clear that the set of all realizations of the random dynamics $X\textbf{}(n)$ coincides with the set of all sequences of the symbolic dynamics on $\Sigma_r.$ According to the result in [@Akh16b], the symbolic dynamics admits an unpredictable point, $i^*$, a sequence from the set $\Sigma_r.$ There is the uncountable set of unpredictable points, which are unpredictable sequences in the sense of Definition \[01\]. $\Box$
It is important that the set is the closure for the unpredictable orbit. The density is considered in the shift dynamics sense. The property of the metric implies that each arc of any sequence in the space coincides with some arc of the unpredictable sequence.
Denote by n(m) the number of elements, which are equal to $a_0$ in a finite string. The limit $E[a_0] =\lim_{m\to\infty} n(m)/m$ is said to be the expected value [@Casta]. It is clear that $E[a_0] = p_i$, if $a_0 = s_i, i= 1, ..., r$.
Theorem \[2\] implies the equality N(m) = n(m). Hence, by the Bernoulli theorem and arguments assumed for the first law, one may suggest that the following second law of large strings may be valid.
If the discrete time random process $X(n)$ admits a finite state space, then the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p2}
\lim_{m\to\infty}P \left( \left|\dfrac{N(m)}{m}-E[a_0] \right|<\varepsilon \right) =1
\end{aligned}$$ holds for any $\varepsilon> 0$.
We can not prove the last theorem yet rigorously. This is why, we suggest it as an open problem. Since of Theorem 2.3, the following assertion is correct, which can be useful for applications.
\[4\] If a realization $\alpha$ is an unpredictable sequence, then the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p1}
\lim_{m\to\infty}\dfrac{N(m)}{m} =E[a_0]
\end{aligned}$$ is valid.
To have more impressions of the unpredictable strings, let us consider the graph of the piece-wise constant function, $H(t),$ which values on intervals $[i/10,(i+1)/10), i =0,1,\ldots,199,$ are assigned randomly $1$ or $-1$ with equal probability $1/2.$ The two unpredictable strings as result of the Bernoulli process are present, in the red, in the Figure \[fig3.3\], $(a).$ The second one, with length of $0.7$ units, placed between coordinates $14$ and $16,$ shown in Figure \[fig3.3\], $(c),$ while its corresponding initial arc, in Figure \[fig3.3\], $(b).$
![The graph of the function $H(t),$ which illustrates unpredictable strings appearance.[]{data-label="fig3.3"}](prob101.eps){height="6cm"}
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a new method of finding cosmic voids using tomographic maps of Ly$\alpha$ forest flux. We identify cosmological voids with radii of 2 – $12 \, h^{-1}$Mpc in a large N-body simulation at $z = 2.5$, and characterize the signal of the high-redshift voids in density and Ly$\alpha$ forest flux. The void properties are similar to what has been found at lower redshifts, but they are smaller and have steeper radial density profiles. Similarly to what has been found for low-redshift voids, the radial velocity profiles have little scatter and agree very well with the linear theory prediction. We run the same void finder on an ideal Ly$\alpha$ flux field and tomographic reconstructions at various spatial samplings. We compare the tomographic map void catalogs to the density void catalog and find good agreement even with modest-sized voids ($r > 6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc). Using our simple void-finding method, the configuration of the ongoing CLAMATO survey covering $1\,$deg$^2$ would provide a sample of about 100 high-redshift voids. We also provide void-finding forecasts for larger area surveys, and discuss how these void samples can be used to test modified gravity models, study high-redshift void galaxies, and to make an Alcock-Paczynski measurement. To aid future work in this area, we provide public access to our simulation products, catalogs, and sample tomographic flux maps.'
author:
- |
Casey W. Stark$^{1}$[^1], Andreu Font-Ribera$^{2}$, Martin White$^{1, 2, 3}$, Khee-Gan Lee$^{4}$\
$^1$ Department of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA\
$^2$ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 93720, USA\
$^3$ Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA\
$^4$ Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Königstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, West Germany
bibliography:
- 'ms.bib'
title: ' Finding High-Redshift Voids Using Lyman-$\alpha$ Forest Tomography '
---
\[firstpage\]
gravitation; cosmological parameters; large-scale structure of Universe
Introduction
============
The material we see in the Universe around us makes up a beaded, filamentary network known as the “cosmic web” [@Bon96] This web appears to be the natural outcome of gravitational instability acting upon an initially Gaussian random field. The majority of the cosmic web, by volume, is made up of large, almost empty regions known as voids which are surrounded by walls, filaments and clusters [see e.g. @Wey11a for a review]. Within this paradigm, voids are regions which are practically devoid of galaxies. They are slightly prolate in shape and occur on a wide range of sizes from Mpc to tens of Mpc [@Vog94; @Cec06; @Lav12].
The study of cosmic voids has received renewed theoretical attention recently. Voids are intrinsically interesting as a major constituent of the Universe (by volume) and one of the most visually striking features in galaxy maps. They form an interesting environment for the study of galaxy evolution. They may present an excellent laboratory for studying material which clusters most weakly (e.g. dark energy or massive neutrinos), and for testing modified gravity models. Future surveys are expected to find large samples of voids at a range of redshifts, enhancing the potential of void science.
The pristine environments of voids present an interesting setting for the study of early galaxy formation. Galaxies in low-redshift voids generally have smaller stellar masses, appear bluer, have a later morphological type, and have higher specific star formation rates than galaxies in average density environments [@Wey11a; @Bey15], although the latter properties might be solely due to their lower stellar mass [@Hoy05; @Kre11]. Extending similar studies to higher redshifts to see whether similar trends hold is a pressing observational challenge.
@Ryd95 was the first to discuss using voids as probes of cosmology. @Par07 anticipated using void ellipticity as a cosmological probe and @Lee09 [@Bos12] discussed constraining dark energy using voids. @Lav12 investigated the potential for using stacked voids as a probe of geometrical distortions [the AP test; @Alc79]. @Cha14 have studied the clustering of voids and @Ham14c describe constraining cosmology with void-galaxy cross-correlations. @Hel10 [@Li11] have investigated studying the nature of dark matter using the properties of voids and @Li12 [@Cla13] have suggested that void properties may provide a strong test of some modified gravity theories.
Observationally, studies of voids date back over three decades [@Gre78; @Lon78; @Kir81]. Recent redshift surveys have identified large samples of voids (e.g. 2dF: @Cec06; SDSS: @Sut12 [@Sut14a]; VIPERS: @Mic14) and a measurement of the AP effect from voids in the local Universe has recently been reported by @Sut14b [@Ham14a]. Being underdense in both galaxies and dark matter, voids act like objects with an effectively negative mass, bending light rays away from them. This effect has been recently detected at high significance by @Cla14.
In the absence of large-scale dynamical and environmental influences, voids would become increasingly isotropic as they evolve [@Ick84]. However, in modern theories of structure formation the frequent encounters with surrounding structures and the influence of large-scale tidal fields serve to reverse the simple trend expected for isolated voids [@Wey11a]. As matter in the center of voids streams outwards faster than matter towards the boundary, the interior evolves into an almost uniform low density region surrounded by ‘ridges’ marking the void edge: often referred to as a “bucket-shaped” density profile [see @Cec06; @Ham14b for recent fits]. The density in the center has a characteristic value of $\delta \approx -0.8$.
Historically, surveys of voids over large volumes have come from large, galaxy redshift surveys. However, finding voids in this manner requires a significant investment in telescope time due to the necessity of a high spatial sampling of tracer galaxies. For example, the void catalog presented in @Sut12 found voids in the distribution of SDSS DR7 galaxies. Their ‘bright’ cut found voids with radii larger than $7 \, h^{-1}$Mpc with galaxies separated by $8 \, h^{-1}$Mpc. To find comparable galaxy separations at $z = 0.5$, 1.0, and 2.0 will require obtaining complete galaxy redshift samples for apparent limiting magnitudes of $I = 22.5$, 24.2, and 25.7, respectively (assuming galaxy luminosity functions from @Dah05 at $z \leq 1$, and @Red08 at $z = 2$). So while such galaxy number densities are just achievable up to $z \approx 1$ with existing telescopes, it becomes increasingly challenging at higher redshifts.
In light of the aforementioned challenges, it is understandable that little attention has been given to studying voids at $z > 1$ [although see @Dal07; @Vie08]. However, recently it has been noted that given sufficient sightlines, the Ly$\alpha$ forest observed in a dense grid of faint background galaxies and quasars can be used to create three-dimensional maps of large-scale structure and that the observational requirements to map out cosmological volumes ($V \approx 10^6 \, h^{-3} \mathrm{Mpc}^3$) are within reach of existing facilities [@Lee14a]. Indeed, the first pilot map on a small field has already been made using just a few hours of data from Keck telescope [@Lee14b]. This method is ideally suited to finding extended structures at high redshift. In @Sta14, we investigated the possibility of finding protoclusters in tomographic Ly$\alpha$ maps. Here, we study the signature of cosmological voids in the Ly$\alpha$ forest.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In §\[sec:sim\], we briefly describe the simulations that we use in this paper and the method we use to find voids. In §\[sec:voids\], we use our catalog of high-redshift voids to explore the properties of voids in density and flux. In §\[sec:flux\], we demonstrate how to find voids using tomographic flux maps and discuss how well voids found in the maps compare to those found in the matter density. In §\[sec:discussion\], we present the prospects of finding high-redshift voids with this method in ongoing and future surveys, and discuss cosmology applications. We present our conclusions in §\[sec:conclusions\].
Simulations and void finding {#sec:sim}
============================
N-body simulations
------------------
In order to study the signal of voids in the Ly$\alpha$ forest, we make use of cosmological $N$-body simulations. We require a simulation which simultaneously covers a large cosmological volume while having a sufficiently small inter-particle spacing to model transmission in the IGM. The requirements are sufficiently demanding that we have used a pure $N$-body simulation, augmented with the fluctuating Gunn-Peterson approximation [FGPA; @Pet95; @Cro98; @Mei01; @Mei09]. This same simulation was also used in @Lee14a and @Sta14 so we only review the salient features here. We are also providing public access to the relevant simulation products – see App. \[app:data\] for more details.
The simulation employed $2560^3$ equal mass ($8.6 \times 10^7 \, h^{-1} M_\odot$) particles in a $256 \, h^{-1}$Mpc periodic, cubical box. This provides sufficient mass resolution to model the large-scale features in the IGM at $z = 2$–3 using the FGPA [@Mei01; @Ror13] and sufficient volume to find large voids. The assumed cosmology was of the flat $\Lambda$CDM family, with $\Omega_{\rm m} \approx 0.31$, $\Omega_{\rm b} h^2 \approx 0.022$, $h = 0.6777$, $n_s = 0.9611$, and $\sigma_8 = 0.83$, in agreement with @planck_2013_XVI. The initial conditions were generated using second-order Lagrangian perturbation theory at $z_{\rm ic} = 150$, when the rms particle displacement was 40 per cent of the mean inter-particle spacing. The particle positions and velocities were evolved using the TreePM code of @Whi02. Throughout the text, we will use the particle positions and velocities from the output at $z = 2.5$. Using the particle positions and velocities at $z = 2.5$, we generated mock Ly$\alpha$ forest spectra on a $2560^3$ grid with the FGPA as described in @Sta14. In all, we generated $2560^3$ grids with the matter density and Ly$\alpha$ forest flux in real- and redshift-space. For many purposes in this work, we did not need the high resolution provided by the $2560^3$ grids and found it much easier to work with smaller grids. For this reason, we also downsampled the fields to $256^3$ by simply averaging neighboring grid points. In the remainder of the paper, when we refer to flux, we mean the Ly$\alpha$ forest transmitted flux fraction perturbation
$$\delta_F = F / \langle F \rangle - 1 ~.$$
Void finding {#subsec:void_finding}
------------
{width="\textwidth"}
There are a variety of methods and tools used to find voids in large-scale structure [@Kau91; @Pla07; @Ney07; @Sut15]. We use a simple spherical underdensity method on the low resolution, gridded densities to construct our $z = 2.5$ void catalog. This technique is similar to spherical overdensity (SO) halo finding, but instead applied to underdensities. We identify voids by taking the $256^3$ density grid and selecting points under some threshold value, then growing spheres around the points until the average density enclosed reaches a target value. We handle overlapping voids by only saving the void with the largest radius, and we also discard any remaining voids with a radius $r < 2 \, h^{-1}$Mpc.
The free parameters in this void-finding method are the threshold value $\rho_{\rm thresh}$ and enclosed average target value $\bar{\rho}_{\rm enc}$. For the density field, there is a well-motivated threshold value of $\rho_{\rm thresh} = 0.2 \, \bar \rho$. This threshold value is a canonical density for a void core, corresponding to the central density at shell-crossing for spherical void models [@Wey11a]. This critical density value is a standard choice in other void-finding codes [e.g. @Ney07]. The choice of the average target value, however, is somewhat arbitrary. We first tested an average target value of $\bar{\rho}_{\rm enc} = 0.2 \, \bar \rho$, but found that it produced voids that were far too small – the spheres never reached the apparent ‘edge’ surrounding the low-density core. We experimented with several other average target values and found that a value of $\bar{\rho}_{\rm enc} =0.4 \, \bar \rho$ resulted in good agreement between the sphere sizes and the apparent void edges.
In principle, there is nothing special about the specific threshold and average density values we chose, and these parameters should depend on the redshift. That is, as voids continue to evacuate, the core and average densities of the void will decrease. In practice, we found the final void catalog is not very sensitive to these settings, although the void radii clearly scale with the average target density setting. Since most large voids have central densities $< 0.2 \, \bar \rho$ already, the exact value of the threshold mostly makes a difference in terms of how many points we must search over, and less of a difference in the void centers. We did find that a very small threshold (say $< 0.1 \, \bar \rho$ for this redshift) forces voids to grow from positions that often look off-center by eye. This is due to the hierarchical nature of voids, in that the lowest-density point in a large void is typically the center of a smaller subvoid, sometimes referred to as the void-in-void scenario (c.f. fig. 6 of @Ney07 and @She04). Using the SO parameter values of the threshold $\rho_{\rm thresh} = 0.2 \, \bar \rho$ and average target $\bar{\rho}_{\rm enc} = 0.4 \, \bar \rho$, we found 16,167 voids which cover 15 per cent of the simulation volume.
Fig. \[fig:slice\] shows a slice through our simulation, centered on one of the largest voids in our catalog with $r = 9.7 \, h^{-1}$Mpc. The slice is $40 \, h^{-1}$Mpc across and $6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc projected into the page. The four panels show the void in real-space density, redshift-space density, Ly$\alpha$ forest flux, and a tomographic flux map constructed from a mock survey. In each image, we marked the void center and radius with a black dot and dashed line, respectively. In the first panel, we also overplotted the positions of halos found in the same slice. Green dots mark the positions of halos with mass $M \geq 10^{12} \, h^{-1} M_\odot$ (roughly an $L_\star$ halo at this redshift), while yellow dots mark the positions of halos with $3 \times 10^{11} \, h^{-1} M_\odot \le M < 10^{12} \, h^{-1} M_\odot$. Based on simple abundance matching (see Fig. \[fig:massfn\]), these halos should host galaxies with apparent magnitudes $\mathcal{R} < 24.7$ and $24.7 \leq \mathcal{R} < 25.6$, just bright enough for redshift determination with existing facilities. The second panel shows that in redshift space the void has a larger density contrast and extent in the line-of-sight direction due to the outflow of matter from the void. Such a large structure is easily visible in the redshift-space density and flux. Although the tomographic flux map is a blurred version of the true flux, the void structure is so large that it can still easily be picked out by eye. For reference, the tomographic map is one of the realizations from @Sta14 with an average sightline spacing of $d_\perp = 2.5\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$, similar to the ongoing survey of @Lee14b. At the same time, the void is not captured by the galaxy positions even if we assume a complete galaxy sample. The relative sparsity of such halos highlights the difficulty in finding voids, even large ones, at high redshift using galaxies as tracers.
We compared our void catalog with that produced by a watershed void finder, similar to the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ZOBOV</span>]{} code. The watershed method finds the set of connected elements all under some threshold. In [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ZOBOV</span>]{} the elements are the Voronoi cells in the tessellation of the dark matter particle positions (where the density is estimated from the volume of the Voronoi cell), but in this case, we use the density values on the $2560^3$ grid for simplicity. The watershed algorithm on a uniform grid is straightforward. We find the set of points under the given threshold, and keep a list of the under-threshold points that have not been assigned to a specific watershed. Starting with the minimum value point, we search grid neighbors to see if they are also under the threshold and add them to the current watershed if so. The search stops when there are no remaining neighbors under the threshold. These points are then removed from the list of unassigned points and we move on to the next watershed. After we assign all points under the threshold, we discard watersheds with an effective radius $r_{\rm eff} = (3V_{\rm shed}/4\pi)^{1/3}$ less than $2 \, h^{-1}$Mpc, as we did with the spherical underdensity voids. Using this method with the same threshold of $\rho < 0.2 \, \bar \rho$, we found 6,364 voids, covering 5 per cent of the simulation volume.
The sets of large voids in the spherical underdensity (or SO) catalog and the watershed catalog agree very well. We visually inspected the 100 largest voids in the SO catalog, and found matches in the watershed catalog. In most cases the watershed void effective radius was slightly smaller (by 1–$2\,h^{-1}$Mpc), which explains the total count and volume difference, and the watershed voids typically have complex morphologies. The watershed voids often have an ellipsoidal core, with fingers stretching out into smaller low-density regions. We compared the SO void centers to the watershed void value-weighted centroids $\vec{x}_{\rm shed} = \sum_i \vec{x}_i \rho_i^{-1} / \sum_i \rho_i^{-1}$, where the sums are over all the points in the shed, and we weight by the inverse of the density so that the centering is driven by lower-density points. Unfortunately, the non-spherical geometries of the watershed voids tend to drive the centroid away from the center found with the SO method and the centers in the two catalogs tend to disagree by several Mpc (see Appendix \[app:sheds\] for more discussion and images of the watershed voids). It is reassuring that these two methods for finding voids in the density field qualitatively agree well, but we decided to use the SO void catalog for the remainder of this work due to its simplicity. Overall, the centers and simple shapes of the SO voids provide cleaner radial profiles and should be easier to find in the tomographic maps later. We were also concerned that the non-trivial noise we expect in the maps from tomographic reconstruction might artificially combine or split watershed regions, whereas the spherical average in the SO method will be less affected by such noise. Since our tomographic maps come with a noise estimate, one could imagine a more sophisticated algorithm (e.g. a matched filter or likelihood-based method) for finding voids could be implemented. We leave such investigations to future work.
![ The cumulative, halo mass function in the simulation at $z = 2.5$, as a function of (FoF) halo mass. The dotted lines indicate the abundances of galaxies brighter than the listed apparent $\mathcal{R}$-magnitude limits, derived from the luminosity function of @Red08. Since at this redshift and these masses satellites make up a small fraction of galaxies by number, this plot allows us to approximately equate our mass-limited halo catalogs into flux-limited galaxy catalogs. Note we have used volumes and masses without factors of $h$ in this figure to match the scalings adopted in @Red08. []{data-label="fig:massfn"}](massfn.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Voids at {#sec:voids}
=========
![ The cumulative, comoving number density of voids with radii greater than $r$ vs. $r$. In black, we show the distribution of our SO density voids at $z = 2.5$. The green dashed line is the distribution of the voids found in @Lav12, which are generally larger, as expected. []{data-label="fig:radius_dist"}](radius_dist.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:radius\_dist\], we show the cumulative number density of voids as a function of void radius. We plot the distribution of our $z = 2.5$ voids in black, and show the distribution of low-redshift voids with a green dashed line ($z \approx 0.5$), computed from eq. 21 of @Lav12. As expected, there are many more small voids and voids are generally smaller at $z = 2.5$ than at $z \simeq 0$ (c.f. fig. 1 of @Cec06 or fig. 7 of @Lav12). While voids with radii of $7 \, h^{-1}$Mpc are common for low-redshift studies, we have only 126 voids with $r \ge 7 \, h^{-1}$Mpc, which cover two per cent of the simulation volume. We note, however, that it is difficult to compare void sizes across works using different void-finding methods and working at different redshifts. For instance, we could increase the number of $r \ge 7 \, h^{-1}$Mpc voids by simply increasing the average target value in our SO void finder. For the most part, this does not change which large voids are identified, but does shift centers and increase the cumulative number density at a particular value. See @Col08 for more detail about the difficulties of defining voids and differing results from various void finders.
![ Radial profiles centered on voids with $5 \leq r < 6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc. Gray lines are individual profiles, and the thick black line shows the mean. (Top) The matter density profile. (Middle) The radial peculiar velocity profile. The dashed red line shows the linear theory prediction using the density stack profile above. (Bottom) The real-space flux profile. []{data-label="fig:profile"}](radial_profiles.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:profile\] shows the radial profile of voids in density, radial peculiar velocity, and real-space flux, stacked by radius. The gray lines show the profile for individual voids, while the thick black lines show the mean. We chose to stack the voids in our catalog with radii in the range $5 \leq r < 6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc, of which there are 511. We note that the central density is about $0.2 \, \bar{\rho}$ in the dark matter distribution, as a result of our choice of void finder. The average profile then rises almost continuously to the void edge, though individual voids show substructure within them (also visible in Fig. \[fig:slice\]). The slope of our profile contrasts with the profile of more evolved voids at lower redshifts, which exhibit a ‘bucket’ profile [^2]. We used the $z = 0$ simulation output to create a low-redshift SO void catalog (with adjusted threshold and average target values) and found that these voids do exhibit such a ‘bucket’ profile. The voids we are studying at $z = 2.5$, however, have not yet evolved to such a state and are still in the process of evacuating. The real-space flux profiles illustrate just how well the flux profile mirrors the density profile. The center of the voids have $F \simeq 1$, which translates to $\delta_F \simeq 0.25$ for our setting of $\langle F \rangle = 0.8$. In both the density and flux value, the stack profile almost reaches the mean value by $r = 10 \, h^{-1}$Mpc.
The middle panel of Fig. \[fig:profile\] shows the radial velocity profiles of the voids. The profiles are linearly increasing up to the void radius, where they peak around $120 \, \mathrm{km \, s}^{-1}$ before turning over. The radial velocity profiles also have a fairly small scatter – at the average radius of $5.4 \, h^{-1}$Mpc, the mean velocity is $119.7 \, \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ with a standard deviation of $5.4 \, \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ or about 5 per cent. Within the context of linear theory $\vec{v}(\vec{r}) \propto \vec{\nabla} \nabla^{-2} \delta(\vec{r})$. If we assume a spherical mass distribution, this can be solved to yield $v_r \propto \delta(<r) / r^2$, where $\delta(<r)$ is the “overdensity enclosed within $r$” in analogy with the Newtonian gravitational acceleration due to a spherical mass distribution. The radial velocity profile around spherical, or averaged, voids then becomes [@Pee93; @Ham15][^3] $$v(r) = -a f H \frac{1}{r^2}
\int_0^r \left( \frac{\rho(x)}{\bar{\rho}}-1 \right) x^2 \, dx$$ where $f \simeq \Omega_{\rm m}^{0.55}(z)$ is the growth factor, which at $z = 2.5$ is close to 1. This form was shown in fig. 1 of @Ham15 to fit the velocity profile of stacked voids in N-body simulations well at $z \simeq 0$. The dashed red line in Fig. \[fig:profile\] shows this linear theory approximation, which we see compares favorably to the profile measured in our $z = 2.5$ voids (within 10 per cent over the range plotted). It is somewhat surprising that the linear theory prediction matches our simulated radial velocity profile result down to Mpc scales and for $|\delta| = 0.8$. The fact that this prediction also matched void radial velocity profiles at $z = 0$, with voids from a different finder method is impressive [@Ham15].
![ Contour plots of a stack of the voids with $5 \le r < 6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc, showing the impact of redshift-space distortions. The four panels show the density and flux in real and redshift space, binned in the distances parallel ($x_\parallel$) and perpendicular ($x_\perp$) to the line of sight. In the redshift-space fields, the radial profiles are clearly extended in the line-of-sight direction. []{data-label="fig:stack_rsd"}](rperp_rpara_profiles.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:stack\_rsd\] shows the two dimensional profiles (in mass and flux) of stacks of voids with radii $5 \leq r < 6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc in both real and redshift space. Apart from some noise near the line-of-sight axes, the contours in Fig. \[fig:stack\_rsd\] are isotropic in the real-space panels but show extended, anisotropic profiles in redshift-space. This is an indication of the effect of peculiar velocities, which appear visually to be larger in our case than at lower redshifts when voids are traced by galaxies. We note that the profiles are much better measured at small radii where there is less scatter. Beyond the radius of the stack $r \approx 5.5 \, h^{-1}$Mpc, the scatter in the individual profiles increases significantly. We believe this is the source of the extended orange contour in the bottom right panel, for instance.
Since we expect the stacked voids to be isotropic in real space, by symmetry, any observed anisotropy offers an opportunity to study such peculiar velocities. This could be particularly interesting for constraining models with modified gravity. For example, @Cla13 find that, driven by the outward-pointing fifth force, individual voids in chameleon models expand faster and grow larger than in a $\Lambda$CDM universe. Such effects would modify the profile of the stacked voids in a potentially observable manner, allowing observations of voids in the Ly$\alpha$ forest to test such models. Based on the radial velocity profiles shown in Fig. \[fig:profile\] and the measured standard deviation, one would need only about 20 voids with a radial velocity measurement to reach one per cent standard error (assuming Poisson errors). With accurate enough radial velocity measurements from void anisotropies, it should be possible to detect deviations at the 10 per cent level with relatively small samples. Conversely, the larger impact of redshift-space distortions in the Ly$\alpha$ flux field means they must be modeled in order to make a measurement of the Alcock-Paczynski effect [@Alc79] from stacked voids in the flux field (see Section \[subsec:ap\]).
Finding voids in flux {#sec:flux}
=====================
Field SO Thresh. SO Avg. Count Vol. Frac.
------------------ --------------------- -------------------- -------- ------------ --
$\rho$ $0.20 \, \bar \rho$ $0.4 \, \bar \rho$ 16,167 0.152
$\rho_{\rm red}$ $0.15 \, \bar \rho$ $0.3 \, \bar \rho$ 16,338 0.151
$\delta_F$ 0.224 0.167 16,296 0.150
hires map 0.224 0.167 16,586 0.203
midres map 0.224 0.167 8,724 0.181
lores map 0.224 0.167 5,565 0.153
\[tab:catalogs\]
: Void catalogs
The spherical under/overdensity void catalogs used for comparison, found in our $V \approx 1.7 \times 10^7 \, h^{-3} \mathrm{Mpc}^3$ simulation. We use the original $\rho$ catalog as our ‘truth’ and varied the SO parameters for the $\rho_{\rm red}$ and $\delta_F$ catalogs to qualitatively match. The hires map uses a $d = 2.5 \, h^{-1}$Mpc sightline spacing mock survey, while the midres map comes from a $d = 4.0 \, h^{-1}$Mpc configuration, and the lores map from a $d = 6.0 \, h^{-1}$Mpc configuration. The noise and smoothing inherent in the tomographic reconstruction process create larger differences in the catalog properties.
Underdense regions show up as high transmission regions in the 3D Ly$\alpha$ forest flux for $z = 2$ – 3, as shown in Fig. \[fig:slice\] and \[fig:profile\]. This is not necessarily the case at lower redshifts, since the characteristic density probed by the forest increases with time [@Bec11; @Luk15]. At lower redshifts, it is difficult to see differences in transmission passing through an underdense region vs. a moderately overdense region, since it takes a significant overdensity to create an observable absorption feature. Fortunately, there is a large overlap between the redshift range of the forest accessible from the ground and the redshift range where mean density structures scatter an observable fraction of the light. Given this, finding voids in flux at $z = 2$ – 3 is a matter of finding coherent high-transmission regions. In [@Sta14], we outlined a simple method using tomographic flux maps to find protoclusters (coherent low-transmission regions) at these redshifts. We now adapt these methods to find coherent high-transmission regions, corresponding to high-redshift voids.
The void catalogs used in this section are listed in Table \[tab:catalogs\], including voids found in the redshift-space density, the flux, and three tomographic flux maps. In each case, we modified the SO threshold and average target parameters to create a void catalog with roughly the same void count and radius distribution as the real-space density catalog. For reference, we use three of the tomographic flux maps created in @Sta14. These maps were constructed by mocking up a realistic survey covering the simulation volume with signal-to-noise distributions similar to the pilot observations of @Lee14b, and several other settings of the average sightline spacing and minimum spectral signal-to-noise ratio. The tomographic maps were then generated by running our reconstruction code on the mock spectra. The three maps we use are generated from mock surveys with average sightline spacings of $d_\perp = 2.5$, 4, and $6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc. The smallest sightline separation configuration is similar to the ongoing CLAMATO survey, and the larger separation configurations are similar to what we expect from large-area surveys on 8 – $10\,$m telescopes like the Subaru Prime Focus Spectrograph [PFS; @Tak14] or the Maunakea Spectroscopic Explorer [@Sim14]. We refer to these tomographic maps as the hires, midres, and lores flux maps. We discuss the characteristics of the individual catalogs in the following subsections and focus on our method to compare catalogs for now. Comparing across void catalogs, we want to confirm that there are nearby pairs of voids with similar radii. We expect to find the same set of voids in density and flux, as we have demonstrated how well-matched the fields are in previous sections. This is mostly a matter of determining the best SO parameters for the flux. The tomographic flux maps, however, are contaminated by and spectral noise in individual mock spectra and shot noise due to sparse sampling of the field, and this noise will certainly affect our capability of finding voids.
We use two metrics to compare the catalogs of voids found in different fields. The first metric is essentially the sum of the difference in the center positions and radii, which we call the match error. If we are comparing voids in catalog A with voids in catalog B, for each A-B pair, we compute the match error $$\epsilon = \frac{\sqrt{(r_A - r_B)^2 + |\vec{x}_A - \vec{x}_B|^2 / 3^2}}{r_A}$$ where $r$ is the radius and $\vec{x}$ is the center position. We chose this form of the error for several reasons. First, this form of the error also allows for trading off differences in radii and centers. We want to consider the differences relative to the size of the void, which will allow for larger center and radii differences for larger voids. Note that this form of the error assumes the radius of void A is the reference. Finally, we compare $1/3$ of the center difference to the radius difference just due to the dimensionality (and empirically we found that the mean center difference is about 3 times the mean radius difference). Later in this section, we will show that a match error $\epsilon < 0.3$ qualifies as a good match for a void between two catalogs, and we will use this cut to count which voids are ‘matched’. The second metric we use is the total volume overlap between the voids in both catalogs. Clearly, this metric is less useful for telling if a catalog A void is well-matched by a single catalog B void. However, it is a useful measure of how well-matched the catalogs are overall and does not depend on a specific form of the error nor a specific value to cut at. It is also useful in cases where noise in the tomographic maps artificially combines or splits voids – although the centers and radii might not match across catalogs, there will still be a sizable volume overlap. We can use these metrics to get a sense of void completeness and purity of each of the flux catalogs with respect to the density void catalog. The number of ‘matched’ density voids compared to the total number of density voids (the match fraction) is a measure of completeness. We also measure completeness by comparing the overlapping volume between two catalogs to the total volume in density voids (the overlap fraction). The purity of the flux catalogs can be measured by matching in the other direction (the fraction of matched flux voids) and by comparing the overlap to the total volume in flux voids.
Using these metrics, we first found that redshift-space distortions can create large differences in the centers and, to a lesser extent, the radii of the voids. In order to more easily compare voids found in density and flux, we created a void catalog using the redshift-space density. Voids found in redshift-space density matched those found in real-space density best (in terms of detecting the same voids with similar radii) when we used a threshold of $0.15 \, \bar \rho$ and an average target of $0.3 \, \bar \rho$. These densities are lower than the real-space values since outflows from voids drive densities lower.
Before applying these metrics to the void catalogs derived from the various flux maps, we also compared the redshift-space density void catalog to random void catalogs, mainly to get a sense of the worst-case performance. We created ten catalogs of 16,338 voids (the same number as the redshift-space density catalog), with centers uniformly distributed in the simulation domain, and with radii randomly drawn from the same distribution as that in the redshift-space density catalog. We compared each random void catalog against the density catalog, computing the fraction of density voids with a match error $\epsilon < 0.3$ and the fraction of the total volume overlap to the total volume in density voids. Overall, 2.7 per cent of the density voids were matched by voids in the random catalogs on average. It is reassuring to see that a small fraction of the density voids are matched by random voids which tells us that our cut of $\epsilon < 0.3$ is stringent enough. We also noticed that for the largest voids ($r \geq 8 \, h^{-1}$Mpc), the average match fraction drops to 1.3 per cent. This is due to the fact that both the density and random catalogs contain just a few very large voids and it is even less likely that they will overlap enough to meet the match error cut. The average volume overlap fraction between density voids and voids in the random catalogs was 15 per cent, and did not change with the radius considered. This is not surprising since the voids cover roughly 15 per cent of the total volume, so random points will overlap about that often.
Density Flux Hires map Midres map Lores map Random
------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Density – 0.994 / 0.937 0.660 / 0.631 0.478 / 0.568 0.269 / 0.517 0.0194 / 0.152
Flux 0.988 / 0.933 – 0.683 / 0.637 0.471 / 0.569 0.292 / 0.514 0.0188 / 0.153
Hires map 0.581 / 0.567 0.576 / 0.567 – 0.356 / 0.484 0.238 / 0.430 0.0261 / 0.153
Midres map 0.284 / 0.409 0.282 / 0.408 0.258 / 0.425 – 0.171 / 0.344 0.0243 / 0.152
Lores map 0.186 / 0.349 0.184 / 0.347 0.191 / 0.377 0.192 / 0.359 – 0.0204 / 0.153
Random 0.0193 / 0.151 0.0191 / 0.150 0.0368 / 0.204 0.0480 / 0.182 0.0398 / 0.149 –
\[tab:cat\_comp\]
The catalog void match fraction and volume overlap fractions (separated by a slash in each cell), for $r \geq 6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc voids. For each row, we compute the fraction of voids with a match error $\epsilon < 0.3$ and the fraction of the total volume overlapped by voids in the catalog of that column.
Ideal flux
----------
We ran our SO void finder on the ‘true’ flux grid ($256^3$) using a threshold of $\delta_F \geq 0.224$ and an average target of $\delta_F = 0.167$. We experimented with several values of the threshold and average target fluxes and found that these values resulted in a number of voids and radius distribution similar to the catalog of voids found in density. The mapping from flux to density evolves quickly with redshift, so these SO parameters would have to be adjusted for other redshifts and UV background prescriptions.
The flux void catalog matches the redshift-space density catalog very well. For all voids ($r \geq 2 \, h^{-1}$Mpc), 84 per cent of the density voids and the flux voids are matched. The volume overlap fraction is also very high, at 86 per cent of the density void volume and also 86 per cent of the flux void volume. For larger voids ($r \geq 6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc), the catalogs are even better matched. In this case, 99.4 per cent of the density voids and 98.8 per cent of the flux voids are matched, and the volume overlap fraction is 93.7 per cent of the density voids and 93.3 per cent of the flux voids. For reference, the density catalog contains 335 of these large voids, while the flux catalog contains 325.
Tomographic flux maps
---------------------
We constructed the map void catalogs by running the SO void finder on the maps with the same SO parameters we used for the ideal flux field. We tried several other SO parameter settings on the maps, but found that the default value catalogs performed best in comparison to the density and flux catalogs. Small changes to the SO parameters resulted in slightly better performance, but changes larger than about $\Delta \delta_F = 0.01$, resulted in similar or worse performance, so we did not bother optimizing these parameter choices further. Unfortunately, our simple void-finding method does not consider noise in the map which can contaminate the set of thresholded points and the spherical averages. The noise in the map acts to scatter points below or above the SO threshold, creating false negatives and positives respectively. In the same way, the noise can affect the spherical averages used in the SO finder, resulting in inaccurate radii. However, this should be less of an issue for coherent structures spanning several map resolution scales, which is apparent in our results for small vs.large voids. The effects of the noise are apparent in the radius distribution of the map catalogs. In the hires map catalog, the number of very small voids ($r < 2.5 \, h^{-1}$Mpc) is 3,902, about half of the number found in the density catalog (6,157). This is likely due to shot noise where sightlines did not sample these smaller structures well enough. The number of medium voids ($3 \, h^{-1} \mathrm{Mpc} \leq r < 6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc) is about double that in the density catalog, and the number of large voids ($r \geq 7 \, h^{-1}$Mpc) about the same (147 vs. 121). This explains why there is a similar total number of voids in the density and hires map catalogs, but more total volume in the map catalog (see Table \[tab:catalogs\]). The radius distributions of the midres and lores map catalogs are more distorted by the noise. The midres map catalog contains about a half the number of small voids ($r < 5 \, h^{-1}$Mpc) compared to the density catalog and the lores map catalog contain about a quarter. There are approximately double the number of large voids ($r \geq 7 \, h^{-1}$Mpc) in both map catalogs compared to the density catalog.
![ A box and whisker plot of the distributions of match errors vs. radius. The match error is computed between the redshift-space density voids and the voids in the flux catalog (gray), the hires map catalog (blue), and in one of the random catalogs (red). The line in the middle of the box is the median, the box extends from the 25th to the 75th percentile, the whiskers extend down to the 5th and up to the 95th percentiles, and points outside of this range are plotted individually. The match error threshold of $\epsilon = 0.3$ is marked with a dashed line. The flux catalog matches the density catalog exceptionally well. The hires map catalog is essentially random for small voids, but performs much better for large voids. The random catalog match error is fairly flat across radius bins. []{data-label="fig:match_errors"}](match_errors.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:match\_errors\], we plot distributions of the match errors between the voids in the redshift-space density catalog and voids in the flux, hires map, and one of the random catalogs vs. radius. The line in the middle of the box shows the median, the box extends from the 25th to the 75th percentiles, the whiskers extend from the 5th to the 95th percentile, and samples outside this are plotted individually. The match error cut value of $\epsilon = 0.3$ is marked with a dashed line. The match errors against the random catalog tend to fall around $\epsilon = 0.6$, and there are few points under our cut of $\epsilon = 0.3$, again showing that this is a safe choice. It is also reassuring that the random errors are relatively flat over radius bins because we defined the match error relative to the original void radius. The gray distributions show just how well-matched the flux and density catalogs are and that the flux match errors overlap very little with the random errors. Overall, the hires map catalog misses a significant fraction of the small voids in the density catalog, but performs well for larger voids. For all voids ($r \geq 2 \, h^{-1}$Mpc), the hires map catalog matches only 16.3 per cent of the density voids and the volume overlap fraction is 49.4 per cent. This can also be seen in the smallest radius bin in Fig. \[fig:match\_errors\], where the hires map is just a bit lower than the random distribution. However, considering larger voids ($r \geq 6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc), the hires map catalog performs much better matching against 66 per cent of the density voids and overlapping with 63 per cent of the volume. In Fig. \[fig:match\_errors\], there is a clear trend that the hires map match errors decrease with radius, separating from the random distribution. The match fractions in the other direction (purity of the hires map voids) are similar at 17.8 per cent for all voids and 58.0 per cent for large voids. The lower match fractions for large voids in this case is driven by the hires map catalog having more large voids.
The midres map void catalog performs worse for all voids, but still matches a considerable fraction of the density voids. Overall, the midres map catalog matches only 6.2 per cent of the density voids, although it still overlaps with 40 per cent of the density void volume. If we consider larger voids ($r \geq 6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc), the midres map catalog matches 48 per cent of the density voids, and matches 60 per cent of even larger voids ($r \geq 8 \, h^{-1}$Mpc). The lores map catalog performs worse than this, but is still useful for finding large voids. The lores map catalog matches only 2.5 per cent of the density voids – consistent with the random catalogs – although it overlaps with 30 per cent of the volume. This indicates that the void finder is still able to find regions containing voids from the map, but does not recover an accurate center or radius. If we consider some of the largest voids ($r \geq 8 \, h^{-1}$Mpc), the match fraction increases to 48.9 per cent and the volume overlap fraction is 61.9 per cent, again confirming that the larger the void, the better the maps perform.
Our results are also summarized in Table \[tab:cat\_comp\]. In this table, we give the match and overlap fractions between the redshift-space density, flux, hires map, midres map, lores map, and random catalogs for the voids with $r > 6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc. We note again that the first five catalogs are single catalogs while the random results are averages over the ten random catalog realizations. The trends between the catalogs are the same as described above: the random catalogs match 2 – 3 per cent and overlap about 15 per cent, and the correspondence between the density and flux catalogs is very high. Comparing the density (or flux) catalogs to the map catalogs, the match fraction drops to 60 – 70 per cent for the hires case, to 40 – 50 per cent for the midres case, and down to 20 – 30 per cent for the lores case. However, the volume overlap fraction remains relatively high for all of the maps indicating that the poor matching is more the fault of our simple void finding method than the maps truly missing the voids.
{width="6in"}
Overall, the maps perform decently matching voids with radii larger than the map resolution, but it is surprising that the maps still do not perform better for the largest voids. We visually inspected many of the large voids to see why the flux map void catalogs sometimes miss these large voids. We show two example slices of large voids in the flux, hires map, and lores map in Fig. \[fig:map\_slices\]. The top row shows a successful void match in both maps, while bottom row shows a failure case. In the flux panels, we overplot the original void with a black dot and circle. In the map panels, we overplot the best match void and annotate the match error. In the top panels, the matching hires map void is a bit smaller and offset just a bit to the bottom left. In the lores map, a noise feature around $(x, y) = (5, -5) \, h^{-1}$Mpc pushes the matching void center up farther, but with a similar radius, resulting in a sufficiently small match error. In the bottom hires map panel, there is significant noise around the center of the original void which pushes the center of the void up and restricts the growth of the void radius to a much smaller size. In the bottom lores map panel, the filamentary structure around $(x, y) = (5, -5) \, h^{-1}$Mpc is missing, which allows the void radius to grow much larger and results in a poor match. Interestingly, in the bottom row, the overall structure of the lores map matches the structure of the ideal flux better than the hires map by eye. However, we have not considered estimate of the noise in the map. Using the tomographic reconstruction method outlined in @Sta14, it is possible to compute the covariance of the map or to run Monte Carlo error estimates. Considering the amount of noise apparent in Fig. \[fig:map\_slices\], much could be gained by incorporating a noise estimate into a void finding procedure. We believe future work can make significant gains in void finding performance by considering the structure of voids beyond simple spheres and taking the map noise into account.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Survey prospects
----------------
For the cosmology of our simulation, the comoving radial distance to $z = 2.5$ is $4050 \, h^{-1}$Mpc, thus one degree subtends $70 \, h^{-1}$Mpc. Assuming a $250 \, h^{-1}$Mpc depth (e.g. $2.2 < z < 2.5$), each square degree of survey area translates into a volume of $1.2 \times 10^6 \, h^{-3} \mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$. Given the number densities in Fig. \[fig:radius\_dist\], we see that surveys like CLAMATO with $V \simeq 10^6 \, h^{-3} \mathrm{Mpc}^3$ would encompass about $150$ voids larger than $5 \, h^{-1}$Mpc in radius. If we assume a conservative void finding efficiency of 60 per cent, our simple method would recover $\sim 90$ voids. This would be the first detection of a significant population of high-redshift voids. Of course, this is a lower bound on the efficiency of identifying voids with a map of this resolution due to our conservative choice of what constitutes a match, and that there is still room for improvement in the method. Using the Subaru Prime Focus Spectrograph [PFS; @Tak14], it is possible to double the target density, covering a larger redshift range at the cost of sightline density. In @Lee14a, we discussed piggybacking on the planned galaxy evolution survey described in @Tak14. Such a survey would provide a map of roughly $16 \, {\rm deg}^2$ or $8 \times 10^{4} \, h^{-2} \mathrm{Mpc}^2$ area and $700 \, h^{-1}$Mpc depth ($2.3 < z < 3.2$) for a total volume of $6 \times 10^{7} \, h^{-3} \mathrm{Mpc}^3$, although at a coarser resolution of about $5 \, h^{-1}$Mpc. This much larger volume would encompass $\sim 3000$ voids with $r \geq 5 \, h^{-1}$Mpc, and would detect voids with an efficiency better than 30 per cent, providing a sample of around $\sim 1000$ voids. With an extended program on PFS of 100 nights, it is possible to construct a tomographic map covering $\sim 200 \, \mathrm{deg}^2$ with the same redshift coverage and resolution, providing a tenfold increase in volume, and therefore, the number of voids ($\sim 10^4$).
For comparison, similar volumes have been explored to find voids in low-redshift galaxy positions, although for somewhat larger voids. @Pan12 searched for $r > 10 \, h^{-1}$Mpc voids in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 main galaxy sample (out to $z = 0.1$), corresponding to a volume $V \approx 10^7 \, h^{-1} \mathrm{Mpc}^3$, finding $\sim 1000$ voids. @Sut12 also found a similar number of voids in the SDSS DR7 main galaxy sample (out to $z = 0.2$) and the luminous red galaxy sample (out to $z = 0.44$). In total, the galaxy samples were split into 6 samples covering volumes from $10^6$ to almost $10^9 \, h^{-1}$Mpc (see their table 2). However, the larger volume samples were covered by brighter, more massive galaxies, with larger separations. By $z = 0.1$, the average galaxy separation in DR7 is already larger than $5 \, h^{-1}$Mpc, making it difficult to find statistically significant small galaxy voids. @Sut14a provided an update to this analysis using the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey Data Release 9 CMASS sample, split into 6 samples, each covering about $5 \times 10^8 \, h^{-3} \mathrm{Mpc}^3$. This work found $\sim 1500$ voids with large radii ($> 20 \, h^{-1}$Mpc).
High-Redshift Void Cosmology {#subsec:ap}
----------------------------
![ $F_{\rm AP}$ as a function of redshift for different cosmological models, divided by the prediction from our fiducial model. We show 5 per cent variations in $\Omega_{\rm m}$, 1 or 2 per cent variations in $\Omega_{\rm k}$ per cent, and 10 per cent variations in $w_0$. For all models, the value of the Hubble parameter $h$ has been adjusted to keep the angular scale of the CMB oscillations $\theta_{\rm ls} = d_{\rm ls} / r_s$ fixed. State-of-the-art measurements of $F_{\rm AP}$ have 5 per cent uncertainties, measured at $z = 0.5$ up to $z = 2.4$ [@Bla11; @Aub14; @Beu14; @Sam14]. []{data-label="fig:f_ap"}](f_ap.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Much of the recent discussion of voids as cosmological probes has focused on them as a means to measuring the Alcock-Paczynski (AP) parameter, $$F_{\rm AP} = \frac{1 + z}{c} D_{\rm A} H,$$ where $D_{\rm A}$ is the angular diameter distance and the Hubble parameter, $H$, encodes distortions in the line-of-sight (LOS) direction. Note that this measurement measures $H(z)$ directly, rather than an integral as measured by e.g. Type Ia supernovae. In Fig. \[fig:f\_ap\], we show how specific variations in cosmological parameters affect the AP parameter, giving a qualitative idea of how accurate these measurements must be. Specifically, we show changes in the AP parameter with 5 per cent variations in $\Omega_{\rm m}$, 1 or 2 per cent variations in $\Omega_{\rm k}$ per cent, and 10 per cent variations in $w_0$.
@Lav12 have proposed measuring the AP parameter using the anisotropy of stacked voids, in the context of voids identified in galaxy surveys. Even though voids should be spherically symmetric when averaged, each void will have a certain random asymmetry that will add noise to the global stack. @Lav12 showed that the uncertainty due to this intrinsic scatter when averaging $N$ voids can be approximated by (their eq. 35): $$\frac{\sigma_{AP}}{F_{\rm AP}} \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} ~.
\label{eq:sigmaAP}$$ In terms of cosmological parameters, Fig. \[fig:f\_ap\] shows that it requires substantial changes in cosmological parameter values, by today’s standards, to produce one or two per cent changes in $F_{\rm AP}$. Therefore, in order to be competitive with other cosmological probes, the stack should be done using several thousand voids.
In order to accurately estimate the uncertainty when stacking $N$ voids identified in the flux field, we would have to study the intrinsic scatter in the asymmetry of the void flux profiles, as a function of redshift and void size. We would also have to take into account the effect of potential systematics like errors in centering and measuring radii, as well as different sources of contamination in the Ly$\alpha$ flux. But assuming that we would also need ten thousand voids to have a one per cent measurement, we can use the discussion above to estimate that we could achieve this uncertainty with a CLAMATO-like survey over 100 square degrees, or with a PFS-like survey over 200 square degrees.
Moreover, $F_{\rm AP}$ can also be robustly constrained from anisotropic measurements of the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) scale [@Eis98; @Seo03]. BAO measurements typically report ratios of separations with respect to a fiducial model along the line of sight ($\alpha_\parallel \pm \sigma_\parallel$) and transverse ($\alpha_\perp \pm \sigma_\perp$) directions, as well as their correlation coefficient ($r$). One can translate these values into a ratio of $F_{\rm AP}$ with respect to $F_{\rm AP}$ in the fiducial model: $$f_{\rm AP} = \frac{F_{\rm AP}}{F_{\rm AP}^{\rm fid}}
= \frac{\alpha_\perp}{\alpha_\parallel}$$ with an uncertainty given by: $$\frac{\sigma_f^2}{f_{\rm AP}^2} =
\frac{\sigma_\parallel^2}{\alpha_\parallel^2}
+ \frac{\sigma_\perp^2}{\alpha_\perp^2}
- 2 \frac{r \sigma_\parallel \sigma_\perp}{\alpha_\parallel \alpha_\perp} ~.$$ For instance, recent BAO measurements from the BOSS collaboration [@Aub14; @Sam14] can be translated into $\sim 5$ per cent measurements of $f_{\rm AP}$ both at $z = 0.57$ (from the galaxy survey) and at $z=2.4$ (from the Ly$\alpha$ survey), raising the bar for measurements from voids.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this paper, we characterized the signal of cosmological voids in the high-redshift matter density field and demonstrated how we can use Ly$\alpha$ forest tomographic maps to find high-redshift voids. We used a simple spherical over/underdensity approach to identifying voids in a large cosmological simulation (with a box size of $256 \, h^{-1}$ Mpc or a volume of $1.7 \times 10^7 \, h^{-3} \mathrm{Mpc}^3$) at $z = 2.5$, resulting in a catalog of $\sim 16,000$ voids with radii of 2 – $12 \, h^{-1}$Mpc. We also tested finding voids with a watershed approach and found that the resulting catalog was similar to that produced by the spherical overdensity method, but with more complex geometries that changed the void centroid non-trivially. For simplicity, we used the spherical overdensity void finding method throughout. This makes our results somewhat conservative, i.e. it is likely that more sophisticated void-finding methods will have improved performance.
Overall, the signature of high-redshift voids in flux is similar to what has been found for low-redshift voids in density. The radial density profile of voids is low ($\rho / \bar \rho = 0.2$ – 0.4) and rises more steeply closer to the radius of the void. One difference we noticed is that the high-redshift voids are typically less evacuated than their low-redshift analogues, giving them a steeper inner profile and less pronounced rise at the edge. The shape of the density profile is clearly mirrored in flux with high transmission inside the radius ($\delta_F = 0.25$ – 0.15), and dropping down to the mean flux beyond the radius. Interestingly, the radial velocity profiles show very little scatter and the mean radial velocity profile matches up to the linear theory prediction very well. This could be a promising testbed for any (modified gravity) theory predicting differences in void outflow velocities.
Using our void finding method, we identified voids in an ideal flux field and in three tomographic flux maps generated from mock surveys with spatial samplings of $d_\perp = 2.5$, 4, and $6 \, h^{-1}$ (hires, midres, and lores maps). We compared the flux void catalogs to the density void catalogs by considering how well ‘matched’ pairs of voids are in terms of their centers and radii. We found excellent agreement between the density and ideal flux void catalogs, where 99 per cent of the large voids ($r > 6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc) are well-matched. The noise in the tomographic maps clearly impacts the efficiency of finding voids, reducing the fraction of well-matched large voids down to 66, 48, and 27 per cent in the hires, midres, and lores maps, respectively. However, when we inspected individual cases of poorly matched voids, we found that many of these are due to noise in the maps artificially breaking up or merging high-transmission regions. It is clear that a more sophisticated void finder, especially one that models a noise component, would perform much better on the tomographic maps. Implementing such a method is beyond the scope of the current work.
Using these matching results, we can provide a conservative forecast for the number of voids that can be found in dense Ly$\alpha$ surveys. Our hires map has a signal-to-noise ratio distribution and sightline spacing similar to the ongoing CLAMATO survey. With a sky coverage of one deg$^2$, the CLAMATO data would produce a tomographic map covering $V \approx 10^6 \, h^{-1} \mathrm{Mpc}^3$, and our proposed void-finding method would identify about 100 voids with $r > 5 \, h^{-1}$Mpc in such a volume. With a $16 \, \mathrm{deg}^2$ survey on the PFS, we would identify about 1000 voids with $r > 5 \, h^{-1}$Mpc, although at a degraded purity. A 100-night dedicated Ly$\alpha$ forest survey across $200 \, \mathrm{deg}^2$ on the PFS would increase this number by a further order of magnitude to $>10^4$ voids.
These populations of high-redshift voids could be useful for many purposes, including tests of modified gravity, as an AP test and for studying high-redshift void galaxies. Previous works have considered voids as a clean environment for studying galaxy evolution, where galaxies are very isolated and their evolution is not complicated by environmental effects [e.g. see @Wey11a sec. 5]. However, existing studies of void galaxies are concentrated at low redshift, where such objects are much easier to find [@Wey11b]. At low redshifts, the evidence points to the different properties of void galaxies being caused by their low stellar mass, independent of other influence from their void environment [@Hoy05; @Kre11; @Tin08]. It would be very interesting to see whether similar behavior is seen at higher redshifts, where we expect the processes of galaxy formation could be different. Current galaxy redshift surveys can probe only down to $L \sim L_\star$ in galaxy luminosity at these redshifts, and we would naively expect high-redshift voids identified through Ly$\alpha$ forest tomography to also be void of such bright galaxies. However, the James Webb Space Telescope and its NIRSPEC spectrograph[^4] will have the ability to target $L \sim 0.3 L_\star$ galaxies within voids identified through CLAMATO and PFS.
With dense Ly$\alpha$ forest surveys covering larger volumes, such as a dedicated program on the PFS covering $200\,\mathrm{deg}^2$, it is possible to identify a population of $10^4$ voids. Such a large number of voids would naively translate to a one per cent AP measurement, although this is just a statistical estimate and it is possible that there would be larger systematic errors in such a measurement.
As described in App. \[app:data\], we are providing public access to the data used in this project including gridded simulation quantities, the tomographic flux maps, a grid of hires flux skewers, FoF halo catalogs, void catalogs, and the protocluster catalog from [@Sta14].
We thank Kathryn Kreckel for useful discussions. The simulation, mock surveys, and reconstructions discussed in this work were performed on the Edison Cray XC30 system at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System and of the astro-ph preprint archive at arXiv.org.
Comparison of SO and watershed voids {#app:sheds}
====================================
![ A density slice centered on a large void with a radius of $9.6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc. Just as in Fig. \[fig:slice\], the slice is $40 \, h^{-1}$Mpc across and $6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc into the page. The panels on the left show the view along the simulation $y$ axis, while the panels on the right show the view along the simultion $x$ axis. (Top) The matter density. (Bottom) The corresponding voids from the SO catalog (black), the watershed catalog (blue), and the smoothed density watershed catalog (red). The dots and dashed line circles show the center of the voids and the SO radius or watershed effective radius. The triangles show the minimum value (core) points of the watersheds. The blue and red colorscales show the projection of the points in the watershed (the darker the color, the more points into the page). See the text for more details. []{data-label="fig:watershed"}](watershed_slice.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In Subsection \[subsec:void\_finding\], we briefly compared our SO void catalog to a set of voids found via a watershed method with the same threshold setting. We concluded that it would be more straightforward to use the voids found via the SO method, mainly due to the complex shapes of the watershed. In this Appendix, we show an example void found in both catalogs to illustrate this point. In Fig. \[fig:watershed\], we show a slice centered on a large void. The left and right panels show the same void structure from two angles (the xz-plane and yz-plane). The top panels show the density field in this region, while the bottom panels show the void shape in the different catalogs. The black dot and circle are the center and radius of the void found with the SO method. The blue dot and circle show the value-weighted centroid and effective radius of the void found with the watershed method, and the blue triangle shows the ‘core’ point (the minimum value point within the shed). We also show the points in the void watershed in the bottom panels with the blue colorscale, where the color scales with the number of points in the projection. In order to damp out some of the complex structure of the original watershed void, we also tried running the watershed finder on a $2 \, h^{-1}$Mpc smoothed density field (with an adjusted threshold of $0.45 \, \bar \rho$). The watershed void found in the smoothed field is shown in red.
The SO and watershed voids have reasonably similar shapes as seen in the yz-plane (right panel). The extent of the watershed points (blue region) overlaps almost entirely with the SO circle (black), besides the small wayward blue blob at $(y, z) = (5, 15) \, h^{-1}$Mpc. However, seen in the xz-plane, the voids have very different shapes indeed. The slightly overdense region at $(x ,z) = (-10, 0) \, h^{-1}$Mpc limits the growth of the SO void, but the watershed region reaches around this structure to the underdense region on the other side. This extension from the main underdense region is also seen in the smoothed version of the watershed void. The SO radius is $9.6 \, h^{-1}$Mpc and the watershed effective radius is $7.8 \, h^{-1}$Mpc, and $9.1 \, h^{-1}$Mpc in the smoothed version. Although the radii are all fairly similar, it’s amazing to see just how different the extents and centers differ. The SO center is $7.2 \, h^{-1}$Mpc away from the watershed centroid and $5.3 \, h^{-1}$Mpc away from the watershed core. At the same time, the watershed core and centroid are separated by a whopping $11.9 \, h^{-1}$Mpc, far more than the effective radius. Overall, the watershed void spans 39, 26, and $32 \, h^{-1}$Mpc in the x, y, and z directions respectively, meaning the small finger-like voids extending from the central underdensity are very long.
Public data products {#app:data}
====================
The data used in this project are available at <http://tinyurl.com/lya-tomography-sim-data>. We hope that making this data publicly available will reduce the barrier to future work on Ly$\alpha$ forest tomography and high-redshift voids. The data release includes gridded simulation quantities, the tomographic flux maps, a grid of hires flux skewers, FoF halo catalogs, void catalogs, and the protocluster catalog from [@Sta14]. Due to space limitations, we downsampled the gridded quantities from the full $2560^3$ grid to a $640^3$ grid. Although this process erases some small-scale structure, the resolution is still more than enough for our purposes. The gridded quantities include the $z = 2.5$ density, redshift-space density, flux, real-space flux, and peculiar velocities and the $z = 0$ density and peculiar velocities. We also include example Python and C++ sources for reading the files.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: email: [email protected]
[^2]: For example @Cec06 propose $\rho(r) / \bar \rho = A_0 + A_3 \left(r / R_V \right)^3$ while @Ham15 proposes a 4-parameter model with a similar shape.
[^3]: Note, we have an additional factor of $a$ in this expression compared to Equation 2.2 of @Ham15, perhaps due to a difference in proper vs. comoving quantities. We always use comoving scales and densities, and peculiar velocities.
[^4]: <http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/instruments/nirspec>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $f\colon M \to M$ be a uniformly quasiregular self-map of a compact, connected, and oriented Riemannian $n$-manifold $M$ without boundary, $n\ge 2$. We show that, for $k \in \{0,\ldots, n\}$, the induced homomorphism $f^* \colon H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}}) \to H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}})$, where $H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ is the $k$-th singular cohomology of $M$, is complex diagonalizable and the eigenvalues of $f^*$ have absolute value $(\deg f)^{k/n}$. As an application, we obtain a degree restriction for uniformly quasiregular self-maps of closed manifolds. In the proof of the main theorem, we use a Sobolev–de Rham cohomology based on conformally invariant differential forms and an induced push-forward operator.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b), FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland'
author:
- Ilmari Kangasniemi
- Pekka Pankka
title: Uniform cohomological expansion of uniformly quasiregular mappings
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
A continuous self-map $f\colon M \to M$ of an oriented Riemannian $n$-manifold $M$ of dimension $n \geq 2$ is *$K$-quasiregular for $K\ge 1$* if $f$ belongs to the Sobolev space $W^{1,n}_{\mathrm{loc}}(M,M)$ and satisfies the inequality $${\left| Df \right|}^n \leq K J_f \quad \text{a.e. in}\ M,$$ where ${\left| Df \right|}$ is the operator norm of the differential $Df$ of $f$ and $J_f$ the Jacobian determinant $\det Df$. A quasiregular self-map $f\colon M\to M$ is *uniformly $K$-quasiregular* if all iterates $f^k$ of $f$ for $k\ge 1$ are $K$-quasiregular. By a result of Iwaniec and Martin [@Iwaniec-Martin_AASF], uniformly quasiregular mappings preserve a bounded measurable conformal structure, and hence are also termed *rational quasiregular maps*. We refer to Martin [@Martin2014] for an extensive survey.
In this article, we show that uniformly quasiregular self-maps of degree at least two on a closed manifold are uniformly cohomologically expanding. In what follows, $H^*(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ denotes the *singular cohomology of the manifold $M$ with real coefficients*. Recall that a manifold is *closed* if it is compact and without boundary. Our main theorem reads as follows.
\[alleigenvaluessamediag\] Let $f \colon M \to M$ a uniformly quasiregular map on a closed, connected, oriented Riemannian $n$-manifold $M$, $n\ge 2$, and let $k \in \{0, \ldots, n\}$. Then the induced map $f^* \colon H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}}) \to H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ is complex diagonalizable and all (complex) eigenvalues of $f^*$ have modulus $(\deg f)^{k/n}$, where $\deg f$ denotes the topological degree of $f$.
As an immediate consequence of Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\] we obtain a cohomological obstruction for the uniformly quasiregular Stoïlow theorem of Martin and Peltonen [@Martin-Peltonen-PAMS]. To be more precise, recall that, by a theorem of Martin and Peltonen, given a quasiregular self-map $F\colon {\mathbb{S}}^n \to {\mathbb{S}}^n$ of the $n$-sphere ${\mathbb{S}}^n$ for $n\ge 2$, there exists a quasiconformal homeomorphism $h \colon {\mathbb{S}}^n \to {\mathbb{S}}^n$ for which the composition $f = F\circ h$ is uniformly quasiregular. Having Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\] at our disposal, it is easy to find quasiregular self-maps of closed manifolds for which the homology gives an obstruction for this factorization property. Consider, for example, for $m\ge 2$ the stretch map $f \colon re^{i \theta} \mapsto r e^{i m \theta}$ on ${\mathbb{S}}^1$, a winding map $F \colon (re^{i\theta}, t) \mapsto (re^{im\theta},t)$ on ${\mathbb{S}}^2 \subset {\mathbb{C}}\times {\mathbb{R}}$, and their product $f\times F \colon {\mathbb{S}}^1\times {\mathbb{S}}^2\to {\mathbb{S}}^1\times {\mathbb{S}}^2$. Then $f\times F$ is quasiregular, but there are no self-homeomorphisms $\psi$ and $\varphi$ of ${\mathbb{S}}^1\times {\mathbb{S}}^2$ for which the composition $\tilde f=\psi \circ (f\times F)\circ \varphi$ is uniformly quasiregular, since the homomorphism $\tilde f^* \colon H^2({\mathbb{S}}^1\times {\mathbb{S}}^2) \to H^2({\mathbb{S}}^1\times {\mathbb{S}}^2)$ induced by this composition is $c\mapsto mc$ and $m\ne m^{4/3} = (\deg f)^{2/3}$.
Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\] is sharp in two ways. First, simple examples show that the second claim on the moduli of the eigenvalues does not hold if $M$ is an open manifold. For example, let $f\colon {\mathbb{C}}^* \to {\mathbb{C}}^*$ be the standard power map $z\mapsto z^m$, for $m\ge 2$, on the punctured complex plane ${\mathbb{C}}^* = {\mathbb{C}}\setminus \{0\}$. Then $f^* \colon H^1({\mathbb{C}}^*;{\mathbb{R}}) \to H^1({\mathbb{C}}^*;{\mathbb{R}})$ is the homomorphism $x \mapsto m x$, and $m=\deg f \ne (\deg f)^{1/2}$. We find it interesting that, in this case, the induced homomorphism $f^* \colon H^1_c({\mathbb{C}}^*;{\mathbb{R}}) \to H^1_c({\mathbb{C}}^*;{\mathbb{R}})$ in the compactly supported cohomology is the identity and, in particular, is independent on the degree. This follows, for example, from Poincaré duality.
Second, we observe that the eigenvalues of $f^*$ need not be real, even after iteration. Consider, for example, the linear mapping $L \colon {\mathbb{R}}^2 \to {\mathbb{R}}^2$, $(x, y) \mapsto (3x - 4y, 4x + 3y)$. Then $L$ induces a Lattès map $f \colon {\mathbb{T}}^2 \to {\mathbb{T}}^2$ on the $2$-torus ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ and the matrix of $f^* \colon H^1({\mathbb{T}}^2;{\mathbb{R}})\to H^1({\mathbb{T}}^2;{\mathbb{R}})$ with respect to the standard basis of $H^1({\mathbb{T}}^2;{\mathbb{R}})$ is just the matrix of $L$ in the standard basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Hence, the eigenvalues $3 \pm 4i$ of $f^*$ are not real. Since $(3+4i)/5$ is not a root of unity, the eigenvalues of $(f^m)^*$ are not real for any $m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$. Indeed, the minimal rational polynomial $P$ of $(3+4i)/5$ is $z \mapsto z^2 - (6/5)z + 1$. Since $P$ has a non-integer coefficient, $P$ is not cyclotomic, and consequently $(3+4i)/5$ is not a root of unity. Thus $(3+4i)^m$ is not real for any $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$.
Uniformly quasiregular mappings and entropy {#uniformly-quasiregular-mappings-and-entropy .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------
Our interest in the eigenvalues of $f^* \colon H^*(M;{\mathbb{R}})\to H^*(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ is influenced in part by questions related to the topological entropy of uniformly quasiregular maps; see e.g. Gromov [@Gromov-2003]. In particular, Shub’s entropy conjecture for $C^1$-mappings $f\colon M\to M$, solved by Yomdin in the $C^\infty$-case, states that $$\label{eq:Shub}
h(f) \ge \log s(f_*),$$ where $h(f)$ is the topological entropy of the mapping $f$ and $s(f_*)$ the spectral radius for the induced homomorphism $f_* \colon H_*(M;{\mathbb{R}})\to H_*(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ in homology. Recall that the *topological entropy of a continuous mapping $f\colon M\to M$* is $$h(f) = \lim_{\varepsilon\to 0} \limsup_{k \to \infty} \frac{\log S_\varepsilon(k;f)}{k},$$ where $S_\varepsilon(k;f)$ is the cardinality of a maximal $(k,\varepsilon;f)$-separated set in $M$; a set $E \subset M $ is *$(k,\varepsilon;f)$-separated* if for $x,y\in E$, $x\ne y$, there exists $j\in \{1,\ldots, k\}$ for which points $f^j(x)$ and $f^j(y)$ have distance at least $\varepsilon$. We refer to Shub [@Shub-BAMS-1974] and Yomdin [@Yomdin-1987] for more detailed discussions on the terminology and the conjecture.
To our knowledge inequality is not known for uniformly quasiregular mappings. By Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\], we have that a uniformly quasiregular mapping $f\colon M \to M$ satisfies $$s(f^* ) = \deg f ,$$ which then implies the same for $s(f_*)$ by Poincaré duality. Thus, for uniformly quasiregular mappings the inequality is equivalent to the inequality $$h(f) \geq \log(\deg f).$$
An application: the degree spectrum {#an-application-the-degree-spectrum .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------
As an application of Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\], we consider the *degree spectrum of uniformly quasiregular mappings on a closed manifold $M$*, that is, the set of all degrees $\deg f$ of uniformly quasiregular self-maps $f\colon M \to M$ of $M$.
It is a simple corollary of the uniformly quasiregular Stoïlow theorem of Martin and Peltonen that the $n$-sphere admits uniformly quasiregular mappings of all degrees. In contrast to the case of spheres, in presence of non-trivial cohomology of order $k \in \{1, \ldots, n-1\}$ not all positive integers appear as degrees of uniformly quasiregular mappings. We have the following corollary of Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\].
\[cor:degree\_spectrum\] Let $f\colon M\to M$ be a uniformly quasiregular self-map of a closed, connected, oriented Riemannian $n$-manifold $M$ and suppose that, for some $1\le k < n$, $k \dim H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ is coprime to $n$. Then $(\deg f)^{1/n}$ is an integer.
Let $d=\dim H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}})$. First, we observe that, by Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\], the determinant of $f^* \colon H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}})\to H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ is $\pm\left( \deg f \right)^{kd/n}$. On the other hand, by embedding $H^k(M;{\mathbb{Z}})/\operatorname{Tor}(H^k(M;{\mathbb{Z}}))$ into $H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ as an $f^*$-invariant subgroup, we find a basis of $H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ for which the matrix of $f^*$ has integer coefficients. Thus $\left(\deg f\right)^{kd/n} = \left|\det f^*\right|$ is an integer. Since $kd$ and $n$ are coprime, we conclude that $(\deg f)^{1/n}$ is an integer. A more detailed proof is given in Section \[sect:degree\_limitation\].
In the special case of products of spheres $M={\mathbb{S}}^{k_1}\times \cdots \times {\mathbb{S}}^{k_p}$, Corollary \[cor:degree\_spectrum\] yields a sufficient condition for a characterization of the degree spectrum when combined with an existence theorem of Astola, Kangaslampi, and Peltonen [@Astola-Kangaslampi-Peltonen]; see also Mayer [@Mayer1997paper] for the case of Lattès maps on spheres.
Let $M={\mathbb{S}}^{k_1}\times \cdots \times {\mathbb{S}}^{k_p}$ and $n=k_1+ \cdots +k_p$. Suppose there exists $0 < k < n$ for which $k \dim H^{k}(M)$ is coprime to the dimension $n$. Then there exists a uniformly quasiregular mapping $M\to M$ of degree $d$ if and only if $d^{1/n} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$. In addition, every admissible degree is realized by a Lattès map.
Here the necessity of the degree condition follows from Corollary \[cor:degree\_spectrum\] as discussed above. The sufficiency follows from the aforementioned result of Astola, Kangaslampi, and Peltonen, which in this particular case states that for each $\lambda\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$ there exists a uniformly quasiregular Lattès map $f \colon M \to M$ of degree $\lambda^n$. We refer to [@Astola-Kangaslampi-Peltonen] for a detailed discussion.
Outline of the proof of Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\] {#outline-of-the-proof-of-theorem-alleigenvaluessamediag .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------
As the first step, we show that a quasiregular self-map $f\colon M\to M$ of a closed, connected, oriented Riemannian manifold induces a homomorphism on the conformal Sobolev–de Rham cohomology $H^*_{{\mathrm{CE}}}(M)$ of $M$; here the abbreviation “CE” stands for *conformal exponent*. We define $H^*_{{\mathrm{CE}}}(M)$ as the cohomology of the complex ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* M)$, where for $k=1,\ldots, n-2$, the space ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^k M)$ is the local Sobolev space $W^{d,\frac{n}{k}, \frac{n}{k+1}}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\wedge^k M)$ of conformal exponents, and for $k=0, n-1,n$, we replace the space $W^{d,\frac{n}{k},\frac{n}{k+1}}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\wedge^k M)$ by either a smaller or larger space of differential forms in order to obtain suitable complex. The precise definition of the complex ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* M)$ is given in Section \[sect:confcohom\].
We show that the obtained cohomology $H^*_{\mathrm{CE}}(M)$ is a sheaf cohomology which agrees with the singular cohomology $H^*(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ on oriented Riemannian manifolds. This reduces Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\] to a corresponding statement on the homomorphism $f^* \colon H^k_{\mathrm{CE}}(M) \to H^k_{\mathrm{CE}}(M)$. Similar Sobolev-de Rham complexes and cohomologies have been considered by Donaldson and Sullivan [@DonaldsonSullivan1989paper] and Gol’dshtein and Troyanov [@GoldsteinTroyanov2010paper]; see also e.g. Bonk–Heinonen [@Bonk-Heinonen_Acta] for an application of conformally invariant Sobolev spaces.
The reason we consider the cohomology $H^*_{{\mathrm{CE}}}(M)$ instead of the standard de Rham cohomology $H^*_{\mathrm{dR}}(M)$ is that that a pull-back of a $C^\infty$-smooth form under a quasiregular mapping need not be $C^\infty$-smooth. Thus $f$ does not yield a natural pull-back operator on de Rham cohomology. However, the pull-back induced by $f$ induces a linear self-map of the partial Sobolev space $W^{d,\frac{n}{k},\frac{n}{k+1}}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^k M)$ for $0 < k < n$. In the case of the complex ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* M)$, the pull-back extends to the whole complex by the higher integrability of quasiregular mappings.
After these preliminaries, the proof of Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\] consists of the following three steps. First we show that a proper quasiregular mapping induces a push-forward $f_* \colon \widetilde W^d_{{\mathrm{CE}}}(\wedge^* M) \to \widetilde W^d_{{\mathrm{CE}}}(\wedge^* M)$ in the conformal Sobolev chain complex and, *a fortiori*, a corresponding homomorphism in the cohomology $H^*_{\mathrm{CE}}$; cf. Edmonds [@Edmonds-MMJ].
\[thm:push\_forward\_cohomology\] Let $f\colon M\to N$ be a quasiregular mapping between closed, connected, oriented Riemannian manifolds $M$ and $N$. Then there exists a (natural) linear map $f_* \colon H^*_{\mathrm{CE}}(M)\to H^*_{\mathrm{CE}}(N)$ satisfying $f_* f^* = (\deg f) \operatorname{id}$.
We expect that the existence of the aforementioned push-forward operator for the conformal Sobolev complex is known to the experts. However, we have not found it discussed in the literature; see Heinonen–Kilpeläinen–Martio [@HeinonenKilpelainenMartio2006book pp. 263-268], or [@OkuyamaPankka2014aper], for the push-forward of functions.
The push-forward operator yields the following estimate of a cohomology class $c \in H^*_{\mathrm{CE}}(M)$; here ${\lVert \cdot \rVert}_{n/k}$ is the conformally invariant norm $${\lVert c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
= \inf_{\omega \in c} \left( \int_M |\omega|^\frac{n}{k} \operatorname{vol}_M \right)^\frac{k}{n}$$ of cohomology classes in $H^k_{\mathrm{CE}}(M)$.
\[thm:estimate\] Let $f\colon M \to M$ be a $K$-quasiregular self-map of a closed, connected, oriented Riemannian $n$-manifold $M$, and let $c\in H^k_{\mathrm{CE}}(M)$. Then there exists $C=C(n,K)$ for which $$\frac{(\deg f)^\frac{k}{n}}{C} {\lVert c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k} \le {\lVert f^* c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k} \le C (\deg f)^\frac{k}{n} {\lVert c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}.$$
The subtlety here is that, on the level of the chain complex, $f^*$ need not be surjective from the cohomology class $c$ to the cohomology class $f^*c$; this issue is addressed with the push-forward operator $f_*$ on the level of forms.
Having Theorem \[thm:estimate\] at our disposal, we obtain Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\] by applying a complexification of Theorem \[thm:estimate\] to the iterates of the uniformly quasiregular map $f$ and to an eigenvector class $c$ with eigenvalue $\lambda$. Since the iterates $f^m$ are $K$-quasiregular for $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$, the constant $C$ of Theorem \[thm:estimate\] is independent of $m$, which gives ${\left| \lambda \right|} = (\deg f)^{k/n}$ in the limit. Diagonalizability is obtained by considering the Jordan decomposition of the matrix of the linear mapping $f^* \colon H^k_{\mathrm{CE}}(M)\to H^k_{\mathrm{CE}}(M)$.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} We thank Marc Troyanov for discussions on conformal cohomology. The second author thanks Tuomas Sahlsten for discussions on the dynamics of uniformly quasiregular mappings. We would also like to thank the referee for kind remarks and suggestions improving the manuscript.
Preliminaries
=============
Let $(M,\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle)$ be a connected and oriented Riemannian $n$-manifold for $n\ge 2$, where $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ denotes the Riemannian metric of $M$. Let $\sigma \colon TM \to T^*M$ be the bundle isomorphism associated to the Riemannian metric, that is, $\sigma(v)(w) = \langle w,v \rangle$ for $x\in M$ and $w,v\in T_xM$. We denote the induced Riemannian metric on exterior powers $\wedge^k T^*M$ of the cotangent bundle $T^*M$ also by $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$, that is, for each $x\in M$, $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ is the Grassmann inner product on $\wedge^k T_x^* M$ satisfying $$\langle \sigma(v_1)\wedge \cdots \wedge \sigma(v_k), \sigma(w_1)\wedge \cdots \wedge \sigma(w_k)\rangle
= \det \left(\langle v_i,w_j \rangle\right)_{ij}$$ for all $v_1,\ldots, v_k,w_1,\ldots, w_k\in T_x M$. We denote by $|\cdot|\colon \wedge^k T^* M \to [0,\infty)$ the associated norm, $\omega \mapsto \langle \omega, \omega \rangle^{1/2}$, induced by the inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$. Let also $\operatorname{vol}_M$ be the *volume form on $M$* determined by the Riemannian metric and compatible with the chosen orientation on $M$.
For each $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we denote by ${\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\colon \wedge^k T^*M \to \wedge^{n-k} T^*M$ the (point-wise) *Hodge star-operator on $M$* determined by $$\alpha \wedge {\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\beta = \langle \alpha, \beta \rangle \operatorname{vol}_M(x)$$ for each $\alpha, \beta \in \wedge^k T^*_xM$ and $x\in M$.
Sobolev spaces of differential forms
------------------------------------
We now briefly recall the partial Sobolev spaces $W^{d,p,q}(\wedge^k M)$ on $M$; see Gol’dstein–Troyanov [@GoldsteinTroyanov2006paper], Iwaniec–Lutoborski [@IwaniecLutoborski1993paper], and Iwaniec–Scott–Stroffolini [@IwaniecScottStroffolini1999paper] for more details.
Given $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we call a measurable section $M \to \wedge^k T^*M$ a *measurable $k$-form on $M$*; note that $\wedge^k T^*M$ is trivial for $k>n$. Further, given $p\in [1,\infty)$, we denote by $L^p(\wedge^k M)$ the space of all $p$-integrable $k$-forms, that is, the space of measurable $k$-forms $\omega \colon M \to \wedge^k T^*M$ for which the $L^p$-norm $${\lVert \omega \rVert}_p = \left(\int_M |\omega|^p \operatorname{vol}_M \right)^{1/p}$$ is finite. The space $L^\infty(\wedge^k M)$ of essentially bounded $k$-forms is defined, as usual, to consist of those $k$-forms $\omega$ for which $${\lVert \omega \rVert}_\infty = \mathrm{esssup}_{x\in M} |\omega_x| <\infty.$$
A $k$-form $\omega$ belongs to the local space $L^p_{\mathrm{loc}}(\wedge^k M)$ if the point-wise norm function $x\mapsto |\omega_x|$ is in the local space $L^p_{\mathrm{loc}}(M)$. We denote by $C^\infty(\wedge^k M)$ and $C^\infty_0(\wedge^k M)$ the spaces of smooth $k$-forms and compactly supported smooth $k$-forms on $M$, respectively.
Let $\omega \in L^p(\wedge^k M)$ for some $p \geq 1$. A measurable $(k+1)$-form $d\omega$ on $M$ is a *weak exterior derivative of $\omega$* if, for all $\eta \in C_0^\infty(\wedge^{k+1}M)$, $$\int_M \left<d\omega, \eta\right> \operatorname{vol}_M = \int_M \left<\omega, d^*\eta\right> \operatorname{vol}_M,$$ where $d^*$ is the *coexterior derivative* $d^* = (-1)^{nk+1}{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}d {\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}$. The weak exterior derivative $d\omega$ of $\omega$ is unique up to a set of measure zero.
The *partial Sobolev $(p,q)$-space $W^{d,p,q}(\wedge^k M)$ of $k$-forms on $M$* is the space of all $k$-forms $\omega \in L^p(\wedge^k M)$ having a weak exterior derivative $d\omega$ in $L^q(\wedge^{k+1} M)$. We call the space $W^{d,p,p}(\wedge^k M)$ the *partial Sobolev space* and denote $$W^{d,p}(\wedge^k M) = W^{d,p,p}(\wedge^k M).$$ We denote by ${\lVert \cdot \rVert}_{d,p,q}$ the norm $${\lVert \omega \rVert}_{d,p,q} = {\lVert \omega \rVert}_p + {\lVert d\omega \rVert}_q$$ on $W^{d,p,q}(\wedge^k M)$. As usual, the local space $W^{d, p, q}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\wedge^k M)$ is the space of $k$-forms in $L^p_{\mathrm{loc}}(\wedge^k M)$ having a weak exterior derivative in $L^q_{\mathrm{loc}}(\wedge^{k+1}M)$.
Similarly as the spaces $W^{d,p}(\wedge^k M)$, the spaces $W^{d,p,q}(\wedge^k M)$ are also complete for all $p,q\in [1,\infty]$. We start the proof with an auxiliary lemma.
\[weakdbysmoothlimit\] Let $p,q\in [1,\infty]$, $\omega \in L^p(\wedge^k M)$, and $\zeta \in L^q(\wedge^{k+1} M)$. Suppose that there exists a sequence $(\omega_i)$ in the space $W^{d, p, q}(\wedge^k M)$ for which $\omega_i \to \omega$ in $L^p(\wedge^k M)$, and $d\omega_i \to \zeta$ in $L^q(\wedge^{k+1}M)$. Then $\zeta$ is a weak exterior derivative of $\omega$.
Let $\eta\in C^\infty_0(\wedge^{k+1} M)$ be a smooth test function. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&{\left| \int_M \langle \omega, d^*\eta\rangle\operatorname{vol}_M - \int_M \left<\zeta, \eta\right>\operatorname{vol}_M \right|}\\
&\qquad\leq {\left| \int_M \langle \omega-\omega_i, d^*\eta\rangle \operatorname{vol}_M \right|}
+ {\left| \int_M \langle \zeta - d\omega_i, \eta \rangle \operatorname{vol}_M \right|}\\
&\qquad\leq {\lVert \omega-\omega_i \rVert}_{p}{\lVert d^*\eta \rVert}_{p^*}
+ {\lVert \zeta - d\omega_i \rVert}_{q}{\lVert \eta \rVert}_{q^*} \to 0
\end{aligned}$$ as $i \to \infty$, where $p^*$ and $q^*$ are dual exponents of $p$ and $q$, respectively. Thus $\zeta = d\omega$, which concludes the proof.
\[partialsobolevbanach\] The partial Sobolev spaces $W^{d,p,q}(\wedge^k M)$ of $k$-forms on $M$ are Banach spaces for $p,q\in [1,\infty]$.
Let $p,q\in [1,\infty]$ and let $(\omega_i)$ be a Cauchy-sequence in the space $W^{d,p,q}(\wedge^k M)$. Then, by completeness of $L^p$-spaces, the sequences $(\omega_i)$ and $(d\omega_i)$ converge to forms $\omega$ and $\zeta$ in $L^p(\wedge^k M)$ and $L^q(\wedge^{k+1}M)$, respectively. Then by Lemma \[weakdbysmoothlimit\], $\zeta = d\omega$, and consequently $\omega \in W^{d,p,q}(\wedge^k M)$ and $\omega_i \to \omega$ in $W^{d,p,q}(\wedge^k M)$. Hence, $W^{d,p,q}(\wedge^k M)$ is complete.
If $M$ is closed, by Iwaniec–Scott–Stroffolini [@IwaniecScottStroffolini1999paper Corollary 3.6], the smooth forms $C^\infty(\wedge^k M)$ are dense in $W^{d,p}(\wedge^k M)$ for $p\in [1,\infty)$. The argument of Iwaniec–Scott–Stroffolini also yields that $C^\infty(\wedge^k M)$ is dense in $L^p(\wedge^k M)$ and $W^{d,p,q}(\wedge^k M)$ for all $p,q\in [1,\infty)$. We refer to [@IwaniecScottStroffolini1999paper] for details.
The Sobolev–Poincaré inequality of Gol’dshtein and Troyanov (see [@GoldsteinTroyanov2006paper Theorem 1.1 and Appendix A]) for $k$-forms on $M$ states that for $$\label{eq:pqn}
\frac{1}{q} - \frac{1}{p} \le \frac{1}{n}$$ and a $k$-form $\omega \in W^{d,p,q}(\wedge^k M)$ on a closed manifold $M$, there exists a constant $C = C(M,p,q)\ge 1$ and a closed $k$-form $\zeta$ for which $$\label{eq:SP}
{\lVert \omega -\zeta \rVert}_p \le C {\lVert d\omega \rVert}_q;$$ see Iwaniec–Lutoborski [@IwaniecLutoborski1993paper Corollary 4.1] for the corresponding result in the closed Euclidean ball. We also use the fact that the dependence of $\zeta$ on $\omega$ is linear. It is crucial to note that the inequality is only given for $p, q \in (1, \infty)$.
An immediate corollary of this Sobolev–Poincaré inequality is that the image of the exterior derivative $d\colon W^{d,p,q}(\wedge^k M) \to L^q(\wedge^{k+1}M)$ is a closed subspace; the same holds in the case of a closed Euclidean ball.
\[lpqcompleteness\] Let $M$ be a closed $n$-manifold and suppose that exponents $p, q \in (1, \infty)$ satisfy . Then the space $dW^{d, p, q}(\wedge^k M)$ is a closed subspace of $L^q(\wedge^{k+1}M)$.
Let $(\tau_i) = (d\omega_i)$ be a Cauchy-sequence, with respect to the $L^q$-norm, in $dW^{d, p, q}(\wedge^k M)$. Then $(\tau_i)$ converges to some $\tau\in L^q(\wedge^{k+1}M)$ in the $L^q$-norm. By the Sobolev–Poincaré inequality , there exist closed $k$-forms $\zeta_i$ in $L^p(\wedge^k M)$ for which $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert (\omega_i -\zeta_i) - (\omega_j -\zeta_j) \rVert}_p
&= {\lVert (\omega_i -\omega_j) - (\zeta_i -\zeta_j) \rVert}_p\\
&\leq C{\lVert d(\omega_i - \omega_j) \rVert}_q
= C{\lVert \tau_i - \tau_j \rVert}_q.
\end{aligned}$$ As such, the sequence $(\omega_i - \zeta_i)$ converges to some $\omega \in W^{d, p, q}(\wedge^k M)$. Since $d(\omega_i - \zeta_i) = \tau_i$ and $\omega_i - \zeta_i \to \omega$ in the $W^{d,p,q}$-norm as $i\to \infty$, we conclude that $\tau = d\omega$.
Quasiregular mappings and Sobolev forms {#subsect:qr}
---------------------------------------
We recall that a continuous mapping $f\colon M \to N$ between oriented Riemannian $n$-manifolds is *$K$-quasiregular* for $K\ge 1$ if $f$ belongs to the local Sobolev space $W^{1,n}_{\mathrm{loc}}(M;N)$ of mappings $M\to N$ and satisfies the distortion estimate $$\label{eq:qrdef}
{\lVert Df \rVert}^n \le K J_f \quad \text{a.e.\ on}\ M,$$ where ${\lVert Df \rVert}$ is the operator norm of the weak differential $Df$ of $f$, defined by $${\lVert Df(x) \rVert} = \max_{\substack{v\in T_x M \\ |v|=1}} |Df(x) v|$$ for almost every $x\in M$, and $J_f$ is the Jacobian determinant $\det Df$. For the basic properties of quasiregular mappings, see for example Rickman [@Rickman1993book] and Iwaniec–Martin [@IwaniecMartin2001book].
In the above definition of quasiregular mappings, the local Sobolev space $W^{1,n}_{\mathrm{loc}}(M;N)$ is defined using an isometric embedding of the manifold $N$ into a Euclidean space; see e.g. Hajłasz–Iwaniec–Malý–Onninen [@HajlaszIwaniecMalyOnninen2008paper]. In short, we fix a smooth Nash embedding $\iota \colon N \to {\mathbb{R}}^m$, and say that a mapping $f\colon M\to N$ is in the local Sobolev space $W^{1,n}_{\mathrm{loc}}(M;N)$ if the coordinate functions of the map $\iota \circ f \colon M \to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ are in the Sobolev space $W^{1,n}_{\mathrm{loc}}(M)$. For $f \in W^{1,n}_{\mathrm{loc}}(M;N)$, the weak derivative $Df \colon TM \to TN$ is the measurable bundle map satisfying $D(\iota \circ f) = D\iota \circ Df$; the map $Df$ is unique up to a set of measure zero. This definition is independent on the choice of the embedding $\iota$; see e.g. [@ConventvanSchaftingen2016paper Section 2].
The pre- and post-composition of a quasiregular map with a bilipschitz map is quasiregular. In particular, if $f\colon M\to N$ is a quasiregular map between Riemannian manifolds, for each $x\in M$ and each $\varepsilon>0$ there exist $(1+\varepsilon)$-bilipschitz charts $\phi \colon U \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $\psi \colon V \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ on the manifolds $M$ and $N$, respectively, for which $x\in U$, $f(x)\in V$, and the composition $\psi \circ f \circ \phi^{-1}\colon \phi U \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is $(1+\varepsilon)^{4n} K$-quasiregular. See e.g. Kangaslampi [@Kangaslampi-thesis Section 2.3] for more discussion. Therefore, if a local property of quasiregular maps between Euclidean domains is preserved under composition by a bilipschitz map, this property also holds for quasiregular maps between Riemannian manifolds.
For the forthcoming discussion, we also record a standard point-wise estimate for the pull-back of $k$-forms. Let $f \colon M \to N$ be a $K$-quasiregular mapping between $n$-manifolds and, for $0<k\le n$, let $\omega$ be a measurable $k$-form on $N$. Then the pull-back $f^*\omega$ is a well-defined measurable form, since quasiregular maps satisfy Lusin’s condition (N); see e.g. Rickman [@Rickman1993book I.4.14]. Moreover, there exists $C=C(n,k,K)$ for which $$\label{eq:pointwise}
\frac{1}{C} (|\omega|^{n/k} \circ f)J_f \le |f^*\omega|^{n/k} \le C (|\omega|^{n/k}\circ f)J_f$$ holds almost everywhere on $M$.
Due to the importance of this estimate to our results, we sketch its proof for the reader’s convenience. For this, it is useful to recall the pointwise *comass* norm for differential forms, given by $${\left| \omega_x \right|}_{\operatorname{\mathbf{M}}} = \sup \{ \omega_x(v) : v \in \wedge^k T_x M \text{ is simple}, {\left| v \right|} \leq 1 \}.$$ For more details on the comass norm, see e.g. Federer [@Federer1969book Section 1.8]. Since quasiregular mappings are differentiable almost everywhere, the pull-back at a point $x$ is given for almost every $x$ by $(f^* \omega)_x = \omega_{f(x)} \circ \wedge^k Df(x)$. If $v \in \wedge^k T_x M$ is simple, then clearly $(\wedge^k Df(x))(v)$ is simple and ${\left| (\wedge^k Df(x))(v) \right|} \leq {\lVert Df(x) \rVert}^k {\left| v \right|}$. Hence, we obtain for almost every $x \in M$ the estimate ${\left| (f^* \omega)_x \right|}_{\operatorname{\mathbf{M}}} \leq {\lVert Df(x) \rVert}^k {\left| \omega_{f(x)} \right|}_{\operatorname{\mathbf{M}}}$. Since ${\left| \cdot \right|}$ and ${\left| \cdot \right|}_{\operatorname{\mathbf{M}}}$ are comparable by a dimensional constant, see again [@Federer1969book Section 1.8], the upper half of estimate now follows from inequality .
For the lower bound, let $l(T)$ be the minimal dilatation of the linear operator $T$ between normed spaces, that is, $l(T) = \inf\{{\lVert T(v) \rVert} \colon {\lVert v \rVert} = 1 \}$. By quasiregularity of $f$, the differential $Df$ of $f$ is invertible almost everywhere in $M$, and hence $\omega_{f(x)} = (f^* \omega)_x \circ (\wedge^k Df(x))^{-1} = (f^* \omega)_x \circ \wedge^k (Df(x))^{-1}$ for almost every $x\in M$. The previous estimates yield $${\left| \omega_{f(x)} \right|} \leq L {\left| (f^* \omega)_x \right|} \cdot {\lVert (Df(x))^{-1} \rVert}^k
= L {\left| (f^* \omega)_x \right|} \cdot l(Df(x))^{-k}$$ for some dimensional constant $L$, and the lower bound in is now due to the estimate $J_f \leq K^{n-1} l(Df)^n$.
Recall that a mapping $f\colon X\to Y$ between topological spaces $X$ and $Y$ is *proper* if the pre-image $f^{-1}E$ of every compact set $E\subset Y$ is compact. The (global) degree $\deg f$ of a proper mapping $f\colon M\to N$ between connected and oriented $n$-manifolds $M$ and $N$ is the unique integer satisfying $f^*c_N = (\deg f)c_M$, where $c_M\in H^n_c(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$ and $c_N\in H^n_c(N;{\mathbb{Z}})$ are the positive generators of the compactly supported $n$-th Alexander–Spanier cohomology of $M$ and $N$, respectively. Note that $\deg f = \sum_{x \in f^{-1}\{y\}} i(x, f)$ for all $y \in N$, where $i(x, f)$ is the local index of $f$ at $x$. We recall also that, for proper non-constant quasiregular mappings, the degree is always positive. For more information, we refer to e.g. [@Massey1978book] for the Alexander–Spanier cohomology, and to [@Rickman1973paper], [@Rickman1993book Chapter I.4] for the local index theory of quasiregular maps.
By a change of variables, immediately yields the following integral estimate in the case of proper non-constant quasiregular mappings.
\[qrnormestimate\] Let $0<k\leq n$ and let $f \colon M \rightarrow N$ be a proper non-constant $K$-quasiregular mapping between oriented $n$-manifolds $M$ and $N$. Then there is a constant $C = C(n, k, K)$ for which $$\frac{1}{C} (\deg f) \int_N {\left| \omega \right|}^\frac{n}{k} \operatorname{vol}_N
\leq \int_M {\left| f^*\omega \right|}^\frac{n}{k} \operatorname{vol}_M
\leq C (\deg f) \int_N {\left| \omega \right|}^\frac{n}{k} \operatorname{vol}_M$$ for all $k$-forms $\omega \in L^{n/k}(\wedge^k N)$.
Conformal cohomology {#sect:confcohom}
====================
In this section, we discuss the conformal Sobolev cohomology theory we use in the proof of Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\].
Flat and sharp $L^p$
--------------------
Let $M$ be a Riemannian $n$-manifold, $n\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$, and $0 \le k \le n$. The *flat and sharp $L^p$-spaces* $L^{p, \flat}(\wedge^k M)$ and $L^{p, \sharp}(\wedge^k M)$, for $p\in [1,\infty]$, are $$L^{p, \flat}(\wedge^k M) = \bigcap_{s \in [1, p)} L^{s}(\wedge^k M)$$ and $$L^{p, \sharp}(\wedge^k M) = \bigcup_{s \in (p, \infty]} L^{s}(\wedge^k M).$$ We also define local variants $L^{p, \flat}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^k M)$ and $L^{p, \sharp}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^k M)$ as usual: A $k$-form $\omega$ belongs to $L^{p, \flat}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^k M)$ if for every $x \in M$ there exists a neighborhood $V$ of $x$ for which $\omega|_V \in L^{p, \flat}(\wedge^k V)$. The space $L^{p, \sharp}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^k M)$ is defined similarly.
If $M$ has finite measure, we have the inclusions $L^{p, \sharp}(\wedge^k M) \subset L^p(\wedge^k M) \subset L^{p, \flat}(\wedge^k M)$. While the flat and sharp $L^p$-spaces are vector spaces, they have no obvious norms. See, however, e.g. the grand $L^p$-spaces of Iwaniec–Sbordone [@IwaniecSbordone1992paper] which are normed subspaces of $L^{p, \flat}$-spaces.
Our interest is primarily in the spaces $L^{1, \sharp}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^n M)$ and $L^{\infty, \flat}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^0 M)$, since they are preserved by quasiregular mappings. We recall the following consequence of the higher integrability of quasiregular mappings.
\[qrpull-backhigherint\] Let $M$ and $N$ be oriented Riemannian $n$-manifolds and let $f \colon M \to N$ be a proper non-constant quasiregular map. Then, for every $x \in M$, there exist neighborhoods $U \subset M$ of $x$ and $V = fU \subset N$ of $f(x)$ for which the following condition holds: for every $p \in (1, \infty)$, there exist $s_0 \in (1, \infty)$ and $s_n\in (1,\infty)$ for which the maps $f^* \colon L^{s_0}(\wedge^0 V) \to L^p(\wedge^0 U)$ and $f^* \colon L^{p}(\wedge^n V) \to L^{s_n}(\wedge^n U)$ are continuous.
By Martio [@Martio1975paper], there exists $r > 1$ for which $J_f \in L^r_{\mathrm{loc}}(M)$; see also Meyers–Elcrat [@MeyersElcrat1975paper]. In addition to this, there exists ${\varepsilon}> 0$ for which $J_f^{-{\varepsilon}} \in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(M)$; see e.g. Hencl-Koskela-Zhong [@HenclKoskelaZhong2007paper] for a far-reaching discussion.
Let $U$ be a normal neighborhood of $f$ at $x$, that is, a pre-compact neighborhood $U$ of $x$ for which $\partial fU = f(\partial U)$. Then $f|_U \colon U \to fU$ is proper; see e.g. Väisälä [@Vaisala1966paper Lemma 5.1]. We set $V=fU$. Since $U \subset M$ is precompact, we have $J_f \in L^r(U)$ and $J_f^{-{\varepsilon}} \in L^1(U)$.
Let $p \in (1, \infty)$, $\omega \in L^{p}(\wedge^n V)$ and $q = \left(r + p - 1\right)/r > 1$. Then $p > q$, and by Hölder’s inequality and the change of variables, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:higherpullbackn}\begin{split}
\int_U {\left| f^*\omega \right|}^\frac{p}{q}
&\leq C\int_U \left({\left| \omega \right|}^\frac{p}{q} \circ f\right) J_f^\frac{p}{q}
= C\int_U \left({\left| \omega \right|}^\frac{p}{q} \circ f\right) J_f^\frac{1}{q}
\cdot J_f^{\frac{p-1}{q}} \\
&\leq C\left(\int_U \left({\left| \omega \right|}^p \circ f\right) J_f \right)^\frac{1}{q}
\left(\int_U J_f^{\frac{p-1}{q-1}} \right)^\frac{q-1}{q}\\
&= C (\deg f)^\frac{1}{q} {\lVert \omega \rVert}_p^\frac{p}{q}
\left(\int_U J_f^{r}\right)^\frac{q-1}{q}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Thus $f^* \colon L^{p}(\wedge^n V) \to L^{p/q}(\wedge^n U)$ is well-defined and continuous.
Next, let $\omega$ be a 0-form of $V$, and let $q = 1 + 1/{\varepsilon}$. Since $f^*\omega = \omega \circ f$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:higherpullbackzero}\begin{split}
\int_U {\left| f^*\omega \right|}^p
&= \int_U {\left| \omega \right|}^p \circ f
= \int_U \left({\left| \omega \right|}^p \circ f\right)
J_f^\frac{1}{q} \cdot J_f^{-\frac{1}{q}}\\
&\leq \left( \int_U \left({\left| \omega \right|}^{pq} \circ f\right) J_f \right)^\frac{1}{q}
\left( \int_U J_f^{-\frac{1}{q-1}} \right)^\frac{q-1}{q}\\
&= (\deg f)^\frac{1}{q} {\lVert \omega \rVert}_{pq}^p
\left( \int_U J_f^{-{\varepsilon}} \right)^\frac{q-1}{q}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The continuity of $f^* \colon L^{pq}(\wedge^0 V) \to L^p(\wedge^0 U)$ for every $p \in (1, \infty)$ now follows.
As an immediate consequence of Lemma \[qrpull-backhigherint\], we obtain that the pull-back preserves the local sharp and flat spaces $L^{1,\#}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\wedge^n M)$ and $L^{\infty,\flat}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\wedge^0 M)$. More precisely, we have the following corollary.
\[qrflatandsharp\] Let $M$ and $N$ be oriented Riemannian $n$-manifolds, and let $f \colon M \to N$ be a proper non-constant quasiregular map. The pull-back $f^*$ maps $L^{1, \sharp}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^n N)$ into $L^{1, \sharp}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^n M)$ and $L^{\infty, \flat}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^0 N)$ into $L^{\infty, \flat}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^0 M)$.
Let $\omega \in L^{1, \sharp}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^n N)$, let $x \in M$, and let $U$, $V$ be as in Lemma \[qrpull-backhigherint\]. Then there exists a precompact neighborhood $W \subset V$ of $f(x)$ for which $\omega \vert_W \in L^{1, \sharp}(\wedge^n W)$, and hence there exists $p > 1$ for which $\omega \vert_W \in L^{p}(\wedge^n W)$. Let $U' = f^{-1}W \cap U$. Since $W$ is precompact, we may assume $p < \infty$. Then, by Lemma \[qrpull-backhigherint\], there exists $s_n > 1$ for which $f^*\omega \vert_{U'} \in L^{s_n}(\wedge^n U')$. Hence $f^*\omega \vert_{U'} \in L^{1, \sharp}(\wedge^n U')$. This completes the proof that $f^*\omega \in L^{1, \sharp}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^n M)$.
Similarly, let $\omega \in L^{\infty, \flat}_{\text{loc}}(\wedge^0 N)$, let $x \in M$, and let $U$, $V$ be as in Lemma \[qrpull-backhigherint\]. Then there exists a precompact neighborhood $W \subset V$ of $f(x)$ for which $\omega \vert_W \in L^{\infty, \flat}(\wedge^0 W)$. Let $p \in (1, \infty)$, let $s_0$ be as in Lemma \[qrpull-backhigherint\], and again let $U' = f^{-1}W \cap U$. Since $\omega\vert_W \in L^{s_0}(\wedge^0 W)$, we have $f^*\omega\vert_{U'} \in L^p(\wedge^0 U')$. Note that this holds also for $p = 1$, since $U'$ is precompact due to properness of $f$. We obtain that $f^*\omega\vert_{U'} \in L^{\infty, \flat}(\wedge^0 U')$, which concludes the proof.
Conformal Sobolev spaces {#sect:confsob}
------------------------
The *weak Sobolev space of conformal exponents* ${W^{\text{OCE}}}(\wedge^k M)$ is defined as $${W^{\text{OCE}}}(\wedge^k M) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
W^{d, \infty, n}(\wedge^0 M), & \text{for}\ k=0, \\
W^{d, \frac{n}{k}, \frac{n}{k+1}}(\wedge^k M), & \text{for}\ k\in \{1,\ldots, n-1\}, \\
L^1(\wedge^n M), & \text{for}\ k = n, \\
0, & \text{for}\ k>n.
\end{array}\right.$$ The local space ${W^{\text{OCE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^k M)$ is defined analogously. Since each form in $d{W^{\text{OCE}}}(\wedge^k M)$ has a vanishing weak exterior derivative, we have $d{W^{\text{OCE}}}(\wedge^k M) \subset {W^{\text{OCE}}}(\wedge^{k+1} M)$. Thus the sequence $$\xymatrix{
\cdots \ar[r]
& {W^{\text{OCE}}}(\wedge^{k-1} M) \ar[r]^{d}
& {W^{\text{OCE}}}(\wedge^{k} M) \ar[r]^{d}
& {W^{\text{OCE}}}(\wedge^{k+1} M) \ar[r]
& \cdots
}$$ is a chain complex. We have a similar complex for ${W^{\text{OCE}}_{\text{loc}}}$.
The abbreviation “OCE” stands for *original conformal exponent*. The ${W^{\text{OCE}}_{\text{loc}}}$-complex is discussed by Donaldson and Sullivan in [@DonaldsonSullivan1989paper], and the ${W^{\text{OCE}}}$-complex alongside its cohomology spaces by Gol’dshtein and Troyanov in [@GoldsteinTroyanov2010paper]. Gol’dshtein and Troyanov show that on closed manifolds, the $k$-th cohomology of the ${W^{\text{OCE}}}$-complex agrees with $k$-th real singular cohomology for $k \in \{2, \ldots, n-1\}$. They also provide a counterexample that, for $k=1$, the cohomologies are not necessarily isomorphic.
We consider a modification ${W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^* M)$ of the complex ${W^{\text{OCE}}}(\wedge^* M)$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
{W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^0 M)
&= \left\{ \omega \in L^{\infty, \flat}(\wedge^0 M) \;\big\vert\; d\omega \in L^n(\wedge^1 M) \right\},\\
{W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^k M)
&= {W^{\text{OCE}}}(\wedge^k M) \quad \text{for}\ k=1,\ldots, n-2, \\
{W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^{n-1} M)
&= \big\{ \omega \in L^{\frac{n}{n-1}}(\wedge^{n-1} M) \;\big\vert\;d\omega \in L^{1, \sharp}(\wedge^n M) \big\},\; \text{and}\\
{W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^n M)
&= L^{1, \sharp}(\wedge^n M).\end{aligned}$$ Heuristically, we flatten the $L^\infty$-space of $0$-forms and sharpen the $L^1$-space of $n$-forms. The local spaces ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^{k} M)$ are defined analogously.
We note here that in fact ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^0 M) = W^{d, n}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\wedge^0 M)$. Indeed, clearly ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^0 M) \subset W^{d, n}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\wedge^0 M) = W^{1, n}_{\mathrm{loc}}(M; {\mathbb{R}})$, where $W^{1, n}_{\mathrm{loc}}(M; {\mathbb{R}})$ is the classical first order local $n$-Sobolev space of measurable real functions. For the converse direction, let $q \in (n, \infty)$, and let $p^{-1} = q^{-1} + n^{-1}$. Since $1 < p < n$, we have $W^{1,n}_{\mathrm{loc}}(M; {\mathbb{R}}) \subset W^{1,p}_{\mathrm{loc}}(M; {\mathbb{R}})$. Furthermore, by the classical Sobolev embedding theorem, $W^{1,p}_{\mathrm{loc}}(M; {\mathbb{R}}) \subset L^q_{\mathrm{loc}}(M)$; see e.g. [@Adams1975book Theorem 5.4], which we apply using the fact that $u \colon M \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is locally $s$-Sobolev for $1 < s < \infty$ if and only if $u \circ \psi^{-1}$ is locally $s$-Sobolev for every smooth bilipschitz chart $\psi$ on $M$. We conclude that $W^{1,n}_{\mathrm{loc}}(M; {\mathbb{R}}) \subset {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^0 M)$. Note also that ${W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^{0} M) = W^{d,n}(\wedge^0 M)$ immediately follows whenever $M$ is closed.
As previously, we obtain chain complexes ${W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^* M)$, and ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* M)$. We denote by ${H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}$ the cohomology of the ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}$-complex, that is, $${H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M) = \dfrac{
\ker\left(d\colon {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^{k} M) \to {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^{k+1} M)\right)
}{
\operatorname{im}\left(d\colon {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^{k-1} M) \to {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^{k} M)\right)
}.$$ On a closed manifold $M$, the ${W^{\text{CE}}}$-complex yields the same cohomology ${H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)$. Using the local complex has, however, the advantage that it simplifies the sheaf-theoretic proof that ${H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}$ coincides with real singular cohomology.
For $0 < k < n$, Corollary \[lpqcompleteness\] shows that the spaces $d{W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^{k-1} M)$ are complete for closed $M$, where the case $k=1$ is due to the aforementioned fact that ${W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^{0} M) = W^{d,n}(\wedge^0 M)$. We record this observation as a lemma.
\[confexpcompleteness\] Let $M$ be a closed Riemannian $n$-manifold and let $0 < k < n$. Then $d{W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^{k-1} M)$ is complete under the $L^{n/k}$-norm.
A proper non-constant quasiregular map $f \colon M \to N$ between oriented $n$-manifolds induces a chain map $f^* \colon {W^{\text{OCE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* N) \to {W^{\text{OCE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* M)$ satisfying $f^* \circ d = d \circ f^*$; see [@DonaldsonSullivan1989paper Lemma 2.22] or [@GoldsteinTroyanov2010paper Theorem 6.6], where the proofs are given for quasiconformal maps but the argument extends to the quasiregular case, or alternatively [@IwaniecMartin1993paper Lemma 3.6] or [@IwaniecMartin2001book Section 15.3]. We show that the same holds for the ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}$-complex.
\[qrchainmap\] Let $f \colon M \to N$ be a proper non-constant quasiregular mapping, where $M$ and $N$ are oriented Riemannian $n$-manifolds. Then $f$ induces a chain map $f^* \colon {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* N) \to {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* M)$ satisfying $f^* \circ d = d \circ f^*$, and consequently induces a linear map $f^* \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(N) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)$ on cohomology.
Let $\omega \in {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^k N)$. We consider first the case $k>0$. Since ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^k N) \subset {W^{\text{OCE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^k N)$ and $f^*$ is a chain map between the ${W^{\text{OCE}}_{\text{loc}}}$-complexes, we have that $f^*\omega \in {W^{\text{OCE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^k M)$ and $df^*\omega = f^*d\omega$. Thus, by Corollary \[qrflatandsharp\], we have $f^*\omega \in {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^k M)$.
It remains to consider the case $k = 0$. In this case, $\omega$ is a Sobolev function and we may identify the weak exterior derivative with the weak gradient of the function. Hence, by for example [@HeinonenKilpelainenMartio2006book Theorem 14.28.], $f^*\omega = \omega \circ f \in W^{1,n}_\text{loc}(M)$ and $df^*\omega = f^*d\omega$. Now, by Corollary \[qrflatandsharp\], we obtain that $f^*\omega \in {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^0 M)$.
Equivalence of cohomologies
===========================
In this section we show that the Sobolev–de Rham cohomology ${H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)$ of an oriented Riemannian manifold $M$ is naturally isomorphic to the real singular cohomology $H^*(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ of $M$.
\[derhamsobolevequivalence\] For the category of oriented Riemannian manifolds and proper non-constant quasiregular mappings, there is a natural isomorphism from the singular cohomology to the Sobolev–de Rham cohomology in the following sense: For each Riemannian manifold $M$ there exists an isomorphism $\nu_M \colon H^*(M;{\mathbb{R}}) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)$ having the property that, for a proper non-constant quasiregular mapping $f\colon M\to N$ between oriented Riemannian $n$-manifolds $M$ and $N$, the diagram $$\label{eq:same_cohom_maps}
\xymatrix{
H^*(N; {\mathbb{R}}) \ar[r]^{\nu_N^*} \ar[d]^{f^*} & {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(N) \ar[d]^{f^*}\\
H^*(M; {\mathbb{R}}) \ar[r]^{\nu_M^*} & {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)
}$$ commutes.
Having this isomorphism of cohomology theories at our disposal, we may identify the linear maps $f^* \colon H^*(N;{\mathbb{R}}) \to H^*(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ and $f^* \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(N) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)$, and reduce the proof of Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\] to the corresponding question on the eigenvalues of $f^*\colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)$.
The proof of Theorem \[derhamsobolevequivalence\] is a variant of the sheaf theoretic proof of the de Rham theorem. The key ingredient for the proof is a Poincaré lemma for the conformal complex ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^*M)$, which follows from the Sobolev-Poincaré inequality for Euclidean balls; see also Iwaniec–Lutoborski [@IwaniecLutoborski1993paper Proposition 4.1].
\[sobolevpoincare\] Let $n\ge 2$ and let $p, q \in (1, \infty)$ be constants for which $$\frac{1}{q} - \frac{1}{p} \leq \frac{1}{n}.$$ Let $U$ be a domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, $k \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$, and let $\omega \in L^q(\wedge^k U)$ be a weakly closed form. Then, for each $y \in U$, there exists a neighborhood $V \subset U$ of $y$ and a form $\tau \in W^{d, p, q}(\wedge^{k-1} V)$ for which $d\tau = \omega\vert_V$.
Let $\omega \in L^q(\wedge^k U)$ be a $k$-form for which $d\omega = 0$. Let $B \subset \overline{B} \subset U$ be an open ball containing $y$, and let $(\eta_i)$ be a sequence of standard mollifiers. We may approximate $\omega\vert_B$ in $L^q(\wedge^k B)$ with smooth forms $\omega_i = \eta_i \ast \omega$. Now, $d\omega_i = \eta_i \ast d\omega = 0$ for each $i$.
Since the forms $\omega_i$ are smooth and closed, the ordinary Poincaré lemma from de Rham theory yields forms $\tau_i \in C^\infty(\wedge^{k-1} B)$ satisfying $d\tau_i = \omega_i$. For each $i$, let $\tau'_i = \tau_i - \zeta_i$ where $\zeta_i$ is given by the Sobolev–Poincaré inequality used on $\tau_i$, and note that $d\tau'_i = \omega_i$ for every $i$. But now, since $\zeta_i$ depend linearly on $\tau_i$, the sequence $(\tau'_i)$ is Cauchy in $W^{d, p, q}(\wedge^{k-1} B)$ and therefore has a limit $\tau' \in W^{d, p, q}(\wedge^{k-1} B)$ by Lemma \[partialsobolevbanach\]. Since $d\tau' = \lim_{i \to \infty} d\tau_i' = \lim_{i \to \infty} \omega_i = \omega$, the proof is concluded.
\[cesobolevpoincare\] Let $U$ be a domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n \geq 2$. Let $k \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$, and let $\omega \in {W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^k U)$ be weakly closed. Then, for each $y \in U$, there exists a neighborhood $V \subset U$ of $y$ and a form $\tau \in {W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^{k-1} V)$ for which $d\tau = \omega\vert_V$.
The claim follows immediately from Lemma \[sobolevpoincare\], where the case $k = 1$ is due to the fact that ${W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^0 M) = W^{d, n}(\wedge^0 M)$.
With Corollary \[cesobolevpoincare\], the proof of Theorem \[derhamsobolevequivalence\] is for the most part straightforward for a reader familiar with sheaf theory. We nonetheless present a more detailed outline of the proof for the reader’s convenience. Our presentation is based on Wells [@Wells1980book Chapter II] and Warner [@Warner1983book Chapter 5]. For the naturality of the induced homomorphism, our reference is Bredon [@Bredon1997book Section II.8].
Notation and terminology
------------------------
### The sheaves ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{\cdot, \text{CE}}}$
We restrict our discussion to the particular case of sheaves of vector spaces, and refer to e.g. [@Bredon1997book] and [@Wells1980book Chapter II] for more general expositions on sheaf theory.
Let $M$ be an oriented Riemannian $n$-manifold. The presheaves ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ are defined by $${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}} = \left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
U &\mapsto& {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* U)\\
i_{U, V} \colon U \hookrightarrow V
&\mapsto& i_{U, V}^* \colon {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* V) \to {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* U)
\end{array} \right\},$$ where $i_{U, V}^*$ is the pullback map induced by the inclusion map $i_{U, V} \colon U \hookrightarrow V$. Recall that, more generally, a *presheaf ${\mathcal{S}}$ on $M$* is a contravariant functor from the category of open subsets of $M$ and inclusion maps to the category of vector spaces, that is, ${\mathcal{S}}$ assigns to an open set $U \subset M$ a vector space ${\mathcal{S}}(U)$, and to every inclusion $i_{U, V} \colon U \hookrightarrow V$ of open sets in $M$ a linear *restriction homomorphism* ${\mathcal{S}}(i_{U, V}) \colon {\mathcal{S}}(V) \to {\mathcal{S}}(U)$.
A presheaf ${\mathcal{S}}$ on $M$ is called a *sheaf* if, for every collection $\mathcal{U}$ of open subsets of $M$ with union $U_{\mathcal{U}} \subset M$, the following conditions are satisfied:
1. \[sheafcondition1\] If for $v, w \in {\mathcal{S}}(U_{\mathcal{U}} )$ the restrictions ${\mathcal{S}}(i_{V, U_{\mathcal{U}} })v$ and ${\mathcal{S}}(i_{V, U_{\mathcal{U}} })w$ agree for every $V \in \mathcal{U}$, then $v = w$.
2. \[sheafcondition2\] If $v_{V} \in {\mathcal{S}}(V )$ for every $V \in \mathcal{U}$ and the restrictions ${\mathcal{S}}(i_{V \cap W, V})v_{V}$ and ${\mathcal{S}}(i_{V \cap W, W})v_{W}$ agree whenever $V, W \in \mathcal{U}$ and $V \cap W \neq \emptyset$, then there exists $v \in {\mathcal{S}}(U_{\mathcal{U}} )$ for which ${\mathcal{S}}(i_{V, U_{\mathcal{U}}})v = v_{V}$ for every $V \in \mathcal{U}$.
It is easily seen that the presheaves ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ are sheaves. Note here the crucial subtlety that we defined ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ using local spaces ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* U)$ instead of global ones ${W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^* U)$: were ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ defined using ${W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^* U)$ instead, the collated element $v$ of condition would not necessarily satisfy the required global integrability for infinite collections $\mathcal{U}$.
### Étalé spaces and generated sheaves
Let ${\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ denote the associated étalé spaces of the sheaves ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$. Recall that a presheaf ${\mathcal{S}}$ over $M$ has an associated *étalé space* ${\mathcal{F}}$, which is a topological space together with a local homeomorphism $\pi \colon {\mathcal{F}}\to M$, for which $\pi^{-1}\{x\}$ is a vector space for every $x \in M$ and the maps $$\begin{aligned}
(f_1, f_2) &\mapsto f_1 - f_2, && (f_1, f_2) \in \{(f, g) \in {\mathcal{F}}\times {\mathcal{F}}\colon \pi(f) = \pi(g)\},\\
f_1 &\mapsto kf_1, && f_1 \in {\mathcal{F}}, k \in {\mathbb{R}}. \end{aligned}$$ are continuous.
The construction of the associated étalé spaces ${\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ is by considering spaces of germs. Given an open set $U \subset M$, $\omega\in {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* U)$, and $x\in U$, the *germ $[\omega]_x$ of $\omega$ at $x$* is the equivalence class of forms $\omega' \in {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* V)$, where $V$ is a neighborhood of $x$, for which $\omega|_W = \omega'|_W$ almost everywhere in a neighborhood $W \subset U \cap V$ of $x$.
The *stalk $({\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}})_x$ of ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ over $x\in M$* is the vector space of germs of ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ at $x$. The associated étalé space ${\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ is then defined as a union of all stalks of ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$, with topology generated by the sets $\{[\omega]_x \colon x\in U\}$ where $U\subset M$ is open and $\omega\in {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* U)$.
For each open set $U\subset M$, we also denote by $\Gamma(U, {\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}})$ the space of sections of the étalé space ${\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ over $U$, that is, the vector space of continuous mappings $s \colon U \to {\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ satisfying $\pi \circ s = \operatorname{id}_U$. The collection of vector spaces $\Gamma(U, {\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}})$ for each open set $U \subset M$, together with the natural restriction maps $\Gamma(V, {\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}) \to \Gamma(U, {\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}})$, is a sheaf on $M$, called the *sheaf of sections of the étalé space ${\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$* or alternatively the *generated sheaf of the presheaf ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$*. We denote by $\Gamma({\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}})$ the sheaf of sections of ${\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$.
A *presheaf homomorphism $\varphi\colon {\mathcal{S}}\to {\mathcal{S}}'$* between presheaves ${\mathcal{S}}$ and ${\mathcal{S}}'$ over the same space $M$ is a natural transformation from ${\mathcal{S}}$ to ${\mathcal{S}}'$, that is a collection $$\left\{\varphi_{U} \colon {\mathcal{S}}(U) \to {\mathcal{S}}'(U) \colon U \subset M \text{ is open}\right\}$$ of linear maps, which commute with the restriction homomorphisms. Note that a presheaf homomorphism $\varphi \colon {\mathcal{S}}\to {\mathcal{S}}'$ induces for every $x \in M$ a linear map $\varphi_x \colon {\mathcal{S}}_x \to {\mathcal{S}}_x'$ between stalks over $x$. If every map $\varphi_U$ of a presheaf homomorphism $\varphi \colon {\mathcal{S}}\to {\mathcal{S}}'$ is bijective, then $\varphi$ is a *presheaf isomorphism*. The terms *sheaf homomorphism* and *sheaf isomorphism* are also used when the domain and target presheaves are sheaves.
Since ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ is a sheaf, it is naturally isomorphic to its generated sheaf $\Gamma({\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}})$; see [@Wells1980book Theorem II.2.2] or [@Warner1983book Proposition 5.8]. The explicit sheaf isomorphism is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{*} \colon {\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}} \to \Gamma({\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}), \quad (\varphi_{*})_U(\omega) = (x\mapsto [\omega]_x),\end{aligned}$$ where $U \subset M$ is open and $\omega \in {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^* U)$.
In some sources such as [@Warner1983book] and [@Bredon1997book], the term *complete presheaf* is used for sheaves instead, while the term *sheaf* is used for the étalé spaces of presheaves. We follow here the terminology used in Wells [@Wells1980book].
Fine resolution of the constant sheaf
-------------------------------------
A sheaf ${\mathcal{S}}$ over $M$ is *fine* if every locally finite open cover $\{ U_i \colon i \in I\}$ of $M$ has a *subordinate partition of unity*, that is, a collection $$\{ \lambda_i \colon {\mathcal{S}}\to {\mathcal{S}}: i \in I,\ \operatorname{spt}\lambda_i \subset U_i\}$$ of sheaf homomorphisms satisfying $\sum_{i\in I}\lambda_i = \operatorname{id}_{{\mathcal{S}}}$. Note that the identity morphism $\operatorname{id}_{{\mathcal{S}}}$ is defined by setting $(\operatorname{id}_{{\mathcal{S}}})_U = \operatorname{id}_{{\mathcal{S}}(U)}$ for every open $U$, and the support $\operatorname{spt}\lambda_i$ is the collection of points $x \in M$ that do not have a neighborhood $U$ where $(\lambda_i)_U$ is the zero map.
Note that the infinite sum $\sum_{i\in I}\lambda_i$ is a sheaf homomorphism by local finiteness of the family of supports of $\lambda_i$. Indeed, for every $x \in M$, any sufficiently small neighborhood $U$ meets the support of only finitely many $\lambda_i$ due to local finiteness, and for all other $\lambda_i$ we have $(\lambda_i)_U = 0$. This yields a well-defined $(\sum_{i\in I}\lambda_i)_U$ for small enough open $U \subset M$, which can be extended to all open $U \subset M$ by taking unions of small $U$ and using conditions and in the definition of a sheaf.
We denote by ${\mathcal{R}}_M$ the constant sheaf on $M$, which maps every open $U \subset M$ to the space of locally constant functions on $U$, and every inclusion $i_{U, V} \colon U \to V$ to the usual restriction map of functions. Note that the functions of ${\mathcal{R}}_M(U)$ are constant on the components of $U$, and every stalk of ${\mathcal{R}}_M$ is naturally isomorphic to ${\mathbb{R}}$. We obtain a natural inclusion sheaf homomorphism $i \colon {\mathcal{R}}_M \to {\mathcal{S}^{0}_{M, \text{CE}}}$. Furthermore, the weak exterior derivative $d$ induces a sheaf homomorphism $d \colon {\mathcal{S}^{k}_{M, \text{CE}}} \to {\mathcal{S}^{k+1}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ for every $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$. In what follows, we show that the sheaves ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ together with the sheaf homomorphisms $d$ form a *fine resolution* of the constant sheaf ${\mathcal{R}}_M$.
\[prop:finetorsionlessresolution\] The sequence $$\label{eq:sheafseq}
\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r]
&{\mathcal{R}}_M \ar[r]^-{i}
&{\mathcal{S}^{0}_{M, \text{CE}}} \ar[r]^-{d}
&{\mathcal{S}^{1}_{M, \text{CE}}} \ar[r]^-{d}
&\cdots
}$$ of sheaves is a fine resolution of ${\mathcal{R}}_M$, that is, the spaces ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ are fine and for every $x \in M$ the induced sequence $$\label{eq:stalkseq}
\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r]
& {\mathbb{R}}\ar[r]^-{i_x}
&({\mathcal{S}^{0}_{M, \text{CE}}})_x \ar[r]^-{d_x}
& ({\mathcal{S}^{1}_{M, \text{CE}}})_x \ar[r]^-{d_x}
&\cdots
}$$ on stalks is exact.
Let $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, let $\mathcal{U} = \{U_i\}$ be a locally finite open cover of $M$, and let $\{\phi_i\}$ be a smooth partition of unity subordinate to $\mathcal{U}$. For each index $i$, let $\lambda_{i} \colon {\mathcal{S}^{k}_{M, \text{CE}}} \to {\mathcal{S}^{k}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ be the sheaf endomorphism given by $\omega \mapsto (\phi_i \vert_U) \omega$ for $\omega \in {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^k U)$. We obtain a partition of unity for ${\mathcal{S}^{k}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ subordinate to $\mathcal{U}$. Hence the sheaf ${\mathcal{S}^{k}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ is fine.
It remains to verify the exactness of for every $x \in M$. Exactness at ${\mathbb{R}}$ follows since the maps $i_x$ are injective. Exactness at $({\mathcal{S}^{k}_{M, \text{CE}}})_x$ for $k > 0$ follows from the version of the Poincaré lemma in Corollary \[cesobolevpoincare\], which yields for every open nonempty $U \subset M$ that a locally closed $k$-form $\omega \in {W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^k U)$ is locally exact.
For the remaining case $k=0$, let $x \in M$, $U$ a neighborhood of $x$, and let $u \in {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^0 U)$ be closed. Since ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^0 U) = W^{1,n}_{\mathrm{loc}}(U; {\mathbb{R}})$, there is a connected neighborhood $V \subset U$ of $x$ for which $u \vert_V \in W^{1, n}(V; {\mathbb{R}})$. By [@HeinonenKilpelainenMartio2006book Lemma 1.16], the restriction $u \vert_V$ is constant. Thus, a locally closed $0$-form in ${W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^0 U)$ is locally constant, implying the exactness of at $({\mathcal{S}^{0}_{M, \text{CE}}})_x$.
Sheaf cohomology and the proof of Theorem \[derhamsobolevequivalence\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $M$ be an oriented Riemannian manifold and ${\mathcal{R}}_M$ the constant sheaf on $M$. The conformal sheaf cohomology ${H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M;{\mathcal{R}}_M)$ with coefficients in ${\mathcal{R}}_M$ is the cohomology of the induced chain complex of vector spaces $$\label{eq:sheaf_cohomology}
\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r]
& \Gamma(M, {\mathcal{F}^{0}_{M, \text{CE}}}) \ar[r]^-{\Gamma(d)}
& \Gamma(M, {\mathcal{F}^{1}_{M, \text{CE}}}) \ar[r]^-{\Gamma(d)}
& \cdots,
}$$ where the maps $\Gamma(d)$ are induced by the sheaf homomorphisms $d \colon {\mathcal{S}^{k}_{M, \text{CE}}} \to {\mathcal{S}^{k+1}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ and the linear isomorphisms $(\varphi_k)_M \colon {\mathcal{S}^{k}_{M, \text{CE}}}(M) \to \Gamma(M, {\mathcal{F}^{0}_{M, \text{CE}}})$. We refer to Wells [@Wells1980book Theorem II.3.11] or Warner [@Warner1983book Sections 5.20-5.23] for more details and more general treatment of cohomologies $H^*(M;{\mathcal{S}})$ of $M$ having coefficients in a sheaf ${\mathcal{S}}$.
For the proof of the naturality part of Theorem \[derhamsobolevequivalence\], we recall cohomomorphisms of sheaves and resolutions. For a more detailed treatment, we refer to Bredon [@Bredon1997book Sections I.4, II.8].
Let $f\colon M\to N$ be a proper quasiregular mapping between oriented Riemannian $n$-manifolds $M$ and $N$. Then, for every $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, the pull-back $f^* \colon {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^k N) \to {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^k M)$ of Sobolev forms induces a pull-back *$f$-cohomomorphism* $f^* \colon {\mathcal{S}^{k}_{N, \text{CE}}} \to {\mathcal{S}^{k}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ of sheaves, that is, a collection of linear maps $$\left\{ f^*_U \colon {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^k U) \to {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^k f^{-1}U) \colon U \subset N\ \text{open} \right\}$$ satisfying $$f^*_U \circ i^*_{U, V} = i^*_{f^{-1}U, f^{-1}V} \circ f^*_V$$ for all open $U \subset V \subset N$, where $i_{U, V}$ and $i_{f^{-1}U, f^{-1}V}$ are the inclusion maps $U \hookrightarrow V$ and $f^{-1}U \hookrightarrow f^{-1}V$, respectively.
Let ${\mathcal{R}}_M$ and ${\mathcal{R}}_N$ denote the constant sheaves induced by ${\mathbb{R}}$ on $M$ and $N$ respectively. Since $f$ is continuous, it also induces a $f$-cohomomorphism $f^* \colon {\mathcal{R}}_N \to {\mathcal{R}}_M$ where every linear map $f^*_U \colon {\mathcal{R}}_N(U) \to {\mathcal{R}}_M(f^{-1}U) $ is given by precomposition of functions.
\[cohom\_of\_resolutions\_lemma\] The pull-back cohomomorphisms $f^* \colon {\mathcal{S}^{k}_{N, \text{CE}}} \to {\mathcal{S}^{k}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ form a $f$-cohomomorphism of resolutions extending $f^* \colon {\mathcal{R}}_N \to {\mathcal{R}}_M$, that is, the diagram $$\label{eq:cohom_of_resolutions}
\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r]
&{\mathcal{R}}_N \ar[r]^{i} \ar[d]^{f^*}
&{\mathcal{S}^{0}_{N, \text{CE}}} \ar[r]^{d} \ar[d]^{f^*}
&{\mathcal{S}^{1}_{N, \text{CE}}} \ar[r]^{d} \ar[d]^{f^*}
&\cdots\\
0 \ar[r]
&{\mathcal{R}}_M \ar[r]^{i}
&{\mathcal{S}^{0}_{M, \text{CE}}} \ar[r]^{d}
&{\mathcal{S}^{1}_{M, \text{CE}}} \ar[r]^{d}
&\cdots
}$$ commutes.
Let $U \subset N$ be open. Since the map $f^* \colon {\mathcal{S}^{0}_{N, \text{CE}}} \to {\mathcal{S}^{0}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ is given by precomposition with $f$, the leftmost square of commutes. The remaining squares commute due to Lemma \[qrchainmap\].
We are now ready to recall the proof of the de Rham theorem in this context.
For every $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, let $\varphi_{k}$ be the natural presheaf isomorphism ${\mathcal{S}^{k}_{M, \text{CE}}} \to \Gamma({\mathcal{F}^{k}_{M, \text{CE}}})$. By definition of $\Gamma(d)$, the diagram $$\label{eq:cohom_eq_diagram}\begin{split}
\xymatrixcolsep{3pc}\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r]
& {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^0 M) \ar[d]^-{(\varphi_{0})_M} \ar[r]^-{d}
& {W^{\text{CE}}_{\text{loc}}}(\wedge^1 M) \ar[d]^-{(\varphi_{1})_M} \ar[r]^-{d}
& \cdots\\
0 \ar[r]
& \Gamma(M, {\mathcal{F}^{0}_{M, \text{CE}}}) \ar[r]^-{\Gamma(d)}
& \Gamma(M, {\mathcal{F}^{1}_{M, \text{CE}}}) \ar[r]^-{\Gamma(d)}
& \cdots
}
\end{split}$$ commutes. The upper complex in diagram yields cohomology ${H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)$ and the lower complex the sheaf cohomology ${H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M; {\mathcal{R}}_M)$. Since $(\varphi_*)_M$ is a chain isomorphism, it induces a canonical isomorphism ${H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M; {\mathcal{R}}_M)$.
The claim that ${H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)$ is canonically isomorphic to $H^*(M; {\mathbb{R}})$ follows from the fact that all sheaf cohomologies derived from a fine resolution of ${\mathcal{R}}_M$ by sheaves of vector spaces are canonically isomorphic, see Warner [@Warner1983book Sections 5.20-5.23] or Wells [@Wells1980book Theorem II.3.13 and Corollary II.3.14]. Indeed, the classical *singular resolution* ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{sing}}}$ with real coefficients is a fine resolution of ${\mathcal{R}}_M$ and yields sheaf cohomology $H^*(M; {\mathcal{R}}_M)$ canonically isomoprhic to $H^*(M; {\mathbb{R}})$. We refer to Warner [@Warner1983book Sections 5.31-5.32] for details: note that the treatment is slightly more involved since the presheaf of singular cochains is not a sheaf. Now, the chain of canonical isomorphisms $$H^*(M; {\mathbb{R}}) \cong H^*(M; {\mathcal{R}}_M) \cong {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M; {\mathcal{R}}_M) \cong {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)$$ completes the first part of the proof.
For the second part, let $f \colon M \to N$ be a proper and non-constant quasiregular map between oriented $n$-manifolds $M$ and $N$. By the natural isomorphisms ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}} \to \Gamma({\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}})$ and ${\mathcal{S}^{*}_{N, \text{CE}}} \to \Gamma({\mathcal{F}^{*}_{N, \text{CE}}})$, the pull-back cohomomorphisms $f^* \colon {\mathcal{S}^{k}_{N, \text{CE}}} \to {\mathcal{S}^{k}_{M, \text{CE}}}$ induce linear maps $\Gamma(f^*) \colon \Gamma(N, {\mathcal{F}^{*}_{N, \text{CE}}}) \to \Gamma(M, {\mathcal{F}^{*}_{M, \text{CE}}}) $. As consequence of Lemma \[cohom\_of\_resolutions\_lemma\], $\Gamma(f^*)$ induces a linear map $f^* \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(N; {\mathcal{R}}_N) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M; {\mathcal{R}}_M)$ which corresponds to the standard pull-back under the isomorphisms ${H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M; {\mathcal{R}}_M)$ and ${H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(N) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(N; {\mathcal{R}}_N)$.
By continuity of $f$, similar pull-back cohomomorphisms $f^* \colon {\mathcal{S}^{*}_{N, \text{sing}}} \to {\mathcal{S}^{*}_{M, \text{sing}}}$ extending $f^* \colon {\mathcal{R}}_N \to {\mathcal{R}}_M$ are induced on the singular resolutions. This again induces a pull-back map $f^* \colon H^*(N; {\mathcal{R}}_N) \to H^*(M; {\mathcal{R}}_M)$ on singular sheaf cohomology which corresponds to the standard pull-back map $f^* \colon H^*(N; {\mathbb{R}}) \to H^*(M; {\mathbb{R}})$. Finally, since the maps $f^* \colon H^*(N; {\mathcal{R}}_N) \to H^*(M; {\mathcal{R}}_M)$ and $f^* \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(N; {\mathcal{R}}_N) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M; {\mathcal{R}}_M)$ both arise from a cohomomorphism of fine resolutions extending $f^* \colon {\mathcal{R}}_N \to {\mathcal{R}}_M$, they agree up to the canonical isomorphisms; see the discussion in Bredon [@Bredon1997book Section II.8.1] for details. This completes the proof.
Quasiregular push-forward
=========================
In this section we discuss the push-forward operator $f_*$ on measurable differential forms induced by a quasiregular map $f \colon M\to N$ between closed, connected, oriented Riemannian manifolds. We refer to Heinonen–Kilpeläinen–Martio [@HeinonenKilpelainenMartio2006book pp. 263-268] for the case of $0$-forms, i.e., measurable functions.
In order to define the quasiregular push-forward, we first recall a Vitali-type covering theorem on manifolds.
\[vitalicoveringthm\] Let $M$ be a closed Riemannian manifold, let $A \subset M$ be a measurable set, and let $r \colon A \to (0, \infty)$ be a function. Then there exists a countable disjoint collection $\mathcal{B}_A = \{ B_M(a_i, \rho_i) : i \in {\mathbb{N}}\}$ of open balls for which $A \setminus \cup \mathcal{B}_A$ has Lebesgue measure zero and $\rho_i \leq r(a_i)$ for each $i$.
By [@Federer1969book Theorem 2.8.18. and Section 2.8.9.], the claim holds for a collection of closed balls. Since the boundary of Riemannian balls has Lebesgue measure zero, the claim follows.
Our definition of $f_*$ is based on the following lemma.
\[pushwelldefined\] Let $k \in \{0, \ldots, n\}$ and let $f \colon M \to N$ be a non-constant $K$-quasiregular map between closed, connected, oriented Riemannian manifolds. Then there exist open sets $V_f \subset N$ and $U_{f,1}, \ldots, U_{f, \deg f} \subset M$ for which:
1. the sets $U_{f, i}$ are disjoint;
2. the sets $V_f$ and $\bigcup_{i=1}^{\deg f} U_{f, i}$ have full measure in $N$ and $M$ respectively;
3. for every $i \in \{1, \ldots, \deg f\}$, we have $f(U_{f,i}) = V_f$, and there exists a quasiconformal branch of the inverse $f^{-1}_i \colon V_f \to U_{f, i}$.
Furthermore, if $k \in \{0, \ldots, n\}$ and $\omega \colon M \to \wedge^k T^*M$ is a measurable $k$-form on $M$, then for every $i \in \{1, \ldots, \deg f\}$ the pull-back $\left(f^{-1}_i\right)^* \omega$ defines a measurable $k$-form on $N$.
Since $fM$ is a compact and open subset of $N$, $f$ is surjective. Let $B_f \subset M$ denote the *branch set* of $f$, that is, the set where $f$ fails to be a local homeomorphism. The set $B_f$ is closed, and the sets $B_f$ and $fB_f$ have measure zero; see e.g. [@Rickman1993book Proposition I.4.14]. By compactness of $M$ and continuity of $f$, the image of the branch set $fB_f$ is also closed.
Let $y \in N \setminus fB_f$. If $x \in f^{-1}\{y\}$, then $f$ is a local orientation-preserving homeomorphism at $x$, and consequently $i(x, f) = 1$. Since we have $\deg f = \sum_{x \in f^{-1} \{y\}} i(x, f)$, the set $f^{-1}\{y\}$ consists of exactly $\deg f$ different points. Since $f$ is a local homeomorphism, at each $x \in f^{-1}\{y\}$ we may fix a radius $r_y > 0$ for which $f^{-1} B_N(y, r_y)$ has exactly $\deg f$ connected components and $f$ is a homeomorphism on every such component. Note that this property also holds for any smaller radius $r < r_y$.
We may now apply the Vitali covering theorem (Lemma \[vitalicoveringthm\]) for the set $N \setminus fB_f$ and the function $y \mapsto r_y$, obtaining a collection $\mathcal{B} = \{B_1, B_2, \ldots\}$ of disjoint open balls. For each $B_j \in \mathcal{B}$, the pre-image $f^{-1} B_j$ has $\deg f$ components, which we denote by $U_{f, i, j}$ for $i \in \{1, \ldots, \deg f\}$. Let $V_f = \cup \mathcal{B}$ and $U_{f, i} = \bigcup_{B_j \in \mathcal{B}} U_{f, i, j}$ for $i \in \{1, \ldots, \deg f\}$. Since the sets $U_{f, i, j}$ are disjoint for a fixed $j$ and the sets $B_j = fU_{f, i, j}$ are disjoint, the sets $U_{f, i}$ are disjoint.
Since $fB_f$ and $(N \setminus fB_f) \setminus \cup \mathcal{B}_f$ have measure zero, the set $N \setminus \cup \mathcal{B}_f$ has measure zero. Furthermore, since $f^{-1} V_f = \bigcup_{i=1}^{\deg f} U_{f, i}$, we have $$M \setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^{\deg f} U_{f, i} = f^{-1} (N \setminus V_f),$$ where $f^{-1} (N \setminus V_f)$ has measure zero due to the Lusin property of $f$. Hence, the sets $V_f$ and $\bigcup_{i=1}^{\deg f} U_{f, i}$ have full measure in $N$ and $M$, respectively.
We note that, for each $B_j \in \mathcal{B}_f$ and $i \in \{1, \ldots, \deg f\}$, the restriction $f\vert_{U_{f, i, j}} \colon U_{f, i, j} \to B_j$ is a $K$-quasiregular homeomorphism, and hence $K$-quasiconformal. We denote by $f^{-1}_{i,j} \colon B_j \to U_{f, i, j}$ the inverse of the restriction $f\vert_{U_{f, i, j}}$. Then $f^{-1}_{i,j}$ is $K^{n-1}$-quasiconformal.
We now define the maps $f^{-1}_i \colon V_f \to U_{f,i}$ by $f^{-1}_i\vert_{B_j} = f^{-1}_{i,j}$ for each $j$. Since the maps $f^{-1}_{i,j}$ are $K^{n-1}$-quasiregular and the sets $B_j$ are open and mutually disjoint, $f^{-1}_i$ is $K^{n-1}$-quasiregular for every $i \in \{1, \ldots, \deg f\}$. Furthermore, since the maps $f^{-1}_{i,j}$ are homeomorphisms and the image sets $U_{f, i, j} = f^{-1}_{i,j}(B_j)$ are mutually disjoint, the maps $f^{-1}_i$ are homeomorphisms, and hence quasiconformal.
Finally, let $\omega \colon M \to \wedge^k T^*M$ be a measurable $k$-form on $M$, and fix $i \in \{1, \ldots, \deg f\}$. Let $\xi \colon N \to \wedge^k T^*N$ be a $k$-form defined by $\xi = (f^{-1}_i)^*\omega$ on $V_f$, and $\xi = 0$ on $N \setminus V_f$.
The form $\xi$ is measurable if and only if the coefficient functions $\xi_I$ in a local representation $\xi = \sum_I \xi_I dx_{i_1}\wedge \cdots \wedge dx_{i_k}$ are measurable, where $I=(i_1,\ldots, i_k)$. Let $W \subset {\mathbb{R}}$ be an open set. Since $B_j$ is open, $\xi \vert B_j = (f^{-1}_{i,j})^*\omega$, and the pull-back of a measurable form under a quasiregular map is measurable, we obtain that the set $\xi_I^{-1} W \cap B_j$ is measurable for every $B_j \in \mathcal{B}_f$. Furthermore, since the set $\xi_I^{-1} W \cap (N \setminus V_f)$ is contained in a set of measure zero, it is measurable. Hence, $\xi_I^{-1} W$ is measurable, completing the proof of measurability of $\xi_I$, and therefore of $\xi$.
Due to the previous lemma, we obtain a well-defined quasiregular push-forward operator as follows.
Let $k \in \{0, \ldots, n\}$ and $f \colon M \to N$ a non-constant quasiregular map between closed, connected, oriented Riemannian manifolds. Let $V_f$, $U_{f, i}$ and $f_i^{-1}$ be given by Lemma \[pushwelldefined\]. For a measurable $k$-form $\omega \colon M \to \wedge^k T^*M$, we define a measurable $k$-form ${{f}_*\,}\omega \colon N \to \wedge^k T^*N$ by $${{f}_*\,} \omega = \sum_{i=1}^{\deg f} \left(f^{-1}_i\right)^* \omega,$$ where $\left(f^{-1}_i\right)^* \omega$ denotes the corresponding induced measurable form on $N$.
We note that the resulting ${{f}_*\,} \omega$ is independent of the choice of $V_f$, $U_{f, i}$ and $f_i^{-1}$ up to measure zero, and therefore we may consider it without specifying $V_f$, $U_{f, i}$ and $f_i^{-1}$. Indeed, suppose $V_f'$, $U_{f, i}'$ and $(f_i^{-1})'$ also satisfy the conditions of Lemma \[pushwelldefined\]. Then, for every $y \in V_f \cap V_f'$, we find a neighborhood $\bigcap_{x \in f^{-1}\{y\}} f(U_{f,x} \cap U_{f,x}')$ on which the branches of the inverse coincide, where $U_{f,x}$ and $U_{f,x}'$ denote the sets $U_{f, i}$ and $U_{f, i}'$ containing $x$, respectively. Hence, the two selections yield identical forms ${{f}_*\,} \omega$ on $V_f \cap V_f'$, which is a set of full measure in $N$.
The main result of this section is the following theorem.
\[qrpushsobolev\] Let $f \colon M \to N$ be a non-constant quasiregular map between closed, connected, oriented Riemannian manifolds, and let $\omega \in {W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^k M)$. Then ${{f}_*\,} \omega \in {W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^k N)$ with $d {{f}_*\,} \omega = {{f}_*\,} d\omega$.
As an immediate corollary we obtain that $f_*$ is a chain map. Furthermore, we obtain that, in cohomology, $f_*$ is a left-inverse of the pull-back $f^*$ up to the multiplication by the degree of $f$.
\[qrpushcohom\] Let $f \colon M \to N$ be a non-constant quasiregular map between closed, connected, oriented Riemannian manifolds. The linear map ${{f}_*\,} \colon {W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^* M) \to {W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^* N)$ is a chain map, and induces a linear map ${{f}_*\,} \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(N)$ satisfying $${{f}_*\,} f^* [\omega] = (\deg f)[\omega].$$ for each $[\omega] \in {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)$.
We prove Theorem \[qrpushsobolev\] in a series of lemmas. The push-forward map ${{f}_*\,}$ is clearly linear. We begin by collecting some of the basic properties of $f_*$ in the following lemma.
\[qrpushproperties\] Let $f \colon M \to N$ and $g \colon N \to N'$ be non-constant quasiregular maps between closed, connected, oriented Riemannian $n$-manifolds, and let $k, l \in \{0, \ldots, n\}$ satisfy $k+l \leq n$. Then
1. \[pushprop:wedge\] for all measurable forms $\alpha \colon M \to \wedge^k T^*M$ and $\beta \colon M \to \wedge^l T^*M$, $${{f}_*\,} (\alpha \wedge f^* \beta) = ({{f}_*\,} \alpha) \wedge \beta;$$
2. \[pushprop:inverse\] for every measurable $k$-form $\omega \colon M \to \wedge^k T^*M$, $${{f}_*\,} f^* \omega = (\deg f) \omega;$$
3. \[pushprop:functor\] for every measurable $k$-form $\omega \colon M \to \wedge^k T^*M$, $${{(g \circ f)}_*\,} \omega = {{g}_*\,} {{f}_*\,} \omega;$$
4. \[pushprop:integral\] for every integrable $n$-form $\omega \in L^1(\wedge^n M)$, $$\int_N {{f}_*\,} \omega = \int_M \omega;$$
Fix $V_f$, $U_{f,i}$ and $f_i^{-1}$ according to Lemma \[pushwelldefined\]. For , since $V_f$ is of full measure, it suffices to observe that $$\begin{aligned}
{{f}_*\,} (\alpha \wedge f^* \beta)\vert_{V_f}
&= \sum_{i=1}^{\deg f} \left(f^{-1}_i\right)^* (\alpha \wedge f^* \beta)
= \sum_{i=1}^{\deg f} \left(\left(f^{-1}_i\right)^*\alpha\right) \wedge \left(\left(f \circ f^{-1}_i\right)^*\beta\right)\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^{\deg f} \left(\left(f^{-1}_i\right)^*\alpha\right) \wedge \beta
= \left(({{f}_*\,} \alpha) \wedge \beta \right)\vert_{V_f}.
\end{aligned}$$
Property is a corollary of . Indeed, let $\mathcal{X}_M$ be the characteristic function of $M$. Then, for every $y \in V_f$, $$({{f}_*\,} \mathcal{X}_M)(y) = \sum_{i=1}^{\deg f} \mathcal{X}_M \circ f^{-1}_i(y) = \deg f.$$ Hence, ${{f}_*\,} \mathcal{X}_M = (\deg f)\mathcal{X}_{N}$ almost everywhere on $N$, and therefore $${{f}_*\,} f^* \omega = {{f}_*\,} \left( \mathcal{X}_M \wedge \left(f^* \omega\right)\right)
= \left({{f}_*\,} \mathcal{X}_M\right) \wedge \omega = (\deg f) \mathcal{X}_{N} \wedge \omega = (\deg f) \omega.$$
For , we also fix $V_g$, $U_{g,j}$ and $g_j^{-1}$ as in Lemma \[pushwelldefined\], and define $$\begin{aligned}
V_{g \circ f} = V_g \cap g(V_f) &&
U_{g \circ f, (i,j)} = U_{f,i} \cap f^{-1} U_{g,j}.
\end{aligned}$$ It follows from the Lusin N property of $f$ and $g$ that $V_{g \circ f}$ and $\bigcup_{i,j} U_{g \circ f, (i,j)}$ have full measure. Furthermore, the rest of the conditions of Lemma \[pushwelldefined\] also hold, with branches of the inverse $(g \circ f)_{(i,j)}^{-1} \colon V_{g \circ f} \to U_{g \circ f, (i,j)}$ given by $$(g \circ f)_{(i,j)}^{-1} = f_i^{-1} \circ (g_j^{-1} \vert_{V_{g \circ f}}).$$ Now, follows by computing $$\begin{aligned}
&({{(g \circ f)}_*\,}\omega)\vert_{V_{f \circ g}}
= \sum_{j=1}^{\deg g} \sum_{i=1}^{\deg f} (g_j^{-1} \vert_{V_{g \circ f}})^* (f_i^{-1})^* \omega\\
&\qquad= \sum_{j=1}^{\deg g} (g_j^{-1} \vert_{V_{g \circ f}})^* ({{f}_*\,}\omega)
= ({{g}_*\,} {{f}_*\,} \omega)\vert_{V_{f \circ g}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Finally, follows by the change-of-variables formula for the quasiconformal maps $f_i^{-1}$, since $$\begin{aligned}
\int_N {{f}_*\,} \omega &= \sum_{i=1}^{\deg f} \int_{V_f} \left(f^{-1}_i\right)^* \omega
= \sum_{i=1}^{\deg f} \int_{U_{f,i}} \omega = \int_M \omega.
\end{aligned}$$
As the next step towards the proof of Theorem \[qrpushsobolev\], we show that the push-forward commutes with the (weak) exterior derivative. Towards this goal we state an auxiliary lemma.
\[sobolevwedges\] Let $f \colon M \to N$ be a non-constant quasiregular map between closed, connected, oriented Riemannian $n$-manifolds. Let $\omega \in {W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^{k} M)$ and $\eta \in C^\infty(\wedge^{n-k-1}N)$, where $k \in \{0, \ldots, n-1\}$. Then $\omega \wedge f^*\eta$ has a weak differential in $L^1(\wedge^{n} M)$ satisfying $$\label{eq:lemmawedgedifferential}
d(\omega \wedge f^*\eta) = d\omega \wedge f^*\eta + (-1)^{k} \omega \wedge f^*d\eta.$$
For $k > 0$ we have $\omega \in {W^{\text{OCE}}}(\wedge^{k} M)$ and $f^*\eta \in {W^{\text{OCE}}}(\wedge^{n-k-1} M)$, and the claim follows directly from Gol’dshtein–Troyanov [@GoldsteinTroyanov2010paper Theorem 3.3]. Thus it remains to prove the case $k = 0$. We follow here the strategy of the proof of [@GoldsteinTroyanov2010paper Theorem 3.3].
By the higher integrability of $f$, there exist $r > n/(n-1)$ and $s > 1$ for which $f^*\eta \in L^r(\wedge^{n-1} M)$ and $f^*d\eta \in L^{s}(\wedge^{n} M)$; see [@HajlaszIwaniecMalyOnninen2008paper Chapter 2.3.3] for the discussion in this case. Note that the $L^s$-integrability of $f^*d\eta$ also follows by Lemma \[qrpull-backhigherint\] and the $L^r$-integrability of $f^*\eta$ is a corresponding result for $k$-forms proven analogously.
Now, by Hölder’s inequality, $${\lVert \omega \wedge f^*\eta \rVert}_\frac{n}{n-1} \leq {\lVert \omega \rVert}_{\frac{nr}{nr - r - n}}{\lVert f^*\eta \rVert}_{r}$$ and $${\lVert d\omega \wedge f^*\eta + (-1)^{k} \omega \wedge df^*\eta \rVert}_1
\leq {\lVert d\omega \rVert}_{n}{\lVert f^*\eta \rVert}_{\frac{n}{n-1}} + {\lVert \omega \rVert}_{\frac{s}{s - 1}}{\lVert f^*d\eta \rVert}_{s}.$$ Since $\omega \in {W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^{0} M)$, $\omega \in L^p(\wedge^{0} M)$ for every $1 \leq p < \infty$, and consequently $\omega \wedge f^*\eta \in L^{n/(n-1)}(\wedge^{n-1} M)$ and $d\omega \wedge f^*\eta + (-1)^{k} \omega \wedge df^*\eta \in L^1(\wedge^n M)$.
To show that $\omega \wedge f^*\eta$ has a weak differential satisfying , let $t = \max\{s/(s-1), nr/(nr-r-n)\}$. We fix a sequence $(\tau_i)$ in $C^\infty(\wedge^{n-1} M)$ that converges to $f^*\eta$ in $W^{d, r, s}(\wedge^{n-1} M)$, and a sequence $(\omega_i)$ in $C^\infty(M)$ that converges to $\omega$ in $W^{d, t, n}(\wedge^0 M)$. Since $M$ has finite measure, we have, by Hölder’s inequality, that $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert \omega_i \wedge \tau_i - \omega \wedge f^*\eta \rVert}_{\frac{n}{n-1}}
&\leq {\lVert \omega_i \rVert}_\frac{nr}{nr-r-n}
{\lVert \tau_i - f^*\eta \rVert}_r + {\lVert \omega_i - \omega \rVert}_\frac{nr}{nr-r-n}
{\lVert f^*\eta \rVert}_r\\
&\leq C\left( {\lVert \omega_i \rVert}_t
{\lVert \tau_i - f^*\eta \rVert}_r + {\lVert \omega_i - \omega \rVert}_t{\lVert f^*\eta \rVert}_r\right)
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&{\lVert d(\omega_i \wedge \tau_i)
- d\omega \wedge f^*\eta + (-1)^{k} \omega \wedge df^*\eta \rVert}_1\\
&\qquad\leq {\lVert d\omega_i \rVert}_n {\lVert \tau_i - f^*\eta \rVert}_\frac{n}{n-1}
+ {\lVert d\omega_i - d\omega \rVert}_n {\lVert f^*\eta \rVert}_\frac{n}{n-1}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad +{\lVert \omega_i \rVert}_\frac{s}{s-1} {\lVert d\tau_i - f^*d\eta \rVert}_s
+ {\lVert \omega_i - \omega \rVert}_\frac{s}{s-1} {\lVert f^*d\eta \rVert}_s\\
&\qquad\leq C\left({\lVert d\omega_i \rVert}_n {\lVert \tau_i - f^*\eta \rVert}_r
+ {\lVert d\omega_i - d\omega \rVert}_n {\lVert f^*\eta \rVert}_r\right)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad + C\left({\lVert \omega_i \rVert}_t {\lVert d\tau_i - f^*d\eta \rVert}_s
+ {\lVert \omega_i - \omega \rVert}_t {\lVert f^*d\eta \rVert}_s\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C$ depends on $n$, $r$, $s$, and the volume of the manifold $M$.
Now, the right hand sides of the previous two estimates tend to zero as $i$ tends to infinity. Hence, the sequence $(\omega_i \wedge \tau_i)$ converges to $\omega \wedge f^*\eta$ in $L^{n/(n-1)}$ and the sequence $(d(\omega_i \wedge \tau_i))$ converges to $d\omega \wedge f^*\eta + (-1)^{k} \omega \wedge f^*d\eta$ in $L^1$. Since the forms $\omega_i \wedge \tau_i$ are smooth, they are in $W^{d, n/(n-1), 1}(\wedge^{n-1} M)$, and Lemma \[weakdbysmoothlimit\] yields that $d(\omega \wedge f^*\eta) = d\omega \wedge f^*\eta + (-1)^{k} \omega \wedge f^*d\eta$. The claim follows.
We are now ready to prove that the push-forward $f_*$ commutes with the (weak) exterior derivative.
\[qrpushweakder\] Let $f \colon M \to N$ be a non-constant quasiregular map between closed, connected, oriented Riemannian $n$-manifolds, and let $\omega \in {W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^k M)$ for some $k \in \{0, \ldots, n-1\}$. Then the measurable $k$-form ${{f}_*\,} \omega$ has a weak derivative satisfying $d {{f}_*\,} \omega = {{f}_*\,} d\omega$.
Let $\eta \in C^\infty(\wedge^{k+1} N)$. By Lemma \[qrpushproperties\], $$\begin{aligned}
\int_N \left<{{f}_*\,} d\omega, \eta\right> \operatorname{vol}_N
= \int_N \left({{f}_*\,} d\omega\right) \wedge {\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\eta
= \int_N {{f}_*\,} \left( d\omega \wedge f^*{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\eta \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, by Lemma \[sobolevwedges\], $$d\omega \wedge f^*{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\eta
= d(\omega \wedge f^*{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\eta) - (-1)^{k} \omega \wedge df^*{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\eta$$ and the $n$-form $d(\omega \wedge f^*{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\eta)$ is integrable. Thus, by Lemma \[qrpushproperties\], $$\int_N {{f}_*\,} d(\omega \wedge f^*{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\eta)
= \int_M d(\omega \wedge f^*{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\eta)
= 0.$$ Since $$(-1)^{k+1} df^*{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\eta
= (-1)^{nk-k+k+1} f^*{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}d {\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\eta
= f^* {\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}d^* \eta,$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_N \left<{{f}_*\,} d\omega, \eta\right> \operatorname{vol}_N
&= \int_N {{f}_*\,} \left( d\omega \wedge f^*{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\eta \right)
= \int_N {{f}_*\,} \left( \omega \wedge (-1)^{k+1}df^*{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}\eta \right)\\
&= \int_N {{f}_*\,} \left( \omega \wedge f^*{\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}d^* \eta \right)
= \int_N ({{f}_*\,} \omega) \wedge {\mathtt{\star}\hspace{1pt}}d^* \eta\\
&= \int_N \left<{{f}_*\,} \omega, d^* \eta \right> \operatorname{vol}_N.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus ${{f}_*\,} d\omega$ is the weak differential $d {{f}_*\,} \omega$ of ${{f}_*\,} \omega$.
We continue with an $L^p$-estimate for the push-forward in the conformal exponent. In the following lemma, the space $L^{n/k}(\wedge^k M)$ for $k=0$ is the space $L^\infty(M)$.
\[qrpushnorm\] Let $f \colon M \to N$ be a non-constant $K$-quasiregular map between closed, connected, oriented Riemannian $n$-manifolds, and let $\omega \in L^{n/k}(\wedge^k M)$ for some $k \in \{0, \ldots, n\}$. Then ${{f}_*\,} \omega \in L^{n/k}(\wedge^k N)$, and there exists a constant $C = C(n, k, K) \geq 0$ for which $${\lVert {{f}_*\,} \omega \rVert}_\frac{n}{k} \leq C \left(\deg f\right)^\frac{n-k}{n} {\lVert \omega \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}.$$
The case $k=0$ follows trivially from the definition and the Lusin property of $f$, and we may assume that $k\in \{1,\ldots, n\}$.
Fix $V_f$, $U_{f, i}$ and $f_i^{-1}$ as in Lemma \[pushwelldefined\]. Recall that the maps $f_i^{-1} \colon V_f \to U_{f, i}$ are $K'$-quasiconformal, where $K' = K'(K, n)$. Let $C = C(n, k, K')$ be the constant of Lemma \[qrnormestimate\]. Then, by the elementary inequality $$(a_1 + \ldots + a_l)^p \leq l^{p-1}(a_1^p + \ldots + a_l^p)$$ for $p \geq 1$ and non-negative $a_1, \ldots, a_l$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pushnormestimate}\begin{split}
\left( \int_N {\left| {{f}_*\,} \omega \right|}^\frac{n}{k} \operatorname{vol}_N \right)^\frac{k}{n}
&= \left( \int_{V_f} {\left| \left(f_1^{-1}\right)^*\omega + \ldots
+ \left(f_{\deg f}^{-1}\right)^*\omega \right|}^\frac{n}{k} \operatorname{vol}_N \right)^\frac{k}{n}\\
&\leq \left((\deg f)^{\frac{n}{k}-1} \sum_{i=1}^{\deg f} \int_{V_f}
{\left| \left(f_i^{-1}\right)^*\omega \right|}^\frac{n}{k} \operatorname{vol}_N \right)^\frac{k}{n}\\
&\leq \left((\deg f)^{\frac{n-k}{k}} \sum_{i=1}^{\deg f} C \int_{U_{f,i}}
{\left| \omega \right|}^\frac{n}{k} \operatorname{vol}_M \right)^\frac{k}{n}\\
&= C^\frac{k}{n} (\deg f)^{\frac{n-k}{n}} \left(\int_{M}
{\left| \omega \right|}^\frac{n}{k} \operatorname{vol}_M \right)^\frac{k}{n}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof.
Finally, we show that the push-forward operator preserves the sharp and flat spaces $L^{1,\sharp}(\wedge^n M)$ and $L^{\infty,\flat}(\wedge^0 M)$. We formulate this property as follows.
\[qrpushflatsharp\] Let $f \colon M \to N$ be a non-constant quasiregular map between closed, connected, oriented Riemannian $n$-manifolds. Then the push-forward operator ${{f}_*\,}$ on measurable forms maps $L^{1, \sharp}(\wedge^n M)$ into $L^{1, \sharp}(\wedge^n N)$ and $L^{\infty, \flat}(\wedge^0 M)$ into $L^{\infty, \flat}(\wedge^0 N)$.
Again, fix $V_f$, $U_{f, i}$ and $f_i^{-1}$ as in Lemma \[pushwelldefined\], and let ${\varepsilon}> 0$ and $r > 1$ be such that $J_f^r$ and $J_f^{-{\varepsilon}}$ are integrable over $M$. Since $f_i^{-1}$ is a right inverse of $f$, the chain rule yields $J_{f_i^{-1}} = J_f^{-1} \circ f_i^{-1}$. Now, for every $i \in \{1, \ldots, \deg f\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{V_f} J_{f_i^{-1}}^{1+{\varepsilon}} \operatorname{vol}_N
&= \int_{V_f} J_{f_i^{-1}}^{{\varepsilon}} J_{f_i^{-1}} \operatorname{vol}_N
= \int_{V_f} \left(J_{f}^{-{\varepsilon}} \circ f_i^{-1}\right) J_{f_i^{-1}} \operatorname{vol}_N\\
&= \int_{U_{f,i}} J_{f}^{-{\varepsilon}} \operatorname{vol}_M < \infty.
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{V_f} J_{f_i^{-1}}^{1-r} \operatorname{vol}_N
&= \int_{V_f} \left(J_{f}^{r-1} \circ f_i^{-1}\right) \operatorname{vol}_N
= \int_{U_{f,i}} \left(J_{f}^{r-1} \circ f_i^{-1} \circ f\right) J_{f} \operatorname{vol}_M\\
&= \int_{U_{f,i}} J_{f}^{r} \operatorname{vol}_M < \infty
\end{aligned}$$ for every $i \in \{1, \ldots, \deg f\}$.
Let $\omega \in L^{1, \sharp}(\wedge^n M)$. There exists $p > 1$ for which $\omega \in L^{p}(\wedge^n M)$. For every $i \in \{1, \ldots, \deg f\}$, since $J_{f_i^{-1}}^{1+{\varepsilon}}$ is integrable, there exists $s > 1$ satisfying ${\lVert (f_i^{-1})^* \omega \rVert}_{s} < \infty$; see for the computation. Similarly as in , we now obtain the estimate $${\lVert {{f}_*\,} \omega \rVert}_{s}
\leq \left((\deg f)^{s-1} \sum_{i=1}^{\deg f} \int_{V_f}
{\left| \left(f_i^{-1}\right)^*\omega \right|}^{s} \operatorname{vol}_N \right)^\frac{1}{s} < \infty.$$ Hence ${{f}_*\,}\omega \in L^{1, \sharp}(\wedge^n N)$.
Similarly, let $u \in L^{\infty, \flat}(\wedge^0 M)$, and let $1 \leq p < \infty$. Since $u \in L^s(M)$ for every $1 \leq s < \infty$ and $J_{f_i^{-1}}^{1-r}$ is integrable, we have ${\lVert (f_i^{-1})^* u \rVert}_{p} < \infty$ for every $i \in \{1, \ldots, \deg f\}$; see for the computation. Thus ${\lVert {{f}_*\,} u \rVert}_{p} < \infty$ and ${{f}_*\,}u \in L^{\infty, \flat}(\wedge^0 N)$.
Theorem \[qrpushsobolev\] now follows immediately from Lemmas \[qrpushweakder\], \[qrpushnorm\], and \[qrpushflatsharp\].
Norm in conformal cohomology {#sect:cohomology_norm}
============================
In this chapter, we define norms in the conformal cohomology spaces ${H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)$ of a closed manifold $M$. We use a standard quotient norm construction; see e.g. Iwaniec–Scott–Stroffolini [@IwaniecScottStroffolini1999paper Section 7.1] and Bonk–Heinonen [@Bonk-Heinonen_Acta Section 3]. Furthermore, we obtain a norm estimate for the pull-back map $f^* \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(N) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)$ induced by a quasiregular map $f \colon M \to N$ between closed, connected, oriented manifolds. This estimate is a key part in the proof of Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\].
Let $M$ be a closed Riemannian manifold, $k \in \{1, \ldots, n-1\}$, and let ${\lVert \cdot \rVert}_{n/k} \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M) \to [0, \infty)$ be the function $$c \mapsto \inf_{\omega \in c} {\lVert \omega \rVert}_{\frac{n}{k}}.$$ The space $d{W^{\text{CE}}}(\wedge^{k-1} M)$ is convex, and by Lemma \[confexpcompleteness\], it is a closed subspace of $L^{n/k}(\wedge^k M)$. Since each cohomology class $c\in {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M)$ is a closed affine subspace in the uniformly convex Banach space $L^{n/k}(\wedge^k M)$, there exists a unique $k$-form $\omega \in c$ for which ${\lVert c \rVert}_{n/k} = {\lVert \omega \rVert}_{n/k}$. Now, by a straightforward verification, ${\lVert \cdot \rVert}_{n/k}$ is a norm on ${H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M)$.
Our goal is to derive a version of Lemma \[qrnormestimate\] in the cohomology norm for the pull-back $f^* \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(N) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{*}}(M)$. The upper bound follows directly from the upper bound in Lemma \[qrnormestimate\]. To obtain the lower bound, we use Lemma \[qrpushnorm\] together with the fact that $(\deg f)^{-1} {{f}_*\,}$ is a left inverse of the pull-back $f^*$.
\[cohomnormestimate\] Let $f \colon M \rightarrow N$ be a non-constant $K$-quasiregular map between closed, connected, oriented Riemannian $n$-manifolds, and let $0 < k < n$. Then there is a constant $C = C(n, k, K) \geq 1$ for which $$\label{eq:cohom_ineq}
C^{-1}\left(\deg f\right)^{\frac{k}{n}} {\lVert c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
\leq {\lVert f^*c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
\leq C\left(\deg f\right)^{\frac{k}{n}} {\lVert c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}.$$ for all $c \in {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(N)$.
Note that for $k\in\{0,n\}$, the spaces ${H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(N)$ are one-dimensional and the mappings $f^* \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(N) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M)$ are completely understood by Theorem \[derhamsobolevequivalence\]. Indeed, given a continuous map $f\colon M \to N$ between closed, connected, oriented $n$-manifolds, $f^* \colon H^*(N; {\mathbb{R}}) \to H^*(M; {\mathbb{R}})$ maps the generator $[x\mapsto 1]$ of $H^0(N;{\mathbb{Z}})$ to the generator $[x\mapsto 1]$ of $H^0(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$ and the positive generator $c_N \in H^n(N;{\mathbb{Z}})$ to $(\deg f)c_M\in H^n(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$, where $c_M$ is the positive generator of $H^n(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$.
Let $c \in {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(N)$ and let $\omega \in c$ be the $k$-form satisfying ${\lVert \omega \rVert}_{n/k} = {\lVert c \rVert}_{n/k}$. By Lemma \[qrnormestimate\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert f^*c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
&\leq {\lVert f^*\omega \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
\leq \left(C (\deg f)\int_M {\left| \omega \right|}^\frac{n}{k} \operatorname{vol}_M\right)^\frac{k}{n}
= C^{\frac{k}{n}} \left(\deg f\right)^\frac{k}{n} {\lVert c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k},
\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C$ depends only on $n$, $k$, and $K$.
To prove the other inequality, let $\tau \in f^*c$ be the $k$-form satisfying ${\lVert \tau \rVert}_{n/k} = {\lVert f^*c \rVert}_{n/k}$. Then, by Corollary \[qrpushcohom\], $${{f}_*\,} \tau \in {{f}_*\,} f^* c = (\deg f) c.$$ Hence, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert f^*c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
= {\lVert \tau \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
\geq (C')^{-1} (\deg f)^{-\frac{n-k}{n}}{\lVert {{f}_*\,} \tau \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
\geq (C')^{-1} (\deg f)^{\frac{k}{n}} {\lVert c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k},
\end{aligned}$$ where $C' = C'(n,k,K)$ is given by Lemma \[qrpushnorm\]. This concludes the proof.
Eigenvalues and diagonalizability
=================================
In this section, we prove Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\]. The result follows directly from Theorem \[cohomnormestimate\] using some basic facts about complex vector spaces.
Recall that a linear map $L \colon V \to W$ between real vector spaces extends to a complex linear map $L \colon V \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\to W \otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ by the formula $L(v \otimes z) = L(v) \otimes z$ for $v \in V$ and $z \in {\mathbb{C}}$. We consider $V$ and $W$ as real subspaces of $V\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ and $W\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ for which we have $V + iV = V\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ and $W+iW = W\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$. Under this identification $L \colon V \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\to W \otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ is given by the formula $L(v_1 + iv_2) = L(v_1) + iL(v_2)$ for $v_1, v_2 \in V$. Further, the complex eigenvalues of $L\colon V\to W$ correspond to eigenvalues of $L \colon V\otimes {\mathbb{C}}\to W\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$.
A norm ${\lVert \cdot \rVert}$ in $V$ extends to a norm in the complex vector space $V \otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ by setting $$\label{eq:complex_norm_extension}
{\lVert v + iv' \rVert} = \sup_{\theta \in [0, 2\pi]} {\lVert \cos(\theta)v + \sin(\theta)v' \rVert}$$ for $v, v' \in V$; for details, see e.g. [@MunosSarantopuolosTonge1999paper]. Note in particular that the extended norm satisfies ${\lVert zw \rVert} = {\left| z \right|}{\lVert w \rVert}$ for all $z \in {\mathbb{C}}, w \in V \otimes {\mathbb{C}}$.
The extension of the norm ${\lVert \cdot \rVert}_{n/k}$ in ${H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(N)$ to ${H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(N) \otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ now yields a complex version of Theorem \[cohomnormestimate\].
\[complexcohomnormestimate\] Let $f \colon M \rightarrow N$ be a non-constant $K$-quasiregular map between closed, connected, oriented Riemannian $n$-manifolds, and let $0 < k < n$. Then there is a constant $C = C(n, k, K) \geq 1$ for which $$C^{-1}\left(\deg f\right)^{\frac{k}{n}} {\lVert c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
\leq {\lVert f^*c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
\leq C\left(\deg f\right)^{\frac{k}{n}} {\lVert c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}.$$ for all $c \in {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(N) \otimes {\mathbb{C}}$, where the complexification of the norm ${\lVert \cdot \rVert}_{n/k}$ is as in .
Let $c = a+bi \in {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(N) \otimes {\mathbb{C}}$, and let $C \geq 1$ be the constant in Theorem \[cohomnormestimate\]. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert f^*c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
&= \sup_{\theta \in [0, 2\pi]} {\lVert \cos(\theta)f^*a + \sin(\theta)f^*b \rVert}
= \sup_{\theta \in [0, 2\pi]} {\lVert f^*(\cos(\theta)a + \sin(\theta)b) \rVert}\\
&\leq C\left(\deg f\right)^{\frac{k}{n}} \sup_{\theta \in [0, 2\pi]}
{\lVert \cos(\theta)a + \sin(\theta)b \rVert}
= C\left(\deg f\right)^{\frac{k}{n}} {\lVert c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k},
\end{aligned}$$ which yields the upper bound. The lower bound is obtained in the same manner.
We now prove Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\] in two parts. We show first that for a $k \in \{1, \ldots, n-1\}$ and a uniformly quasiregular map $f \colon M \to M$ on a closed, connected, oriented Riemannian manifold $M$, each complex eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $f^* \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M)$ has absolute value equal to $(\deg f)^\frac{k}{n}$.
\[eigenvaluessame\] Let $f \colon M \to M$ be a non-constant uniformly $K$-quasiregular map on a closed, connected, oriented Riemannian $n$-manifold $M$, let $k \in \{1, \ldots, n-1\}$, and let $\lambda$ be a complex eigenvalue of $f^* \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M)$. Then $${\left| \lambda \right|} = \left(\deg f\right)^{\frac{k}{n}}.$$
Let $c \in {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M)\otimes{\mathbb{C}}\setminus \{0\}$ be a complex eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue $\lambda$. Since every iterate $f^m$ of $f$ is $K$-quasiregular, we obtain by Lemma \[complexcohomnormestimate\] the estimate $$C^{-1}\left(\deg f\right)^{\frac{mk}{n}} {\lVert c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
\leq {\left| \lambda \right|}^m{\lVert c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
\leq C\left(\deg f\right)^{\frac{mk}{n}} {\lVert c \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}$$ for every $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$, where $C= C(n, k, K)$ is independent of $m$. By rearranging the inequalities we obtain $$C^{-\frac{1}{m}} \leq \frac{{\left| \lambda \right|}}{\left(\deg f\right)^{\frac{k}{n}}} \leq C^{\frac{1}{m}},$$ and, by letting $m \to \infty$, the claim follows.
We prove the complex diagonalizability of $f^* \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M)$ using the Jordan normal form of the matrix of $f^*$. Recall that, if $V$ is a finite-dimensional vector space and $L \colon V \to V$ is a linear map, then there exists a basis of $V\otimes{\mathbb{C}}$ under which the matrix representation of $L$ is zero outside of square blocks called *Jordan blocks* on the diagonal, of the form $$\begin{bmatrix}
\lambda & 1 & 0 &\ldots & 0 \\
0 &\lambda& 1 &\ldots & 0 \\
0 & 0 &\lambda&\ddots &\vdots \\
\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &\ddots & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &\lambda
\end{bmatrix}$$ where $\lambda$ is a complex eigenvalue of $L$; see e.g. [@Shilov1971book Ch. 6]. The Jordan normal form is unique up to the order of Jordan blocks. Clearly $L$ is diagonalizable if and only if it has a Jordan normal form consisting only of $1 \times 1$ blocks.
Let $f \colon M \to M$ be a uniformly $K$-quasiregular map on a closed, connected, oriented Riemannian $n$-manifold $M$. Then $f^* \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M)$ is complex diagonalizable.
Suppose that the Jordan normal form of $f^* \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M)$ has a non-diagonal Jordan block associated to a complex eigenvalue $\lambda$. Then there exist $e_1, e_2 \in ({H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M)\otimes{\mathbb{C}}) \setminus \{0\}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:jordaniterates}\begin{split}
f^*e_1 &= \lambda e_1,\\
f^*e_2 &= \lambda e_2 + e_1.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Then, for each $m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$, $$(f^m)^*e_2 = \lambda^m\left(m\lambda^{-1}e_1 + e_2\right).$$ Now, Lemma \[complexcohomnormestimate\] yields $${\left| \lambda \right|}^m {\lVert m\lambda^{-1}e_1 + e_2 \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
= {\lVert (f^m)^*e_2 \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}
\leq C\left(\deg f\right)^{\frac{mk}{n}} {\lVert e_2 \rVert}_\frac{n}{k}$$ for every $m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$, where $C = C(n, k, K)$ is independent of $m$. Since ${\left| \lambda \right|} = (\deg f)^{k/n}$, we obtain $$m{\lVert \lambda^{-1}e_1 \rVert}_\frac{n}{k} \leq (C + 1){\lVert e_2 \rVert}_\frac{n}{k},$$ for every $m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$, which is a contradiction. Hence the Jordan normal form of $f^* \colon {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M) \to {H_{\text{CE}}^{k}}(M)$ has no non-diagonal blocks.
This completes the proof of Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\].
Degree restrictions {#sect:degree_limitation}
===================
In this section, we briefly elaborate on Corollary \[cor:degree\_spectrum\]. In its general form, the result is as follows.
\[full\_degree\_corollary\] Let $f\colon M\to M$ be a uniformly quasiregular self-map on a closed, connected, oriented Riemannian $n$-manifold $M$. Then for every $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $$(\deg f)^{\frac{k}{n} \dim H^k(M; {\mathbb{R}})} \in {\mathbb{Z}}.$$
We denote $d = \dim H^k(M; {\mathbb{R}})$. The claim of Theorem \[full\_degree\_corollary\] is nontrivial only for $0 < k < n$. Furthermore, as noted in the introduction, Theorem \[alleigenvaluessamediag\] shows that $f^* \colon H^k(M; {\mathbb{R}}) \to H^k(M; {\mathbb{R}})$ has a determinant equal to $\pm(\deg f)^{kd/n}$. Therefore, Theorem \[full\_degree\_corollary\] follows immediately from the following lemma.
\[topological\_basis\_lemma\] Let $f \colon M \to M$ be a continuous self-map on a closed manifold, and let $k > 0$. Then there is a basis of $H^k(M; {\mathbb{R}})$ under which the matrix of $f^* \colon H^k(M; {\mathbb{R}}) \to H^k(M; {\mathbb{R}})$ has integer coefficients. In particular, the determinant of $f^* \colon H^k(M; {\mathbb{R}}) \to H^k(M; {\mathbb{R}})$ is an integer.
The proof of Lemma \[topological\_basis\_lemma\] is standard and straightforward for a reader familiar with algebraic topology. However, instead of searching for a reference, we give a simple proof.
To avoid ambiguity, we denote by $f^*$ the pull-back $H^k(M; {\mathbb{R}}) \to H^k(M; {\mathbb{R}})$ and by $f^*_{\mathbb{Z}}$ the pull-back $H^k(M; {\mathbb{Z}}) \to H^k(M; {\mathbb{Z}})$. By a universal coefficient theorem for spaces of finite type, see [@Rotman1988book Theorem 12.15], we obtain an isomorphism $\alpha \colon H^k(M;{\mathbb{Z}})\otimes {\mathbb{R}}\to H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ which satisfies $$\label{top_lemma_eq_1}
\alpha \circ \left( f^*_{{\mathbb{Z}}}\otimes \operatorname{id}_{\mathbb{R}}\right) = f^* \circ \alpha.$$
Let $T^k(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$ be the torsion subgroup of $H^k(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$ and let $H^k_{\mathrm{free}}(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$ be the quotient group $H^k(M;{\mathbb{Z}})/T^k(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$ with projection $p \colon H^k(M;{\mathbb{Z}})\to H^k_{\mathrm{free}}(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$. We obtain an induced homomorphism $[f^*_{\mathbb{Z}}]\colon H^k_{\mathrm{free}}(M;{\mathbb{Z}})\to H^k_{\mathrm{free}}(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$ satisfying $p \circ f^*_{\mathbb{Z}}= [f^*_{\mathbb{Z}}]\circ p$. By the right exactness of the tensor product, the sequence $$\xymatrix{
T^k(M, {\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes {\mathbb{R}}\ar[r]^-{i\otimes\operatorname{id}_{\mathbb{R}}}
& H^k(M, {\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes {\mathbb{R}}\ar[r]^-{p\otimes\operatorname{id}_{\mathbb{R}}}
& H^k_{\mathrm{free}}(M;{\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes {\mathbb{R}}\ar[r]
& 0
}$$ is exact, where $i$ is the inclusion homomorphism $T^k(M;{\mathbb{Z}}) \hookrightarrow H^k(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$. Since $T^k(M, {\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes {\mathbb{R}}= 0$, we furthermore have that $p\otimes\operatorname{id}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is an isomorphism. We denote by $\beta$ the inverse of $p\otimes\operatorname{id}_{\mathbb{R}}$, and note that $$\label{top_lemma_eq_2}
\beta \circ \left( [f^*_{\mathbb{Z}}] \otimes \operatorname{id}_{\mathbb{R}}\right) = \left( f^*_{\mathbb{Z}}\otimes \operatorname{id}_{\mathbb{R}}\right) \circ \beta.$$
Since $H^k_{\mathrm{free}}(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$ is a finitely-generated free Abelian group, there exists $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and a free generating set $\{e_1, \ldots, e_m\}$ of $H^k_{\mathrm{free}}(M;{\mathbb{Z}})$. Then $H^k_{\mathrm{free}}(M;{\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes {\mathbb{R}}$ is linearly isomorphic to ${\mathbb{R}}^m$, and $\{e_1 \otimes 1, \ldots, e_m \otimes 1\}$ is a basis of $H^k_{\mathrm{free}}(M;{\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes {\mathbb{R}}$. Let $\gamma \colon H^k_{\mathrm{free}}(M;{\mathbb{Z}})\to H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}})$ be the homomorphism $c \mapsto (\alpha \circ \beta) (c \otimes 1)$. Then, since $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are isomorphisms, $\{\gamma(e_1), \ldots, \gamma(e_m)\}$ is a basis of $H^k(M;{\mathbb{R}})$. By and , we have $\gamma \circ [f^*_{\mathbb{Z}}] = f^* \circ \gamma$, and therefore the matrix of $f^*$ with respect to $\{\gamma(e_1), \ldots, \gamma(e_m)\}$ has integer coefficients. The claim that $\det f^*$ is an integer follows immediately.
[10]{} R. Adams. , volume 63 of [*Pure and applied mathematics*]{}. Academic press, New York, 1975.
L. Astola, R. Kangaslampi, and K. Peltonen. Latt[è]{}s-type mappings on compact manifolds. , 14:337–367, 2010.
M. Bonk and J. Heinonen. Quasiregular mappings and cohomology. , 186(2):219–238, 2001.
G. E. Bredon. , volume 170 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1997.
A. Convent and J. Van Schaftingen. Intrinsic co-local weak derivatives and [S]{}obolev spaces between manifolds. , 16(1):97–128, 2016.
S. K. Donaldson and D. P. Sullivan. Quasiconformal [$4$]{}-manifolds. , 163(3-4):181–252, 1989.
A. L. Edmonds. Branched coverings and orbit maps. , 23(4):289–301 (1977), 1976.
H. Federer. , volume 153 of [*Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1969.
V. Gol’dshtein and M. Troyanov. Sobolev inequalities for differential forms and [$L_{q,p}$]{}-cohomology. , 16(4):597–631, 2006.
V. Gol’dshtein and M. Troyanov. A conformal de [R]{}ham complex. , 20(3):651–669, 2010.
M. Gromov. On the entropy of holomorphic maps. , 49(3-4):217–235, 2003.
P. Haj[ł]{}asz, T. Iwaniec, J. Malý, and J. Onninen. Weakly differentiable mappings between manifolds. , 192(899):viii+72, 2008.
J. Heinonen, T. Kilpeläinen, and O. Martio. . Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, NY, 2006.
S. Hencl, P. Koskela, and X. Zhong. Mappings of finite distortion: reverse inequalities for the [J]{}acobian. , 17(2):253–273, 2007.
T. Iwaniec and A. Lutoborski. Integral estimates for null [L]{}agrangians. , 125(1):25–79, 1993.
T. Iwaniec and G. Martin. Quasiregular mappings in even dimensions. , 170(1):29–81, 1993.
T. Iwaniec and G. Martin. Quasiregular semigroups. , 21(2):241–254, 1996.
T. Iwaniec and G. Martin. . Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001.
T. Iwaniec and C. Sbordone. On the integrability of the [J]{}acobian under minimal hypotheses. , 119(2):129–143, 1992.
T. Iwaniec, C. Scott, and B. Stroffolini. Nonlinear [H]{}odge theory on manifolds with boundary. , 177:37–115, 1999.
R. Kangaslampi. Uniformly quasiregular mappings on elliptic [R]{}iemannian manifolds. , 151, 2008. 72pp.
G. Martin and K. Peltonen. Stoïlow factorization for quasiregular mappings in all dimensions. , 138(1):147–151, 2010.
G. J. Martin. The theory of quasiconformal mappings in higher dimensions, [I]{}. In [*Handbook of [T]{}eichmüller theory. [V]{}ol. [IV]{}*]{}, volume 19 of [*IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys.*]{}, pages 619–677. Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2014.
O. Martio. On the integrability of the derivative of a quasiregular mapping. , 35:43–48, 1974.
W. Massey. , volume 46 of [*Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics*]{}. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York-Basel, 1978.
V. Mayer. Uniformly quasiregular mappings of [L]{}attès type. , 1:104–111, 1997.
N. G. Meyers and A. Elcrat. Some results on regularity for solutions of non-linear elliptic systems and quasi-regular functions. , 42(1):121–136, 1975.
G. A. Munos, Y. Sarantopoulos and A. Tonge Complexifications of real Banach spaces, polynomials and multilinear maps. , 134(1):1–33, 1999.
Y. Okuyama and P. Pankka. Equilibrium measures for uniformly quasiregular dynamics. , 89(2):524–538, 2014.
S. Rickman. Path lifting for discrete open mappings. , 40(1):187–191, 1973.
S. Rickman. , volume 26 of [*Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3)*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993.
J. J. Rotman. , volume 119 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988.
G. E. Shilov. . Dover Publications, Inc., New York, english edition, 1977. Edited by Richard A. Silverman.
M. Shub. Dynamical systems, filtrations and entropy. , 80:27–41, 1974.
J. V[ä]{}is[ä]{}l[ä]{}. Discrete open mappings on manifolds. , 392:1–10, 1966.
F. W. Warner. , volume 94 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1983.
R. O. Wells. , volume 65 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980.
Y. Yomdin. Volume growth and entropy. , 57(3):285–300, 1987.
[^1]: This work was supported in part by the doctoral program DOMAST of the University of Helsinki and the Academy of Finland project \#297258. This is the final draft version accepted for publication. For the published version, see: *Proc. London Math. Soc.*, 118(3):701–728, 2019. (<https://doi.org/10.1112/plms.12205>).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'As chatbots are becoming increasingly popular, we often wonder what users perceive as natural and socially accepted manners of interacting with them. While there are many aspects to this overall question, we focused on user expectations of their emotional characteristics. Some researchers maintain that humans should avoid engaging in emotional conversations with chatbots, while others have started building empathetic chatting machines using the latest deep learning techniques. To understand if chatbots should comprehend and display emotions, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 participants. Our analysis revealed their overall enthusiasm towards emotionally aware agents. The findings disclosed interesting emotional interaction patterns in daily conversations and the specific application domains where emotionally intelligent technology could improve user experience. Further, we identified key user concerns that may hinder the adoption of these chatbots. Finally, we summarized a few guidelines useful for the development of emotionally intelligent conversational agents and identified further research opportunities.'
author:
- |
Ekaterina Svikhnushina\
School of Computer and Communication Sciences\
EPFL\
Lausanne, Switzerland\
`[email protected]`\
Pearl Pu\
School of Computer and Communication Sciences\
EPFL\
Lausanne, Switzerland\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Should Machines Feel or Flee Emotions? User Expectations and Concerns about Emotionally Aware Chatbots'
---
Introduction
============
The use of voice and chat-based conversational agents is on the rise. Facebook has recently announced that the number of bots on Messenger Platform exceeded 300,000 [@boiteux2018messenger]. Gartner forecasts by the year 2022 chatbots will get involved in 85 % of all customer service interactions [@bharaj2017gartner]. And a recent survey by PwC reported that over 700 US participants out of 1,000 use intelligent voice assistants, such as the Apple Siri, Amazon Alexa, or others to facilitate their everyday tasks [@pwc2018]. Hundreds of thousands of conversational agents are rapidly emerging in a diverse range of application domains. There are mainly two types of such agents [@gao2019convai]: those that can accomplish specific tasks for users (task-oriented) and those that offer opportunities for users to talk about diverse topics or be entertained (chitchat). While agents of the former type are currently the most widespread, to build a truly natural interaction with the latter type is among the most challenging tasks due to its open-domain nature [@Grudin2019chatbots]. While we do not specifically use the term “open-domain chitchat” in our discussions with users, we are primarily focused on the qualities of the second type.
Some researchers have investigated the perceptions, expectations, and concerns surrounding the use of conversational agents. Many previous studies pointed out the importance of naturalness, i.e. human-like qualities, in this technology [@Luger2016badpa; @brandtzaeg2017people; @Zamora2017sorry; @thies2017how; @Jain2018chatbots; @neururer2018perceptions]. The most frequently mentioned components comprising a conversational agent’s naturalness are: responding coherently with the preceding context [@Luger2016badpa; @thies2017how; @Jain2018chatbots; @neururer2018perceptions; @Shum2018], anticipating user needs and questions [@Luger2016badpa; @thies2017how; @Shum2018], understanding culture- or language-specific terms [@Zamora2017sorry; @neururer2018perceptions], facilitating input and response diversity [@Luger2016badpa; @thies2017how; @Jain2018chatbots; @Muresan2019chats; @Shum2018], and developing a consistent personality [@thies2017how; @Jain2018chatbots; @neururer2018perceptions; @Shum2018]. Although researchers emphasized the importance of integrating emotional intelligence [@brandtzaeg2017people; @thies2017how; @Zamora2017sorry; @Shum2018], no prior work has focused specifically on user expectations of the emotional qualities of chatbots. To address this gap, we have decided to conduct qualitative user studies to deepen our understanding of their expectations, especially concerning what emotional skills users would expect from artificial conversational agents.
We present the results of 18 semi-structured interviews with potential technology users. In the following, we first describe some background work in affect research, as well as surveying related qualitative studies of conversational agents. Further, we describe our study design, methodology, and main findings based on 400 affinity notes. We then discuss the implications of our work by identifying 5 design guidelines that can be useful for the development of emotionally-aware chatbots.
Related Work
============
What is Emotion?
----------------
Emotion is a complex concept, which lacks an established definition even within scholars [@cabanac2002emotion]. We usually understand emotion as “a feeling deriving from one’s circumstances, mood, or relationships with others” [@emotiondef]. According to Darwin, emotion expressions formed through the evolutionary process [@darwin1998expression]. Originally serving as a protective or action-provoking mechanism, they further adapted to take on an important communicative function. People express emotions through a variety of means, including facial expression, body language, linguistic cues, and others. This helps us understand how we should react in a particular situation and treat people around. Emotions play a crucial role in social communication, allowing us to establish bonds with one another and build more meaningful relationships. Maslow listed social belonging and emotional connection within fundamental human needs [@maslow1943theory]. One might think that when it comes to human-computer interaction, emotion is no longer that important, as we tend to treat this interaction as practical and operational. Reeves and Nass [@reeves1996media] refute this conviction, first stating that by nature our response to any subject of interaction initiates our evaluation of whether it is good or bad. This evaluation is a fundamental part of our reactions to the content we face, helping us protect ourselves from harm by avoiding negative experience and approach subjects promising pleasant experience. Human interaction with media and computers is no exception, that is why we restrain from watching horror movies late at night or seek for entertaining video games when feeling bored [@reeves1996media]. With this premise, it generates an increased scientific interest to understand how these concepts translate to our interaction with artificial conversational agents. The urgency to address this question from the user perspective also results from the fact that previous qualitative works specifically emphasize that emotional awareness is the aspect users currently desire from the chatbots [@brandtzaeg2017people; @thies2017how; @Zamora2017sorry].
Qualitative Studies of Chatbots
-------------------------------
Given the growing popularity of conversational agents, a number of qualitative studies about this technology emerged. They mainly fall into two groups. Some researchers investigate user impressions of their [*current*]{} interactions with available chatbots, while others deliberately focus on future interaction possibilities and elicit user expectations and concerns in those contexts.
The first type of work mostly develops around user reasons for interaction with existing agents and experience with them. Luger and Sellen [@Luger2016badpa] and Brandtzaeg and Folstad [@brandtzaeg2017people] investigated the factors motivating and impeding user adoption of chatbots. Zamora [@Zamora2017sorry] explored these questions more specifically, focusing on user preference for input modality and domains of use. Bentley et al. [@Bentley2018] and Porcheron et al. [@Porcheron2018] reported longitudinal studies of user experience with popular voice agents. Muresan and Pohl [@Muresan2019chats] conducted a case study with first-time and long-term users of the Replika chatbot, focusing on how human cues affect user engagement with the agent. Jain et al. [@Jain2018chatbots] and Cowan et al. [@cowan_what_2017] analyzed interaction experience with chatbots specifically among first-time and infrequent users. Finally, Clark et al. [@clark_what_2019] researched on what characteristics are important for human conversation and how they apply to conversations with artificial agents. According to these works, transactional purposes, efficiency, and productivity, such as the possibility to obtain information faster than via other methods, are likely the major driver for chatbot usage [@Luger2016badpa; @brandtzaeg2017people; @Jain2018chatbots; @Zamora2017sorry; @clark_what_2019]. At the same time, lack of trust, reliability, and transparency constitute the main user concerns. People questioned the mechanisms employed by the agent to fulfill different tasks and worried that system failure might result in social embarrassment, for example by calling or messaging a wrong person [@Luger2016badpa; @cowan_what_2017]. They also felt reluctant to discuss sensitive topics such as financing and social media content with the chatbots [@Zamora2017sorry; @cowan_what_2017].
Based on these conclusions, several of the aforementioned works questioned the appropriateness of human-like metaphor for conversational agents [@cowan_what_2017; @Porcheron2018; @clark_what_2019]. The supportive arguments for this view maintain that participants of their studies perceived social aspects of conversational interaction as an immaterial part of chatbot’s performance [@clark_what_2019], saw little need in agent’s human-like behavior for it to address user tasks [@cowan_what_2017], and did not treat it as a conversationalist [@Porcheron2018]. However, as the authors also noted themselves, in these studies participant views were grounded by the types of interaction facilitated by existing conversational agents. The way people perceive the technology in its current state and how they would prefer it to operate may considerably differ. Focusing exclusively on the current user experience is thus limited. These studies did not consider user goals and desires in the future, which may give designers the false impression that users do not want them.
Contrary to this practice, Neururer et al. [@neururer2018perceptions] interviewed and surveyed researches from several relevant fields to determine characteristics of authenticity in chatbots. Thies et al. [@thies2017how] ran an exploratory Wizard-of-Oz experiment to understand what chatbot personality traits would be preferred by their target users. Both works point out the importance of strong social conversational skills and emotional awareness for future conversational agents.
Development of Emotionally Aware Chatbots
-----------------------------------------
Affective computing, initiated by Picard [@picard2000affective] in the mid-1990s, is an essential aspect of human-computer interaction research. For example, earlier work showed that computer-initiated emotional support, such as demonstrating elements of active listening, empathy, and sympathy, can help users overcome frustration and manage negative emotional states [@klein2002computer]. Another study by Bickmore and Picard [@Bickmore2005] established that even after a long course of interaction, users found a relational agent with deliberate social-emotional skills more respectful, appealing, and trustworthy than an equivalent task-oriented agent. Building on the previous experience of affective computing community, emotionally aware conversational agents are equally believed to bring higher efficiency and engagement in human-computer interaction [@McDuff2018designing]. Recent progress in neural language modeling for response generation [@vinyals2015neural] has inspired an expanding number of papers focusing on introducing emotional awareness into neural network-based chatbots [@asghar2018affective; @zhou2018emotional; @zhou2018mojitalk; @Hu2018touch; @Huber2018emotional; @Zhong2019affect; @song2019generating; @Xie2020]. Several studies designed emotion-coping approaches by adjusting the neural network structure and the training objective function to make the model produce responses following a predefined strategy [@asghar2018affective; @Zhong2019affect; @Xie2020]. Other bodies of work employed explicit indicators, such as the use of emoji, image, or emotional category, to inform their model how to regulate the emotional response [@zhou2018emotional; @zhou2018mojitalk; @Hu2018touch; @Huber2018emotional; @song2019generating]. These papers mostly discuss the technical approaches to incorporate emotional intelligence into the chatbots. They do not explore what kind of emotional interaction is expected by the eventual technology users.
So far it remains unclear what kind of emotional behavior chatbots should establish to comply with user expectations. In this work, we aim to inform the neural conversation modeling field by eliciting insights from potential users of emotionally aware agents in a qualitative study.
Method
======
Study Design
------------
Understanding the purpose of emotional intelligence in chatbots will help designers and developers create conversational agents that provide improved interaction experience. To explore user expectations and concerns about such agents, we conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with potential users. For our study, we engaged the participants who were active smartphone and computer users, without substantial prejudice against chatbots. Additionally, our recruitment strategy suggested a diverse demographic profile of interview participants to acquire extensive response patterns. All interviewees provided their consent for their data to be reported anonymously.
Participants
------------
We recruited the participants through the snowball sampling method [@Biernacki1981snowball]. In total, 18 fluent or native English speakers (10 female, 8 male) from various backgrounds took part in our study. Over a half of the participants belonged to teenage (10–19 years old, 17 %) and young adult (20–29 years old, 45 %) age groups, with the remaining participants being almost equally distributed within four older age groups from 30–39 to 60–69 years old (38 % in total). Most of the participants (67 %) were nationals of European countries, while the others represented Asian, North- and South-American countries in roughly equal ratios. In the invitation email, we provided a brief description of our research and interview procedure and informed the recipients about the incentives. Each participant was offered a small gift as a token of appreciation right after the interview, and two of them received smart speakers after a draw among all participants.
Procedure
---------
Once agreed to take part in our study, the participants were asked to complete a basic demographic survey about their age group, nationality, and occupation. The following semi-structured interviews were organized either in-person (11 cases), or via Skype video-conference (7 cases). All of them took place between 2nd and 23rd October 2019, with each interview lasting about 40 minutes. In each session, the interviewer gradually developed the discussion, first probing the participant’s demographic and technology usage background. The first 15 minutes of the interviews were adjusted to make the participants speculate about their recent experience of social conversations and interaction with chatbot technology respectively. This part helped the participants to draw the parallels between their human-human and human-machine communication experience. In the following core part of the sessions, the interviewees were spurred to reflect on what they expect from natural conversations with emotionally aware chatbots. This part of the discussion lasted for 25 minutes on average. All interviews but one were audio-recorded, with the participants’ consent, and all were accompanied with hand-written notes either by the interviewer or interviewer’s colleague.
Data Analysis
-------------
We used Affinity diagramming [@scupin1997kj] to analyze the interview content. Primarily, the first author enriched the hand-written interview notes with missing comments and observations from audio records. Meaningful quotations from the participants as well as the researcher’s remarks based on the material were prepared as affinity notes. During the preliminary analysis, the first author clustered all resulting affinity notes according to emerging themes and validated the result with the second author. Three large themes describing participants’ expectations of chatbots arose: naturalness, concerns, and application domains (see Fig. \[fig:affinity-table\] (a)). The concept of emotion comprised a substantial part of naturalness and was also present in the other two themes. Overall, 400 affinity notes related to the concept of emotional awareness in chatbots, which accounted for over half of all affinity notes in the initial diagram. Further, we examined these notes more closely. Specifically, emotion-related notes were distributed into sub-clusters, whose content was summarized with one representative sentence. The sub-clusters, in turn, were grouped under top-level categories. The resulting affinity diagram, concerning emotional awareness of chatbots, was reviewed together with the second author and refined to reach its final version (see Fig. \[fig:affinity-table\] (b)), which is represented in the findings below.
Findings
========
Expectations of Emotional Intelligence in Chatbots
--------------------------------------------------
All participants of our study agreed that enabling more human-like behavior for the conversational agents could facilitate the interaction. Sixteen out of 18 interviewees expressed varying degrees of interest in chatbots with enhanced emotional capabilities. Seven participants felt highly enthusiastic about such agents, and the remaining 9 showed moderate excitement. Their expectations largely complied with an established notion of emotional intelligence, which includes: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills [@goleman1996emotional; @goleman2009working]. As self-awareness and motivation rather refer to subjects that are endowed with consciousness, people attributed the other three qualities – [*empathy*]{}, [*social skills*]{}, and [*self-regulation*]{} – to their desired artificial conversational agents.
### Empathy
Empathy is our ability to sense the feelings and emotions of others, take their perspective, understand their needs and concerns [@goleman2009working]. When describing their expectations of chatbot’s emotional behavior, the participants highlighted two main components: [*recognition*]{} of the speaker’s emotional state and [*expression*]{} of emotion in accordance with the context. The principle desire was to feel understood by the chat agent and receive appropriate responses. As noted by U04: *“It needs to sound as if it has emotions, not only one emotion for all times. For example, it could be sad or happy or something like that: maybe, happy when you’re happy and understanding when you’re sad.”*
In addition to a straightforward way to treat the speaker’s emotion by explicitly referencing the feeling (e.g. “I see that you are frustrated.”), a number of other more subtle approaches were discussed during the interviews. Several participants mentioned interjections, *“phases that people have in a usual talk, like “am”, “ah”, “seems to be”, “you know…””* (U09), as a way to express reactions, emotional states, and thought processes. Emojis and emoticons were also referenced a remarkable way of revealing emotion in chat. For example, U17 commented: *“I use them sometimes to convey the atmosphere of “smiling conversation”.”*
### Social skills
Social skills concern the way how we manage relationships with others. These include a broad range of competencies from knowing how to communicate smoothly and managing conflicts to cooperating and bonding with people [@goleman2009working]. Speculating about their potential interaction, younger participants (below 30 years old) tended to be more open-minded about the social aspect of chatbots in everyday life. They enjoyed the idea of a conversational agent that could convey emotions during the dialog and presumed they would treat it as a friend. Interviewees felt excited about the possibility to engage with chatbots and share their feelings especially when they feel bored, lonely, or lacking motivation, as exemplified by the quote from U11: *“Some people have only one person they are close to, so they might need another one. So for them, the \[emotionally intelligent chatbot\] would be very useful: not to feel alone and to actually feel like they are talking to someone and sharing something.”*
Meanwhile, both younger and older participants expressed interest in social skills for task-oriented chatbots. From their perspective, it could improve their current experience in several domains by ensuring more appropriate responses and alleviating the embarrassment from talking to a new person.
### Self-regulation
In relation to chatbots, the most frequently mentioned principles of self-regulation included trustworthiness and adaptability. The recurrent topic reflecting anticipated interaction development with the chatbot concerned *“familiarity level”* (U06) with the user. Several participants commented that receiving overly positive replies from someone barely known would seem odd and awkward. Similar to relationship development with a newly met person, participants expected the chatbot to consider personal boundaries and gradually adjust to their style, motives, and language. Participant U06 pointed her concern about appropriate conversational style and importance of social chitchat for her: *“Maybe it’s different for my generation, but when I write an email or a message on WhatsApp, I always say ‘Bonjour …’ and some greetings. I think this is quite important.”* Participant U08 further supported the idea with another example from her personal experience: *“I really like that some software, it tries to learn my language…it will predict what I would like to say in a way I personally say. So, it adapts to my style.”*
Depending on the participant’s needs and attitude towards the natural language agents, some of them preferred the interaction to follow a more formal style. In contrast, others expected it to develop informally, similar to the way of communication with their friends. For example, U17 welcomed the idea to develop a more close relationship with the chatbot: *“For me, it would be an amazing idea to have a kind of an online personal friend. So, you always share some thoughts with your friend, but this one can be both your diary and at the same time a psychologist who can always listen to you.”* By comparison, U14 preferred more formal communication: *“…sometimes I find the service may be too cold. But, for example, when I was in the US for a bit, it was extremely warm and welcoming, to the point that I found it intrusive. So, yeah, I’d say it should be polite and understanding the problem I’m facing.”*
Chatbots in the Role of a Friend
--------------------------------
In our study, 10 out of 18 participants discussed the possibility to develop a friendship with a conversational agent in case it could demonstrate sufficient qualities of emotional awareness. They agreed that the chatbot should adjust to the user’s emotional state, also taking its prior knowledge of the user into consideration, if possible. While it suggests a personalized approach, the participants concurrently described a number of emotional interaction patterns expected from the agent. The patterns mainly reflected the desired chatbot’s responses to basic human emotions [@robinson2008brain], such as happiness, sadness, or anger, and several more complex interactions. We summarize these expected patterns in Table \[tab:emotion\] and consider them in greater detail below.
During the analysis, we observed that male participants tended to comment more on the playful and entertaining interaction aspects, while female interviewees mostly emphasized chatbot’s supporting abilities. Overall, the participants expected it to share their joyful moments, *“ask what happened”* (U17), and *“be happy with them”* (U02). In times of trouble, when feeling lonely or sad, the participants would anticipate understanding and compassion from the chatbot. U02 summarized these expectations as follows: *“I guess, if you’re adding some excitement or frustration, then she \[emotionally intelligent chatbot\] should either be happy with you or try to make the voice more comforting.”* Importantly, our participants would like chatbots to *“provide feedback, but not just generic”* (U16).
In some cases, potential users would desire the conversational agent to express coaching and motivational qualities. According to them, chatbots should encourage users *“to keep going”* (U07) both literally, promoting more physical activity and helping to establish a healthy lifestyle, and figuratively, supporting them when dealing with everyday problems. U05 would appreciate if a chatbot could assist him with behavior change: *“It would be good if it acts as a coach who helps you avoid a bad habit or encourage you to exercise.”* Several other participants would like chatbots to “educate users to manage their anger” (U01): *“Maybe for me, a bot should calm you down when you’re angry. \[It should\] say, “Stop, I cannot talk with you like that. If you don’t calm down, I will turn off.””* (U03). Turning to chatbots to get inspiration and reassurance was another recurrently discussed topic: *“…if you have to spend long hours there, alone, doing some experiments, then it can make a conversation with you, cheer you up, look at your problems, maybe give some advice. It’s a kind of a colleague that you might not have”* (U02).
Aligned with previous findings [@Zamora2017sorry; @brandtzaeg2017people], our participants expressed eagerness to share their frustration and negative thoughts with the chatbot due to the non-judging nature of such interaction. They found it appealing to have someone always available to validate their anxiety and stress without condemning the users. As spotted by U18: *“If it’s very natural, it can also be in the consulting domain…Consulting – sometimes emotionally, sometimes professionally, like therapy.”* Curiously, just having an empathetic listener to vent out was not sufficient. From the participants’ perspective, the crucial part of this interaction scenario was to receive some non-generic feedback from the chatbot, either advising the user how to overcome the problem or helping them to take their mind off by *“starting another topic \[for conversation\]”* (U04).
[cc]{}\
[**Input emotion**]{} & [**Response emotion**]{}\
Happiness & Happiness\
-------------
Loneliness,
Sadness
-------------
: Expected emotional interaction patterns described recurrently by the participants.
&
-------------
Compassion,
Interest
-------------
: Expected emotional interaction patterns described recurrently by the participants.
\
Anger & Disengagement\
Discouragement & Motivation\
Frustration &
-------------
Non-judging
support
-------------
: Expected emotional interaction patterns described recurrently by the participants.
\
\[tab:emotion\]
Emotionally Aware Chatbots in Targeted Domains
----------------------------------------------
According to previous works on task-oriented chatbots, users try to engage into social chitchat with them, even though these agents were originally designed to operate in a limited target domain [@Kopp2005max; @Liao2018allwork; @Yan2017]. For example, [@Yan2017] reported that nearly 80 % of user utterances to the online shopping bot were chitchat queries. Since almost all of our study participants have had previous experience of interaction with this type of agents, they soon delved into discussing the emotional awareness of these chatbots. Many interviewees took positive attitude towards emotionally aware chatbots for customer service, health care, and educational domains. They expected that chatbots could potentially eliminate issues caused by human factors: computer agents are not subject to stress and tiredness and could always offer comforting advice to the client. In the case of customer service it could ensure *“more natural and pleasant”* responses, so that *“people would actually want to call customer service instead of googling their problem”* (U11). For medical advice, several participants anticipated responses from the chatbot to be more attentive than the ones from *“an over-worked, over-stressed doctor”* (U15).
For the area of educational and professional training, several participants pointed out that conversational agents could make the services more available along with expressing higher involvement and interest into the tutoring sessions. Both for health care and educational domains some interviewees mentioned the clients might feel less embarrassed to share their questions with a chatbot than with an unknown person. For example, U14 mentioned: *“I guess, for some medical issues people may be shy to actually talk to a real doctor…So, for this case it \[emotionally intelligent chatbot\] could be quite good”* (U14).
Three Pillars of User Concerns
------------------------------
In line with previous studies [@Luger2016badpa; @Zamora2017sorry; @cowan_what_2017], the main factors causing user worries around conversational agents were uncertainty about trustworthiness and reliability of the system, as well as the risk of private information exposure. Chatbot’s ability to treat emotions provoked several additional topics that disturbed our interview participants. During the analysis, we identified three major categories that describe user concerns about chatbots: *monetary harm*, *social harm*, and *psychological harm*.
### Monetary harm
Predictably, financial damage primarily involved the risks around the participants’ immediate personal means, such as bank accounts or social security numbers. People also felt apprehensive about the threat to employment opportunities in case the technology reaches sufficiently natural conversational abilities. Potential emotional awareness of chatbots further increased these concerns as people feared that for intruders, *“it would be easier to influence you with emotion”* (U05).
### Social harm
Concerns about the consequences for the social status of the users developed around the risks of sensitive information misuse by the chatbot operators. People questioned how the information they share with the agents would be stored and whether the third-parties could use it. They worried that in case of disclosure, some pieces of data might be used against themselves and cause social embarrassment. Participant U11 questioned: *“What if it remembers something you shouldn’t have said?”* Participant U14 further echoed her worry: *“If there’s anything linked to some kind of psychology, I would be very scared of what is being kept \[by the chatbot\], because in the future you can be considered unbalanced, or whatever.”*
Several participants also felt wary of the possibly addictive effect of highly human-like conversational agents. Similarly to the way how excessive smartphone usage negatively affects our social relations [@Genc2018], they concerned that users might get too obsessed with flawless *“virtual friends”* (U10) and isolate themselves from real human society. Participant U02 found this especially alarming for children: *“I wouldn’t want children to use this technology, for them not to get used to talking to a computer all the time instead of real people.”*
### Psychological harm
Sometimes people develop an emotional attachment to objects and may experience anxiety and other negative emotions when facing a risk of losing these items [@yap2019unpacking]. Our participants mentioned that people would highly likely establish an affective connection with emotionally aware chatbots. In this case, a technical glitch or agent’s discontinuation could cause strong user distress: *“If some system or electricity failure happens, and the system gets reset, a person might not understand why it cannot remember anything anymore and feel very upset”* (U02).
Another thought-provoking point arose from people’s experience with existing media resources. Several participants noted that some media adapts to personal interests of its users and focuses all the suggested content around them, possibly depriving the alternative views or unintentionally hiding *“the best option”* (U14) from the user. It may deceive the users leading them to get trapped in *“their bubble”* (U16), believing that everyone around adheres to the same beliefs. Some of our participants concerned that, given their anticipated personalization features, artificial conversational agents may further exacerbate this problem and cause psychological discomfort for the users. Participant U07 exemplified it with a personal anecdote: *“I am also very worried …about the control the media has to shape my thinking, especially on Facebook. …It shows me posts that have the same point of view as other posts that I’ve read. I might read posts of some political area and then it will show me lots of similar posts. So, I might gradually start thinking that that’s the only point of view.”*
Discussion
==========
This study has investigated user expectations and concerns about interaction with emotionally aware chat agents and revealed a number of insights to consider for chatbot development. Below, we list 5 essential design implications resulting from our findings and further research opportunities.
Design Implications
-------------------
### Endow chatbots with emotionality to enhance likability
Emotions form an essential part of human conversation. We use them in our daily chats with friends, family members, colleagues, retail assistants, and others. Emotional cues help us communicate our ideas clearer, share experiences, and form relationships. Our research findings demonstrated that users equally desire emotional awareness from chatbots to make the interaction more natural. Enabling conversational agents with emotional intelligence can help designers ensure more pleasant user experience. This complies with the Media Equation theory [@reeves1996media], suggesting that people apply rules and conventions of social human interaction to computers. According to Reeves and Nass, users appear considerably more positive about the computer system and their interaction experience with it if the computer exhibits human-like qualities, for example being polite, cooperative, or showing personality traits. People perceive such technology as friendlier and more supportive and feel more comfortable with it.
### Mirror positive, but carefully treat negative emotions
According to observations from social psychology, during communication people tend to mimic each other’s emotional states [@Stevanovic2015]. Users expressed expectations for chatbots to follow the same rule when treating positive emotions, for example, to share and promote user happiness. In contrast, when experiencing negative feelings, people would prefer the agent to act more intelligently than simply mirroring the input. Designers should enable the agents with abilities to demonstrate attention and meaningful support to help users overcome negative sentiments. People would more eagerly engage with the chatbots that demonstrate empathy and provide non-generic feedback to the users.
### Use implicit language markers to react to and express emotions
Chatbots designers should consider a variety of ways to enable chatbots to establish empathetic behavior by demonstrating and treating emotions. Participants of our study brought up two alternatives to expressing emotions through words: interjections and emojis. This agrees with previous studies, where authors showed that conversational agents employing interjections and filler words were perceived as more natural and engaging by the users [@marge2010towards; @cohn2019large]. Emotive interjections [@Goddard2014] could enable chatbots to validate user emotions in a subtle and realistic manner, for example by saying *Wow!* to express a positive surprise or *Yikes!* to confirm their awareness of something bad and unexpected. Emojis and emoticons can also be employed by chatbots to express emotion and regulate the interaction, similarly to how people use them in computer-mediated communication between each other [@derks2008emoticons].
### Align with user style and language
In human dialogs, people tend to converge on linguistic behavior and word choices to achieve successful and favorable communication [@Branigan2010; @Pickering2004]. According to user expectations for chatbots’ self-regulation, the same principle manifests for this type of human-computer interaction. Chatbot designers should ensure that the agents adapt to their users by learning their profile and utilizing preferred user vocabulary and conversational style. This is in line with several earlier findings [@Branigan2010; @Thomas2018], suggesting that linguistic alignment by computers with users both in terms of word choices, i.e [*what*]{} things are said, and response style, i.e. [*how*]{} these things are said, can promote user positive feelings towards the computer and make communication more engaging.
### Maintain curiosity to sustain engagement
In a social conversation, curiosity provokes active listening and responding behavior, which represents a premise for pleasant interactions [@KASHDAN2006140; @davis1982determinants]. Our study illustrated that people would value their interaction with chatbots that demonstrate interest and involvement into user preoccupations. By being curious about the user and proactively asking for clarifications, chatbots can prove their attentiveness and understand better the issues faced by the user, ensuring more appropriate responses. At the same time, people themselves have a natural passion for learning and gaining new knowledge and understanding of things [@loewenstein1994psychology]. As reflected in our findings, the impossibility to understand how chatbots operate and treat the information shared by the users caused considerable concerns. Similarly, people worried that artificial agents would limit the informational content that might potentially interest the users or let them learn about alternatives. These issues could arise if chatbots fail to satisfy user curiosity. By providing convincing responses to user [*why?*]{} and [*how?*]{} questions, conversational agents can explain themselves better and enhance user trust to the technology.
Limitations and Future Work
---------------------------
Given the actively progressing research and developmental efforts to enhance the emotional capabilities of conversational agents, this work aimed to understand how people envision their interaction with this technology to help designers and developers create improved user experience. We observed several gender- and age-related trends, but given the limited population sample, we cannot claim any strong dependencies. Future work can investigate this subject closer by surveying a larger number of participants. In addition, our findings revealed the broadly expected emotional interaction patterns that stood out most prominently in the interview analysis. With this respect, follow-up research could extend the established principles both by considering more fine-grained emotional categories and providing insights on how the emotional flow should develop through several conversational turns. Another direction for further research could consider how emotionality in chatbots can promote user social and emotional well-being.
Conclusion
==========
In our study, we took the first step towards understanding user expectations and concerns about emotionally intelligent chat agents based on semi-structured interviews with 18 participants of diverse backgrounds. The findings revealed that most participants anticipate chatbots with integrated emotional and social skills to be more likable, attentive, and pleasant to interact with. We described how users desire emotional interaction with these chatbots to develop to fulfill their emotional needs and what application domains they foresee as the most beneficial for this technology. We also identified the major factors causing user concerns around emotional agents. The insights originating from user interviews further provided 5 design guidelines helpful for the development of emotionally intelligent conversational agents and several inspiring directions for future research.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This project has received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant No. 200021184602). The authors also express gratitude to all the participants for sharing their ideas, and to Anuradha Welivita Kalpani, Kavous Salehzadeh Niksirat, and Yubo Xie for assisting the note-taking process during the interviews.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this report we consider the three dimensional subset of the space of states of two qubits that may be written in the so called standard form. For those states we show that different measures of entanglement, specifically concurrence, negativity and the Hilbert-Schmidt distance are proportional to the euclidean distance between the point representing the state in the three dimensional parameter space and the set of separable states.'
author:
- 'D.F. Mundarain and J. Stephany'
title: Concurrence and negativity as distances
---
Introduction
============
The possibility of preparing quantum systems of few particles in entangled states may be the more characteristic aspect of quantum dynamics. It is the one which is farthest of our classical intuition and the one which tests with more exigence our comprehension of the quantum world [@EinAPR1935; @HorRHH2007]. Recently entanglement and its counterpart decoherence gain also importance as a key element in the discussion about definitions and applications of quantum computing, quantum cryptography and quantum teleportation[@BenCBC1993].
The quantification of the degree of entanglement[@HorRHH2007; @PleMV2005] corresponding to a quantum state is of great importance both for the understanding of fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics and for possible applications. For systems with many degrees of freedom developments had stressed approximate methods for the separation of the entangled component of a given configuration. [@LewMS1998; @PleMV2005; @HorRHH2007] and a complete characterization has not been achieved. But for two qubits systems the works of Peres, Horodecki, Hill, and Wootters [@PerA1996; @HorMHH1996; @HilSW1997; @WooW1998] have established the base for a complete discussion of entanglement in terms of algebraic properties of the density matrix. The so-called Peres-Horodecki criterium [@PerA1996; @HorMHH1996] on one hand and concurrence as defined by Wootters [@WooW1998] in the other give the tools to distinguish completely entangled states from separate states. Other entanglement measures e.g entanglement of formation [@BenCDS1996] and the Hilbert Schmidt distance [@WitCT1999; @OzaM2000; @BertRNT2002] also work consistently for these systems. More recently in Refs.[@VerFDD2001; @LeiJMO2006] some interesting geometrical aspects of the separable and entangled sectors of the space of physical states were discussed.
In this paper we discuss further two qubits systems. For states in the three dimensional subset of the physical space that may be written in the standard form [@LeiJMO2006] (see Eq. (\[standard\]) below) we show the specific geometrical relation between concurrence [@WooW1998], negativity [@ZycKHS1998; @VerFAD2001], and Hilbert Schmidt distance [@WitCT1999; @OzaM2000; @BertRNT2002] and the euclidean distance between the point representing the state in the three dimensional parameter space and the set of separable states.
Entanglement measures
=====================
Let us first discuss very briefly the definitions and properties of the entanglement measures that we need for our discussion below. For a pure state of a composed system with subsystems $A$ and $B$, entanglement is defined as the entropy of either of the two subsystems . The entanglement of formation of a mixed state $\rho$ defined as the average entanglement of the pure states in its decomposition minimized over all decompositions [@BenCDS1996] is a good measure of the entanglement of the system. It can represented as a monotonically increasing function of concurrence introduced in [@HilSW1997; @WooW1998] which then can also be taken as an entanglement measure. For two qubits, given a density matrix $\rho $ , concurrence [@WooW1998] is calculated in terms of the eigenvalues $R_1, R_2, R_3,R_4$ of the matrix $R$ defined by, $$R = \rho \,\, \sigma_y \, \otimes\, \sigma_y \,\,\rho^{*}\,\,\sigma_y\,\otimes\, \sigma_y$$ It is given by $$C = {\it max} \{0, 2 \sqrt{R_m}-(\sqrt{R_1}+\sqrt{R_2}+\sqrt{R_3}+\sqrt{R_4})\}$$ where $$R_m = {\it max} \{R_1, R_2, R_3,R_4\}$$ For maximally entangled states concurrence is 1 wether for separable states is zero.
The Peres-Horodeky [@PerA1996] condition establishes that a matrix is separable if its partial transposed matrix has only positive eigenvalues, ie. if the partial transposed matrix belongs to the physical space of the two particles. For $2\times 2$ systems this condition is also sufficient to characterize a separable state [@HorMHH1996]. In fact it happens that for these systems the partial transpose of a nonseparable state has one negative eigenvalue $\lambda_N$. Negativity [@ZycKHS1998; @VerFAD2001] may then be defined (for two qubits systems) as twice the absolute value of this negative eigenvalue. $$E_N= 2 max(0,-\lambda_N)$$ and may be used also to quantify entanglement. Finally another entanglement measure we will use in what follows is the Hilbert Schmidt [@WitCT1999; @OzaM2000; @BertRNT2002] distance given by $$\label{HS}
D_{HS}(\rho) = \min_{\omega \,\in S} \|\, \omega-\rho \, \|_2 \,$$ where $S$ is the set of separable states and $$\|\, \omega- \rho \, \|_2^2 \, =\, \mbox{Tr }\big( \,\omega^2 + \rho^2 - 2 \, \sqrt{\rho} \;
\rho \, \sqrt{\rho} \, \big) \ .$$
The geometry of the two qubits Hilbert space {#sec3}
============================================
For two qubits systems which are the ones we are concerned in this note, density matrices are represented in terms of the Pauli matrices ($\sigma_\mu\mapsto\sigma_0=\mathbb{I},\sigma_i$) in the form, $$\label{general}
\rho = \frac{1}{4} \left( \sum_{i=0}^3\, r_{\mu\nu} \,\sigma_\mu^A \otimes \sigma_\nu^B \right)$$ Local unitary transformations do not modify the degree of entanglement of a given state. On the other hand entanglement may be modified by filtering operations. Verstraete [*et al*]{} [@VerFDD2001] show that filtering operations on two qubits correspond to Lorentz transformations on the real parametrization (\[general\]) of the density matrix. For filtering operations of the form, $$\rho'=\frac{(A\otimes B)\rho(A\otimes B)^\dagger}{Tr[(A\otimes B)\rho(A\otimes B)^\dagger}]$$ they show that concurrence transforms as $$\label{cprime}
C'=C\frac{|det(A)||det(B)|}{Tr[A^\dagger A\otimes B[ \dagger B \rho}]$$ Since it appears a normalization factor in this relation, it links the changes in entanglement to the non-locality of the transformation. Leinaas [*et al*]{} [@LeiJMO2006] working on this characterization of the filtering operations then showed that by means of such transformations any density matrix of the form (\[general\]) can be transformed to the standard form $$\label{standard}
\rho = \frac{1}{4} \left( 1+ \sum_{i=1}^3\, r_i \,\sigma_i^A \otimes \sigma_i^B \right)$$ with separable states mapping on separable states. These results suggests that although restricted the space of states written in the standard form should be nevertheless useful to understand partially the properties of the whole set of states particulary in relation with separability.
Following [@VerFDD2001; @LeiJMO2006] we consider the geometrical space $V$ with coordinates $r_i$. The eigenvalues of the density matrix are given by $$\rho_1 = \frac{1}{4}\left( 1+r_x-r_y+r_z \right)$$ $$\rho_ 2=\frac{1}{4}\left( 1-r_x+r_y+r_z \right)$$ $$\rho_3 =\frac{1}{4}\left( 1+r_x+r_y-r_z \right)$$ $$\rho_4=\frac{1}{4}\left( 1-r_x-r_y-r_z \right)$$ and are necessarily positive. The equations $\rho_i=0$ define planes in $V$ below each one of the matrices defined by (\[standard\]) no longer is an acceptable density matrix for the two particles. Taken together, these four planes define a tetrahedron with vertices at $(r_x,r_y,r_z) =
\left\{ (-1,1,1), (1,-1,1),(1,1,-1), (-1,-1,-1) \right\}$ [@LeiJMO2006]. The points inside the tetrahedron correspond to physical states of the two particles and the points outside do not belong to the physical space. This tetrahedron may be called the physical tetrahedron. In the vertices of the physical tetrahedron are located the points representing the states of maximal entanglement or Bell states.
The partial transposition used to implement Peres-Horodeky criterium produces the following changes on a density matrix written in the standard form, $$\begin{aligned}
r_x &\rightarrow &r_x \nonumber \\
r_y &\rightarrow &-r_y \nonumber \\
r_z &\rightarrow &r_x\end{aligned}$$ This means that under partial transposition the physical tetrahedron is transformed to another tetrahedron, the Peres-Horodeky tetrahedron which has vertices at $(r_x,r_y,r_z) =
\left\{ (-1,-1,1), (1,1,1),(1,-1,-1), (-1,1,-1) \right\}$.
The intersection between these two tetrahedrons which is an octahedron is the set of separable states which may be written in the standard form.
Concurrence and negativity as distances {#sec4}
=======================================
The four smaller tetrahedrons, one near each of the vertices of the physical tetrahedron make together the set of entangled states that may be written in the standard form. For a state in this set, the natural way to quantify entanglement is taking the euclidian distance from the state to the octahedron of separable matrices. In order to measure this distance one must determine first in which corner of the physical tetrahedron is the state located and then simply calculate the distance to the octahedron by calculating the distance to the respective plane of the Peres-Horodeky tetrahedron. For example, the Euclidean distance of the point $(r_x,r_y,r_z) = (1,-1,1),$ which corresponds to a maximal entangled state, to the octahedron is equal to the distance from this point to the plane $x-y+z-1=0$ which is the nearest side of the Peres-Horodeky tetrahedron to the point under study. In this case one gets $D(1,-1,1)= 2/\sqrt{3}$. For a general point near the same vertex the distance to the octahedron is computed using elementary vector calculus to be $$\label{eq2}
D(r_x,r_y,r_z) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left( r_x-r_y+r_z-1\right)$$ To compare with concurrence we observe that for matrices written in the standard form one has $$R = \rho^2$$ then the eigenvalues of R are $\{\rho_1^2,\rho_2^2,\rho_3^2,\rho_4^2\}$. The concurrence is given by, $$C = {\it max} \{0, 2 \rho_m-(\rho_1+\rho_2+\rho_3+\rho_4)\}$$ where $$\rho_m = {\it max} \{\rho_1,\rho_2,\rho_3,\rho_4\}$$ For the point $(r_x,r_y,r_z) = (1,-1,1),$ of our example one has, $$\rho_1= 1,\rho_2= \rho_3= \rho_4= 0$$ Then $\rho_m= \rho_1 =1$ and concurrence is 1 as should be for a maximal entangled state. For points in the small tetrahedron near this vertex $\rho_m= \rho_1 \neq 1$ and concurrence takes the value, $$C = 2 \rho_1-(\rho_1+\rho_2+\rho_3+\rho_4)\}.$$ Subtituting the values of the eigenvalues one obtains: $$\label{eq1}
C = \frac{1}{2}\left( 1+r_x-r_y+r_z \right) -1 =\frac{1}{2} \left( r_x-r_y+r_z-1 \right)$$ Then from Eq. (\[eq2\]) and (\[eq1\]) one obtains the following relation between the concurrence and the euclidean distance, $$D = \frac{2 C}{\sqrt{3}}$$
To obtain the relation between (\[eq2\]) and negativity we note that the eigenvalues of the partial transposed matrix are given by [@LeiJMO2006], $$\rho_1^{PT}= \frac{1}{4}\left( 1+r_x+r_y+r_z \right)$$ $$\rho_ 2^{PT}=\frac{1}{4}\left( 1-r_x-r_y+r_z \right)$$ $$\rho_3^{PT}=\frac{1}{4}\left( 1+r_x-r_y-r_z \right)$$ $$\label{neg}
\rho_4^{PT}=\frac{1}{4}\left( 1-r_x+r_y-r_z \right)$$ Taking again the point $(1,-1,1)$ one gets $\rho_1^{PT}=\rho_2^{PT}=\rho_3^{PT}=1/2$ and $\rho_4^{PT}=-1/2$. For points in the corner near this vertex the negative eigenvalue of the partial transposed matrix will still be $\rho_4^{PT}$. From (\[neg\]) one obtains the equivalence between concurrence and negativity for states written in the standard form, $$C = -2 \, \, \rho_4^{PT}=E_N$$ Hence negativity is also proportional to the euclidean distance (\[eq2\]). For points in the other three tetrahedrons of entangled states analogous results are proven in the same way. Finally using the same tools it is straightforward to check that the Hilbert Schmidt distance (\[HS\]) also is proportional the euclidean distance (\[eq2\]).
Conclusion {#sec5}
==========
In this report we consider two qubits systems as characterized by Leinaas [*et al*]{} in Ref.[@LeiJMO2006]. We show that for elements of the three dimensional set of states which can be represented in standard form [@LeiJMO2006] concurrence [@WooW1998] is given by $\sqrt{3}/2$ times the geometrical distance from the point representing the state in the parameter space to the set of separable states in the same representation. For states in this set negativity as defined in Eq.(\[neg\]) and concurrence take the same value and also proportional to the Hilbert-Schmidt distance. As an application of this computation we note that in the space of states written in the standard we are allowed to choice sets of states with the same entanglement by direct geometrical inspection. It should be interesting to combine the properties of the filtering operation (see Eq.(\[cprime\])) and the geometrical aspects discussed in this note to characterize the entanglement of general states which are not written in the standard form.
Acknowledgements
================
This work was supported by Did-Usb Grant Gid-30 and by Fonacit Grant No G-2001000712.
[Referencias]{}
A.Einstein, B.Podolsky y N.Rosen, [*Phys. Rev.*]{}, [**47**]{}, 777, (1935). R.Horodecki, P.Horodecki, M.Horodecki and K.Horodecki [*e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0702225*]{}, (2007). C.H.Bennett, G.Brassard, C.Crépeau, R.Jozsa, A.Peres and W.K.Wootters, [*Phys Rev Lett*]{}, [**70**]{}, 1895, (1993). M.B.Plenio and S.Virmani, arXiv:quant-ph/0504163. M.Lewenstein and A.Sanpera, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**80**]{}, 2261 (1998). A.Peres, [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}, [**77**]{}, 1413, (1996). M.Horodecki, P.Horodecki y R.Horodecki [*Phys. Lett.*]{}, [**A223**]{}, 1, (1996). S.Hill and W.K.Wootters, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**78**]{}, 5022, (1997). W.K.Wootters, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**80**]{}, 2245, (1998). C.H.Bennett, D.P.DiVincenzo, J.A.Smolin and W.K.Wootters [*Phys Rev* ]{}, [**A54**]{}, 3824, (1996). R.A.Bertlmann, H.Narnhofer and W.Thirring,[*Phys Rev*]{}, [**A66**]{}, 032319, (2002). C.Witte and M.Trucks,[*Phys Lett*]{}, [**A268**]{}, 158 (2000). M.Ozawa,[*Phys Lett*]{}, [**A66**]{}, 032319 (2002). J.M. Leinaas, J.Myrheim and E.Ovrum, [*Phys Rev*]{}, [**A74**]{}, 012313, (2006). F.Verstraete, J.Dehaene and B.DeMoor,[*Phys Rev*]{}, [**A64**]{}, 010101(R) (2001). K.Zyczkowski, P.Horodecki, A.Sanpera and M.Lewenstein,[*Phys Rev*]{}, [**A58**]{}, 883, (1998). F.Verstraete, K.Audenaert and B.DeMoor,[*Phys Rev*]{}, [**A64**]{}, 012316, (2001).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a work-flow which aims at capturing residents’ abnormal activities through the passenger flow of elevator in multi-storey residence buildings. Camera and sensors (hall sensor, photoelectric sensor, gyro, accelerometer, barometer, and thermometer) with internet connection are mounted in elevator to collect image and data. Computer vision algorithms such as instance segmentation, multi-label recognition, embedding and clustering are applied to generalize passenger flow of elevator, i.e. how many people and what kinds of people get in and out of the elevator on each floor. More specifically in our implementation we propose GraftNet, a solution for fine-grained multi-label recognition task, to recognize human attributes, e.g. gender, age, appearance, and occupation. Then anomaly detection of unsupervised learning is hierarchically applied on the passenger flow data to capture abnormal or even illegal activities of the residents which probably bring safety hazard, e.g. drug dealing, pyramid sale gathering, prostitution, and over crowded residence. Experiment shows effects are there, and the captured records will be directly reported to our customer(property managers) for further confirmation.'
author:
- |
Chunhua Jia\
Wenhai Yi\
Yu Wu\
Hui Huang\
Lei Zhang\
Leilei Wu\
title: 'Abnormal activity capture from passenger flow of elevator based on unsupervised learning and fine-grained multi-label recognition'
---
Introduction
============
In modern city, most people live in condos or apartments of multi-storey buildings. Considering complexity of structure and high density of residents, public safety is challenged in such buildings\[1,2\]. Technologies based on Artificial Intelligence(AI) and Big Data and Internet Of Things(IoT) make it possible to capture or predict some behaviors/activities/events\[3,4,5\] which have direct or potential safety hazard to the residents, and thus precautions can be taken accordingly. Meanwhile, people’s privacy is another big consideration\[6\]. Even it is for public safety, still we need to make sure that all data is properly collected and used, and thus privacy of the residents will not be violated. On the other hand, since patterns of behaviors or activities conducted by highly socialized citizens vary from one to one and change continuously, it’s particularly difficult to give a specific definition on residents’ activities which would put their own safety in danger. Considering all the aspects above, we find that elevator could be the most feasible and suitable environment to take operation on because it’s legal and reasonable to deploy public surveillance and people take elevator widely and frequently enough.
Anomaly detection\[7\], which is also known as outlier or novelty detection, is a widely studied topic that has been applied to many fields including medical diagnosis, marketing, network intrusion, and many other applications except for automated surveillance. To capture activities with potential public safety hazard, anomaly detection of unsupervised learning is our choice from algorithm perspective because the definition of safety hazard on people’s activity is ambiguous and we assume such activities are relatively rare.
Similar to \[8,9,10,11,12\], the initial goal of our system is to capture elevator malfunction (e.g. stuck) in real-time through setting several different sensors in elevator and analyzing data collected. A camera is mounted and used to automatically check if any passenger is trapped in elevator box when malfunction happens through Computer Vision(CV) algorithm, e.g. pedestrian detection. Elevator malfunction with passenger trapped will be directly reported to the manager of the residence building with the highest priority so that rescue will be carried out as soon as possible. The system introduced above is deployed on more than 100000 elevators currently. Based on this system, we develop a framework to capture abnormal activities of residents.
Related Works
=============
Some researchers focus on predictive maintenance based on detection of abnormal usage of an elevator, taking advantage of sensors information\[13\]. However, common Internet Of Things(IoT) solution can only detect hardware malfunction, but is unable to describe the behavior of residents. Video surveillance fits this task better. There are many surveys conducted to anomalous events detection which utilize video surveillance. Hu\[14\] gave a survey on visual surveillance of object motion and behaviors, and proposed a general processing framework including several stages such as environment modeling, motion segmentation, object classification, understanding and description of behaviors, which all belong to computer vision domain. Surveillance system should become more intelligent, crucial, and comprehensive to deal with the situations under which individual safety could be compromised by potential criminal activity. Tomi\[15\] analyzed three generations of contemporary surveillance system and the most recent generation is decomposed into multi-sensor environments, video and audio surveillance, and distributed intelligence and awareness.
Many surveys of anomaly detection used supervised learning algorithm\[16,17,18,19,20\], which are based on the assumption that normal and abnormal behavior can be well distinguished. However, anomalous behavior could not be clearly defined, resulting in insufficient labeled data for supervised model. Xiang\[21,22\] developed a runtime accumulative anomaly measurement for behavior captured in videos, which is based on an online Likelihood Ratio Test(LRT) method and shows better performance on unlabeled data set.
Research\[23\] defines three common assumptions of anomalous behavior: anomalous events occur infrequently comparing to normal events, have significantly different characteristics from normal events, and have a specific meaning. These ideas inspire our work. We utilize these ideas to capture abnormal activity of residents in the building. For example, if the passenger flow of one floor is much higher than others, this floor may have anomalous events or activities. Our system tends to capture abnormal pattern of passenger flow using anomaly detection algorithm.
Anomaly detection is the identification of data sections which significantly differ from a regular or normal pattern. There are three kinds of anomaly detection algorithms. The first kind is based on statistic method that usually build a probability distribution model and then calculate corresponding probability to choose object with low probability as anomalous data points. The second is clustering method based on the distribution density of data features. Clusters with different distribution characteristics from other are likely to be considered as anomalous data cluster\[24,25\]. The third is specialized anomaly detection method represented by One Class SVM and Isolation Forest\[26,27\], which does well in abnormal points detection. One Class SVM is a novelty detection method other than outlier detection which usually utilizes normal data points for training and then deploys trained model to find abnormal data points. Isolation Forest was proposed by students of Zhi-Hua Zhou. It mainly uses the idea of integrated learning to detect abnormal points, and has almost become the first choice of abnormal point detection algorithm.
Passenger flow collection through AI and IoT
============================================
Infrastructure of internet of things (IoT) for data collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Camera and several kinds of sensors (Hall sensor, photoelectric sensor, gyro, accelerometer, barometer, thermometer, etc.) are mounted in elevator as the deployment of our system. As a solution which is easy to promote with low cost, our system does not require any access to the elevator’s ECU or other electronic signals, which means our solution could be deployed in most of the existing elevators. With the sensors properly setup, we are able to monitor the trace of elevator running. To collect passenger data, we use images captured from the camera instead of video stream. We take one snapshot each time during the elevator moves from one floor to another. Alongside with the image, time stamp and floor numbers of start/end are also collected. Images with extra information are uploaded and stored on cloud for further analysis. Such mechanism of snapshooting is based on one simple assumption: people get in or out of the elevator only when it stops at certain floor, and thus we can generalize how many and what kinds of people get in and out with comparing images successively captured, as shown in Figure 1.
Instance segmentation, embedding and clustering
-----------------------------------------------
Considering occlusion is inevitable when there are several passengers in the elevator at the same time, for feature extraction on each individual passenger, instance segmentation is needed. Different from object detection, instance segmentation can accurately segment all objects at pixel level and minimize the impact of occlusion and background. It could be considered as a pre-process similar to attention mechanism, so that other CV models could focus on human target itself completely.
YOLACT\[28\], a representative one-stage method which was proposed to speed up instance segmentation, is utilized by us to segment target person from background and other non-targets as shown in Figure 2.
As mentioned above, the information of people getting in and out of each floor could be generalized by comparing two successively captured images. For that, passengers in such pair of images need be vectorized and association between them has to be established.
We assume the variance of passengers’ overall appearances is greater than that of their faces, so FaceNet\[29\] designed for face embedding and clustering should be sufficient to identically represent the appearance of each segmented individual. As a result, FaceNet is re-trained with our own dataset of segmented passengers and utilized as feature extractor.
As shown in Figure 3, there are *M* passengers in image *p1* captured right before the elevator stops at certain floor, and *N* passengers in image *p2* captured right after the elevator leaves that floor. All those segmented passengers are fed to FaceNet and corresponding feature vectors are returned. Then we build an association matrix *D* with order *M \* N*. The element *d$_{ij}$* represents the Euclidean distance between the feature vectors of passenger *i* in *p1* and passenger *j* in *p2*. Minimal value searching on each row (or column) with a threshold *t* is carried out on *D* to get the best match for each passenger (no match found if the minimal value is greater than *t*). The passengers in *p2* without any match from *p1* are considered as “get out of that floor” and those in *p1* without match from *p2* are considered as “get into the floor”. Then attributes recognition are only applied on above two kinds of passengers for each floor.
GraftNet: a solution for fine-grained multi-label classification
----------------------------------------------------------------
To analyse the passenger flow of elevator in residence building, data with more descriptive information is needed, e.g. gender, age, occupation, appearance, etc. Here we propose GraftNet—a solution for fine-grained multi-label recognition task, i.e. to recognize different attributes of elevator passengers in our case.
GraftNet is a tree-like network that consists of one trunk and branches corresponding to attributes, as shown in Figure 4. The trunk is used to extract low-level features such as shapes and textures, which can be commonly represented with generic features. And branches is mainly used to generate high-level features and thus can be customized for different attributes. For GraftNet, we propose a two-step training procedure. Instead of to annotate all samples for all attributes overall, samples are collected and annotated for one single attribute separately, so that we get the sub-datasets corresponding to attributes. In first step, InceptionV3 is pre-trained on the collection of all sub-datasets by using a dynamic data flow graph, as shown in Figure 5. The 11 blocks with pre-trained weights could be considered as the trunk of GraftNet. The second step is to separately fine-tune and graft branches onto the trunk for each attribute. By training trunk and branches in a two-step way, GraftNet could save time and labor for both annotation and training. Sub-datesets of different attributes could be maintained separately and incrementally, i.e. new attributes or samples could be added without any re-work on the existing data set. Besides, training task of one-branch-for-one-attribute (the iteration of samples re-collecting and model fine-tuning) is more manageable in practice for a team-work. So to speak, the very basic consideration of the design of GraftNet is that the requirement of recognizing a new attribute could come at any time and we don’t want any re-work because of that.
Experimental results show that GraftNet performs well on our human attributes recognition task (fine-grained multi-label classification), and the combination of pre-trained trunk and fine-tuned branches can effectively improve the accuracy, as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7.
Since GraftNet is deployed on cloud but not embedded devices in our system, we focus more on extendability rather than efficiency. From some perspectives, our work is quite like an inverse process compared to network pruning or weights compression\[30,31\]. Rather than to reduce the redundancy of neural networks for a fixed task, what we do is to leverage the over-parameterization and maximum its usage to recognize new attributes with a few extra branches.
Hierarchical anomaly detection for abnormal activity capture
============================================================
Isolation Forest: anomaly detection of unsupervised learning
------------------------------------------------------------
Isolation forest(IForest) is an unsupervised learning algorithm dealing with anomaly detection problem. Instead of building a model of normal instance like common techniques use, the principle of Isolation Forest is isolating anomalous points which means the tendency of anomalous instances can be easier to be split from the rest samples in a data set, compared with normal points, because anomalous data points has two quantitative properties: different and fewer than normal data points.
Anomaly detection with Isolation Forest is a process composed of two main stages: In the first stage, a training data set is used to build isolation trees(iTrees). In the second stage, each instance in test set is passed through the iTrees build in the previous stage, and a proper “anomaly score” is assigned to the instance according to the average path length of iTrees. Once all the instances in the test set have been generated an anomaly score, it is possible to mark the point whose score is greater than a predefined threshold as anomaly.
As one of the most famous anomaly detection algorithms, IForest has outstanding advantages: It has a low linear time complexity and a small memory requirement. IForest can be used in huge amounts of data sets because of its basic approach of random forest. The independence of Isolation trees ensures this model can be employed on large scale distributed system to accelerate Computing Platform. At the same time, large number of Isolation trees makes algorithm more stable.
Feature generation and hierarchical anomaly detection
-----------------------------------------------------
For the generalized passenger flow we mentioned in Section 3, we treat them as two parts hierarchically. The first is the result of instance segmentation, embedding and clustering, which is called flow-count data here, i.e. how many people get in/out of elevator. And the other is the result of human attributes recognition, which is called attributes data, i.e. what kinds of people get in/out of elevator. The hierarchy is defined here because the flow-count data is actually byproduct of our system in commercial use but attributes data is not. Since our IoT system is deployed in more than 100000 elevators which transport tens of millions people daily, to additionally recognize attributes for all these passengers is computationally not affordable for us. Besides, the original requirement from our customer at the very beginning is to find out over crowded residence (e.g. more than 20 illegal migrants live in one small apartment), it’s reasonable that we put more consideration on flow-count data. Therefore we decide to perform anomaly detection hierarchically, first on flow-count data then on attributes data.
Flow-count data is used for the first round of anomaly detection. For the weekdays in the last 15 days, we calculate the mean *m1* and standard deviation *s1* of passenger flow per floor per elevator, *m2* and *s2* of the flow per elevator, and *m3* and *s3* of the flow of all elevators in the same residential estate. Considering citizens are highly civilized and socialized, *m4$\sim$m6* and *s4$\sim$s6* are calculated for the weekends in the last 15 days, the same as *m1$\sim$m3* and *s1$\sim$s3* on weekdays. Including the floor number, we get feature vectors of length *13* per floor per elevator.
The contamination parameter of isolation forest during training procedure prescribes the proportion of outliers in the data set. We set it as 0.2 to output as many records as possible for the next second round anomaly detection.
Attributes recognition is only performed on the output of the first round anomaly detection to reduce computation. Besides the 12 values of mean and standard deviation generated in first round (floor number excluded), the attribute features are adopted by calculating the mean of attribute recognition result per floor per elevator. In detail, for passengers who get in/out elevator of certain floor, attributes recognition with GraftNet is performed to get feature vectors (22 classification results and 22 corresponding scores), then mean of these attribute feature vectors are calculated. The head count and distribution of time of appearance in 24-hour are also included. As a result, for the second round anomaly detection, we get feature data of length 81 as shown in Table 1.
----- ----- ------- ------- ----- -------- ----- ------- ----- ------- ------- ----- ------- ------- ----- -------
count
m1 ... m6 s1 ... s6 Num t1 ... t22 ts1 ... ts22 h1 ... h24
141 ... 131 22.31 ... 176.86 666 0.004 ... 0.01 0.015 ... 0.018 0 ... 0.009
140 ... 26 92.86 ... 20.46 201 0.005 ... 0.06 0.014 ... 0.015 0 ... 0.005
133 ... 93 44.78 ... 64.65 607 0.003 ... 0.005 0.017 ... 0.008 0.024 ... 0.024
129 ... 131 21.80 ... 176.86 555 0 ... 0.02 0.006 ... 0.013 0.014 ... 0.019
----- ----- ------- ------- ----- -------- ----- ------- ----- ------- ------- ----- ------- ------- ----- -------
: Feature data for anomaly detection
The contamination parameter of isolation forest is set as 0.01 for the second round detection. There are around 1 million records for each floor from 100000 elevators. In our experiment, after two rounds of anomaly detection, we finally get 643 outliers output.
Manual review and analysis
--------------------------
One fact that we have to admit is that sometimes the outliers obtained from anomaly detection of unsupervised learning might not be activities with public safety hazard. The anomaly of such outliers could be caused by malfunction of IoT system (e.g. malfunction of sensors, camera, network), or misentries in our database. For example, most of the elevators in our system are from residence buildings, and very few are from non-residence buildings, such as office building, hospital, school, and shopping mall. The activities of people in such non-residence buildings are obviously different from residence buildings. Our abnormal activity capture is supposed to perform on residence buildings only. However, some non-residence buildings are misentried as residence ones in our system, which could probably make them captured as anomaly. Similarly malfunction of IoT system could also cause exception data which might be captured.
{width="13.5cm"}
To verify the outliers and keep improving the result, we build inspection tools to review and analyze the output manually. Corresponding to each output, the image-pairs successively captured will be reviewed, together with the statistical data such as distribution of attributes and time of appearance in 24 hours, as shown in Figure 8. All data exceptions caused by malfunction/misentries and abnormal activities clearly without any public safety hazard (e.g. running company in home office, decorators getting in/out, etc.) will be logged and excluded from next round of anomaly detection. Meantime confirmed records with suspicions of safety hazard will be reported to our customer.
Experiments and conclusion
==========================
Out of the 643 records output in our experiment we randomly pick 412 and review them one by one with the inspection tool. The result is shown in Table 2.
review\_result safety hazard number
---------------- --------------------- --------------------------------------- --------
positive probably yes/unsure 289
positive no caused by malfunction of sensors 13
positive no apartment under decoration 32
positive no dormitory/hotel 27
positive no shopping mall/entertainment venue 2
positive no office building 40
positive yes catering service running in apartment 3
positive yes over crowded residence 6
: Results after reviewed
As for now we don’t have any way to directly validate this framework to get a definite conclusion because it hasn’t been put into commercial use, i.e. it’s still experimental and no records are reported to the property manager and verified by them. And once this framework is put into use in the future, more and more exceptions (anomalous but no safety hazard) will be captured and excluded from the periodic running, and finally actual safety hazard will be captured more accurately.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
\[1\] Hanapi, N. L. , Ahmad, S. S. , Ibrahim, N. , Razak, A. A. , & Ali, N. M. (2017). Suitability of escape route design for elderly residents of public multi-storey residential building. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 25(s)(2017), 251-258.
\[2\] Hanapi, N. , Ahmad, S. , & Abd Razak, Azli. (2019). EMERGENCY SAFETY FOR MULTI-STOREY PUBLIC HOUSING IN KUALA LUMPUR. 8. 64-70.
\[3\] Almeida, Aitor, Azkune, & Gorka. (2018). Predicting human behaviour with recurrent neural networks. Applied Sciences.
\[4\] Hartford J. , Wright James R. , Leyton-Brown K. (2016). Deep Learning for Predicting Human Strategic Behavior. in proceedings of NIPS 2016.
\[5\] Luceri, L. , Braun, T. , & Giordano, S. (2019). Analyzing and inferring human real-life behavior through online social networks with social influence deep learning.
\[6\] Jain, P. , Gyanchandani, M. , & Khare, N. (2016). Big data privacy: a technological perspective and review. Journal of Big Data. 3. 10.1186/s40537-016-0059-y.
\[7\] Chandola, V. , Banerjee, A. , & Kumar, V. (2009). Anomaly Detection: A Survey. ACM Comput. Surv.. 41. 10.1145/1541880.1541882.
\[8\] Huang, M. , Liu, Z. , & Tao, Yang. (2019). Mechanical Fault Diagnosis and Prediction in IoT Based on Multi-source Sensing Data Fusion. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory. 101981. 10.1016/j.simpat.2019.101981.
\[9\] Zihan, M. , Shaoyi, H. , Zhanbin, Z. , & Shuang, X. . (2018). Elevator safety monitoring system based on internet of things. International Journal of Online Engineering, 14(08).
\[10\] Lai, C. T. , Jackson, P. R. , & Jiang, W. (2017). Shifting paradigm to service-dominant logic via internet-of-things with applications in the elevators industry. Journal of Management Analytics, 4(1), 35-54.
\[11\] Wan, Z. , Yi, S. , Li, K. , Tao, R. , Gou, M. , & Li, X. , et al. (2015). Diagnosis of elevator faults with ls-svm based on optimization by k-cv. Journal of electrical and computer engineering, 2015, 935038.1-935038.8.
\[12\] Li, Y. , & Zhang, H. H. (2010). Intelligent elevator detecting system based on neural network. journal of beijing university of technology.
\[13\] You Z. , Kai W. , & Hongxia L. (2018). An elevator monitoring system based on the internet of things. procedia computer science, 131, 541-544.
\[14\] Hu, W. , Tan, T. , Wang, L. , & Maybank, S. (2004). A survey on visual surveillance of object motion and behaviors. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part C (Applications and Reviews), 34(3), 334-352.
\[15\] Tomi D. Räty. (2010). Survey on contemporary remote surveillance systems for public safety. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 40(5), 493-515.
\[16\] Dee, H. , & Hogg, D. . (2004). Detecting inexplicable behaviour. 10.5244/C.18.50.
\[17\] Duong, T. , Bui, H.H. , Phung, Dinh & Venkatesh, Sriram. (2005). Activity Recognition and Abnormality Detection with the Switching Hidden Semi-Markov Model. Proceedings - 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2005. 1. 838- 845 vol. 1. 10.1109/CVPR.2005.61.
\[18\] Gong, S. , & Xiang, T. (2003). Recognition of group activities using dynamic probabilistic networks. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. IEEE.
\[19\] Morris, R.J. & Hogg, David. (1998). Statistical Models of Object Interaction. International Journal of Computer Vision. 37. 81-85. 10.1109/WVS.1998.646024.
\[20\] Oliver, N. M. , Rosario, B. , & Pentland, A. P. (2000). A bayesian computer vision system for modeling human interactions. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell, 22(8), 831-843.
\[21\] Xiang, T. , & Gong, S. (2008). Video behavior profiling for anomaly detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 30(5), p.893-908.
\[22\] Xiang, T. , & Gong, S. (2005). Video behaviour profiling and abnormality detection without manual labelling. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 2. 1238- 1245 Vol. 2. 10.1109/ICCV.2005.248.
\[23\] Sodemann, A. A. , Ross, M. P. , & Borghetti, B. J. (2012). A review of anomaly detection in automated surveillance. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man & Cybernetics Part C, 42(6), 1257-1272.
\[24\] Angiulli, F. , Basta, S. , & Pizzuti, C. (2006). Distance-based detection and prediction of outliers. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 18(2), 145-160.
\[25\] Jin, W. , Tung, A. , Han, Jiawei & S, Canada. (2001). Mining Top-n Local Outliers in Large Databases. Proceedings of the Seventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 10.1145/502512.502554.
\[26\] Liu, F. T. , Ting, K. M. , & Zhou, Z. H. (2012). Isolation-based anomaly detection. Acm Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, 6(1), 1-39.
\[27\] Liu, F. T. , Ting, K. M. , & Zhou, Z. H. (2009). Isolation Forest. Data Mining, 2008. ICDM ’08. Eighth IEEE International Conference on. IEEE.
\[28\] Bolya, D. , Zhou, C. , Xiao, F. , & Lee, Y. J. (2019). Yolact: real-time instance segmentation.
\[29\] Schroff, F. , Kalenichenko, D. , & Philbin, J. (2015). FaceNet: A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering. 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE.
\[30\] Ullrich, K. , Meeds, E. , & Welling, M. (2017). Soft weight-sharing for neural network compression.
\[31\] Han, S. , Mao, H. , & Dally, W. J. (2016). Deep Compression: Compressing Deep Neural Networks with Pruning, Trained Quantization and Huffman Coding. ICLR.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The $Q^2$ evolution of polarised parton distributions at small $x$ is studied. Various analytic approximations are critically discussed. We compare the full evolution with that obtained from the leading-pole approximation to the splitting functions, and show that the validity of this approximation depends critically on the $x \to 0$ behaviour of the starting distributions. A new analytic solution which is valid at small $x$ is obtained, and its domain of applicability is discussed.'
---
20.5cm
DTP/95/62\
July 1995\
1.cm
[**Analytic Approaches to the Evolution of Polarised\
Parton Distributions at Small [*x*]{}** ]{} 1.cm [T. Gehrmann and W.J. Stirling]{} .4cm [*Departments of Physics and Mathematical Sciences, University of Durham\
Durham DH1 3LE, England* ]{}\
Introduction
============
The first moment of the polarised structure function $g_1(x,Q^2)$, the Ellis-Jaffe sum rule [@ej], determines the overall spin content of the nucleon. Measurements of the Ellis-Jaffe sum rule [@exp; @slac] involve an extrapolation of $g_1$ for $x\rightarrow 0$, which is usually performed by fitting a Regge-motivated form $$g_1(x) = C x^{\alpha}
\label{one}$$ to the experimental data points with the lowest $x$-values. This procedure can be problematic, since these data points are usually taken at a relatively low scale of $Q^2\sim 1 \;
\mbox{GeV}^2$, whereas the overall sum rule is evaluated at the average $Q^2$ of the experiment, which is typically between $3$ and $10\;\mbox{GeV}^2$.
In the recent past, various authors have attempted to calculate the asymptotic behaviour of $g_1(x)$ (see for example Ref. [@CR] for a review of the various approaches). At scales of low momentum transfer ($Q^2 \approx 1 \; \mbox{GeV}^2$), a non–perturbative calculation [@bass] of the flavour singlet contribution to $g_1$ shows good agreement with $g_1^p$ at small $x$, but it should be noted that the normalisation of this non–perturbative contribution is highly sensitive to the only approximately known value of the vacuum quark condensate. The experimental discrepancy between $g_1^p$ and $g_1^d$ in the small-$x$ region seems to contradict the above result. As the singlet distribution is identical for both targets, this discrepancy indicates a sizeable valence-quark contribution in this region.
With increasing $Q^2$, perturbative corrections become more and more important. These corrections affect both the valence and the singlet contributions ($\Delta\Sigma = \sum_q(\Delta q + \Delta \bar q)$) to $g_1$ and give rise to an evolution of the corresponding parton densities [@ap] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \ln Q^2} \Delta q_{val} (x,Q^2) & = &
\int_x^1 \frac{\d y}{y} \Delta P_{qq} (y) \;\Delta q_{val} (x/y,Q^2)
\nonumber\\
\label{evo}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \ln Q^2}
\left(\begin{array}{c} \Delta \Sigma \\ \Delta G
\end{array} \right) (x,Q^2) & = &
\frac{\alpha_s(Q^2)}{2\pi}
\int_x^1 \frac{\d y}{y} \left(\begin{array}{cc} \Delta P_{qq} & \Delta
P_{qg} \\ \Delta P_{gq} & \Delta P_{gg}\end{array} \right) (y)\;
\left(\begin{array}{c} \Delta
\Sigma \\ \Delta G \end{array} \right)(x/y,Q^2),\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ without determining the densities themselves. These enter the above equation in the form of the initial distributions $\Delta q_{val}(x,Q_0^2)$, $\Delta \Sigma(x,Q_0^2)$ and $\Delta
G(x,Q_0^2)$, which form the boundary conditions for the solution.
In experimental measurements, these perturbative corrections are incorporated by rescaling the value of $g_1$ to the average $Q^2$ of the experiment. This rescaling procedure relies on the assumption that the asymmetry $g_1(x) /F_1(x)$ satisfies exact Bjorken scaling, i.e. that the $Q^2$-dependence of $g_1$ coincides with that of $F_1$. Although this assumption is consistent with the present data (which cover only a small range of $Q^2$ values at fixed $x$), there is no theoretical justification for it. In particular, examination of the polarised and unpolarised splitting functions [@ap] shows that $g_1(x) /F_1(x)$ should indeed show only a very weak $Q^2$ dependence in the large-$x$ region, where both structure functions are dominated by the valence quark content, as $\Delta P_{qq}(x)$ and $P_{qq}(x)$ are identical. In contrast to this, the splitting functions in the singlet sector, which dominates the small-$x$ behaviour of $F_1$, are different. The unpolarised $P_{gq}(x)$ and $P_{gg}(x)$ have a soft gluon singularity at $x=0$, which causes the steep rise of $F_1$ in the small-$x$ region. As this singularity is absent in the polarised splitting functions (soft gluon emission does not change the spin of the parent parton), one would expect the ratio $\mid \!g_1(x) /F_1(x) \!\mid$ to decrease with increasing $Q^2$.
With the exact splitting functions $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta P_{qq}^{(f)} (x) & = & \frac{4}{3} \; \left[ 2\;
\frac{1}{(1-x)_{+}} - 1 -x + \frac{3}{2} \delta(1-x) \right] \nonumber \\
\Delta P_{qg}^{(f)} (x) & = & 2n_f \; \frac{1}{2} \; \left[ 2x-1 \right]
\nonumber\\
\Delta P_{gq}^{(f)} (x) & = & \frac{4}{3} \; \left[ 2-x \right]
\nonumber\\
\label{evoful}
\Delta P_{gg}^{(f)} (x) & = & 3 \; \left[ 2\;
\frac{1}{(1-x)_{+}} + 2 -4x + \frac{11}{6} \delta(1-x)\right]
-\;\frac{n_f}{3} \delta(1-x)\end{aligned}$$ it is not possible to find an analytic solution to (\[evo\]) with realistic boundary conditions for the whole range of $x$. By restricting themselves to small values of $x$ (although it is not [*a priori*]{} clear which values of $x$ can be regarded as small), various authors have attempted to determine the asymptotic behaviour of $g_1$ in the limit $Q^2\to \infty$. One possible approach [@CR] is to assume that all the $Q^2$ dependence is dominated by the evolution of the gluon, i.e. by $\Delta P_{gg}(x)$. This method gives successful predictions for the unpolarised structure functions, due to the $1/x$ pole in the unpolarised $P_{gg}$. As this pole is not present in $\Delta P_{gg}$, the validity of this approach needs to be examined more carefully.
Another possible approach [@bf] to the asymptotic small-$x$ behaviour is to transform (\[evoful\]) into moment space and to expand around the rightmost singularity at $N=0$: $$\langle \Delta P\rangle_N = {A\over N} + B + O(N) \Rightarrow
\Delta P(x) \approx A + B \delta(1-x) .$$ This procedure yields the following approximate splitting functions[^1]: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta P_{qq}^{(l)} (x) & = & \frac{4}{3} \; \left[ 1 +\frac{1}{2}
\delta (1-x) \right] \nonumber \\
\Delta P_{qg}^{(l)} (x) & = & 2n_f \; \frac{1}{2} \; \left[ -1 + 2
\delta (1-x) \right]
\nonumber\\
\Delta P_{gq}^{(l)} (x) & = & \frac{4}{3} \; \left[ 2-\delta (1-x)
\right]
\nonumber\\
\label{bfevo}
\Delta P_{gg}^{(l)} (x) & = & 3 \; \left[ 4 - \frac{13}{6}
\delta(1-x)\right]
-\;\frac{n_f}{3} \delta(1-x)\end{aligned}$$ With these simplified splitting functions, one can analytically solve (\[evo\]) for asymptotic values of $Q^2$ with realistic boundary conditions in the small-$x$ region. This approach is based on the fact that the behaviour of the parton distributions at small $x$ is governed by the region around $N=0$ in moment space. This property can be understood from the $N$-singularity structure of the initial distributions: a logarithmic ($\sim 1/x$) singularity coincides with a pole at $N=0$ in the moment transform, a power-like singularity of the form $x^{\alpha}$ transforms into $\Gamma(\alpha+N)$, which has a singularity at $N = -\alpha$ (see Fig. 1). It is important to notice, however, that the expansion around the $N=0$ pole in moment space agrees with the full splitting function only within a circle of unit radius (Fig. 1). Outside this circle, the series might still be convergent, but its value will be different from that given by the full splitting function. This especially affects the reliability of this approach for low values of $\alpha$. In the extreme case $\alpha$ could approach $-1$ giving rise to a pole close to the boundary of the circle of convergence.
In this letter, we examine the validity of analytical approaches to the small-$x$ behaviour of $g_1$. Section 2 contains a study of the evolution matrix on the right-hand side of (\[evo\]). Its properties in the case of power-like ($x^{\alpha}$) boundary conditions are discussed, using the full and the leading-pole expanded splitting functions. By examining the sensitivity of the evolution matrix to the form of the parton distributions in the large-$x$ region, we are able to assess when $x$ can be regarded as small. In Section 3 we present an analytic solution of (\[evo\]), which becomes exact for $x\to 0$. Finally, Section 4 contains some phenomenological implications and conclusions.
Study of the evolution matrix
=============================
Several qualitative features of the polarised parton densities can already be determined by inserting simple test distributions in the right-hand side of Eq. (\[evo\]). The resulting elements of the evolution matrix determine the local change of the parton densities with increasing $\ln (Q^2)$. Furthermore, for $Q^2/Q_0^2$ not too large one can approximate the solution of the Altarelli-Parisi equations by $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c} \Delta \Sigma \\ \Delta G
\end{array} \right) (x,Q^2) & = & \left(\begin{array}{c} \Delta \Sigma \\
\Delta G \end{array} \right) (x,Q_0^2)
\nonumber\\
& + & \frac{\alpha_s(Q_0^2)}{2\pi}
\int_x^1 \frac{\d y}{y}
\left(\begin{array}{cc} \Delta P_{qq} & \Delta
P_{qg} \\ \Delta P_{gq} & \Delta P_{gg}\end{array} \right)
(y) \left(\begin{array}{c} \Delta
\Sigma \\ \Delta G \end{array} \right)(x/y,Q_0^2) \; \ln
\left(\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\right).\end{aligned}$$
A realistic choice of test distribution is $$t(x) = x^{\alpha} (1-x)^{\beta}\qquad \mbox{with} \quad
(-1<\alpha<0,\;\beta>0),$$ which is similar to the analytic forms of the parton densities at $Q_0^2$ used in recent fits to the polarised structure function data [@bf; @gs]. The exponent $\alpha$ determines the behaviour of the distribution in the small-$x$ regime, whereas the large-$x$ behaviour is controlled by $\beta$. Variations of $\beta$ should therefore not affect any predictions of the small-$x$ behaviour of the parton distributions. This property can be used to define the range of validity of these predictions, i.e. to indicate if $x$ can be regarded as small or not.
The elements of the evolution matrix $$A_{ij} = \int_x^1 \frac{\d y}{y}\; \Delta P_{ij} (y) \; t\left(\frac{x}{y}
\right)$$ can be computed analytically. The necessary integrals are given in Appendix A. Using the full splitting functions (\[evoful\]), we find[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
A_{qq}^{(f)} (x) & = & \frac{4}{3} \left[ 2 A_1(x) -A_2(x) -A_3(x) +
\frac{3}{2} A_4(x) \right] \nonumber \\
A_{qg}^{(f)} (x) & = & 3 \left[-A_2(x) + 2 A_3(x) \right]
\nonumber \\
A_{gq}^{(f)} (x) & = & \frac{4}{3} \left[ 2 A_2(x) -A_3(x) \right]
\nonumber \\
A_{gg}^{(f)} (x) & = & 3 \left[ 2 A_1(x) + 2 A_2(x) - 4 A_3(x) +
\frac{3}{2} A_4(x) \right],\end{aligned}$$ while the leading-pole expanded [@bf] splitting functions of (\[bfevo\]) yield $$\begin{aligned}
A_{qq}^{(l)} (x) & = & \frac{4}{3} \left[ A_2(x) + \frac{1}{2} A_4(x)
\right] \nonumber\\
A_{qg}^{(l)} (x) & = & 3 \left[ -A_2(x) + 2 A_4(x)
\right] \nonumber\\
A_{gq}^{(l)} (x) & = & \frac{4}{3} \left[ 2 A_2(x) -A_4(x)
\right] \nonumber\\
A_{gg}^{(l)} (x) & = & 3 \left[ 4 A_2(x) - \frac{5}{2} A_4(x) \right].\end{aligned}$$
A closer inspection of the $A_{ij}$ shows that all of them diverge like $x^{\alpha}$ as $x\to 0$. The behaviour in the limit $x \to 0$ can therefore be written as $$\label{limit}
\lim_{x \to 0} A_{ij} (x) = a_{ij} x^{\alpha}.$$ Provided that both the initial quark singlet and the initial gluon distributions have power-like boundary conditions in the limit $x\to 0$, these most singular terms will dominate the right-hand side of (\[evo\]). The replacement of the $A_{ij}^{(f)}$ by the above expressions (\[limit\]) in (\[evo\]) should therefore enable us to find an analytic solution for $\Delta \Sigma(x,Q^2)$ and $\Delta G(x,Q^2)$, which becomes exact for $x\to 0$. This exercise will be performed in the following section.
The $a_{ij}$ coefficients for the full and the leading-pole expanded splitting functions are [*not*]{} identical: $$\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle
a_{qq}^{(f)} = \frac{4}{3} \;\left[2(-\psi(-\alpha) - \gamma_E) +
\frac{1-2\alpha}{\alpha(1-\alpha)}+ \frac{3}{2} \right] \qquad &
\displaystyle
a_{qq}^{(l)} = \frac{4}{3} \; \frac{-2+\alpha}{2\alpha}
\\
\vspace{3mm}
\displaystyle
a_{qg}^{(f)} = 3 \; \frac{1+\alpha}{\alpha(1-\alpha)} \qquad &
\displaystyle
a_{qg}^{(l)} = 3 \; \frac{1+2\alpha}{\alpha}
\\
\vspace{3mm}
\displaystyle
a_{gq}^{(f)} = \frac{4}{3} \;\frac{-2+\alpha}{\alpha(1-\alpha)} \qquad &
\displaystyle
a_{gq}^{(l)} = \frac{4}{3} \; \frac{-2-\alpha}{\alpha}
\\
\vspace{3mm}
\displaystyle
a_{gg}^{(f)} = 3 \; \left[ 2(-\psi(-\alpha) - \gamma_E)
- \frac{2+2\alpha}{\alpha(1-\alpha)} + \frac{3}{2} \right] \qquad &
\displaystyle
a_{gg}^{(l)} = 3 \; \frac{-8-5\alpha}{2\alpha}
\end{array}$$ Here $\psi(x)$ is the usual psi (digamma) function [@AbSteg].
Figure 2 shows the $A_{ij}^{(f)}$ for $\alpha=-0.25,-0.6$ and $\beta=4,9$, together with the approximate forms $A_{ij}^{(l)}$ and the limits $a_{ij}^{(f)}x^{\alpha}$. This figure displays the following important features of the evolution matrix in the small-$x$ region:
- Although the test distributions $x^{\alpha}(1-x)^4$ and $x^{\alpha}(1-x)^9$ differ by less than 5% for $x\le 0.01$, the corresponding $A_{ij}^{(f)}$ differ by up to a factor of 2 in the same range. This clearly demonstrates that even at $x=0.01$ and below the evolution is sensitive to the behaviour of the parton distributions in the large-$x$ region. The insensitivity of the $A_{ij}^{(f)}$ to variations of $\beta$ can furthermore be used to define whether $x$ can be regarded as small. For example, by requiring $A_{ij}^{(f)}$ to vary by less than 30% for all combinations in $i$ and $j$ and both values of $\alpha$, we find that only $x\le 0.001$ can be regarded as small, and the more conservative bound of less than 10% deviation yields $x \le
0.0001$. It should therefore be clear that the mere knowledge of $g_1$ at the lowest $x$ values accessible with fixed-target experiments is insufficient to predict the asymptotic behaviour of $g_1$ in the small-$x$ limit, as the behaviour of the parton distributions at these values of $x$ is still closely correlated with the distributions in the large-$x$ region.
- The convergence of the $A_{ij}^{(f)}$ towards $a_{ij}^{(f)}x^{\alpha}$ improves for smaller values of $\alpha$. This behaviour just reflects the fact that $A_{ij}^{(f)}$ contains, in addition to this leading term, less singular terms proportional to $\ln(x)$. In general, these lower $\mid \! A_{ij}^{(f)} \! \mid$. If $t(x)$ is less singular that $x^{-1/e}$, the logarithmic terms are larger than the power-like terms for $$x > x_0 (\alpha) = \left( \frac{\omega(\alpha)}{\alpha}
\right)^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}$$ where $\omega(\alpha)$ is the branch of Lambert’s $\omega$-function which satisfies $\omega(-1/e)=-1$. As $x_0$ decreases very quickly with $\alpha$ ($x_0 \approx 10^{-15}$ for $\alpha=-0.1$), the replacement $A_{ij}^{(f)}(x) \to a_{ij} x^{\alpha}$, although formally still correct, loses its meaning for values of $\alpha$ close to 0 in any physically relevant region.
- While the $A_{ij}^{(l)}$ resemble the $A_{ij}^{(f)}$ for values of $\alpha$ close to 0, they disagree for smaller $\alpha$. This feature becomes most striking for the $A_{qg}$ (see Fig. 2). The full splitting functions [@ap] predict that a positive gluon polarisation in the small-$x$ region will always generate a negative contribution to the sea polarisation. In contrast, the leading-pole expanded splitting functions of [@bf] predict a [*positive*]{} sea polarisation, if the gluon polarisation $\Delta G(x)$ is more singular than $x^{-0.5}$. This behaviour can be inferred from the $\alpha$ dependence of the $a_{ij}$ displayed in Fig. 3. The good agreement for higher values of $\alpha$ is due to the fact that all leading contributions in $\ln (x)$ are contained in the $N=0$ pole and hence are well approximated by the $A_{ij}^{(l)}$. As elaborated above, these contributions remain important for a finite range in $x > x_0 >0$. The asymptotic predictions of [@bf] will therefore still approximate the full evolution, provided they are restricted to this finite range.
- The magnitude of $A_{gg}$ is larger by a factor 3 than the magnitude of all the other terms, but $A_{gg}$ is not more singular than any other contribution. Therefore, the small-$x$ estimate of Ref. [@CR] is quantitative at best, and should be expected to yield a less accurate prediction than the corresponding estimate of the unpolarised distributions.
[|c|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $N\le -2$ & $N=-1$ & $N=0$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$3/4 \;\Delta P_{qq}$ & 2 & 1 & 1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1/3 \;\Delta P_{qg}$ & 0 & 2 & -1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$3/4 \;\Delta P_{gq}$ & 0 & -1 & 2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1/3 \;\Delta P_{gg}$ & 2 & -2 & 4\
- The agreement between leading pole expanded and full splitting functions is better for the $A_{gq}$ and $A_{gg}$ than it is for $A_{qq}$ and $A_{qg}$. This feature can be understood from the relative magnitude of the residues in the corresponding splitting functions (Table \[tab:res\]): the $N=0$ residue is dominant only in the $P_{gq}$ and $P_{gg}$ splitting functions, the other two splitting functions contain residues for $N<0$, which are twice as big as the $N=0$ residue.
It should be clear from the above that the leading-pole expansion of Ref. [@bf] gives a reliable approximation to the evolution matrix in the small-$x$ region, provided that the initial distributions are significantly less singular than $x^{1/e}$. For more singular distributions, this approach results in a manifestly different evolution matrix and hence will yield a different small-$x$ behaviour of the polarised parton distributions.
Solution of the Altarelli-Parisi equations in the limit $x\to 0$
================================================================
Provided both polarised singlet quark and gluon densities have power-like boundary conditions in the small-$x$ region, $$\Delta \Sigma (x,Q_0^2) \sim x^{\alpha_q} , \quad \Delta G (x,Q_0^2) \sim
x^{\alpha_G} \qquad \mbox{with } -1 < \alpha_q,\alpha_G <0 ,$$ one can find a solution of the Altarelli-Parisi equations which becomes exact in the limit $x\rightarrow 0$ and has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta q_{val} (x,Q^2) & = & R_v(Q^2,Q_0^2)\; x^{\alpha_v}\nonumber\\
\Delta \Sigma (x,Q^2) &=& R_{qq}(Q^2,Q_0^2) x^{\alpha_q} + R_{qg}(Q^2,Q_0^2)
x^{\alpha_G}, \nonumber\\
\Delta G (x,Q^2) &=& R_{gq}(Q^2,Q_0^2) x^{\alpha_q} + R_{gg}(Q^2,Q_0^2)
x^{\alpha_G}.\end{aligned}$$ A detailed derivation of this solution and the explicit forms of the $R$-functions is given in Appendix B.
The above bounds on $\alpha$ cover the whole theoretically allowed range: as the first moments of the distributions have to be finite, we find $\alpha>-1$. Furthermore, inspection of the singularity structure of the evolution equations (Fig. 1) shows that any initial distribution, which is finite in the small-$x$ region, will develop a logarithmic divergence due to the $N=0$ singularity of the splitting functions. The case of finite or logarithmic boundary conditions can be treated correctly with the leading-pole approximation – its asymptotics are discussed in [@bf]. In a previous analysis [@gs] of the experimental data on polarised structure functions we have found $\alpha_q=\alpha_v\simeq -0.55$. The experimental data used in this analysis were insufficient to determine $\alpha_G$, and therefore it was fixed to be $0$. In contrast to this, more recent measurements at lower $Q^2$ [@slac] favour $\alpha_G<0$.
As we have neglected all contributions of order $\ln (x)$ in the above solution, we expect it to be reliable only for $x <
x_0(\mbox{max}(\alpha_q, \alpha_G))$. In order to compare this approach with the leading pole expansion of Ref. [@bf] and the numerical solution of (\[evo\]) with the full splitting functions, we have evaluated the distributions for $Q_0^2=4\;\mbox{GeV}^2$ and $Q^2=100\;\mbox{GeV}^2$, using $n_f=3, \Lambda^{QCD}=200
\;\mbox{MeV}$ and the following initial distributions: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \Sigma(x,Q_0^2) & = & N_q x^{\alpha_q} (1-x)^\beta \nonumber \\
\Delta G(x,Q_0^2) & = & N_G x^{\alpha_G} (1-x)^\beta \\
\Delta q_{val}(x,Q_0^2) & = & N_{val} x^{\alpha_v} (1-x)^\beta .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ To illustrate the validity of the various approximations, we adopt the following parameter values: $\alpha_q,\alpha_G,\alpha_v = -0.6, -0.25$, $\beta=4,9$, and for simplicity we take $N_q = N_g = N_v = 1$.
Figures 4 (a), (b) and (c) show the behaviour of the gluon, singlet quark and valence quark distributions respectively, at small $x$ and $Q^2 = 4,\;
100$ GeV$^2$. The initial distributions $x^{\alpha} (1-x)^4$ are indicated as solid lines.
Starting with the gluon distribution (Fig. 4(a)), we see that for $ x < 10^{-2}$, the leading-pole approximation to the splitting funcitons (dotted lines) gives excellent agreement with the full evolution (dashed line), especially for values of $\alpha_q, \alpha_G$ close to 0. This is consistent with the agreement between the corresponding $A_{gg}$ functions shown in Fig. 2 and can be understood from the $N=0$ dominance in the $\Delta P_{gq}$ and $\Delta P_{gg}$ splitting functions. In contrast, the $x^\alpha$ approximation (short-dashed line) significantly overestimates the evolution in the $x$ range shown, espcially for $\alpha_q, \alpha_G$ close to 0. Convergence of this approach can only be observed at even smaller values of $x$. Note, however, the sensitivity to the large-$x$ behaviour. While both the dotted and the dashed lines are computed with $\beta = 4$, the dot-dashed curve corresponds to full splitting function evolution for $\beta = 9$, i.e. a softer large-$x$ distribution. Evidently there is a significant sensitivity to the behaviour at large $x$ even for $x$ values as small as $O(10^{-3})$. This casts doubt on the idea of using data on the evolution of the small-$x$ structure functions alone to determine the gluon distribution.
For the singlet quark distribution (Fig. 4(b)) the situation is rather different. Here the leading-pole approximation [*overestimates*]{} the evolution at small $x$. This is readily understood from the behaviour of the corresponding $A_{qq}$ and $A_{qg}$ functions in Fig. 2, both of which are systematically more positive for the leading-pole splitting functions. In fact we see that for $\alpha_q = -0.25$ and $\alpha_G = -0.6$, the full evolution gives a negative singlet distribution at small $x$, whereas the leading pole splitting functions give a positive distribution. Notice also that the evolution is less sensitive to the large-$x$ behaviour (compare the dashed and dot-dashed curves which correspond to $\beta = 4,9$ respectively) than for the gluon distribution. For $\alpha_q = \alpha_G
= -0.6$, the $x^\alpha$ approximation is quite reasonable, and certainly better than the leading-pole approximation. However the opposite is true when both $\alpha_q, \alpha_G$ are close to $0$.
Finally, Fig. 4(c) compares the valence quark evolution in the various approximations. This depends only on $\Delta P_{qq}$, and so the behaviour here is a direct reflection of the corresponding $A_{qq}$ shown in Fig. 2. In particular, for $\alpha_q = -0.6$ the $x^\alpha$ approximation is very good, while the leading-pole approximation overestimates the evolution at all $x$ values shown. For less singular small-$x$ behaviour ($\alpha_q = -0.25$), however, both approximations reproduce the full evolution, the leading-pole approximation showing slightly better convergence for $x> O(10^{-4})$.
In practice, the normalisations of the singlet quark and gluon distribution, $N_q$ and $N_G$, will not be the same. As the evolution of the gluon densitity is dominated by the gluon-to-gluon splitting, it will be almost unaffected by changes of $N_q$. Only if $N_q$ is one or more orders of magnitude larger than $N_G$, will the impact of quark-to-gluon splitting become visible. More drastic effects of a change in the relative normalisation can be expected for the quark singlet distribution, as contributions from quark-to-quark and gluon-to-quark splitting have the same magnitude but opposite signs (cf. Fig. 3). Therefore, a relative increase of $N_G$ yields a faster evolution of the quark distribution to negative values.
The convergence properties of the different analytic approaches are almost unaffected by changes in the normalisation. Only for $N_G \gg
N_q$ do we find that convergence of the $x^{\alpha}$ approximation to the singlet distribution sets in for smaller values of $x$. This simply reflects an increased impact of the gluon-to-gluon splitting.
Conclusions
===========
In this letter we have studied the feasibility of two different analytic approaches to the evolution of polarised parton densities at small $x$, finding that none of these approaches is able to give reliable predictions for the whole theoretically allowed range of boundary conditions in the small-$x$ region. In the leading-pole expansion [@bf; @ber], the full splitting functions $\Delta P_{ij}$ are replaced by the leading terms of their Laurent series around $N=0$. As this approach correctly reproduces all terms proprotional to $\ln x$ generated in the evolution, it is found to be in good agreement with the full evolution if the initial quark and gluon distributions are less singular than $x^{-1/e}$. For more singular boundary conditions, only the gluon distribution is reproduced correctly, in particular the quark distribution is overestimated. Keeping only terms with powerlike singularities in the evolution equation, we were able to derive an exact solution of this equation in the limit $x
\to 0$. As we have neglected all logarithmic terms in this approach, its convergence is best for boundary conditions of quark and gluon distributions more singular than $x^{-1/e}$. For less singular boundary conditions, this approach still converges towards the full solution, but its predictions are far away from the full solution for any realistic experimental value of $x$.
We have also shown that the evolution of the polarised gluon distribution is sensitive to the shape of this distribution in the large-$x$ region. This observation raises doubts on the possibility of determining the gluon polarisation from the evolution of $g_1$ in the small-$x$ region. It furthermore demonstrates the need for complementary measurements of $\Delta G(x)$ (e.g. from $J/\Psi$-production or direct-$\gamma$ measurements).
We have seen that the effects of the evolution on the quark distributions in the small-$x$ region are rather small, as the quark-to-quark and the gluon-to-quark splitting contribute with opposite signs. The gluon distribution is indeed rising with increasing $Q^2$, but only contributes to $g_1$ at order $\alpha_s(Q^2)$. Bearing in mind that $\Delta G$ contributes with a negative coefficient function to $g_1$, one expects that $g_1$ will become negative at small $x$ for asymptotic values of $Q^2$, due to the gluonic contribution and the negative sea polarisation generated from $g \to q \bar q$ splitting.
In general, the effects of the evolution on the polarised parton densities will be more moderate than the effects on the unpolarised densities. The assumption of approximate scaling for $g_1(x)/F_1(x)$ in the small-$x$ region is therefore rather doubtful. It seems more realistic to assume approximate scaling for $g_1(x)$ for the range of fixed-target experiments, due to the partial cancellation of quark and gluon evolution as explained above.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Financial support from the UK PPARC (WJS), and from the Gottlieb Daimler- und Karl Benz-Stiftung and the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes (TG) is gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported in part by the EU Programme “Human Capital and Mobility”, Network “Physics at High Energy Colliders”, contract CHRX-CT93-0357 (DG 12 COMA).
Convolution integrals of the test distribution
==============================================
For the test distribution $$t(x) = x^{\alpha} (1-x)^{\beta}\qquad \mbox{with} \quad
(-1<\alpha<0,\;\beta>0),$$ the convolution integrals $$A_{ij} = \int_x^1 \frac{\d y}{y}\; \Delta P_{ij} (y) \; t\left(\frac{x}{y}
\right)$$ on the right-hand side of (\[evo\]) can be expressed in an analytic form. From the explicit forms of the splitting functions given in (\[evoful\]) and (\[bfevo\]), one sees that the required integrals are $$\begin{aligned}
A_1 (x) & = & \int_x^1 \frac {\d y}{y}\; \frac{1}{(1-y)_{+}}\; \left(
\frac{x}{y} \right)^{\alpha} \; \left( 1- \frac{x}{y} \right)^{\beta}
\nonumber\\
& = & x^{\alpha} (1-x)^{\beta} \big[ \ln (1-x) + \frac{\alpha + \beta
+1}{ \beta + 1} (1-x) \;_{3}F_{2}
(2+\beta+\alpha,1,1;2,2+\beta;(1-x))\ \nonumber \\
& & -\psi(\beta+1) -\gamma_E\big]
\nonumber\\
A_2 (x) & = & \int_x^1 \frac {\d y}{y}\; \left(
\frac{x}{y} \right)^{\alpha} \; \left( 1- \frac{x}{y} \right)^{\beta}
\nonumber\\
& = & (1-x)^{\beta+1} \frac{1}{\beta+1} \;_{2}F_{1}
(1-\alpha,1+\beta;2+\beta;(1-x)) \nonumber\\
A_3 (x) & = & \int_x^1 \frac {\d y}{y}\; y \left(
\frac{x}{y} \right)^{\alpha} \; \left( 1- \frac{x}{y} \right)^{\beta}
\nonumber\\
& = & x (1-x)^{\beta+1} \left[\frac{1}{1-\alpha}
x^{\alpha-1} - \frac{\alpha+\beta}{(1-\alpha)(\beta+1)} \;_{2}F_{1}
(1-\alpha,1+\beta;2+\beta;(1-x))\right] \nonumber\\
A_4 (x) & = & \int_x^1 \frac {\d y}{y}\; \delta (1-y) \left(
\frac{x}{y} \right)^{\alpha} \; \left( 1- \frac{x}{y} \right)^{\beta}
\nonumber\\
& = & x^{\alpha} (1-x)^{\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ All these functions diverge like $x^{\alpha}$ as $x\to 0$, and the leading singular behaviour at small $x$ is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
A_1(x) & \smx & x^{\alpha} \left[ -\psi(-\alpha) - \gamma_E \right]
\nonumber\\
A_2(x) & \smx & \frac{1}{-\alpha} x^{\alpha} \nonumber\\
A_3(x) & \smx & \frac{1}{1-\alpha} x^{\alpha} \nonumber\\
A_4(x) & \smx & x^{\alpha}.\end{aligned}$$
Analytic solution of the Altarelli-Parisi equations for $x\to 0$
=================================================================
A solution of the Altarelli–Parisi evolution equations (\[evo\]) can never be more singular at $x=0$ than the starting distributions. It follows that the most singular parts of the valence quark, singlet quark and gluon distributions can be obtained by inserting the following ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta q_{val} (x,Q^2) & = & R_v(Q^2,Q_0^2)\; x^{\alpha_v}\nonumber\\
\Delta \Sigma (x,Q^2) & = & R_{qq}(Q^2,Q_0^2) \;x^{\alpha_q} +
R_{qg}(Q^2,Q_0^2) \;
x^{\alpha_G}, \nonumber\\
\Delta G (x,Q^2) & = & R_{gq}(Q^2,Q_0^2) \;x^{\alpha_q} +
R_{gg}(Q^2,Q_0^2)\;
x^{\alpha_G}\end{aligned}$$ into (\[evo\]). Keeping only terms proportional to $x^{\alpha_v}$, $x^{\alpha_q}$ and $x^{\alpha_G}$ on the right-hand side, we obtain the following evolution equations for the $R$ coefficients ($\beta_0 = 11 - 2/3
n_f$) : $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \ln \alpha_s} R_v (Q^2,Q_0^2) & = & - \;
\frac{2}{\beta_0} a_{qq}(\alpha_v) R_v (Q^2,Q_0^2) \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial \ln \alpha_s}
\left(\begin{array}{c} R_{qq} \\ R_{gq}
\end{array} \right) (Q^2,Q_0^2) & = & - \; \frac{2}{\beta_0}
\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_{qq} (\alpha_q) & a_{qg}
(\alpha_q) \\
a_{gq} (\alpha_q)& a_{gg} (\alpha_q)
\end{array} \right)\;
\left(\begin{array}{c} R_{qq} \\ R_{gq} \end{array}
\right)(Q^2,Q_0^2)\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial \ln \alpha_s}
\left(\begin{array}{c} R_{qg} \\ R_{gg}
\end{array} \right) (Q^2,Q_0^2) & = & - \; \frac{2}{\beta_0}
\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_{qq} (\alpha_G) & a_{qg}
(\alpha_G) \\
a_{gq} (\alpha_G)& a_{gg} (\alpha_G)
\end{array} \right)\;
\left(\begin{array}{c} R_{qg} \\ R_{gg}\end{array}
\right)(Q^2,Q_0^2).\end{aligned}$$ As we are interested in the asymptotic solution for the [*full*]{} splitting functions, all $a_{ij}$ in the above are $a_{ij}^{(f)}$.
Introducing $$\begin{aligned}
s & = & \ln \left( \frac{\displaystyle \ln (Q^2/\Lambda^2)}{\displaystyle
\ln (Q_0^2/\Lambda^2)}\right) \nonumber\\
\omega_{\pm} (\alpha) & = & \frac{1}{2} \left( a_{qq} (\alpha) +
a_{gg} (\alpha) \pm \sqrt{ \left( a_{qq} (\alpha) -a_{gg}
(\alpha) \right)^2 + 4 a_{gq} (\alpha) a_{qg}
(\alpha)}\right),\end{aligned}$$ the general solution of these equations reads $$\begin{aligned}
R_v(Q^2,Q_0^2) & = & N_v \;\exp \left\{ \frac{2}{\beta_0} a_{qq}
(\alpha_v) s \right\} \nonumber\\
R_{qq}(Q^2,Q_0^2) & = & R_{qq+} (Q_0^2) \;\exp \left\{ \frac{2}{\beta_0}
\omega_{+} (\alpha_q) s \right\} + R_{qq-} (Q_0^2) \;\exp \left\{
\frac{2}{\beta_0} \omega_{-} (\alpha_q) s \right\} \nonumber\\
R_{gq}(Q^2,Q_0^2) & = & R_{gq+} (Q_0^2) \;\exp \left\{ \frac{2}{\beta_0}
\omega_{+} (\alpha_q) s \right\} + R_{gq-} (Q_0^2) \;\exp \left\{
\frac{2}{\beta_0} \omega_{-} (\alpha_q) s \right\} \nonumber\\
R_{qg}(Q^2,Q_0^2) & = & R_{qg+} (Q_0^2) \;\exp \left\{ \frac{2}{\beta_0}
\omega_{+} (\alpha_G) s \right\} + R_{qg-} (Q_0^2) \;\exp \left\{
\frac{2}{\beta_0} \omega_{-} (\alpha_G) s \right\} \nonumber\\
R_{gg}(Q^2,Q_0^2) & = & R_{gg+} (Q_0^2) \;\exp \left\{ \frac{2}{\beta_0}
\omega_{+} (\alpha_G) s \right\} + R_{gg-} (Q_0^2) \;\exp \left\{
\frac{2}{\beta_0} \omega_{-} (\alpha_G) s \right\},\end{aligned}$$ where the $R_{ij\pm} (Q_0^2)$ are determined by the boundary conditions at $Q_0^2$. As we assume that the initial distributions for the quark singlet and the gluon have the form $$\Delta \Sigma (x,Q_0^2) = N_q \; x^{\alpha_q} , \quad \Delta G
(x,Q_0^2) = N_G \;x^{\alpha_G},$$ these constants are determined to be $$\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle
R_{qq+} (Q_0^2) = \frac{\displaystyle \omega_{+} (\alpha_q) -
a_{gg}(\alpha_q)}{\displaystyle \omega_{+} (\alpha_q) - \omega_{-}
(\alpha_q)} N_{q}, & R_{qq-} (Q_0^2) = - \; \frac{\displaystyle
\omega_{-} (\alpha_q) - a_{gg}(\alpha_q)}
{\displaystyle \omega_{+} (\alpha_q) - \omega_{-}
(\alpha_q)} N_{q},\\
\vspace{3mm}
R_{gq+} (Q_0^2) = \frac{\displaystyle a_{gq} (\alpha_q)}
{\displaystyle \omega_{+} (\alpha_q) - \omega_{-}
(\alpha_q)} N_{q}, & R_{gq-} (Q_0^2) = - \; \frac{\displaystyle
a_{gq} (\alpha_q)}
{\displaystyle \omega_{+} (\alpha_q) - \omega_{-}
(\alpha_q)} N_{q},\\
\vspace{3mm}
R_{qg+} (Q_0^2) = \frac{\displaystyle a_{qg} (\alpha_G)}
{\displaystyle \omega_{+} (\alpha_G) - \omega_{-}
(\alpha_G)} N_{g}, & R_{qg-} (Q_0^2) = - \; \frac{\displaystyle
a_{qg} (\alpha_G)}
{\displaystyle \omega_{+} (\alpha_G) - \omega_{-}
(\alpha_G)} N_{g},\\
\vspace{3mm}
R_{gg+} (Q_0^2) = \frac{\displaystyle \omega_{+} (\alpha_G) -
a_{qq}(\alpha_G)}{\displaystyle \omega_{+} (\alpha_G) - \omega_{-}
(\alpha_G)} N_{g}, & R_{gg-} (Q_0^2) = - \; \frac{\displaystyle
\omega_{-} (\alpha_G) - a_{qq}(\alpha_G)}
{\displaystyle \omega_{+} (\alpha_G) - \omega_{-}
(\alpha_G)} N_{g}.
\end{array}$$
[10]{} J. Ellis and R.L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. [**D9**]{} (1974) 1444, erratum [**D10**]{} (1974) 1669. SLAC-Yale collaboration: M.J. Alguard et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**37**]{} (1976) 1261; G. Baum et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**45**]{} (1980) 2000; [**51**]{} (1983) 1135.\
EMC collaboration: J. Ashman et al., Nucl. Phys. [**B328**]{} (1989) 1.\
SLAC-E142 collaboration: D.L. Anthony et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} (1993) 959.\
SMC collaboration: B. Adeva et al., Phys. Lett. [**B302**]{} (1993) 553, D. Adams et al., Phys. Lett. [**B329**]{} (1994) 399. SLAC-E143 collaboration: K. Abe et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{} (1995) 346; [**75**]{} (1995) 25. F.E. Close and R.G. Roberts, Phys. Lett. [**B336**]{} (1994) 257. S.D. Bass and P.V. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. [**B336**]{} (1994) 537. G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. [**B126**]{} (1977) 298. R.D. Ball, S. Forte and G. Ridolfi, Nucl. Phys. [**B444**]{} (1995) 287. A. Berera, Phys. Lett. [**B293**]{} (1992) 445. T. Gehrmann and W.J. Stirling, Z. Phys. [**C65**]{} (1995) 461. See for example M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun, [*Handbook of Mathematical Functions*]{}, National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series 55 (1964).
Figure Captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
---------------
Figure 1
: Singularity structure of the evolution equations in the complex $N$-moment plane. Dots ($\bullet$) denote the poles of the splitting functions, and the cross ($\times$) indicates the small-$x$ singularity of the initial distribution. The leading-pole expansion only converges to the splitting function in the unit circle around the origin.
Figure 2
: Elements of the splitting matrix for the test distribution $x^{\alpha}(1-x)^{\beta}$. Solid line: full splitting functions for $\beta=4$, long-dashed line: same for $\beta=9$, short-dashed line: most singular $x^{\alpha}$ contribution, dotted line: leading-pole expanded splitting functions for $\beta=4$, dot-dashed line: same for $\beta=9$. For better visibility, all elements are multiplied by $x$.
Figure 3
: Coefficients of the most singular pieces in the splitting matrix for the full (left) and the leading-pole expanded (right) splitting functions. Solid line: $a_{qq}$, long-dashed line: $a_{qg}$, short-dashed line: $a_{gq}$, dotted line: $a_{gg}$.
Figure 4
: Evolution of test distributions for gluons ($x\Delta G(x,Q^2)$),(a), singlet quarks ($x\Delta \Sigma (x,Q^2)$),(b) and valence quarks ($x\Delta
q_{val} (x,Q^2)$),(c) as described in the text. Solid line: starting distribution at $4 \; \mbox{GeV}^2$, long-dashed and dot-dashed line: evolved distributions at $100 \; \mbox{GeV}^2$ for different large-$x$ behaviour at $Q_0^2$, short dashed line: result of $x^{\alpha}$ approximaton, dotted line: result of leading-pole approximation.
[^1]: Similar splitting functions containing only the residue at $N=0$ were studied in , giving qualitatively comparable results to
[^2]: For simplicity, we take $n_f=3$ throughout this study
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the Abell Cluster A586 exhibits evidence of the interaction between dark matter and dark energy and argue that this interaction implies a violation of the Equivalence Principle. This violation is found in the context of two different models of dark energy-dark matter interaction. We also argue, based on the spherical symmetry of the Abell Cluster A586 that skewness is not the most general quantity to test the Equivalence Principle.'
author:
- 'O. Bertolami'
- 'F. Gil Pedro'
- 'M. Le Delliou'
title: 'Dark Energy-Dark Matter Interaction and putative violation of the Equivalence Principle from the Abell Cluster A586'
---
[^1]
*Introduction.* It has become rather consensual that the problem of the nature of dark energy and dark matter (hereafter DE and DM, respectively) is crucial in contemporary cosmology. Even though, observational data is fully consistent with the $\Lambda$CDM parametrization, in order to get a deeper insight into the nature of DE and DM one must consider more complex models and, in particular, the interaction of those components. However, so far no observational evidence of this interaction has been presented. In this work, we argue that study of the Abell Cluster A586 exhibits evidence of the interaction between DE and DM. Furthermore, we show that this interaction implies a violation of the Equivalence Principle (EP). Our results are obtained in the context of two distinct phenomenologically viable models for the DE-DM interaction. We consider the generalized Chaplygin gas (GCG) model [@Bento02], a unified description of DE and DM, where interaction is an automatic feature of this proposal, but also a less constrained approach where DE and DM are regarded as two independent components, but interacting (see e.g. [@Amendola]). We show that interaction between DE and DM implies a violation of the EP between DM and baryons which can be detected in self-gravitating systems in stationary equilibrium. For sure, the EP – that is, the universality of free fall – is one of the cornerstones of general relativity, however its validity at cosmological scales has never been directly tested (see [@Bertolami06] and references therein). The EP can be expressed in terms of the bias parameter, $b$, defined as ratio of baryon over DM density, at a typical clustering scale (Mpc). Should the EP hold, $b$ would be a constant over time since then all clustering species would fall equivalently under the action of gravity. Inversely, clustering should reflect the violation of the EP through a different behaviour for both species. Interaction between DM and DE induces a time evolution of $b$.
In this work we shall focus on the effect of interaction on clustering as revealed by the Layzer-Irvine equation. Given that the EP concerns the way matter falls in the gravitational field, considering the clustering of matter against the cosmic expansion and the interaction with DE seems to be a logical way to test its validity. In what follows we shall see that DE-DM interaction implies a departure from virial equilibrium. First, we will set the formalism to address the DE-DM interaction and consider two phenomenologically viable models: one based on a *ad hoc* DE-DM interaction [@Amendola], the other in the GCG with an explicit identification of the DE and DM components [@Bento04]. Our observational inferences are based on the Abell Cluster A586 given its stationarity, spherical symmetry and wealth of available observations [@Cypriano:2005].
*Quintessence model with DE-DM interaction.* The Bianchi identities with coupling $\zeta$ give origin to the following homogeneous energy conservation equations: $$\dot{\rho}_{DM}+3H\rho_{DM}=\zeta H\rho_{DM}\:,\label{eq:DMcons}$$ $$\dot{\rho}_{DE}+3H\rho_{DE}(1+\omega_{DE})=-\zeta H\rho_{DM}\:.\label{eq:DEcons}$$ Notice that these equations imply that the energy exchange between DE and DM is adiabatic (see e.g. [@Pavon04] and references therein). Moreover, the basic assumptions used in these equations are a constant equation of state parameter $p_{DE}=\omega_{DE}\rho_{DE}$ and the following scaling with respect DM energy density $$\frac{\rho_{DE}}{\rho_{DM}}=\frac{\Omega_{DE_{0}}}{\Omega_{DM_{0}}}a^{\eta}\:,\label{eq:DEsDM}$$ for a constant $\eta$. From the time derivative of Eq. (\[eq:DEsDM\]) inserted into Eq. (\[eq:DEcons\]) together with Eq. (\[eq:DMcons\]) yields: $$\zeta=-\frac{(\eta+3\omega_{DE})\Omega_{DE_{0}}}{\Omega_{DE_{0}}+\Omega_{DM_{0}}a^{-\eta}}\:.\label{eq:DefZeta}$$ The solution of Eq. (\[eq:DMcons\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{DM} & = & a^{-3}\rho_{DM_{0}}e^{\int_{1}^{a}\zeta\frac{da}{a}}\nonumber \\
& = & a^{-3}\rho_{DM_{0}}\left[\Omega_{DE_{0}}a^{\eta}+\Omega_{DM_{0}}\right]^{-\frac{(\eta+3\omega_{DE})}{\eta}}\:.\label{eq:rhoDM}\end{aligned}$$ The DE evolution is then derived from the scaling directly, or from Eq. (\[eq:DEcons\]) combined with the scaling: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{DE} & = & a^{\eta-3}\rho_{DE_{0}}e^{\int_{1}^{a}\zeta\frac{da}{a}}\nonumber \\
& = & a^{\eta-3}\rho_{DE_{0}}\left[\Omega_{DE_{0}}a^{\eta}+\Omega_{DM_{0}}\right]^{-\frac{(\eta+3\omega_{DE})}{\eta}}\:.\label{eq:rhoDE}\end{aligned}$$ In this model, from Eq. (\[eq:rhoDM\]) one can see that the bias parameter depends on time as follows: $$b={\frac{\rho_{B}}{\rho_{DM}}}=\frac{\Omega_{B_{0}}}{\Omega_{DM_{0}}}\left[\Omega_{DE_{0}}a^{\eta}+\Omega_{DM_{0}}\right]^{\frac{(\eta+3\omega_{DE})}{\eta}}\:.\label{bias2}$$
*The GCG model.* Let us now consider the GCG model with an explicit identification of DE and DM, as discussed in Ref. [@Bento04]. The GCG model is considered here as it fares quite well when confronted with various phenomenological tests: high precision Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation data [@Bento3], supernova data [@Supern; @Bertolami1; @Bento4], gravitational lensing [@Silva], gamma-ray bursts [@Bertolami2], cosmic topology [@Bento5] and time variation of the electromagnetic coupling [@Bento07]. In order to obtain a suitable structure formation behaviour at linear approximation, $\omega_{DE}=-1$ (see [@Bento04] and references therein). For the GCG admixture of DE and DM, the equation of state is given by [@Bento02]: $$p=-\frac{A}{\rho^{\alpha}}\:,\label{GCG}$$ where $A$ and $\alpha$ are positive constants. From [@Bento04], the DM and DE expressions for a constant DE equation of state are given by$$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{DM}= & \rho_{DM_{0}}a^{-3(1+\alpha)}\left(\frac{\Omega_{DE_{0}}+\Omega_{DM_{0}}}{\Omega_{DE_{0}}+\Omega_{DM_{0}}a^{-3(1+\alpha)}}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha}}\:,\label{GCGDM}\\
\rho_{DE}= & \rho_{DE_{0}}\left(\frac{\Omega_{DE_{0}}+\Omega_{DM_{0}}}{\Omega_{DE_{0}}+\Omega_{DM_{0}}a^{-3(1+\alpha)}}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha}}\:,\label{GCGDE}\end{aligned}$$ so that we recover Eq. (\[eq:DEsDM\]), but now with $\eta=3(1+\alpha)$ and $\omega_{DE}=-1$.
*The Generalized Layzer-Irvine equation.* Let us now turn to the cosmological gravitational collapse and its implication for the EP. The core of our approach lies on deviation of the classical virial equilibrium, in its standard Layzer-Irvine equation form. We argue that A586 data allows to establish this departure independently of the DE-DM interaction model considered. It is possible to write the energy density conservation for non-relativistic self-gravitating dust-like particles through the so-called Layzer-Irvine equation [@Peebles]. The kernel of the method is to consider the Newtonian kinetic energy, $K$, per unit mass, while keeping the average momentum and mass, $M$, constant: $$MK=\frac{1}{2a^{2}}\left\langle \frac{p^{2}}{m}\right\rangle \propto a^{-2}\:,\label{Kinetic}$$ where $a$ is the scale factor of the Robertson-Walker metric. It then follows that: $$\rho_{K}\equiv MdK/dV=d(MK)/dV\propto a^{-2}\:.\label{Varkinetic}$$ It is assumed that the mass evolution of the cluster remains constant over the course of the observation. The energy transfer between DM and DE is negligible at this point.The potential energy per unit mass derives from the definition of the auto-correlation function, $\xi(r)$, [@Peebles]$$\begin{aligned}
W & =-2\pi
Ga^{2}\rho_{DM}\int dr\xi(r)r\:,\label{correlationf}\end{aligned}$$ where we have replaced the background energy density by the DM energy density. After considering the DE-DM interaction, it follows that $$W\propto a^{2+d ln\rho_DM / d ln a}=a^{\zeta-1}\:.\label{W}$$ and hence $$\rho_{W}\equiv MdW/dV=d(MW)/dV\propto a^{\zeta-1}\:.\label{DW}$$ This is the source of difference from the usual dust case. The Layzer-Irvine equation for the energies per unit volume is just a chain rule of time derivative for the energy density where the time is parameterized by the scale factor, hence: $$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\rho_{DM}\right)=\dot{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial a}\left(\rho_{DM}\right)=-\left[2\rho_{K}+(1-\zeta)\rho_{W}\right]H\:,\label{rhoDM}$$ from which follows $$\dot{\rho}_{DM}+\left(2\rho_{K}+\rho_{W}\right)H=\zeta\rho_{W}H\:,\label{eq:CoupledL-I}$$ where $H=\dot{a}/a$ is the expansion rate.
Furthermore, writing in terms of the virial equilibrium factor $2\rho_{K}+\rho_{W}$ and the departure to static equilibrium, due to the DE-DM interaction, Eq. (\[eq:CoupledL-I\]) becomes $$\dot{\rho}_{DM}+H(2\rho_{K}+\rho_{W})=-\frac{(\eta+3\omega_{DE})H}{1+\Omega_{DM_{0}}/\Omega_{DE_{0}}a^{-\eta}}\rho_{W}\:.\label{equilibrium}$$ As before, it is possible to see from the equivalent of Eq. (\[eq:DEsDM\]) for the GCG model (for which $\omega_{DE}=-1$ [@Bento04]) that one can map Eq. (\[equilibrium\]) for the generic interaction model into the GCG model via the relationship $\eta=3(1+\alpha)$. Next we shall apply these equations to the stationary Abell Cluster A586 for which $\rho_{K}$ and $\rho_{W}$ can be computed, so as to compare with the observed local measurements with the homogeneous-spawned interaction term: $$2\rho_{K}+\rho_{W}=\zeta\rho_{W}\:.\label{comparison}$$
*The Abell Cluster A586.* In order to estimate the coupling between DE and DM from Eq. (\[comparison\]) one has to find a particular cluster to compute $\rho_{K}$ and $\rho_{W}$. It is convenient that the cluster is as spherical as possible and close to stationary equilibrium. Under these conditions, one can approximate the kinetic and potential energy densities as: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{K}= & M\frac{d}{dV}K\simeq M\frac{K}{V}\simeq\frac{9}{8\pi}\frac{M_{Cluster}}{R_{Cluster}^{3}}\sigma_{v}^{2}\label{eq:rhoK}\\
\rho_{W}= & M\frac{d}{dV}W\simeq M\frac{W}{V}\simeq-\frac{3}{8\pi}\frac{G}{<R>}\frac{M_{Cluster}^{2}}{R_{Cluster}^{3}}\:,\label{eq:rhoW}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{Cluster}$ and $R_{Cluster}$ are the cluster’s total mass (galaxies, DM and intra-cluster gas) and radius, $\sigma_{v}$ is the velocity dispersion as determined globally from weak lensing, and $<R>$ is the mean intergalactic distance [@Cypriano:2005].
The cluster must be also relaxed, since the core of our method consists in estimating the EP violation from a deviation from the standard form of the cosmic virial theorem defined by Eq. (\[eq:CoupledL-I\]) set with no interaction.
Given these constraints a particularly suitable cluster for our purpose is the Abell cluster A586 [@Cypriano:2005]. It is found that the mass profile in this particular cluster is approximately spherical and that it is a relaxed cluster, since it has not undergone any important merging process in the last few Gyrs [@Cypriano:2005]. The agreement between dynamical (velocity dispersion and X-ray) and non-dynamical mass estimates (weak-lensing) indicates that A586 is in fact a relaxed cluster.
Considering that gravitational weak lensing is independent from equilibrium assumptions about the dynamical state of the cluster, it turns out to be the best mass estimator. Therefore, in our analysis we assume [@Cypriano:2005]: $$M_{Cluster}=(4.3\pm0.7)\times10^{14}\: M_{\odot}\label{eq:MCluster}$$ which corresponds to the total mass inside a 422 kpc radius region estimated using gravitational weak lensing.
In order to have a coherent set of data, we take for the velocity dispersion [@Cypriano:2005]: $$\sigma_{v}=(1243\pm58)\: kms^{-1}\label{eq:sigmav}$$ as computed from gravitational weak lensing measurements.
The mean intergalactic distance is estimated using the coordinates (right ascension-$\alpha_{c}$ and declination-$\delta_{c}$) of the 31 galaxy sample provided in Ref. [@Cypriano:2005]. Given that weak gravitational lensing data concerns a 422 kpc radius spherical region and the 31 galaxies lie within a $570h_{70}^{-1}~kpc$ region, one has to select from the original sample the galaxies that lie within the range of interest. Since at the cluster’s distance, one arcsecond corresponds to 2.9 kpc, we select from our sample the galaxies that have $\alpha_{c}$ and $\delta_{c}$ such that: $$\sqrt{(\alpha_{c}-\alpha_{center})^{2}+(\delta_{c}-\delta_{center})^{2}}\leq\Delta_{max}\:,\label{samplingcond}$$ where $\alpha_{center}$ and $\delta_{center}$ are the coordinates of the center of the cluster and $\Delta_{max}=145''$ is the angular dimension corresponding to a radius of 422 kpc. From this procedure, we build a sub-sample containing 25 galaxies. From this sub-sample coordinates one can estimate the mean intergalactic distance by elementary trigonometry, the distance between any two galaxies $i$ and $j$ with coordinates $(\alpha_{ci},\delta_{ci})$ and $(\alpha_{cj},\delta_{cj})$ is given by $r_{ij}^{2}=2d^{2}\left[1-cos(\alpha_{ci}-\alpha_{cj})cos\delta_{ci}cos\delta_{cj}-sin\delta_{ci}sin\delta_{cj}\right]$, where $d$ is the radial distance from the center of the cluster to Earth. Therefore the mean intergalactic distance $<R>$ is $$<R>=\frac{2}{N_{gal}(N_{gal}-1)}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{gal}}{\sum_{j=1}^{i}{r_{ij}}}\:,\label{eq:Rmed}$$ where $N_{gal}$ is the number of galaxies in the sample. In our sub-sample, $N_{gal}=25$ and hence we get the estimate $<R>=309$ kpc. Using Eqs. (\[eq:MCluster\]), (\[eq:sigmav\]) and $<R>$ we can estimate the kinetic and potential energy densities, Eqs. (\[eq:rhoK\]) and (\[eq:rhoW\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{K}= & (2.14\pm0.55)\times10^{-10}Jm^{-3}\:,\label{eq:rhoKN}\\
\rho_{W}= & (-2.83\pm0.92)\times10^{-10}Jm^{-3}\:,\label{eq:rhoWN}\end{aligned}$$ where the errors were computed using linear error propagation.
It is worth mentioning that $$\frac{\rho_{K}}{\rho_{W}}\simeq-0.76\pm0.05\:,\label{ratioKW}$$ instead of $-0.5$ as one would expect for a relaxed cluster considering the standard form of the cosmic virial theorem and no DE-DM interaction.
*DE-DM interaction and putative evidence of violation of the EP.* In what follows we use our estimates of $\rho_{K}$ and $\rho_{W}$, Eqs. (\[eq:rhoKN\]), (\[eq:rhoWN\]), and the latest cosmological WMAP data [@Spergel:2006hy] to show the evidence of DE-DM interaction. We also demonstrate that this interaction implies a violation of the EP between DM and baryons.
Let us first look at the quintessence model with DE-DM interaction. From Eqs. (\[eq:DMcons\]) and (\[eq:DEcons\]) the DE-DM interaction is exhibited through a non-vanishing $\zeta$ or equivalently, from Eq. (\[eq:DefZeta\]), by the condition $\eta\neq-3\omega_{DE}$.
Thus, assuming that $\omega_{DE}=-1$, $\Omega_{DE_{0}}=0.72$, $\Omega_{DM_{0}}=0.24$, one can estimate $\eta$ for which Eq. (\[comparison\]) is satisfied for the redshift of the A586, $z=0.1708$. We find that: $$\eta=3.82_{-0.17}^{+0.18}\:.\label{eq:etaN}$$
Thus, since Eq. (\[eq:etaN\]) satisfies the condition $\eta\neq-3\omega_{DE}$, one concludes that DE and DM are interacting. Notice that, as observations suggest a recent DE dominance, then $\zeta<0$, and from there follows that $\eta>-3\omega_{DE}$. This means that Eq. (\[eq:etaN\]) not only suggests that DE and DM are interacting, but also, as expected, that the energy transfer flow is from DM to DE.
Let us now turn to the CGC model. With the identification of components suggested in [@Bento04], DE-DM interaction is expressed by the condition $\alpha\neq0$. In order to see the effect of interaction in the GCG model, we proceed as before using Eqs. (\[comparison\]), (\[eq:rhoKN\]) and (\[eq:rhoWN\]), from which follows: $$\alpha=0.27_{-0.06}^{+0.06}\:.\label{eq:alpha}$$
Thus, the condition $\alpha\neq0$ holds, meaning that the A586 data is consistent with the identification of components suggested in [@Bento04] for the CGC model. Notice that for $\alpha=0$ the GCG model corresponds to the $\Lambda$CDM model. Moreover, it is interesting to point out that the value $\alpha\sim0.27$ is approximately consistent with values found to match the bias and its growth from the 2dF survey (see [@Bento04] and references therein).
Evidence on a possible violation of the EP implies the time dependence of the bias parameter. We depict in Fig. \[fig:bias\], the evolution with redshift of the normalized bias parameter predicted by Eq. (\[bias2\]) where only gravitational effects are considered. Even though other astrophysical effects might affect the way DM and baryons fall under gravity, for EP purposes, gravity is the only relevant interaction that offers a clear drift on a cosmological time scale. Clearly, one expects that for large samples those effects would average out for non-cosmological drifts and thus lead to possible detection in large surveys.
![Normalized gravitationally induced bias parameter as a function of the redshift, where $b_{15}\equiv b(z=15)$, $z=15$ being a typical condensation time.[]{data-label="fig:bias"}](BiasParameter.eps){width="34.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:bias\] shows that $b(z)/b_{15}$ has undergone a sharp change in the recent past, a clear signal of the violation of the EP due to the DE-DM interaction. This abrupt variation corresponds to the period when energy transfer from DM to DE becomes significant ($z\sim0.5$).
*Discussion and Conclusions.* In this work we have argued that the properties of the A586 suggest evidence of the interaction between DE and DM. We stress that the considered models to describe the DE-DM interaction are consistent with known phenomenological constraints. We have also argued that this interaction does suggest a violation of the EP that should be detectable in large scale cluster surveys via the analysis of the time dependence of the bias parameter. We find that this violation is independent of the interaction model between DE and DM and entails a redshift evolution of bias parameter given by Eq. (\[bias2\]) and depicted in Figure \[fig:bias\]. Our conclusions are independent of the DE-DM interaction model, generic or GCG. Actually, a violation of the EP is reported to be found in other DE models [@Alimi06]. For the GCG model we find that the detection of interaction precludes the $\Lambda$CDM model ($\alpha=0$). Furthermore, the obtained value for $\alpha$ is approximately consistent with results for the bias and its growth obtained by the 2dF survey [@Bento04]. Consistency of our results with observational data concerning interaction [@Amendola07] and further implications of the detected interaction between DE and DM, for instance, in what concerns the motion of the satellite Sagittarius galaxy [@Kesden], are discussed in [@OBPedro07b].
It is interesting to point out that our results indicate evidence for violation of the EP between baryons and DM using data extracted from the A586, a notoriously relaxed and spherically symmetric structure. This seems to imply that the suggestion that cosmological evidence for a violation could be detected via skewness [@AmendolaQuercellini04] does not hold. Indeed, spherical symmetry implies that skewness vanishes given that it is an odd parity spatial function. Thus, while the virial equilibrium may in principle reveal the violation of EP due to the DM-DE interaction, skewness is unable, by definition, to detect it in this particular symmetry. The spherical symmetry of A586 and our detection of violation of the EP via virial equilibrium exemplifies this point.
*Acknowledgments.* The work of MLeD is supported by FCT (Portugal) under the grant SFRH/BD/16630/2004 and hosted by J.P.Mimoso and CFTC, Lisbon University. The work of OB is partially supported by the FCT project POCI/FIS/56093/2004. The authors would like to thank Catarina Lobo for the information on clusters.
[10]{} M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A.A. Sen, *Phys. Rev.* **D 66** (2002) 043507; A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella and V. Pasquier, *Phys. Lett.* **B 511** (2001) 265.
L. Amendola, *Phys. Rev.* **D 62** (2000) 043511.
O. Bertolami, J. Páramos and S.G. Turyshev, gr-qc/0602016.
M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A.A. Sen, *Phys. Rev.* **D 70** (2004) 083519.
E.S. Cypriano, G.B. Neto, L.J. Sodré and J.P. Kneib, *Ap. J. * **630** (2005) 38.
D. Pavon, S. Sen and W. Zimdahl, *JCAP* **0405** (2004) 009.
M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A.A. Sen, *Phys. Rev.* **D 67** (2003) 063003; *Phys. Lett.* **B 575** (2003) 172; *Gen. Relat. Grav.* **35** (2003) 2063.
A. Dev, J.S. Alcaniz and D. Jain, *Phys. Rev.* **D 67** (2003) 023515; V. Gorini, A. Kamenshchik and U. Moschella, *Phys. Rev.* **D 67** (2003) 063509; M. Makler, S.Q. de Oliveira and I. Waga, *Phys. Lett.* **B 555** (2003) 1.
O. Bertolami, A.A. Sen, S. Sen and P.T. Silva, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* **353** (2004) 329.
M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami, A.A. Sen, and N.C. Santos, *Phys. Rev.* **D 71** (2005) 063501.
P.T. Silva and O. Bertolami, *Ap. J.* **599** (2003) 829; A. Dev, D. Jain and J.S. Alcaniz, *Astron. Astrophys.* **417** (2004) 847.
O. Bertolami and P. T. Silva, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* **365** (2006) 1149.
M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami, M. Rebouças and P.T. Silva, *Phys. Rev.* **D 73** (2006) 043504.
M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami and P. Torres, *Phys. Lett.* **B 648** (2007) 14.
P.J.E. Peebles, 1993, *Principles of physical cosmology* Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
L. Amendola and C. Quercellini, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **92** (2004) 181102.
D.N. Spergel *et al.* [\[]{}WMAP Collaboration\], astro-ph/0603449.
A. Füzfa and J.M. Alimi, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **97** (2006) 061301; *Phys. Rev.* **D 75** (2007) 123007.
L. Amendola, G.C. Campos and R. Rosenfeld, *Phys.Rev.* **D 75** (2007) 083506; Z.-K. Guo, N. Ohta and S. Tsujikawa, astro-ph/0702015.
M. Kesden and M. Kamionkowski, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **97** (2006) 131303; *Phys. Rev. D.* 74 (2006) 083007.
O. Bertolami, F.Gil Pedro, M.Le Delliou, astro-ph/0705.3118.
[^1]: Also at Centro de Física dos Plasmas, IST
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An alternative theory of gravity has recently been proposed by Bekenstein, named Tensor-Vector-Scalar (TeVeS) theory, which can explain many galactic and cosmological observations without the need for dark matter. Whilst this theory passes basic solar system tests, and has been scrutinized with considerable detail in other weak-field regimes, comparatively little has been done in the strong-field limit of the theory. In this article, with Cowling approximation, we examine the oscillation spectra of neutron stars in TeVeS. As a result, we find that the frequencies of fundamental modes in TeVeS could become lager than those expected in general relativity, while the dependence of frequency of higher overtone on gravitational theory is stronger than that of lower modes. These imprints of TeVeS make it possible to distinguish the gravitational theory in strong-field regime via the observations of gravitational waves, which can provide unique confirmation of the existence of scalar field.'
author:
- Hajime Sotani
title: 'Stellar Oscillations in Tensor-Vector-Scalar Theory'
---
Introduction {#sec:I}
============
Tests of gravitational theories in the strong-field regime are extremely important because, unlike the weak-field, they are still largely unconstrained by observations. However, with developing technology, it is becoming possible to observe compact objects with high accuracy. For example, observations of emitted X-rays and $\gamma$-rays from compact objects could be used to directly test the strong-field regime of a gravity theory [@Psaltis2008]. Furthermore, future observational developments, for example with gravitational waves, will allow us to obtain different physical properties for compact objects, which will further allow for testing in the strong-field regime. From a theoretical point of view, there are attempts to test theories of gravity in the strong-field regime by using surface atomic line redshifts [@DeDeo2003] or gravitational waves from the neutron stars [@Sotani2004]. In these investigations, the possibility of distinguishing Scalar-Tensor (ST) theory, proposed by Damour & Esposito-Farèse [@Damour1992], from General Relativity (GR) was discussed (see Psaltis [@Psaltis2008] for a review). Whilst the existence of scalar fields has not been experimentally verified, several experiments in the weak-field limit of GR set severe limits on the existence and strength of such fields [@Will2001].
Recently, Tensor-Vector-Scalar (TeVeS) theory has attracted considerable attention as an alternative gravitational theory. TeVeS was proposed by Bekenstein [@Bekenstein2004] as a relativistic theory for Modified Newtonian Dynamics [@Milgrom1983]. As such, it explains galaxy rotation curves and the Tully-Fisher law without the existence of dark matter. TeVeS has also successfully explained strong gravitational lensing [@Chen2006] as well as key features of the cosmic microwave background [@Skordis2006] and galaxy distributions through an evolving Universe [@Dodelson2006] without cold dark matter. While in the strong-field regime of TeVeS, Giannios found the Schwarzschild solution [@Giannios2005], and Sagi and Bekenstein generalized this to the Reissner-Nordström solution [@Sagi2008]. Furthermore, Contaldi, Wiseman & Withers have found vacuum solutions for a constant scalar field [@Contaldi2008]. More recently, the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) equations in TeVeS are derived by Lasky, Sotani & Giannios [@Paul2008], with which one can produce static, spherically symmetric neutron stars, and they showed the possibility of distinguishing TeVeS from GR by way of redshift observations. In this article, we examine whether observations of gravitational waves associated with the neutron star oscillations can provide an alternative way of probing the gravitational theory in the strong-field regime.
The attempt to estimate the stellar parameters, such as mass, radius and equation of state (EOS), via their oscillation properties is not a new idea. Helioseismology is established fields in astronomy and one could know the information about the interior of our sun. In the late ’90s, it was suggested the possibility to reveal the compact star properties through the oscillation spectra [@Andersson1996], which is called as gravitational wave asteroseismology. The stellar mass, radius and EOS can be deduced by an analysis of the oscillation spectrum of fundamental, pressure and spacetime modes, i.e., $f$, $p$ and $w$ modes (e.g., [@Sotani2001; @Sotani2003]). While the rotation period of a compact star can be revealed by the examination of $r$ mode oscillations (e.g., [@SPK2007; @Miltos2008]), where such frequencies are proportional to the rotation rate. Furthermore, the detailed analysis of the gravitational waves makes it possible to determine the radius of accretion disk around supermassive black hole [@Sotani2006] or to know the magnetic effect during the stellar collapse [@SYK2007].
In general, the oscillations of a neutron star in TeVeS could produce not only gravitational but also scalar and vector waves, which is similar to the case in the scalar-tensor theory [@Will1993], and the direct detection of scalar and/or vector waves would be a unique probe for the gravitational theory. Still, we will show that it is not necessary to detect these waves, because the obvious imprints due to the existence of scalar and vector fields will be apparent in the spectrum of gravitational waves associated with the stellar oscillations. Although we adopt Cowling approximation in this article, the more complicated analysis including the metric, vector and scalar perturbations will be seen near future somewhere.
This article is organized as follows. In the next section, we describe the fundamental parts of TeVeS and TOV equations in TeVeS, where we also show the neutron star models. In Sec. \[sec:III\] we derive the perturbation equations with Cowling approximation. Then the oscillation spectra of neutron stars in TeVeS are shown in Sec. \[sec:IV\], finally we discuss the results related to gravitational wave asteroseismology in Sec. \[sec:V\]. In this article, we adopt the unit of $c=G=1$, where $c$ and $G$ denote the speed of light and the gravitational constant, respectively, and the metric signature is $(-,+,+,+)$.
Stellar Models in TeVeS {#sec:II}
=======================
TeVeS {#sec:II-1}
-----
Since details of TeVeS can be found in [@Bekenstein2004], we only mention here the fundamental parts of the theory that are necessary for the present calculations. TeVeS is based on three dynamical gravitational fields; an Einstein metric $g_{\mu\nu}$, a timelike 4-vector field ${\cal U}^\mu$, and a scalar field $\varphi$. There is also a nondynamical scalar field, $\sigma$. The vector field fulfills the normalization condition, $g_{\mu\nu}{\cal U}^\mu{\cal U}^\nu=-1$, and the physical metric is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu} = e^{-2\varphi}g_{\mu\nu} - 2{\cal U}_\mu{\cal U}_\nu\sinh(2\varphi), \\
\tilde{g}^{\mu\nu} = e^{2\varphi}g^{\mu\nu} + 2{\cal U}^\mu{\cal U}^\nu\sinh(2\varphi).\end{gathered}$$ All quantities in the physical frame are denoted with a tilde, and any quantity without a tilde is in the Einstein frame. The total action of TeVeS, $S$, contains contributions from the three dynamical fields and a matter contribution (see [@Bekenstein2004] for details). These include two positive dimensionless parameters, $k$ and $K$, which are the coupling parameters for the scalar and vector fields respectively. There also exists a dimensionless free function $F$, a constant length scale $\ell$, and a spacetime dependent Lagrange multiplier, $\lambda$.
By varying the total action, $S$, with respect to $g^{\mu\nu}$, one can obtain the field equations for the tensor field $$G_{\mu\nu} = 8\pi G \left[\tilde{T}_{\mu\nu}+\left(1-e^{-4\varphi}\right){\cal U}^\alpha
\tilde{T}_{\alpha(\mu}{\cal U}_{\nu)}+\tau_{\mu\nu}\right]+\Theta_{\mu\nu},
\label{Einstein}$$ where $\tilde{T}_{\mu\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor in the physical frame, $\tilde{T}_{\alpha(\mu}{\cal U}_{\nu)}\equiv\tilde{T}_{\alpha\mu}{\cal U}_{\nu}
+\tilde{T}_{\alpha\nu}{\cal U}_{\mu}$ and $G_{\mu\nu}$ is the Einstein tensor in the Einstein frame. Conservation of energy-momentum is therefore given in the physical frame as $\tilde{\nabla}_\mu \tilde{T}^{\mu\nu}=0$. The other sources in Eq.(\[Einstein\]) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{\mu\nu} =& \sigma^2 \bigg[\varphi_{,\mu}\varphi_{,\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha\beta}
\varphi_{,\alpha}\varphi_{,\beta}g_{\mu\nu} - \frac{G\sigma^2}{4\ell^2}F(kG\sigma^2)
g_{\mu\nu}
- {\cal U}^\alpha \varphi_{,\alpha}\left({\cal U}_{(\mu}\varphi_{,\nu)}
-\frac{1}{2}{\cal U}^\beta\varphi_{,\beta}g_{\mu\nu}\right)\bigg], \label{tau} \\
\Theta_{\mu\nu} =& K\left(g^{\alpha\beta}{\cal U}_{[\alpha,\mu]}{\cal U}_{[\beta,\nu]}
- \frac{1}{4}g^{\gamma\delta}g^{\alpha\beta}{\cal U}_{[\gamma,\alpha]}{\cal U}_{[\delta,\beta]}
g_{\mu\nu}\right)
- \lambda {\cal U}_{\mu}{\cal U}_{\nu},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal U}_{[\alpha,\beta]}\equiv{\cal U}_{\alpha,\beta}-{\cal U}_{\beta,\alpha}$. Similarly, by varying $S$ with respect to ${\cal U}_\mu$ and $\varphi$, one obtains the field equations for the vector and scalar fields; $$\begin{gathered}
K{{\cal U}^{[\alpha;\beta]}}_{;\beta} + \lambda {\cal U}^\alpha + 8\pi G\sigma^2{\cal U}^\beta
\varphi_{,\beta}g^{\alpha\gamma}\varphi_{,\gamma}
= 8\pi G \left(1-e^{-4\varphi}\right)g^{\alpha\mu}
{\cal U}^\beta\tilde{T}_{\mu\beta}, \label{vector} \\
\left[\mu(k\ell^2h^{\mu\nu}\varphi_{,\mu}\varphi_{,\nu})h^{\alpha\beta}\varphi_{,\alpha}\right]_{;\beta}
= kG\left[g^{\alpha\beta}+ \left(1+e^{-4\varphi}\right){\cal U}^\alpha{\cal U}^\beta\right]
\tilde{T}_{\alpha\beta}, \label{scalar}\end{gathered}$$ where $h^{\alpha\beta}=g^{\alpha\beta}-{\cal U}^\alpha{\cal U}^\beta$ and $\mu(x)$ is a function defined by $2\mu F(\mu) + \mu^2dF(\mu)/d\mu = -2x$. With this function $\mu$, the nondynamical scalar field $\sigma$ is determined by $$kG\sigma^2 = \mu(k\ell^2h^{\alpha\beta}\varphi_{,\alpha}\varphi_{,\beta}). \label{scalar1}$$ Therefore, the field equations of TeVeS are Eqs. (\[Einstein\]) and (\[vector\]) – (\[scalar1\]). It has been shown in the strong-field limit that $\mu=1$ is an excellent approximation [@Giannios2005; @Sagi2008]. On cosmological scales this is not a good choice [@Bekenstein2004], however in this article we only consider regions not too far from neutron stars, and we therefore set $\mu=1$. This implies from Eq. (\[scalar1\]) that $\sigma^2 = 1/(kG)$. Moreover, whilst the functional form of $F$ is not predicted by the theory, one can show that when $\mu=1$, the contribution of $F$ to the field equations vanishes [@Bekenstein2004; @Giannios2005; @Sagi2008]. Therefore, our results are independent of this function and we drop it from the remaining discussion.
TOV in TeVeS {#sec:II-2}
------------
First, the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) equations in TeVeS are derived by Lasky, Sotani & Giannios [@Paul2008]. Here we make an brief description of TOV equations. A static, spherically symmetric metric can be expressed as $$ds^2 = g_{\alpha\beta} dx^\alpha dx^\beta
= -e^{\nu(r)} dt^2 + e^{\zeta(r)} dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega^2,$$ where $d\Omega^2 =d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta d\phi^2$ and $e^{-\zeta} = 1-2m(r)/r$. In general, the vector field for a static, spherically symmetric spacetime can be described as ${\cal U}^\mu=\left({\cal U}^t,{\cal U}^r,0,0\right)$, where ${\cal U}^t$ and ${\cal U}^r$ are functions of $r$. Giannios [@Giannios2005] showed that in vacuum, the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) coefficients for a spherically symmetric, static spacetime with a non-zero ${\cal U}^{r}$ can violate observational restrictions. In this article, we therefore only consider the case where ${\cal U}^r=0$. In this case, the vector field can be fully determined from the normalization condition, and is found to be ${\cal U}^\mu = \left(e^{-\nu/2},0,0,0\right)$. Moreover, one can show that the vector field equation (\[vector\]) is now trivially satisfied. With this vector field, the physical metric is $$d\tilde{s}^2 = \tilde{g}_{\alpha\beta}dx^\alpha dx^\beta
= -e^{\nu+2\varphi}dt^2 + e^{\zeta-2\varphi}dr^2
+ e^{-2\varphi}r^2d\Omega^2, \label{phys-metric}$$ and the fluid four-velocity is $\tilde{u}_\mu = e^\varphi{\cal U}_\mu$. We further assume the stellar matter content to be a perfect fluid, i.e., $\tilde{T}_{\mu\nu} = (\tilde{\rho} + \tilde{P})\tilde{u}_\mu\tilde{u}_\nu
+ \tilde{P}\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$, from which one can show that the full system of equations with $k\ne0$ and $K\ne 0$ reduces to $$\begin{gathered}
\left(1-\frac{K}{2}\right)m'
= \frac{Km}{2r} + 4\pi G r^2 e^{-2\varphi}\left(\tilde{\rho} + 2K\tilde{P}\right)
+ \left[\frac{2\pi r^2}{k}\psi^2 - \frac{Kr\nu'}{4}\left(1+\frac{r\nu'}{4}\right)\right]
e^{-\zeta}, \\
\frac{Kr}{4}\nu' = -1 + \left[1+K\left(\frac{4\pi Gr^3\tilde{P}e^{-2\varphi}+m}{r-2m}
+ \frac{2\pi r^2}{k}\psi^2\right)\right]^{1/2}, \\
\tilde{P}' = -\frac{\tilde{P} + \tilde{\rho}}{2}(2\psi + \nu'), \label{eq:tov} \\
\varphi' = \psi, \\
\psi' = \left[\frac{m' r - m}{r(r-2m)}-\frac{\nu'}{2} - \frac{2}{r}\right]\psi
+ kGe^{-2\varphi+\zeta}\left(\tilde{\rho} + 3\tilde{P}\right),\end{gathered}$$ where a prime denotes a derivative with respect to $r$. (See [@Paul2008] for the derivation of these equations and for a discussion with $k=0$ and/or with $K=0$.) This system of equations is closed with the addition of an equation of state (EOS). The stellar radius in physical frame, $R$, is determined by $R\equiv e^{-\varphi(r_s)}r_s$, where $r_s$ is the position of the stellar surface defined as the point where $\tilde{P}=0$. Note that on exterior region the scalar field still exists although there is no fluid.
We integrate the above equations from the center, $r=0$, to the stellar surface, $r=r_s$. Moreover, the interior boundary conditions are given by $\tilde{P}(0)=\tilde{P}_0$, $\tilde{\rho}(0)=\tilde{\rho}_0$, $\nu(0)=\nu_0$, $\varphi(0)=\varphi_0$, $\psi(0)=0$, and $m(0)=0$, which are determined by Taylor series expansions of the above equations near $r=0$ (see [@Paul2008] for details). The exact values for $\nu_0$ and $\varphi_0$ are determined by matching the functions $\nu(r)$ and $\varphi(r)$ to their asymptotic behavior, which is found by performing a coordinate transformation on (\[phys-metric\]) to bring it into an asymptotically flat form. We define new coordinates $\hat{t}\equiv te^{\varphi_{c}}$ and $\hat{r}\equiv re^{-\varphi_{c}}$, where $\varphi_{c}$ denotes the cosmological value of the scalar field. Then performing an asymptotic expansion of all the equations and dropping the hats on the new coordinates for simplicity in the expressions implies $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{g}_{tt} &= -1+\frac{2M_{\rm ADM}}{r}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{r^{2}}\right),\\
\tilde{g}_{rr} &= 1+\frac{2M_{\rm ADM}}{r}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{r^{2}}\right),\\
\varphi &= \varphi_{c} - \frac{kGM_{\varphi}}{4\pi e^{\varphi_{c}}r}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{r^{2}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $M_{\rm ADM}$ is the total Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) mass given by $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\rm ADM}=\left(m_{\infty}+\frac{kGM_{\varphi}}{4\pi}\right)e^{-\varphi_{c}},\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{\infty}$ is the mass function evaluated at radial infinity. Also, $M_\varphi$ is the scalar mass [@Bekenstein2004], which is constant outside the star and is defined everywhere as $$M_\varphi = 4\pi\int_0^{r}r^2\left(\tilde{\rho}+3\tilde{P}\right)e^{(\nu+\zeta)/2-2\varphi}dr.$$ We adopt the same EOS as in [@Sotani2004], which are polytropic ones derived by fitting functions to tabulated data of realistic EOS known as EOS A and EOS II. The maximum masses of neutron stars in GR are $M=1.65 M_{\odot}$ with $R = 8.9$ km for EOS A and $M=1.95 M_{\odot}$ with $R=10.9$ km for EOS II. That is, EOS A is considered soft, while EOS II is an intermediate EOS.
When it comes to the study of the structure of neutron stars, TeVeS introduces three new parameters, $k$, $K$, and $\varphi_c$, with respect to GR. Since the value of $k$ is tightly constrained by both cosmological models and also planetary motions in the outer solar system [@Bekenstein2004], we accordingly set $k=0.03$ for the remainder of the article. With respect to the value of $\varphi_c$, Lasky, Sotani & Giannios showed that $\varphi_{c}$ can have a minimum value of around $0.001$, based on causality issues inside the neutron star [@Paul2008]. Therefore, for this article we use $\varphi_{c}=0.003$. Details of neutron star models where these parameters are allowed to vary are given in Lasky, Sotani & Giannios [@Paul2008], in which they showed that the dependences on $k$ and on $\varphi_{c}$ are minimal for neutron star models. While, restrictions on $K$ are less severe, and have not been discussed in great detail in the literature. In this article we consider the range $0<K<2$, because for $K>2$ one can show that the pressure diverges from the stellar center outward, and therefore stellar models are not possible [@Paul2008] (Sagi & Bekenstein [@Sagi2008] also showed that physical black hole solutions are only valid for $K<2$).
Neutron Star Models in TeVeS {#sec:II-3}
----------------------------
Fig. \[fig:rhoc-M\] shows the ADM mass as a function of the central density of neutron stars. Different lines correspond to different values of $K$, whose values are indicated. Additionally, we plot the stellar model for GR with the solid line. Note that for spherically symmetric neutron stars, stellar models for the region $\partial M_{\rm ADM}/\partial \tilde{\rho}_0<0$ could be unstable. From this figure we can see that, although the central density giving the maximum mass is almost independent from the value of $K$, the corresponding maximum mass depends strongly on the parameter $K$, i.e., for larger values of $K$ the maximum mass becomes smaller. For example, with EOS A for $K=0.5$ the maximum mass is 18 % smaller than that of GR.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Relation between the mass and central density of neutron stars in GR and in TeVeS with $k=0.03$, $\varphi_c=0.003$, where the left and right panels are corresponding to the stellar properties given by EOS A and EOS II, respectively. In the figure the solid line denotes the case of GR while the other lines are corresponding to the stellar models with different values of $K$ in TeVeS. []{data-label="fig:rhoc-M"}](A-rhoc-M "fig:") ![Relation between the mass and central density of neutron stars in GR and in TeVeS with $k=0.03$, $\varphi_c=0.003$, where the left and right panels are corresponding to the stellar properties given by EOS A and EOS II, respectively. In the figure the solid line denotes the case of GR while the other lines are corresponding to the stellar models with different values of $K$ in TeVeS. []{data-label="fig:rhoc-M"}](II-rhoc-M "fig:")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. \[fig:R-M\] shows the relation between the ADM mass and stellar radius with different values of $K$ and also for the GR case. In general, one requires a softer EOS near the stellar surface, which implies the stellar radius becomes larger, but with high central density for typical neutron star, the stellar models are almost independent from the consideration of softer EOS near the stellar surface. This figure further implies that there exists a minimum radius, which usually corresponds to the maximum mass [@Lattimer2001]. Considering this minimum radius, it can be seen in Fig. \[fig:R-M\] that neutron stars in TeVeS are smaller than in the GR case. For example, we can see that the minimum radius for a star with EOS A in TeVeS with $K=0.5$ is $7.7$ km, whereas for GR it is $8.9$ km, which is a $13.5\%$ difference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Mass-radius relation for neutron stars in GR and in TeVeS with $k=0.03$, $\varphi_c=0.003$, where the left and right panels are corresponding to the stellar properties given by EOS A and EOS II, respectively. []{data-label="fig:R-M"}](A-R-M "fig:") ![Mass-radius relation for neutron stars in GR and in TeVeS with $k=0.03$, $\varphi_c=0.003$, where the left and right panels are corresponding to the stellar properties given by EOS A and EOS II, respectively. []{data-label="fig:R-M"}](II-R-M "fig:")
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perturbation equations in the Cowling Approximation {#sec:III}
===================================================
In this section we derive the perturbation equations for nonradial oscillations of spherically symmetric neutron stars in TeVeS. For simplicity, we adopt the Cowling approximation, in which the fluid is perturbed on a fixed background. That is, the perturbations of the spacetime, vector field and scalar field are frozen, i.e., $\delta \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}=0$, $\delta {\cal U}^\mu=0$ and $\delta \varphi=0$. It notes that with the Cowling approximation we can study only the oscillation modes related to the fluid perturbations, such as $f$, $p$ and $g$ modes, while it is impossible to study the other emissions of scalar waves, vector waves and gravitational waves connected to the oscillation of spacetime. Additionally, we should notice that the Cowling approximation in GR is typically very good for axial type of oscillations while for polar type of oscillations the error for typical relativistic stellar models could become less than 20 per cent for $f$ modes and around 10 per cent for $p$ modes [@Shijun1997].
With Cowling approximation, the perturbed energy-momentum tensor, $\delta\tilde{T}^{\mu\nu}$, is given as $$\delta \tilde{T}^{\mu\nu} = \left(\delta\tilde{\rho} + \delta\tilde{P}\right)\tilde{u}^\mu\tilde{u}^\nu
+ \left(\tilde{\rho} + \tilde{P}\right)
\left(\delta\tilde{u}^\mu\tilde{u}^\nu + \tilde{u}^\mu\delta\tilde{u}^\nu\right)
+ \delta\tilde{P}\tilde{g}^{\mu\nu}.$$ Introducing the Lagrangian displacement vector, the perturbed variables in $\delta\tilde{T}^{\mu\nu}$ such as $\delta\tilde{u}^\mu$, $\delta\tilde{\rho}$ and $\delta\tilde{P}$, can be described explicitly. The Lagrangian displacement vector for the fluid perturbations are $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\xi}^i = \left(\tilde{\xi}^r,\tilde{\xi}^\theta,\tilde{\xi}^\phi\right)
= \left(W,-V\partial_\theta,-V\sin^{-2}\theta\partial_\phi\right)\frac{1}{r^2}Y_{\ell m},\end{aligned}$$ where $W$ and $V$ are functions of $t$ and $r$. Then the perturbations of 4-velocity, $\delta \tilde{u}^\mu$, can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \tilde{u}^\mu = \left(0,\dot{W}, -\dot{V} \partial_\theta, -\dot{V} \sin^{-2}\theta \partial_\phi\right)
e^{-\varphi-\nu/2}\frac{1}{r^2}Y_{\ell m},\end{aligned}$$ where dots on the variables denote the partial derivative with respect to $t$. On the other hand, using the first law of thermodynamics, we can get the following relation between the adiabatic changes of the density and the baryon number density; $$\Delta \tilde{\rho} = \frac{\tilde{\rho} + \tilde{P}}{\tilde{n}}\Delta \tilde{n},
\label{eq:1st-law}$$ where $\tilde{n}$ denotes the baryon number density. So if we use the relationship between the Lagrangian perturbation $\Delta\tilde{\rho}$ and Eulerian perturbation $\delta\tilde{\rho}$ such as $$\Delta \tilde{\rho}
\simeq \delta \tilde{\rho} + \tilde{\xi}^r\partial_r\tilde{\rho},$$ we can express the Eulerian density variation as $$\delta \tilde{\rho} = (\tilde{\rho} + \tilde{P})\frac{\Delta \tilde{n}}{\tilde{n}}
- \frac{\tilde{\rho}'W}{r^2}Y_{\ell m}.$$ Additionally, with the definition of the adiabatic constant $$\gamma \equiv \left(\frac{\partial\ln\tilde{P}}{\partial\ln\tilde{n}}\right)_s
= \frac{\tilde{n}\Delta\tilde{P}}{\tilde{P}\Delta\tilde{n}},
\label{eq:gamma-def}$$ we can derive the Eulerian variation of the pressure; $$\delta \tilde{P} = \gamma \tilde{P}\frac{\Delta \tilde{n}}{\tilde{n}} - \frac{\tilde{P}'W}{r^2}Y_{\ell m}.$$ It notes that with Eqs. (\[eq:1st-law\]) and (\[eq:gamma-def\]) we can get the useful expression for $\gamma$ as $$\gamma = \frac{\tilde{\rho} + \tilde{P}}{\tilde{P}}\left(\frac{\partial \tilde{P}}{\partial\tilde{\rho}}\right)_s.$$ Finally, the Lagrangian variation of the baryon number density, which comes on the expressions of $\delta\tilde{\rho}$ and $\delta\tilde{P}$, is determined by the relation as $$\frac{\Delta\tilde{n}}{\tilde{n}}
= -\tilde{\nabla}_k^{(3)}\tilde{\xi}^k - \frac{\delta\tilde{g}}{2\tilde{g}},$$ where $\tilde{\nabla}_k^{(3)}$ and $\tilde{g}$ denote the covariant derivative in a 3-dimension with metric $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ and the determinant of $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$, respectively. In this article, since we assume the Cowling approximation the second term is neglected. Then the Lagrangian variation of the baryon number density can be written as $$\frac{\Delta \tilde{n}}{\tilde{n}} = -\left[W' + \frac{1}{2}\left(\zeta' - 6\varphi'\right)W
+ \ell(\ell + 1)V\right]\frac{1}{r^2}Y_{\ell m}.$$
Finally we can get the equations describing the fluid perturbations by taking a variation of the energy-momentum conservation law, $\tilde{\nabla}_\nu\tilde{T}^{\mu\nu}=0$. With Cowling approximation, this equation becomes $\tilde{\nabla}_\nu\delta\tilde{T}^{\mu\nu}=0$. The explicit forms with $\mu=r,\theta$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_r\left[\frac{\gamma\tilde{P}}{r^2}\left\{W'+\frac{1}{2}\left(\zeta'-6\varphi'\right)W
+ \ell(\ell+1)V\right\}+\frac{\tilde{P}'W}{r^2}\right] - \left(\tilde{\rho}+\tilde{P}\right)
e^{-4\varphi-\nu+\zeta}\frac{\ddot{W}}{r^2} \nonumber \\
- \frac{\tilde{\rho}' + \tilde{P}'}{\tilde{\rho} + \tilde{P}}
\left[\frac{\gamma\tilde{P}}{r^2}\left\{W'+\frac{1}{2}\left(\zeta'-6\varphi'\right)W
+ \ell(\ell+1)V\right\}+\frac{\tilde{P}'W}{r^2}\right] = 0, \label{eq:perturbation1} \\
\left(\tilde{\rho} + \tilde{P}\right)e^{-4\varphi-\nu}\ddot{V}
+ \frac{\gamma\tilde{P}}{r^2}\left\{W'+\frac{1}{2}\left(\zeta'-6\varphi'\right)W
+ \ell(\ell+1)V\right\}+\frac{\tilde{P}'W}{r^2} = 0, \label{eq:perturbation2}\end{aligned}$$ where we use the relation that $\delta\tilde{\rho}/\delta\tilde{P}=\tilde{\rho}'/\tilde{P}'$ and Eq. (\[eq:tov\]). By assuming a harmonic dependence on time, the perturbative variables will be written as $W(t,r)=W(r)e^{i\omega t}$ and $V(t,r)=V(r)e^{i\omega t}$. To make the above equations simpler, by calculating the combination of the form $d(\ref{eq:perturbation2})/dr-(\ref{eq:perturbation1})$ and substituting Eq. (\[eq:perturbation2\]) again, we can get $$V' = \left(4\varphi' + \nu'\right)V - e^{\zeta}\frac{W}{r^2}. \label{eq:perturbation3}$$ Thus, from Eqs. (\[eq:perturbation2\]) and (\[eq:perturbation3\]), we can obtain the following simple equation system for the perturbations of fluid; $$\begin{aligned}
W' &= \frac{d\tilde{\rho}}{d\tilde{P}}\left[\omega^2r^2e^{-4\varphi-\nu}V
+ \frac{1}{2}\left(2\varphi' + \nu'\right)W\right] + \frac{1}{2}\left(6\varphi'-\zeta'\right)W
- \ell(\ell+1)V, \label{eq:master1} \\
V' &= \left(4\varphi' + \nu'\right)V - e^{\zeta}\frac{W}{r^2}. \label{eq:master2}\end{aligned}$$ With the appropriate boundary conditions at the center and stellar surface, the above equation system constitutes an eigenvalue problem for the parameter $\omega$. One can find the behavior of $W$ and $V$ near the stellar center as $W(r)=Br^{\ell+1}+{\cal O}(r^{\ell+3})$ and $V(r)=-B r^\ell/\ell + {\cal O}(r^{\ell+2})$, where $B$ is an arbitrary constant, while the boundary condition at the stellar surface is the vanishing the Lagrangian perturbation of the pressure, i.e., $\Delta\tilde{P}=0$. Since the Lagrangian perturbation of the pressure is described by $\Delta\tilde{P}=\gamma\tilde{P}\Delta\tilde{n}/\tilde{n}$, with a help of Eq. (\[eq:master1\]) we can get the boundary condition at the stellar surface as $$2\omega^2r^2e^{-4\varphi-\nu}V + \left(2\varphi' + \nu'\right)W = 0.$$
Oscillation Spectra {#sec:IV}
===================
With respect to the neutron star models shown in Sec. \[sec:II\], in this section we examine the stellar oscillations. Especially, we focus on the stellar models whose central density is in the range from $\tilde{\rho}_0=10^{14}$ g/cm$^3$ up to the value given the maximum ADM mass. The stellar parameters with maximum ADM mass are summarized in Tables \[tab:EOSA\] and \[tab:EOSII\], where $\varphi_0$ and $z$ are central value of $\varphi$ and surface redshift, respectively. In general, the oscillation spectrum is directly related to the stellar parameter, such as mass, radius and EOS, but the frequencies of fundamental oscillation modes, i.e., $f$ modes, can be connected to the stellar average density, $(M_{\rm ADM}/R^3)^{1/2}$. This reason is physically explained by considering the relation between the sound speed and the time that fluid perturbation needs to propagate across the star. Actually, for the stellar models in GR, Andersson & Kokkotas found the empirical formula for the frequency of $f$ mode as a function of stellar average density [@Andersson1998]. The $f$ mode frequencies for the stellar models in GR constructed with almost all EOS are subject to this empirical formula. While, the frequencies of $f$ mode for the stellar models in TeVeS with above two EOS are shown in Fig. \[fig:density-omega\]. The deviation from GR is clearly cognized for typical neutron stars and depending on the value of parameter $K$, the frequencies become around 20 % larger than those expected in a general relativistic neutron star. This can be an observable effect and one might distinguish the gravitational theory in strong gravitational field by using the observations of gravitational waves.
$K$ $M_{\rm ADM}/M_\odot$ $\tilde{\rho}_0$ \[g/cm$^3$\] $R$ \[km\] $\varphi_0$ $M_{\rm ADM}/R$ $z$
----- ----------------------- ------------------------------- ------------ ----------------------- ----------------- --------- --
0.2 $1.56$ $3.54 \times 10^{15}$ $8.36$ $8.10 \times 10^{-4}$ $0.271$ $0.479$
0.5 $1.42$ $3.30 \times 10^{15}$ $7.60$ $1.26 \times 10^{-3}$ $0.265$ $0.459$
1.0 $1.15$ $3.00 \times 10^{15}$ $6.16$ $1.91 \times 10^{-3}$ $0.255$ $0.433$
1.5 $0.81$ $2.81 \times 10^{15}$ $4.32$ $2.48 \times 10^{-3}$ $0.248$ $0.414$
1.9 $0.36$ $2.70 \times 10^{15}$ $1.92$ $2.90 \times 10^{-3}$ $0.242$ $0.401$
: Stellar parameters for models with EOS A and with maximum ADM mass, where we choose that $k=0.03$ and $\varphi_c=0.003$.
\[tab:EOSA\]
$K$ $M_{\rm ADM}/M_\odot$ $\tilde{\rho}_0$ \[g/cm$^3$\] $R$ \[km\] $\varphi_0$ $M_{\rm ADM}/R$ $z$
----- ----------------------- ------------------------------- ------------ ----------------------- ----------------- --------- --
0.2 $1.84$ $2.40 \times 10^{15}$ $10.32$ $9.38 \times 10^{-4}$ $0.259$ $0.441$
0.5 $1.67$ $2.25 \times 10^{15}$ $9.39$ $1.35 \times 10^{-3}$ $0.253$ $0.425$
1.0 $1.36$ $2.06 \times 10^{15}$ $7.63$ $1.96 \times 10^{-3}$ $0.245$ $0.403$
1.5 $0.96$ $1.92 \times 10^{15}$ $5.36$ $2.51 \times 10^{-3}$ $0.238$ $0.385$
1.9 $0.43$ $1.80 \times 10^{15}$ $2.40$ $2.91 \times 10^{-3}$ $0.231$ $0.370$
: Stellar parameters for models with EOS II and with maximum ADM mass, where we choose that $k=0.03$ and $\varphi_c=0.003$.
\[tab:EOSII\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The frequency of $f$ mode as a function of the stellar average density, $(M_{\rm ADM}/R^3)^{1/2}$, where $f_f$ is defined as $f_f\equiv \omega_f/(2\pi)$. The solid line corresponds to the frequency in GR, while the other broken lines are corresponding to the frequencies in TeVeS with several values of $K$. Notice that the unit of average density is \[1/km\] in the geometrical unit, where $c=G=1$. []{data-label="fig:density-omega"}](A-density-omega "fig:") ![The frequency of $f$ mode as a function of the stellar average density, $(M_{\rm ADM}/R^3)^{1/2}$, where $f_f$ is defined as $f_f\equiv \omega_f/(2\pi)$. The solid line corresponds to the frequency in GR, while the other broken lines are corresponding to the frequencies in TeVeS with several values of $K$. Notice that the unit of average density is \[1/km\] in the geometrical unit, where $c=G=1$. []{data-label="fig:density-omega"}](II-density-omega "fig:")
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The possibility to probe the gravitational theory by using observations of gravitational waves can be also seen in Fig. \[fig:M-omega\], where we plot the normalized frequencies of $f$ and $p_1$ modes as functions of ADM mass. In the figures, the solid line denotes the frequency in GR while the other broken lines are corresponding to those in TeVeS with several values of $K$. One can easily observe that the frequencies expected in TeVeS are quite different from those in GR. Since this distinction results from the difference of gravitational theory, which creates due to the presence of scalar field, observing more than one mode of gravitational wave could tell us the existence of the scalar field. This statement might become more obvious by seeing the dependence of frequencies of gravitational waves on the parameter $K$. In Fig. \[fig:K-omega\], we plot the normalized frequencies of the first four modes, i.e., $f$, $p_1$, $p_2$ and $p_3$, as functions of parameter $K$, where the ADM masses are fixed to be $1.4M_{\odot}$. The allowed maximum values of $K$ to produce the stellar models with $M_{\rm ADM}=1.4M_\odot$ are $K=0.54$ for EOS A and $K=0.94$ for EOS II. From these figures, we can see that the qualitative dependences of frequency on the value of $K$ are independent from EOS and kinds of eigen-mode. That is, the normalized frequencies of fluid modes are decreasing as the value of $K$ becomes large. On the other hand, it is also found that the higher overtone is quantitatively more sensitive against the value of $K$ than the lower modes. This point can be seen in Table \[tab:ratio\], where we summarize the ratio of difference between the frequencies for the stellar models with $K=0.05$ and with the allowed maximum values of $K$. In other words, the frequencies of higher overtone is more helpful to distinguish TeVeS from GR via the gravitational wave observations. Anyway, through Figs. \[fig:M-omega\] and \[fig:K-omega\], we can find that with a help of observation of stellar mass, it is possible to probe the gravitational theory in the strong-field regime by using observations of gravitational waves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The normalized frequencies of first two fluid modes are plotted as functions of the ADM mass, where upper and lower panels are corresponding to $f$ and $p_1$ modes, respectively. In these figures, the solid line corresponds to the frequency in GR, while the other broken lines are corresponding to the frequencies in TeVeS with several values of $K$. []{data-label="fig:M-omega"}](A-f-M-omega "fig:") ![The normalized frequencies of first two fluid modes are plotted as functions of the ADM mass, where upper and lower panels are corresponding to $f$ and $p_1$ modes, respectively. In these figures, the solid line corresponds to the frequency in GR, while the other broken lines are corresponding to the frequencies in TeVeS with several values of $K$. []{data-label="fig:M-omega"}](II-f-M-omega "fig:")
![The normalized frequencies of first two fluid modes are plotted as functions of the ADM mass, where upper and lower panels are corresponding to $f$ and $p_1$ modes, respectively. In these figures, the solid line corresponds to the frequency in GR, while the other broken lines are corresponding to the frequencies in TeVeS with several values of $K$. []{data-label="fig:M-omega"}](A-p1-M-omega "fig:") ![The normalized frequencies of first two fluid modes are plotted as functions of the ADM mass, where upper and lower panels are corresponding to $f$ and $p_1$ modes, respectively. In these figures, the solid line corresponds to the frequency in GR, while the other broken lines are corresponding to the frequencies in TeVeS with several values of $K$. []{data-label="fig:M-omega"}](II-p1-M-omega "fig:")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![For the stellar models with $M_{\rm ADM}=1.4M_\odot$, the normalized eigenvalues $\omega$ of the first few modes ($f$, $p_1$, $p_2$ and $p_3$) are shown as functions of parameter $K$ with EOS A (solid lines) and EOS II (broken line). The values of $k$ and $\varphi_c$ are fixed as $k=0.03$ and $\varphi_c=0.003$, respectively. []{data-label="fig:K-omega"}](f-K-omega "fig:") ![For the stellar models with $M_{\rm ADM}=1.4M_\odot$, the normalized eigenvalues $\omega$ of the first few modes ($f$, $p_1$, $p_2$ and $p_3$) are shown as functions of parameter $K$ with EOS A (solid lines) and EOS II (broken line). The values of $k$ and $\varphi_c$ are fixed as $k=0.03$ and $\varphi_c=0.003$, respectively. []{data-label="fig:K-omega"}](p1-K-omega "fig:")
![For the stellar models with $M_{\rm ADM}=1.4M_\odot$, the normalized eigenvalues $\omega$ of the first few modes ($f$, $p_1$, $p_2$ and $p_3$) are shown as functions of parameter $K$ with EOS A (solid lines) and EOS II (broken line). The values of $k$ and $\varphi_c$ are fixed as $k=0.03$ and $\varphi_c=0.003$, respectively. []{data-label="fig:K-omega"}](p2-K-omega "fig:") ![For the stellar models with $M_{\rm ADM}=1.4M_\odot$, the normalized eigenvalues $\omega$ of the first few modes ($f$, $p_1$, $p_2$ and $p_3$) are shown as functions of parameter $K$ with EOS A (solid lines) and EOS II (broken line). The values of $k$ and $\varphi_c$ are fixed as $k=0.03$ and $\varphi_c=0.003$, respectively. []{data-label="fig:K-omega"}](p3-K-omega "fig:")
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mode EOS A EOS II
------- -- ----------- -- -----------
$f$ $10.28\%$ $12.89\%$
$p_1$ $15.21\%$ $18.18\%$
$p_2$ $17.88\%$ $20.73\%$
$p_3$ $19.23\%$ $21.89\%$
: The relative frequency change of each eigen-mode in Fig. \[fig:K-omega\] defined as $(\omega_{K=0.05}-\omega_{K=max})/\omega_{K=0.05}$, where $\omega_{K=0.05}$ and $\omega_{K=max}$ denote the frequencies for the stellar models with $K=0.05$ and with the allowed maximum values of $K$, respectively.
\[tab:ratio\]
Conclusion {#sec:V}
==========
In this article, to examine the effect of the Tensor-Vector-Scalar (TeVeS) Theory on the oscillation spectra of neutron stars, we have derived the perturbation equations of neutron stars in TeVeS and calculated their eigen-frequencies. Depending on the parameter of TeVeS, the frequencies of fundamental oscillation could be off the well-known empirical formula in GR and they become lager than those expected in GR. We can also see the deviation from GR in the frequencies of higher overtones and they have stronger dependence on the parameter $K$ than the lower oscillation modes. Since these imprints of TeVeS come from the presence of scalar field, by using the observations of gravitational waves associated with the stellar oscillations, it will be possible not only to distinguish the gravitational theory in the strong-field regime, but also to probe the existence of the scalar field.
For simplicity, we assumed the Cowling approximation in this study, which restricts our examination to only stellar oscillations. This means that we should do more detailed study including the metric, vector and scalar fields perturbations. Via these oscillations, we could obtain the additional information in the gravitational spectrum, and combining those with results shown in this article would provide more accurate constrains on the gravitational theory in the strong-field regime. Furthermore the introduction of the stellar magnetic effect might be also important. For example, recent observation of quasi-periodic oscillation in the giant flares are believed to be related to the oscillations of strong magnetized neutron stars [@Sotani2007; @Sotani2008; @Sotani2009]. Considering the magnetic effects, one might be able to get the further constraint in the theory.
We thank K.D. Kokkotas for valuable comments. This work was supported via the Transregio 7 “Gravitational Wave Astronomy" financed by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG (German Research Foundation).
[999]{} D. Psaltis, $preprint$ (0806.1531 \[astro-ph\]).
S. DeDeo and D. Psaltis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 141101 (2003).
H. Sotani and K.D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 084026 (2004); [**71**]{}, 124038 (2005).
T. Damour and G. Esposito-Far[\` e]{}se, Classical Quantum Gravity [**9**]{}, 2093 (1992).
C.M. Will, Living Rev. Relativity [**4**]{}, (2001).
J.D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 083509 (2004).
M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J. [**270**]{}, 365 (1983).
D.M. Chen and H.S. Zhao, Astrophys. J. [**650**]{}, L9 (2006).
C. Skordis $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 011301 (2006).
S. Dodelson and M. Liguori, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 231301 (2006).
D. Giannios, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 103511 (2005).
E. Sagi and D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 024010 (2008).
C.R. Contaldi, T. Wiseman, and B. Withers, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 044034 (2008).
P.D. Lasky, H. Sotani, and D. Giannios, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 104019 (2008).
N. Andersson and K.D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 4134 (1996).
H. Sotani, K. Tominaga, and K.I. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 024010 (2001).
H. Sotani and T. Harada, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 024019 (2003); H. Sotani, K. Kohri, and T. Harada, [*ibid*]{} [**69**]{}, 084008 (2004).
A. Stavridis, A. Passamonti, and K.D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 064019 (2007).
M. Vavoulidis, K.D. Kokkotas, and A. Stavridis, Mon. Not. R. Astron Soc. [**384**]{}, 1711 (2008).
H. Sotani and M. Saijo, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 024001 (2006).
H. Sotani, S. Yoshida, and K.D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 084015 (2007).
C.M. Will, $Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics$ (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993).
J.M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Astrophys. J. [**550**]{}, 426 (2001).
S. Yoshida and Y. Kojima, Mon. Not. R. Astron Soc. [**289**]{}, 117 (1997).
N. Andersson and K.D. Kokkotas, Mon. Not. R. Astron Soc. [**299**]{}, 1059 (1998).
H. Sotani, K.D. Kokkotas, and N. Stergioulas, Mon. Not. R. Astron Soc. [**375**]{}, 261 (2007); [**385**]{}, L5 (2008).
H. Sotani, A. Colaiuda, and K.D. Kokkotas, Mon. Not. R. Astron Soc. [**385**]{}, 2161 (2008).
H. Sotani and K.D. Kokkotas, accepted in Mon. Not. R. Astron Soc., $preprint$ (0902.1490 \[astro-ph\]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**EXPERIMENTAL INTRODUCTION TO EXTRA DIMENSIONS**]{} [^1]
M. BESANÇON
CEA-Saclay, DAPNIA/SPP, Bat. 141. 91191 Gif sur Yvette, France\
[**abstract.**]{}\
A short review of phenomenological and experimental aspects of extra spatial dimensions at colliders is presented.\
Introduction
============
How old is the idea of extra spatial dimensions ? The answer to this question appears to deeply vary wether you ask, among others, religion [@kabal], literature, philosophy, mathematics or physics. Focusing on physics, the first serious discussions of extra spatial dimensions seem to bring us at the beginning of last century with the work of Nordström [@nord], Kaluza [@kalu], Klein [@klei] and then Einstein and Bergmann [@ein] who already tackled the problem of unifying the electromagnetic interaction with the gravitational interaction.
Although supergravity theories formulated up to 11 spacetime dimensions and superstring theories in 10 spacetime dimensions (10d) were known since the 70’ and 80’ [@string], still pursuing the goal of unifying all the known interactions, the idea of extra spatial dimensions received recently a new impulse. Actually, efforts of undertanding spontaneous supersymmetry breaking by compactification in the context of string theories lead already to the possibility of having extra spatial dimensions at the TeV scale [@anto1]. Afterwards, a better understanding of the role of branes in superstrings theories and the relation between the five 10d superstrings theories in terms of duality symetries, leading to the existence of a M-theory, having the 11d supergravity theory as its low energy limit, has been exploited up to the striking statement that the fundamental string scale is viewed as an arbitrary scale which can be, formally, as low as the TeV scale [@brane] thus leading to the possibility of having extra spatial dimensions at this scale. Futhermore, the proposal of having the standard model (SM) fields of particle physics confined on a 4d subspace (brane) living in a $(4+n)$d space with $n$ compact extra spatial dimensions where the gravitational interaction lives [@add] and arguing a TeV scale as the fundamental scale for the gravitational interaction in this $(4+n)$d space lead to the possibility of having large compact extra spatial dimensions i.e. of the mm size as well as an automatic mean of solving the hierarchy problem of the SM. It is quite remarkable that this last proposal, often referred as the ADD approach, can be embedded within the context of string theories [@aadd]. Even more recently, the set-up with two 4d branes (one of which containing the SM fields) living in a 5d space with an anti-De-Sitter (AdS) geometry provides an additional scenario and more impulse to the idea of extra spatial dimensions. This approach is often referred as the model with warped extra spatial dimension or the Randall-Sundrum (RS) model [@rs].
We don’t experience more than 3 spatial dimensions in our everyday life. This means that extra spatial dimensions wether compact (i.e. up to 6 compact extra space dimensions within superstring theories or 7 in M-theory) or warped (i.e. 1 within the Randall-Sundrum approach) are hidden because their sizes are still smaller than what can be resolved by our past and past/present experimental apparatus. More performing experimental apparatus for new measurements of the gravitational law between test bodies being separated by distances below the O(1 mm) scale where compact extra spatial dimensions are supposed to manifest are now being designed and/or taking data. This field of activities is described elsewhere in these proceedings, see [@fish] and [@josh].
At colliders, extra spatial dimensions, manifest themselves through the production of Kaluza-Klein states. In the presence of an compact extra spatial dimension $y$, a field $\phi(x_{\mu},y)$ of mass $m_o$ is periodic over $y$ and can be Fourier developped: $$\phi(x_{\mu},y) =
\displaystyle \sum_{k=-\infty}^{+\infty}
e^{{{iky}\over{R}}}
{\phi^{(k)}(x_{\mu})}
\label{eq:kakl}$$ where $R$ stands for the radius of the compact extra spatial dimension. The 4d restriction ${\phi^{(k)}(x_{\mu})}$ of the field $\phi(x_{\mu},y)$ are the Kaluza Klein states (or modes or excitations) of $\phi(x_{\mu},y)$. The number Kaluza Klein states is infinite and Kaluza Klein states have masses given by $m^2_k = m^2_o + ({{k^2}/ {R^2}})$. In the following, the production and experimental signature of the various type of Kaluza-Klein states at colliders are discussed. The search for these signatures and present experimental results are discussed by E. Perez [@emma] in these proceedings. The search for extra-dimensions at future colliders are discussed by K. Benakli [@kar] also in these proceedings.
Compact extra spatial dimensions in flat geometry
=================================================
TeV Gravity alone
-----------------
In the ADD approach mentioned above, only the gravitational interaction lives in the complete space (bulk) made of the 4d subspace where the SM fields lives and of $n$ compact extra spatial dimensions (CESD). In this approach the known Planck mass scale in 4d can be related to the fundamental scale in the bulk i.e. $M_{Pl(4+n)} \equiv M_D$, by: $$M^2_{Pl(4)} = M^{n+2}_{Pl(4+n)} R^n
\label{eq:add}$$ where $R$ is the radius of the CESD. The magnitude of the 4d Planck mass scale is then understood as coming from a $O(1$TeV) fundamental scale $M_D$ in the bulk and large volumes from large CESD i.e. $R \sim 1$ mm for $n=2$ [^2]. A $O(1$TeV) fundamental scale automatically suppresses the hierarchy problem of the SM.
The graviton is the particle associated to the gravitational interaction in the bulk. This graviton is then a bulk graviton. The 4d SM fields couple to the 4d restriction of the bulk graviton namely its Kaluza-Klein (KK) states. This coupling is suppressed by the 4d Planck mass. However the smallness of this coupling is compensated by the mass degeneracy of KK-graviton states. The mass interval between 2 KK-graviton states is given by $ \Delta m \sim ( { M_D \over TeV } )^{{n+2}\over 2} 10^{ {12n-31 \over n} } $ which gives $\Delta m \sim 3 10^{-4} eV $ for $n=2$ and $M_D=$1 TeV. This compensation allows for sizeable cross-sections at colliders for processes involving the production of KK-graviton states [@grav].
At colliders, the direct production of KK-graviton states will depend mainly on the center-of-mass energies $E$ of the particles involved in the collision, the number $n$ of CESD and the scale $M_D$ namely $ \sigma \sim {E^{n} / {M^{n+2}_D}}$. The KK-graviton states produced are only 4d resctrictions of bulk gravitons so that 4d KK-gravitons disappear in the bulk (from our 4d point of view). In consequence, the direct production of KK-graviton states at colliders gives rise to events with a large missing energy component ($\not E$) in their signatures in a detector. For example, at $e^+e^-$ colliders, KK-graviton states can be produced in association with a $\gamma$ or a Z boson leading $\gamma \, \not E$ or $Z \, \not E$ signatures. At $pp$ or $p \bar p$ colliders the signatures for the production of KK-graviton states are jet $\not E$, $\gamma \, \not E$ and $Z \, \not E$. The detection and measurement of such signatures allow for direct measurements of the number of CESD and the scale $M_D$ [@grav]. Di-fermions or di-bosons production at $e^+e^-$, $pp$, $p \bar p$ or $ep$ colliders are also affected by processes involving KK-graviton states. These indirect effects are signed by deviations in differential cross-sections and asymmetries measurements with respect to the expectation from pure SM processes [@grav]. However, for $n\geq 2$, the cross-section of these indirect processes involving KK-graviton states are divergent. At the level of field theory calculations, a cut-off is usually imposed in order to remove theses divergencies. This cut-off is unfortunately related to the fundamental scale $M_D$ up to an arbitrary parameter usually and reasonably assumed to be of order 1. It is worth mentioning that at the level of string theories calculations, in particular in the context of type I string theory, the above divergencies can be regularized [@jiem].
Most of the searches for direct or indirect effects from large CESD at past and past/present colliders have been performed within this ADD approach of TeV Gravity alone. The results of these searches are discussed elsewhere in these proceedings [@emma]. The discussion of these signatures at future colliders are also discussed elsewhere in these proceedings [@kar].
One of the most stringent constraint on $M_D$ and/or the radius $R$ of CESD comes from the observation that KK-graviton states emission would have affected the energy release of supernova SN1987A [@hall]. This observation turns into the following constraints $M_D > 50 - 130$ TeV and $R < 3 \, 10^{-4}$ mm for $n=2$. However, in the derivation of these contraints, it is usually assumed that all large CESD radii are of the same order of magnitude leading to an isotropy-like assumption. This requirement seems still to be justified [@dvali].
Gravity in higher dimensional spaces does not only imply the existence of KK-graviton states in 4 dimensions but also spin 1 and spin 0 new KK-states which can interact with SM fields. The spin 0 states i.e. the graviscalars, couple to the SM fields via the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. The direct production of KK-graviscalars is suppressed relative to KK-graviton [@grw] due either to the anomaly loop factor (trace anomaly) or to additional power of $m^2_Z/E^2$. However, in the present field theory approach, it is possible to consider a mixing between KK-graviscalars and the Higgs boson which can lead to a sizeable invisible Higgs branching fraction. This invisible Higgs branching fraction can even reach values near 1, as seen in Fig. \[fig:grw\] from [@grw], depending of the conformal coupling responsible of the graviscalars-Higgs boson mixing thus having a great impact on Higgs boson search at the Tevatron and LHC.
Before ending this section it is worth emphasizing that the ADD approach can be embedded within string theories and in particular the type I string theory. More generally, when dealing with a quantum theory of gravitation, one has always to keep in mind that string theories are presently the best approaches for such a theory. The spectrum of string oscillations states does not only allow for zero mass states identified with the known particles but also for massive states whose masses are of the order of the string scale. If the string scale is lowered down to a scale of O(1) TeV then these massive states arise with the same mass and thus may contribute to observable effects at colliders. These stringy effects can even dominate those coming from pure KK-graviton states since their contribution to 4-points amplitudes appear as form factors containing correction of order $g_s (E/M_s)^4$ where $g_s \sim 1/25$ and $M_s$ are the string coupling and the string scale respectively while KK-graviton effects have $g^2_s (E/M_s)^4$ factors i.e. a $g^2_s$ dependence [@jiem].
Kaluza Klein gauge bosons
-------------------------
The embedding of the ADD approach within type I string theory and its brane point of view allows to enrich the spectrum of KK states as, in this framework, one is not only left with KK-graviton states coming from graviton in the usual perpendicular CESD but also to the possiblity of having KK-gauge bosons coming from the gauge bosons of the SM living in so-called parallel CESD [@acco]. The possibility of producing KK-gauge bosons at colliders has been actually already discussed in [@vieil]. It has also been realized that in the context of compactified type IIB string theory KK-excitations states having gauge interactions can arise while the gravity becomes strong at scales kept at $O(10^{9})$ TeV [@boris].
The effects of KK-gauge bosons can be either seen by their effects on electroweak observables in precision measurements or in particles production at colliders. The analysis of the effects of KK-gauge bosons on electroweak (EW) observables often requires some generic assumptions such as, 1) the non influence of gravitational effects, 2) only one extra dimension usually compactified on the $S^1/Z_2$ orbifold, where the $Z_2$ symmetry appears to be useful to introduce fermions chirality on the 4d branes localized at the fixed points of the orbifold, 3) the choice of the reference model i.e. SM, MSSM or even NMSSM and finally 4) the localization of the fields i.e. for the SM, the fermions on the 4d branes localized on the fixed point of the above orbifold, the gauge fields in the 5d bulk and the Higgs field either in the brane or in the bulk. In addition, the effective 5d gauge coupling ${\hat {g}}$ is often given in terms of the 4d gauge coupling $g$ i.e. ${\hat {g}}^2 \sim g^2 R$ where $R \sim 1/ M_c$ is the radius of the parallel CESD and $M_c$ the scale of this parallel CESD. This effective gauge coupling in 5d has been shown to be finite while for more than one parallel CESD the effective gauge coupling is divergent. However, in the context of string theories, the brane configuration has to be taken into account in order to define the gauge coupling which can then be regularized. The results in terms of constraints on $R$ or $M_c$ from EW precision measaurement is given elsewhere in these proceedings [@emma]. In order to fix the order of magnitude on $M_c$, a global fit from the EW precision measurements from the LEP experiments allows to derive $M_c > 3.5$ TeV [@riwe].
At this stage, it is important to note that grand unification at intermediate mass scales through extra dimensions has been discussed in [@ddg] as early as the ADD scenario. This analysis involves the MSSM as the reference model, and it has been shown that the gauge couplings unification might be brought down to low energy scales due to the presence of KK-states, including KK-gauge bosons. These KK-states are responsible for a power law contribution to the running of the gauge couplings.
At colliders, KK-gauge bosons can be directly produced as resonances if their masses are kinematically accessible. The KK-gauge bosons decay into pairs of leptons or into pairs of quarks giving rise to 2 hadronic jets. The masses of these KK-gauge bosons are then given by the 2-leptons invariant mass (or transverse mass) or by the 2-jets invariant mass. If their masses are not kinematically accessible, the effects of KK-gauge bosons is signed by deviations in differential cross-sections and asymmetries measurements with respect to the expectation from pure SM processes. Moreover, the clean environment of leptonic colliders allows for a measurement of the KK-gauge bosons coupling to fermions thus allowing for a possible model disentangling [@rizzo]. The perspectives for direct or indirect signals for KK-gauge bosons at future colliders are given elsewhere in these proceedings [@kar].
Warped extra spatial dimension
==============================
Another approach for extra spatial dimensions has been proposed in [@rs]. In this scenario two 4d branes with tensions $V$ and $V^{\prime}$ are situated at $y=0$ and $y=\pi r_c$ of a 5d bulk with cosmological constant $\lambda$ where gravitation lives. With this setup, the metric $ds^2 = e^{-2k|y|} \eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu} + dy^2$, where k is a scale factor of the order of the 4d Planck scale, is a solution of Einstein equations provided $V=V^{\prime}=24\, M^3_5k$ and $\Lambda = - 24 \, M^3_5k^2$ i.e. a negative cosmological constant in the bulk thus corresponding to an Anti-De Sitter (AdS) geometry. The factor $e^{-2k|y|}$ which is in front on the usual 4d part of the metric and which depends on the 5th dimension is often referred as the warp factor.
One of the interesting consequence of this approach comes from the observation that a fundamental mass scale on the brane at $y=0$ is red-shifted by this warp factor on the other brane at $y=\pi r_c$. Thus, with $k r_c \sim 12 $ a O(1) TeV mass scale can be produced from the Planck mass scale which can provide a hint for the understanding of the hierarchy between the EW scale and the 4d Planck mass scale.
In constrast to the ADD approach, the 4d Planck mass is now given by: $${\bar M}^2_{Pl} = { M^3_5 \over k } [ 1 - e^{-2kr_c\pi} ]
\label{eq:rspl}$$ which remains well defined even for $r_c \rightarrow \infty$. Furthermore, also in constrast to the ADD approach, the KK expansion of the graviton is now given in terms of linear combinations of Bessel functions and thus the masses of KK-graviton, expected to be $O(1)$ TeV, are no longer equally spaced but are then given by $ m_n = x_n k e^{-k \pi r_c} $ where $x_n$ are roots of Bessel functions. The coupling of the KK-graviton 0-mode state to the fields of the SM is suppressed by the 4d Planck mass. Nevertheless, the non-zero modes can be directly produced at colliders if kinematically accessible since their coupling to the SM fields is only suppressed by the 4d Planck mass red-shifted by the warp factor i.e. $1 / (e^{-k\pi r_c} M_{Pl})$. The phenomenology of warped extra dimension (WED) usually depends on 2 parameters $e^{-k\pi r_c}$ and $k/M_{Pl}$.
At colliders such as the Tevatron or the LHC, KK-graviton states from WED can be produced as resonances. These resonances then decay predominantly into two hadronic jets [@hew] and this channel channel dominates the other channels i.e. $W^+W^-$, $ZZ$, $l^+l^-$, $t\bar t$ and $hh$. Although not the dominant channel, the two leptons channel $l^+l^-$ allows for a clean signature of the KK-graviton from WED at hadronic colliders such as the LHC. Then the measurement of the two leptons invariant mass allows to measure the mass of this KK-graviton and the measurement of the (polar) angular differential cross-section allows to establish its spin. Fig. \[fig:rs\] from [@hew] shows the allowed region for the 1st KK-graviton state of mass $m_1$ and with $\Lambda_{\pi} = {\bar M}_{Pl} e^{-kr_c\pi}$. The oblique parameters lines come from a global fit to the S and T oblique parameters [@pes].
Radion phenomenology
--------------------
In this WED approach, $r_c$ is associated with the vacuum expectation value of a massless 4d scalar field which is known as the modulus field or the radion. The presence of a scalar field in the bulk with interaction terms localized on the branes, allows to stabilize the value of $r_c$ [@gw]. In order to have $k r_c \sim 12 $ as argued in the previous section, the radion, after stabilization, should be lighter than the KK-graviton states from WED and is then likely to be the first state accessible at colliders. The radion couples to the SM fields via the trace of the energy-momentum tensor with strength given by $1/\Lambda_{\phi}$ with $\Lambda_{\phi}=(\sqrt {24 M^3_5/k}) e^{-kr_c\pi}$. Fig. \[fig:ko\] from [@ko] shows the radion production cross section via gluon fusion at the Tevatron ($\sqrt {s} = 2$ TeV) and the LHC ($\sqrt {s} = 14$ TeV) compared to the Higgs production cross sections.
The radion decays predominantly into $W^+W^-$, $ZZ$, $hh$, $t \bar t$ if kinematically allowed, otherwise it decays mainly into a pair of gluons and, to a less extent, into $b \bar b$. The radion phenomenology is very similar to the SM Higgs boson except that its coupling to two gluons (production and decay) is enhanced by the trace anomaly. However, it is possible to consider a possible mixing between the Higgs boson and the radion [@grw] giving rise to two new eigenstates. These new eigenstates can have quite different branching fractions i.e. up to factors of order 50, in particular for the decays into $W^+W^-$ and $ZZ$ depending on the conformal coupling which is responsible of this Higgs-radion mixing.
Conclusions
===========
The recent new impulse given to the idea of extra spatial dimensions have led to a rich spectrum of approaches either in the flat geometry stream (ADD) and its embedding within stringy scenarios or in the warped geometry (RS) stream. The phenomenology connected to these various approaches is in its infancy and is still developping. These phenomenological developpements are carried out in connection with more fundamental/theoretical works in the hope to extract more motivated models. Many tests can already be performed at present and future experiments including sub-millimeter gravity measurement and experiments at present and future colliders. A short review of phenomenological and experimental aspects of extra spatial dimensions at colliders has been presented. However many topics not covered here are highly worth to be looked at. This includes topics such as fermions masses within branes worlds, phenomenology from the supersymmetrization of extra dimension models, EW and supersymmetry breaking within brane worlds not to speak about the impact of extra dimensions on astrophysics and cosmology.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
It is a pleasure to thanks the organizers of the session [*Very High Energy Phenomena in the Universe*]{} of the 36th [*Rencontres de Moriond*]{} and in particular Jacques Dumarchez for the invitation to give an experimental introduction on extra-dimensions. It is also a pleasure to thank K. Benakli, E. Fishbach, J. Long and E. Perez who have participated to this session for sharing a deep enthusiasm for the physics of extra-dimensions.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} For example, exegetic considerations of the first hebrew word of the torah with its letters turned into [*beshe’erit*]{} in place of the known [*bereshit*]{} may be difficult to date but can lead to interesting discussion to this respect. G. Nordström, Phys. Z. [**15**]{}, 504 (1914). T. Kaluza, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Math. Phys. K1, 966(1921). O. Klein, [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**37**]{}, 895 (1926) and Nature [**118**]{}, 516 (1926). A. Einstein and P. Bergmann, Ann. Math. [**39**]{}, 683 (1938). The list of references concerning supergravity theories and strings theories would be too long to be reproduced here in extenso and we refer the reader to:\
P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Supergravity, , M.B. Green, J.H. Schwartz and E. Witten, Superstring Theory, Cambridge University Press (1987), J. Polchinski, String Theory Cambridge University Press (1998), D. Bailin and A. love, Supersymmetric Gauge Field Theory and String Theory, Bristol (1994) and references therein. Again, the list of references concerning branes and dualities would be too long to be reproduced here and we refer the reader to:\
J.H. Schwarz, [*Nucl.Phys.*]{} Proc.Suppl. ([**55B**]{}), (1) (1997) \[hep-th/960720\], J. Polchinski, hep-th/9611050, E. Witten, \[hep-th/9503124\], J. Polchinski, E. Witten, \[hep-th/9510169\], J. Lykken, \[hep-th/9603133\], C. Vafa, hep-th/9702201, A. Sen, hep-th/9802051, C.P. Bachas, hep-th/9806199, I. Antoniadis, H. Partouche, T.R, Taylor, [*Nucl.Phys.*]{} Proc.Suppl. ([**61A**]{}), (58) (1998) \[hep-th/9706211\], I. Antoniadis, hep-th/0102202 and references therein I. Antoniadis, . N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, \[hep-ph/9803345\] I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, \[hep-ph/9804398\], G. Shiu and S.H. Tye \[hep-th/9805157\], I. Antoniadis, C. Bachas and E. Dudas, \[hep-th/9906039\], G. Aldazabal, L.E. Ibanez and F. Quevedo, [*JHEP*]{} [**0001**]{}, (031), (2000) \[hep-th/9909172\], I. Antoniadis and K. Benakli, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} ([**A15**]{}), (4237) (2000) \[hep-ph/0007226\] and references therein G.F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi and J.D. Wells, \[hep-ph/9811291\] see also E.A. Mirabelli, M. Perelstein and M.E. Peskin, \[hep-ph/9811337\], T. Han, J.D. Lykken and R. Zhang, \[hep-ph/9811350\], J.L. Hewett, \[hep-ph/9811356\]. E. Accomando, I. Antoniadis and K. Benakli, \[hep-ph/9912287\]. I. Antoniadis and K. Benakli, \[hep-th/9310151\], I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli and M. Quiros \[hep-ph/9403290\] I. Antoniadis and B. Pioline, \[hep-th/9902055\]. T.G. Rizzo and J. Wells, \[hep-ph/9906234\]. K.R Dienes, E. Dudas and T. Gherghetta, \[hep-ph/9806292\]. T.G. Rizzo, \[hep-ph/9909232\]. L. Randall and R. Sundrum and . E. Fischbach, these proceedings. J. Long, these proceedings. E. Perez, these proceedings. K. Benakli, these proceedings. E. Dudas and J. Mourad, \[hep-th/9911019\], E. Accomando, I. Antoniadis and K. Benakli, \[hep-ph/9912287\], S. Cullen, M. Perelstein and M.E. Peskin, \[hep-ph/0001166\]. L.J. Hall and D. Smith, see also I. Antoniadis and K. Benakli hep-ph/0004240. private communication. H. Davoudiasl, J.L. Hewett and T.G. Rizzo, \[hep-ph/0006041\] M.E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, and . W.D. Goldberger and M.B. Wise, \[hep-ph/9907218\], \[hep-ph/9907447\] and \[hep-ph/9911457\]. S.B. Bae, P. Ko, H.S. Lee and J. Lee, \[hep-ph/0002224\], see also U. Mahanta, \[hep-ph/0002049\] and \[hep-ph/0002183\]. G.F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi and J.D. Wells, \[hep-ph/0002178\].
[^1]: Invited talk given at the session [*Very High Energy Phenomena in the Universe*]{} of the 36th [*Rencontres de Moriond*]{} Les Arcs, France (January 20-27, 2001)
[^2]: The above relation between the 4d Planck scale and the fundamental scale in the bulk can be derived by using the Gauss law. It can also be derived within the context of type $I/I^{\prime}$ string theory
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Toroidally compactified Yang-Mills theory on the lattice is studied by using the Hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm. When the compact dimensions are small, the theory naturally reduces to Yang-Mills with scalars. We confirm previous analytical and numerical results for pure gauge theory with scalars in $(0+1)$ dimensions and at high temperatures to Super-Yang-Mills in $(1+1)$ dimensions. In $(1+1)$ dimensions, our simulations confirm the previously conjectured phase diagram. Furthermore, we find evidence for the sequential breaking of the center symmetry in $(1+1)$ dimensions as a function of the volume. In $(3+1)$ dimensions we present first simulation results for the eigenvalue distribution of the Polyakov and Wilson loops, finding localized, non-uniform and center-symmetric configurations as a function of the lattice coupling.'
author:
- Masanori Hanada
- Paul Romatschke
bibliography:
- 'sun.bib'
title: 'Lattice Simulations of 10d Yang-Mills toroidally compactified to 1d, 2d and 4d'
---
Introduction
============
Toroidally compactified Yang-Mills theories on a $d$-dimensional lattice are of interest for several reasons. The case of $d=4$ has obvious applications to QCD; sometimes calculations simplify at small volume, and one can have some hope to learn lessons about the large-volume theory; see e.g. Refs. [@Eguchi:1982nm; @Luscher:1982ma; @Unsal:2008ch; @Narayanan:2003fc]. Another important application is the gauge-Higgs unification scenario; just as a four-dimensional vector field is obtained from the five-dimensional metric via the Kaluza-Klein mechanism [@Kaluza:1921tu; @Klein:1926tv], scalars in four dimensions can be obtained from five-dimensional vectors via compactification; see e.g. Refs. [@Manton:1979kb; @Hosotani:1983xw] for previous work on this subject. Certain phenomenological models with large extra dimensions, such as the universal extra dimensions [@Appelquist:2000nn], add further motivations. Lattice studies along these directions can be found e.g. in Refs. [@Ejiri:2000fc; @Irges:2009bi; @deForcrand:2010be; @Akerlund:2015poa; @Knechtli:2016pph]. Yet another application comes from supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory and superstring theory; the compactification of the $d=10$ SU($N$) theory to $p$ dimensions leads to Yang-Mills theory with $d-p$ adjoint scalars, which is the bosonic part of the maximal Super-Yang-Mills theory describing $N$-coincident D$(p-1)$-branes. As demonstrated in Refs. [@Aharony:2004ig; @Aharony:2005ew], such a theory is useful for understanding the phase diagram of $(p+1)$-dimensional Super-Yang-Mills, by interpreting the former to be the high-temperature limit of the latter. The main argument behind this connection is the fact that in this limit the fermions acquire a large thermal mass due to antiperiodic boundary conditions in the temporal direction, and therefore effectively do not contribute to some observables[^1]
In all these cases, the $(\mathbb{Z}_N)^d$ center symmetry plays a crucial role. This symmetry is characterized by $W_i\to e^{2\pi i n_i/N}W_i$, $n_i\in\mathbb{Z}$, where $W_i$ is the Wilson line winding on the $i$-th dimension (see section \[sec:numerical\_setup\] for a lattice definition). The center symmetry along each direction can be broken when that direction is small. Dimensional reduction can make sense after the center symmetry has been broken.
From string theory point of view, this transition can be interpreted as the black hole/black string transition or its higher-dimensional analogue [@Aharony:2004ig; @Aharony:2005ew; @Hanada:2007wn].
In this paper we use the Hybrid Monte Carlo method for studying this theory. Firstly, as a sanity check, we study the $d=10$ theory on an $N_t\times 1^9$ lattice, which reduces to a $(0+1)$-dimensional theory with 9 scalars in the continuum limit. We observe good agreement with previous simulation result [@Aharony:2004ig; @Kawahara:2007fn].
Next we consider the compactification to two dimensions, by taking the lattice size to be $N_t\times N_s\times 1^8$. The lattice spacing $a$ is taken to be the same for all directions. At sufficiently small lattice spacing, the theory reduces to two-dimensional Yang-Mills with 8 scalars. Although the scalars can acquire mass through radiative corrections, we expect this mass to grow only logarithmically with the lattice spacing and hence it likely is not important for the small lattices used in this paper; we can expect our simulation results to be close to the massless theory, which is the bosonic part of maximally supersymmetric two-dimensional Yang-Mills theory. This begs the natural question: how close are the two theories, or in other words, how important are the effects from fermions? One clear difference is that the supersymmetric theory has only a deconfined phase, while the bosonic theory has both confined and deconfined phases. As we will see, deep in the deconfined phase, our simulation results for the bosonic theory are very close to the results for the supersymmetric theory obtained before by Catterall, Joseph and Wiseman [@Catterall:2010fx] (see also [@Giguere:2015cga] for other simulation results on the same theory and [@Joseph:2015xwa] for a review of this and related topics).
By using the same simulation code, it is possible to study classical real-time dynamics without fermions. The observation that bosonic and supersymmetric theories give close results suggests that the classical treatment could offer a potentially quantitatively good description in the deconfined phase. Previous studies in other dimensions, e.g. about the thermalization [@Asplund:2011qj; @Asplund:2012tg; @Aoki:2015uha] and scrambling [@Kunihiro:2010tg; @Gur-Ari:2015rcq], might be justified in this way. It would be interesting if various real-time aspects of string theory, such as the fast scrambling [@Sekino:2008he; @Shenker:2013pqa; @Maldacena:2015waa] and the black hole/black string topology change [@Gregory:1993vy; @Choptuik:2003qd; @Aharony:2004ig; @Catterall:2010fx], could be studied in a similar manner.
In the remainder of this work we study the dynamics of the theory on an $N_t\times N_s^3\times 1^6$ lattice, which can be thought to approximate ${\cal N}=4$ Super-Yang-Mills (SYM) in $(3+1)$ dimensions in the high-temperature limit. We map out the location of the deconfinement transition on various lattice sizes and calculate the corresponding thermodynamic pressure as a function of the lattice coupling. We then continue to demonstrate that simulating the full ten-dimensional theory is technically possible and then summarize and give our conclusions. Detailed treatment of two somewhat more technical aspects can be found in the appendices.
Yang-Mills in Toroidal Compactification
=======================================
We consider the SU($N$) pure Yang-Mills theory on $d$-dimensional torus, whose action is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:action}
S=\frac{1}{4g_{(d)}^2}\sum_{i,j=1}^d\int d^dx {\rm Tr}F_{ij}^2, \end{aligned}$$ where the field strength $F_{ij}$ is defined by $F_{ij}=\partial_i A_j-\partial_j A_i-i[A_i,A_j]$. Note that the coupling constant $g_{(d)}^2$ has a dimension of $({\rm mass})^{4-d}$. Also, note that this action uses holographic normalization convention, whereas standard QCD convention would have a prefactor of $\frac{1}{2 g_{(D)}^2}$ instead. Formally, the lattice regularization can be obtained by using the standard plaquette action, $$\label{eq:Laction}
S=\beta_{\rm eff} \sum_{x\in T^d,\Box} \left(1-\frac{1}{N}{\rm Re\ Tr\ } U_\Box\right)\,,$$ where $\beta_{\rm eff}\equiv\frac{N a^{d-4}}{g_{(d)}^2}$ is the $d$-dimensional effective lattice coupling. Note that $\beta_{\rm eff}$ has mass dimension zero and that $\beta_{\rm eff}$ scales as $\propto N^2$ in the large $N$ limit. At $d>4$, this theory is power-counting non-renormalizable, and it is most likely not well-defined in the continuum limit. Still, it can be treated as a cut-off theory, and there are efforts motivated by the extensions of the standard model with extra dimensions (see e.g. in [@Ejiri:2000fc; @Irges:2009bi; @deForcrand:2010be; @Akerlund:2015poa]).
If we take the lattice to be T$^p\times 1^{d-p}$, Yang-Mills theory coupled to $d-p$ adjoint scalars can be obtained. Again, when $p>4$, the theory is not renormalizable. In this paper we concentrate on $p\le 4$ where the continuum theory is well-defined. Note that, unless counter-terms are added, the scalar masses receive radiative corrections so that the masses may become large in the continuum limit. On the lattice, this has been studied in the context of torelon masses (see for instance [@Michael:1986cj; @DeGrand:1987bm; @deForcrand:2010be]). One finds that heavy scalars effectively decouple from the theory, so that e.g. $d=5$ Yang-Mills reduces to usual four-dimensional Yang-Mills in the continuum limit except if the coupling and extra dimension size are fine-tuned [@deForcrand:2010be].
In this work, we do not fine-tune the scalar masses but rather check if our results are sensitive to the number of scalars $d-p$ by performing lattice simulations with different values for the parent dimension $d$. If the scalars become very heavy, then one expects results to be insensitive to the choice of $d$ while conversely a sensitivity to $d$ implies that the scalars have not (completely) decoupled from the theory.
Expected Phase Diagram and String Theory Interpretation
-------------------------------------------------------
In this section we review the previous numerical and analytical results concerning the phase diagrams. For simplicity we consider only the square tori, i.e. all compactification periods are taken to be the same value $L$.
Let us start with pure Yang-Mills without scalars. Narayanan and Neuberger [@Narayanan:2003fc; @Narayanan:2005en] have studied T$^3$ and T$^4$, taking the continuum and large-$N$ limits. (Note that, at finite $N$, the phase transition cannot take place at finite volume.) It has been observed that the center symmetry breaks down sequentially as $({\mathbb Z}_N)^d\to ({\mathbb Z}_N)^{d-1}\to\cdots\to \{1\}$. One observable sensitive to this sequential breaking pattern is $P_i\equiv {\rm Tr}W_i/N$ since every time one of the $({\mathbb Z}_N)$’s breaks, one of $P_i$’s gets a nonzero expectation value. When the center symmetry is broken to $({\mathbb Z}_N)^{p}$, the system can be described approximately by Yang-Mills with $d-p$ scalars. Therefore, it is natural to expect the center breaking pattern [@Narayanan:2003fc; @Narayanan:2005en] also for theories with adjoint scalars; see the right panel of Fig. \[Fig:2d-phase\] for $(1+1)$-d theory with scalars.
The case of $d=10$, $p\le 4$ theory can be regarded as the high temperature limit of maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in $(p+1)$ dimensions, which has an interpretation in terms of dual superstring theory. As a concrete example, let us first consider $d=10$, $p=1$ [@Aharony:2004ig; @Aharony:2005ew]. The corresponding $(1+1)$-dimensional maximal SYM is dual to black 1-brane in type IIB superstring theory at low temperature and at large-$N$. The finite temperature and $1/N$ corrections correspond to stringy corrections. In the center-symmetric phase, the Wilson line phases are distributed uniformly (top-left of Fig. \[Fig:BH-BS\]), while in the center-broken phase a non-uniform distribution without gap at $\pm\pi$ (top-middle of Fig. \[Fig:BH-BS\]) and the localized distribution (top-right of Fig. \[Fig:BH-BS\]) can exist. The Wilson line phases correspond to the positions of D0-branes in the T-dual picture on the gravity side; hence these three phases correspond to the uniform black string, the non-uniform black string[^2] and the black hole (bottom of Fig. \[Fig:BH-BS\]). The thermodynamic study on the gravity side [@Aharony:2004ig; @Aharony:2005ew] shows that there exist two phases at low temperature, the uniform black string phase at large volume and the black hole phase at small volume, which are separated by a first-order phase transition. The $(0+1)$-dimensional bosonic theory has a similar phase diagram at high temperature; the center symmetry is broken at small volume (high temperature, deconfined phase) and unbroken at large volume (low temperature, confined phase). However, unlike the low temperature region of the $(1+1)$-dimensional maximal SYM, the center-symmetric phase further splits into the non-uniform distribution without gap and the localized distribution [@Kawahara:2007fn; @Mandal:2009vz]. By combining these arguments, the phase diagram of the $(1+1)$-dimensional maximal SYM becomes should qualitatively look like the left panel of Fig. \[Fig:2d-phase\].
![ Possible Wilson line phase distributions in $(1+1)$-dimensional maximal SYM (top) and dual gravity interpretation (bottom). The Wilson line phases correspond to the positions of D0-branes in the T-dual picture on the gravity side. The uniform distribution corresponds to the uniform black string (left), non-uniform distribution without gap at $\pm\pi$ corresponds to the non-uniform string (middle), and the localized distribution corresponds to the black hole (right). \[Fig:BH-BS\]](Fig1.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
The same analysis applies to $(2+1)$- and $(3+1)$-dimensional maximal SYM theories, just by considering the higher-dimensional counterparts of the black string. The thermodynamic analysis on the gravity side [@Hanada:2007wn] gives the center breaking pattern observed in the bosonic theory, namely $({\mathbb Z}_N)^2\to {\mathbb Z}_N\to \{1\}$ and $({\mathbb Z}_N)^3\to ({\mathbb Z}_N)^2\to {\mathbb Z}_N\to \{1\}$. Therefore it is natural to expect $p$-dimensional Yang-Mills with adjoint scalars, which resembles the high temperature region of $(p+1)$-dimensional SYM, has the center breaking pattern $({\mathbb Z}_N)^p\to ({\mathbb Z}_N)^{p-1}\to\cdots\to \{1\}$. In [@Aharony:2005ew] a part of the phase diagram of the 2d Yang-Mills with heavy adjoint scalars has been studied analytically, and the same conclusion have been obtained.
![ Conjectured phase diagram of 2d SYM (left) [@Aharony:2005ew] and 2d bosonic theory (right) [@Aharony:2005ew; @Hanada:2007wn] at finite temperature, which is expected for massive scalars. The present work provides the first numerical check on the conjectured bosonic phase diagram. At the high-temperature region of SYM, two transitions (uniform to non-uniform, and non-uniform to localized) are expected [@Kawahara:2007fn; @Mandal:2009vz]. []{data-label="Fig:2d-phase"}](Fig2a.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![ Conjectured phase diagram of 2d SYM (left) [@Aharony:2005ew] and 2d bosonic theory (right) [@Aharony:2005ew; @Hanada:2007wn] at finite temperature, which is expected for massive scalars. The present work provides the first numerical check on the conjectured bosonic phase diagram. At the high-temperature region of SYM, two transitions (uniform to non-uniform, and non-uniform to localized) are expected [@Kawahara:2007fn; @Mandal:2009vz]. []{data-label="Fig:2d-phase"}](Fig2b.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Results
=======
$d=10$ $\rightarrow$ $1d$: Matrix Model Quantum Mechanics {#sec:1d}
---------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:one\] Results from simulating 10d SU($N$) compactified to 1d (matrix model quantum mechanics) for $\beta_{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.04^3}$ (effective lattice spacing $\bar a=0.04$) for various values of $N$, and $\beta_{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.01^3}$ for $N=4$. Shown are the expectation value of the Polyakov loop $<P_t>$ and the expectation value of the energy $E$ (minus the energy at zero temperature $E_0$ which is calculated from the lattice with the largest value of $N_t$) as a function of the dimensionless temperature $\bar T$ (full symbols). For comparison, analytic results from a high-temperature-expansion (HTE) [@Kawahara:2007ib], as well as previous lattice simulation results are shown [@Kawahara:2007fn]. The dash-dotted line indicates the location of $T_t$ and is a guide to the eye. ](Fig3a-P1d "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![\[fig:one\] Results from simulating 10d SU($N$) compactified to 1d (matrix model quantum mechanics) for $\beta_{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.04^3}$ (effective lattice spacing $\bar a=0.04$) for various values of $N$, and $\beta_{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.01^3}$ for $N=4$. Shown are the expectation value of the Polyakov loop $<P_t>$ and the expectation value of the energy $E$ (minus the energy at zero temperature $E_0$ which is calculated from the lattice with the largest value of $N_t$) as a function of the dimensionless temperature $\bar T$ (full symbols). For comparison, analytic results from a high-temperature-expansion (HTE) [@Kawahara:2007ib], as well as previous lattice simulation results are shown [@Kawahara:2007fn]. The dash-dotted line indicates the location of $T_t$ and is a guide to the eye. ](Fig3b-E1d "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Starting with ten-dimensional SU($N$) Yang-Mills and compactifying down to $p=1$ dimension leads to a Lagrangian corresponding to bosonic matrix model quantum mechanics. This theory has been well-studied both analytically as well as numerically [@Aharony:2004ig; @Kawahara:2007fn; @Mandal:2009vz]. We conduct simulations for fixed values of $\beta_{\rm eff,1}=\frac{N^2}{\lambda_{(1)}a^3}$ on an isotropic lattice, where the continuum limit $a\rightarrow 0$ corresponds to $\beta_{\rm eff,1}\rightarrow \infty$. Using the dimensionful ’t Hooft coupling $\lambda_{(1)}$, we can consider dimensionless quantities such as $a \lambda^{1/3}_{(1)}$, $T \lambda^{-1/3}_{(1)}$, which we will denote by a bar, e.g. $\bar{a}\equiv a \lambda^{1/3}_{(1)},\bar{T}\equiv T \lambda^{-1/3}_{(1)}$. The results for the Polyakov loop $\langle P_t\rangle$ and the energy $E$, obtained by evaluating (\[eq:polyakov\],\[eq:E1d\]) on the lattice configurations, are shown in Fig. \[fig:one\]. Also shown in Fig. \[fig:one\] are numerical results from Ref. [@Kawahara:2007fn], as well as high-temperature-expansion (HTE) analytic results from Ref. [@Kawahara:2007ib]. As can be seen from Fig. \[fig:one\], there is very good agreement between the present study and previous results. The difference between simulating U($N$) and SU($N$) gauge theories does not seem to be relevant.
![\[fig:EV1d\] Left: 1d Polyakov loop susceptibility as a function of temperature for various $N$ and $\beta{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.04^3}$. For large N, and this resolution, we find the susceptibility peak to lie at $\bar T_t=0.916(30)$. Right: The eigenvalue distribution for the 1d Polyakov loop is found to change qualitatively from non-uniform ($\bar T<\bar T_t$) to localized ($\bar T>\bar T_t$).](Fig4a-chi1d "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![\[fig:EV1d\] Left: 1d Polyakov loop susceptibility as a function of temperature for various $N$ and $\beta{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.04^3}$. For large N, and this resolution, we find the susceptibility peak to lie at $\bar T_t=0.916(30)$. Right: The eigenvalue distribution for the 1d Polyakov loop is found to change qualitatively from non-uniform ($\bar T<\bar T_t$) to localized ($\bar T>\bar T_t$).](Fig4b-EV1d.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
We observe a rapid change in the expectation value of the Polyakov loop as a function of temperature. Defining the susceptibility $\chi_{t}\equiv \frac{d \langle P_{t,s}\rangle}{d T}$, we define $\bar{T}_t$ by the location of the peak in $\chi_t$ (see Fig. \[fig:EV1d\]). For a resolution of $\beta_{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.04^3}$ we find $\bar{T}_t\simeq 0.916(30)$; increasing the resolution to $\beta_{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.02^3}$ we find $\bar{T}_t\simeq 0.885(15)$, consistent with previous results [@Aharony:2004ig; @Kawahara:2007fn]. As can be seen from Fig. \[fig:EV1d\], the peak in the susceptibility and hence the change in the Polyakov loop expectation value becomes more pronounced as the number of colors is increased, and also corresponds to a change in the eigenvalue distribution of the Polyakov loop (see Fig. \[fig:EV1d\]). As the temperature is decreased, the distribution of the Polyakov loop eigenvalues becomes more and more uniform, but because of the limited statistics for this study we cannot rule out the possibility of a second phase transition from non-uniform to a fully uniform distribution.
Comparing the value of $\bar{T}_t$ with the results for the energy in Fig. \[fig:one\], we are led to identify $\bar{T}_t$ with the critical temperature for the confinement-deconfinement transition in the bosonic 1d Matrix Model. Since results shown in Fig. \[fig:EV1d\] indicate that the Polyakov loop eigenvalue distribution also changes qualitatively from localized ($\bar{T}>\bar{T}_t$) to non-uniform ($\bar{T}<\bar{T}_t$) at the same critical temperature $\bar{T}_t$, we are led to identify the confined phase with the non-uniform eigenvalue phase and the deconfined phase with the localized eigenvalue phase.
Arbitrary $d$ $\rightarrow$ 1d and 2d: Sensitivity to Number of Scalars
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To check for the sensitivity to the number of scalars, we perform simulations with varying parent dimension $d$, always compactifying down to $p=1$. Similar studies have been performed by other groups before [@Janik:2000tq; @Azuma:2014cfa]. We monitor the Polyakov loop expectation value and locate the peak in its susceptibility, defining the location of the critical (deconfinement) temperature $T_t$. We find indications that as $d$ is increased above $d=10$, the susceptibility peak and hence the strength of the transition at fixed $N$ becomes more pronounced. Conversely, for $d<10$, the transition seems to weaken at fixed $N$ and we have to increase $N$ to clearly identify a peak in the Polyakov loop susceptibility. The results for $\bar{T}_t$ versus parent dimension $d$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:1dDscan\]. For comparison, also the analytic results for $\bar{T}_t$ obtained in a large $d$ expansion from Ref. [@Mandal:2009vz] are shown. We find remarkably good agreement with the next-to-leading order analytic result even for $d=4$. This agreement (and the implied dependence of $\bar{T}_t$ on the effective number of scalars $d-1$) suggests that in our simulations the scalars have not decoupled from the theory.
Similar findings hold true for the case of the reduction from $d=10$ to $p=2$ (2d). The results for $\bar{T}_t$ exhibit a clear dependence on the parent dimension $d$, which is qualitatively similar to the trend seen in the 1d case. We are not aware of any analytic calculations in the large $d$ limit for this case.
![\[fig:1dDscan\] Dependence on the critical temperature for the Polyakov loop (defined via the peak in the susceptibility) as a function of varying parent dimension $d$. Left: Reduction to 1d. For comparison, the analytic results obtained in a large $d$ approximation from Ref. [@Mandal:2009vz] are shown. Right: Reduction to 2d with $\bar{r}_s=0.707$. The behavior of $\bar{T}_t$ is qualitatively similar to 1d.](Fig5a-Tc1dvsD "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![\[fig:1dDscan\] Dependence on the critical temperature for the Polyakov loop (defined via the peak in the susceptibility) as a function of varying parent dimension $d$. Left: Reduction to 1d. For comparison, the analytic results obtained in a large $d$ approximation from Ref. [@Mandal:2009vz] are shown. Right: Reduction to 2d with $\bar{r}_s=0.707$. The behavior of $\bar{T}_t$ is qualitatively similar to 1d.](Fig5b-Tc2dvsD "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
$d=10$ $\rightarrow$ 2d: Yang-Mills on a circle
-----------------------------------------------
Compactification of the 10d theory onto $(1+1)$ dimensions corresponds to Yang-Mills theory at finite temperature compactified on a circle. Using the two-dimensional ’t Hooft coupling $\lambda_{(2)}=\frac{N^2}{\beta_{\rm eff,2} a^2}$ we follow Ref. [@Catterall:2010fx] to define a dimensionless circle radius $\bar{r}_s=N_s a \lambda_{(2)}^{1/2}$ and a “temporal” radius $\bar{r}_t=N_t a \lambda_{(2)}^{1/2}=1/\bar{T}$. In terms of these radii, the supersymmetric (SYM) version of this system is conjectured to have three possible phases, corresponding to situations which the Wilson loop eigenvalue distribution is localized, non-uniform and uniform. Holography has been used to study this system in the strong coupling (low temperature) limit, predicting the existence of a Gregory-Laflamme transition occurring at $\bar{r}_s^2\simeq 2.29 \bar{r}_t$, cf. Refs. [@Aharony:2004ig; @Aharony:2005ew; @Catterall:2010fx] which is characterizing the change from the uniform to localized phase (the non-uniform phase is expected to be thermodynamically disfavored, cf. [@Aharony:2004ig; @Catterall:2010fx]). At weak coupling (high temperatures), a deconfinement-confinement transition occurring at $\bar{r}_s^3\simeq 1.35 \bar{r}_t$ has been found in previous studies [@Aharony:2004ig; @Kawahara:2007ib; @Mandal:2009vz]. The high temperature result can be gleaned from results in section \[sec:1d\] through identifying $T\rightarrow \lambda_{(2)}^{1/2}/\bar{r}_s$ and $\lambda_{(1)}=\lambda_{(2)}/a\rightarrow =\lambda_{(2)}^{3/2}/\bar{r}_t$ since the temporal circle becomes very short and temporal and spatial elements trade their respective meaning. In this manner it is obvious that our results in the high temperature limit must match the previous finding of $\bar{r}_s^3=\frac{\bar{r}_t}{(0.885(15))^3}\simeq 1.44(7) \bar{r}_t$.
The phase diagram of the 2d theory differs between the supersymmetric theory and the purely bosonic theory (see Fig. \[Fig:2d-phase\]). The supersymmetric theory should always be in the deconfined phase characterized by a nonzero Polyakov loop expectation value. The bosonic theory studied in this work is rather different: first of all, the phase diagram must be invariant under the exchange of the temporal and spatial circles, $\bar{r}_t\leftrightarrow \bar{r}_s$. By regarding this theory as the high-temperature limit of 3d SYM, the dual gravity calculation valid at the low-temperature region suggests a form of the phase diagram shown in the right panel of Fig. \[Fig:2d-phase\] [@Hanada:2007wn]. The conjectured phase diagram for the purely bosonic theory has not been confirmed previously by numerical simulations, except for the case of toroidal compactification of the toroidally compactified $d=4$ Yang-Mills theory for $\bar{r}_t=\bar{r}_s=\bar{r}_y=\bar{r}_z$ where a symmetry breaking pattern of $(\mathbb{Z}_N)^4\to(\mathbb{Z}_N)^3\to(\mathbb{Z}_N)^2\to\mathbb{Z}_N\to\{1\}$ has been observed [@Narayanan:2005en].
![\[fig:two\] Left: Polyakov and Wilson loop for pure SU($N$) as a function of temperature for $\bar{r}_s=0.707$ (combined data with $\beta_{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.0707^2}$ for $\bar{T}<1.6$ and $\beta_{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.0353^2}$, respectively) compared to results for SYM for N=3,4 from Ref. [@Catterall:2010fx]. Right: Polyakov and Wilson loop susceptibilities in pure SU($N$) as a function of temperature for for fixed circle radius $\bar{r}_s=0.707$. The dash-dotted lines indicate the location of $\bar{T}_{t,s}$ where the corresponding susceptibilities peak and are a guide to the eye.](Fig6a-P2d "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![\[fig:two\] Left: Polyakov and Wilson loop for pure SU($N$) as a function of temperature for $\bar{r}_s=0.707$ (combined data with $\beta_{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.0707^2}$ for $\bar{T}<1.6$ and $\beta_{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.0353^2}$, respectively) compared to results for SYM for N=3,4 from Ref. [@Catterall:2010fx]. Right: Polyakov and Wilson loop susceptibilities in pure SU($N$) as a function of temperature for for fixed circle radius $\bar{r}_s=0.707$. The dash-dotted lines indicate the location of $\bar{T}_{t,s}$ where the corresponding susceptibilities peak and are a guide to the eye.](Fig6b-chi2d "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
We first study the Wilson and Polyakov loop expectation values for fixed spatial circle radius as a function of temperature in Fig. \[fig:two\]. We find that both the Wilson and Polyakov loops exhibits a rapid change as a function of temperature as $N$ is increased. Defining again the susceptibilities $\chi_{t,s}\equiv \frac{d \langle P_{t,s}\rangle}{d T}$, at any given spatial radius $\bar{r}_s$ for large enough $N$ we observe a peak at specific (different) temperatures $\bar{T}_{t,s}(\bar{r}_s)$ (see figure \[fig:two\]). The peak for $\chi_t$ is visible for any $N\geq 4$ and becomes more pronounced as $N$ is increased, while the peak for $\chi_s$ only emerges for $N\geq 16$. Using the peak position from $\chi_t$ for $N\geq 8$ to define $\bar{T}_t$ and the peak for $\chi_s$ for $N=16$ to defined $\bar{T}_s$ we find $\bar{T}_t(\bar{r}_s\simeq 0.7)\simeq 1.232(10)$ and $\bar{T}_s(\bar{r}_s\simeq 0.7)\simeq 2.7(3)$.
Also shown in Fig. \[fig:two\] are the results for SYM theory (gauge theory plus fermions) from Ref. [@Catterall:2010fx]. At high temperatures the anti-periodic boundary conditions for the Fermions in SYM implies that they acquire a large mass and effectively decouple from the theory. Thus one expects good agreement between the full SYM theory and the pure bosonic SU($N$) theory simulations for high temperatures, while deviations are expected at low temperatures[^3]. Fig. \[fig:two\] seems to corroborate this expectation. We have performed a more extensive comparison between the SYM and pure SU($N$) gauge theory for a same-size lattice in appendix \[app2\], from which we expect quantitative agreement between the SYM and pure gauge theory for $T\geq 5 \lambda_{(2)}^{1/2}$.
![\[fig:EV2d\] The eigenvalue distribution for the Polyakov loop (left) and Wilson loop (right). Both are for the 2d theory for $N=8$ and a circle radius of $\bar{r}_s=0.707$, calculated at $\beta_{\rm eff}\simeq \frac{N^2}{0.07^2}$ and $\beta_{\rm eff}\simeq \frac{N^2}{0.035^2}$, respectively. Note the change in the Polyakov loop behavior above/below $\bar{T}_t\simeq 1.232(10)$ and the Wilson loop behavior above/below $\bar{T}_s\simeq 2.7(3)$.](Fig7a-EV2dP.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![\[fig:EV2d\] The eigenvalue distribution for the Polyakov loop (left) and Wilson loop (right). Both are for the 2d theory for $N=8$ and a circle radius of $\bar{r}_s=0.707$, calculated at $\beta_{\rm eff}\simeq \frac{N^2}{0.07^2}$ and $\beta_{\rm eff}\simeq \frac{N^2}{0.035^2}$, respectively. Note the change in the Polyakov loop behavior above/below $\bar{T}_t\simeq 1.232(10)$ and the Wilson loop behavior above/below $\bar{T}_s\simeq 2.7(3)$.](Fig7b-EV2dW.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The different temperatures $\bar{T}_{t,s}$ are accompanied by corresponding changes in the distribution of eigenvalues of the Polyakov and Wilson loops (see Fig. \[fig:EV2d\]). Starting from low temperatures $\bar{T}<\bar{T}_t$ we find the distribution of the Polyakov loop eigenvalues to be non-uniform, but non-gapped, and the Wilson loop eigenvalues to be localized. For $\bar{T}_t<\bar{T}<\bar{T}_s$ the Polyakov loop and Wilson loop eigenvalues are both localized, and for $\bar{T}>\bar{T}_s$ the Polyakov loop eigenvalues are localized and the Wilson loop eigenvalues are non-uniform.
Comparing the temperatures $\bar{T}_{t}$ with the energy density as a function of temperature shown in Fig. \[fig:three\], we are led to identify this temperature with the deconfinement-confinement transition as was the case for the 1d compactification. As can be seen from Fig \[fig:two\], the deconfinement-confinement transition temperature $\bar{T}_t$ is clearly separated from the temperature $\bar{T}_{s}$. Because of the mapping of the high-temperature behavior and the behavior of the one-dimensional theory discussed in section \[sec:1d\], we identify $\bar{T}_{s}$ with a critical temperature signaling a Gregory-Laflamme (GL) type instability. This feature of having distinct confinement and GL critical temperatures is unique to the pure gauge SU($N$) theory considered here and is not expected to occur for the full SYM theory. In 3d and 4d cases, the confined phases can exist when the theories are compactified to two- and three-spheres [@Witten:1998qj].
![\[fig:three\] Left: 2d Energy density for $\bar{r}_s=0.707$ for various values of $N$, calculated for $\beta_{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.07^2}$. The vertical line labeled $\bar{T}_t$ indicates the peak position of the Polyakov loop and is a guide to the eye. Right: critical temperatures $\bar{T}_t,\bar{T}_s$ for the Polyakov loop and Wilson loop for N=8 and N=16, respectively, as a function of spatial circle radius $\bar{r}_s$. The line labeled ’inferred’ are results for $\bar{T}_t$ from SU(8) and switching $\bar{r}_s\leftrightarrow \bar{r}_t$.](Fig8a-E2d "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![\[fig:three\] Left: 2d Energy density for $\bar{r}_s=0.707$ for various values of $N$, calculated for $\beta_{\rm eff}=\frac{N^2}{0.07^2}$. The vertical line labeled $\bar{T}_t$ indicates the peak position of the Polyakov loop and is a guide to the eye. Right: critical temperatures $\bar{T}_t,\bar{T}_s$ for the Polyakov loop and Wilson loop for N=8 and N=16, respectively, as a function of spatial circle radius $\bar{r}_s$. The line labeled ’inferred’ are results for $\bar{T}_t$ from SU(8) and switching $\bar{r}_s\leftrightarrow \bar{r}_t$.](Fig8b-Tc2d "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Also shown in Fig. \[fig:three\] are the locations of the critical temperatures for the Polyakov loop ($\bar{T}_t$) and Wilson loop ($\bar{T}_s$) as a function of the length of the spatial circle $\bar{r}_s$. The different transition temperatures correspond to boundaries of the phases with two unbroken center symmetries, one unbroken and one broken center symmetry, respectively, and both center symmetries broken. For large values of the spatial circle radius $\bar{r}_s \gg 1$ we find that the value of $\bar{T}_t(\bar{r}_s)$ becomes approximately independent of $\bar{r}_s$, consistent with the expectation from the infinite volume limit. However, note that $\bar{r}_s\gg 5$ would be necessary to unambiguously demonstrate this volume independence. We find qualitative agreement with the conjectured bosonic phase diagram in Fig. \[Fig:2d-phase\]. Close to $\bar{r}_t,\bar{r}_s\simeq 1$, Fig. \[Fig:2d-phase\] suggests the presence of a single transition line (“neck”) connecting the deconfined, center symmetry broken phase to the deconfined, center symmetry restored phase. On this line, one expects the center symmetry to to be partially broken, and we address this question in the following subsection.
Sequential Breaking of $\mathbb{Z}_N$ symmetries in 2d and 4d
-------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:2s\] Time history of $P_t,P_s$ for $N=16$ and $r_t=r_s$. Note that the time length of a single Monte Carlo trajectory is 25 in lattice units. ](Fig9-2dN16timehistory){width="49.00000%"}
When the circumferences of the temporal and spatial circles are taken to be the same, $\bar{r}_t=\bar{r}_s$ (for $p=2$), or $\bar{r}_t=\bar{r}_x=\bar{r}_y=\bar{r}_z$ (for $p=4$), and if $\bar{r}_t$ is varied from $\infty$ to 0, then the $(\mathbb{Z}_N)^p$ center symmetry should break down sequentially as . Thus in a single configuration, the center symmetry along the temporal direction may be broken (and as a consequence $P_t\simeq 1$), while the spatial direction may still center symmetry and hence $P_s\simeq 0$. Unfortunately, since $\bar{r}_t=\bar{r}_s$, $P_t$ and $P_s$ will flip roles from configuration to configuration in the lattice ensemble[^4], so that on average $\langle P_t\rangle = \langle P_s\rangle$ even if one of the center symmetries (but not the other) is broken. An example of this ’two-state’ signal is shown in Fig. \[fig:2s\]. Therefore, the expectation value of the Polakov/Wilson loops are not sensitive to this partially broken center symmetric phase. In order to construct an operator that is sensitive, we can (for each configuration) order the expectation values of $P_i$ by size and average the ordered values over ensembles, which ensures that flipped roles of $P_t,P_s$ do not average out. In Fig. \[fig:Zn\] we study this observable as a function of the temperature (for the 2d theory) or the effective lattice coupling $\beta_{\rm eff}$ (for the 4d theory).
![\[fig:Zn\] Expectation value of the ordered Polyakov and Wilson loops for the 2d theory (left) and the 4d theory (right) for equal size lattices. ](Fig10a-equal2d "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![\[fig:Zn\] Expectation value of the ordered Polyakov and Wilson loops for the 2d theory (left) and the 4d theory (right) for equal size lattices. ](Fig10b-equal4d "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
As can be seen from Fig. \[fig:Zn\], there is a region ($\bar{T}\in [0.9,1.1]$ for 2d and — to a lesser extent — for 4d and $\beta_{\rm eff}\in[1,5]$) where the average of the maximum Polyakov/Wilson loops does not match the minimum Polyakov/Wilson loops. For instance for 2d and $\bar{T}\simeq 1$, the maximal Polyakov/Wilson loop value of about 0.6 indicates that the corresponding eigenvalue distribution is localized (see e.g. Figures \[fig:two\],\[fig:EV2d\]), corresponding to a breaking of the associated $\mathbb{Z}_N$ symmetry. Yet the expectation value of the minimum $P_i$ at this temperature indicates that the corresponding center symmetry remains unbroken. Therefore, the results shown for the 2d theory in Fig. \[fig:Zn\] suggest unbroken $(\mathbb{Z}_N)^2$ symmetry for temperatures $\bar{T}\lesssim 0.9$, a remaining $(\mathbb{Z}_N)^1$ symmetry for $\bar{T}\in [0.9,1.1]$ and fully broken center symmetry for $\bar{T}\gtrsim 1.1$. For the 4d theory, the $N=6,8$ results available do not allow to clearly identify a sequential center symmetry breaking pattern. We intend to return to this issue in a future study for larger $N$.
$d=10$ $\rightarrow$ 4d {#sec:4d}
-----------------------
$N$ $N_t$ $N_s$ $\beta_t/N^2$
----- ------- ------- ---------------
3 2 8 0.546(2)
3 3 12 0.612(1)
3 4 16 0.63(1)
4 2 8 0.591(3)
6 2 8 0.619(3)
: \[tab:one\] Table of critical 4d lattice coupling values for various fixed-size lattices and N.
If six of the original ten dimensions are compactified we are studying the bosonic part of ${\cal N}=4$ SYM in $(3+1)$ dimensions. This case is special because for $p=4$ the coupling is dimensionless and we would have to perform scale setting in order to express results in terms of physical quantities. We leave this to future work and report results in terms of the effective four-dimensional lattice coupling $\beta_{\rm eff}$. In this work we only consider bare (unrenormalized) results for the Polyakov/Wilson loop expectation values (see e.g. Ref. [@Dumitru:2003hp] for a discussion on how to extract the renormalized quantities from lattice simulations). At low values of $\beta_{\rm eff}$, both the bare Polyakov and Wilson loop expectation values saturates at the same constant value. For a fixed-size lattice, the expectation value of the Polyakov loop changes discontinuously as $\beta_{\rm eff}$ is changed (see Fig. \[fig:4d\]). In analogy to QCD studies in $(3+1)$ dimensions [@Boyd:1996bx], we define this value of the lattice coupling as the critical coupling $\beta_t$. In analogy to our results for 2d above, the expectation value for the Wilson loop starts to change at a generically different value of $\beta_{\rm eff}=\beta_s$ (see Fig. \[fig:4d\]). As can be seen from Fig \[fig:4d\], for the values of $N$ and lattice volumes simulated here, the change in the expectation value of the Wilson loop is gradual in $\beta$, unlike the dependence seen in the Polyakov loop. For this reason it is difficult to unambiguously identify a critical value $\beta_s$ given the present statistics. For $N=6$ we find $\beta_s\simeq 2.4(1)$ on a 2$\times$8$^3$ lattice. The values of $\beta_{t}$ depend on the chosen lattice size as well as on $N$ and are shown in Tab. \[tab:one\]. Also shown in Fig. \[fig:4d\] are the results for the pressure in the 4d theory. From this figure it can be seen that again the critical Polyakov coupling $\beta_t$ corresponds to the location of deconfinement transition. Note that the pressure results were calculated on a coarse ($2\times 8^3$) lattice, which suffers from significant lattice artifacts at high temperature (cf. the discussion in Ref. [@Boyd:1996bx]), which explains why the numerical results do not seem to converge to the continuum Stefan-Boltzmann behavior.
![\[fig:4d\] 4d simulations on a $N_t=2$, $N_s=8$ lattice as a function of effective lattice coupling $\beta_{\rm eff}$. Left: bare Polyakov and Wilson loops. Right: Pressure as a function of lattice coupling. $\beta_t$ denotes the critical lattice coupling at which the Polyakov loop susceptibility has a peak (see results in Tab. \[tab:one\]). The line labeled ’Stefan-Boltzmann’ is the Stefan-Boltzmann result for 8 adjoint bosonic degrees of freedom.](Fig11a-P4d "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![\[fig:4d\] 4d simulations on a $N_t=2$, $N_s=8$ lattice as a function of effective lattice coupling $\beta_{\rm eff}$. Left: bare Polyakov and Wilson loops. Right: Pressure as a function of lattice coupling. $\beta_t$ denotes the critical lattice coupling at which the Polyakov loop susceptibility has a peak (see results in Tab. \[tab:one\]). The line labeled ’Stefan-Boltzmann’ is the Stefan-Boltzmann result for 8 adjoint bosonic degrees of freedom.](Fig11b-Z4d "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
We proceed to study to eigenvalue distribution for the Wilson and Polyakov loops respectively. In Fig. \[fig:EV4d\] the eigenvalue distributions are shown for the case of $N=4$ on a fixed-size lattice of $N_t=2$, $N_s=8$. In the left panel, localization of the Polyakov loop eigenvalues can be seen for $\beta_{\rm eff}=1.25$ and $2.5$, which indicates the system is in the deconfined phase. At $\beta_{\rm eff}=0.5$, ${\mathbb Z}_4$-symmetric distribution with four peaks can be seen. It is rather different from the $p=1$ and $p=2$ cases, in which rather uniform, continuous distributions have been observed. This can be attributed to the larger fluctuations of eigenvalues in lower dimensions due to larger infrared effects. A similar situation can be found in the treatment of the eigenvalues of scalar fields in supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories; in 3d and 4d one can choose the values by hand because of super-selection, while in 1d and 2d super-selection cannot work and the eigenvalues should be determined dynamically [@Banks:1996vh]. As for the Wilson loop eigenvalues, four peaks can be seen at $\beta_{\rm eff}=0.5$ and $1.25$, while the distribution is uniform at $\beta_{\rm eff}=2.5$. This is natural because super-selection requires large volume, which corresponds to smaller $\beta_{\rm eff}$ for a fixed lattice size.
![\[fig:EV4d\] The eigenvalue distribution for the Polyakov loop (left) and Wilson loop (right). Both are for the 4d theory for $N=4$ on a fixed-size lattice of $2\times8^3$ points. Note the change in the Polyakov loop behavior above/below $\beta_{\rm eff}\simeq 0.56 N^2$ and the Wilson loop behavior above/below $\beta_{\rm eff}\simeq 2.4 N^2$.](Fig12a-EV4dP.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![\[fig:EV4d\] The eigenvalue distribution for the Polyakov loop (left) and Wilson loop (right). Both are for the 4d theory for $N=4$ on a fixed-size lattice of $2\times8^3$ points. Note the change in the Polyakov loop behavior above/below $\beta_{\rm eff}\simeq 0.56 N^2$ and the Wilson loop behavior above/below $\beta_{\rm eff}\simeq 2.4 N^2$.](Fig12b-EV4dW.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
To test for the sensitivity to the presence of scalars, we can again change the value of the parent dimension $d$. The $N=3$ results for $\beta_t$ on a $4\times 16^3$ lattice can be readily compared to the case of $d=4$ (pure glue QCD) where $\beta_t(d=4)=5.6908(2)$ [@Boyd:1996bx] or $\beta_t(d=4)=0.63231(2)$ (see Ref. [@Panero:2009tv] for a study of pure glue thermodynamics in $d=4$ for different $N$). With our present statistics, this result is numerically indistinguishable from the case of $d=10$, $p=4$ case given in Tab. \[tab:one\]. This suggests that the scalars have acquired sizable mass comparable to the temperature scale of the confinement deconfinement transition. In order to simulate smaller scalar masses, we are led to larger lattice spacings (or coarser lattices), e.g. $N_t=2$, $N_s=8$. For this case the we find $\beta_t=0.546(2)N^2$ for $N=3$ for $d=10$, while $\beta_t(d=4)=5.55(11)N^2$, suggesting a mild dependence on the number of scalars. However, the difference between the number of parent theory dimension (which translates to the number of scalars simulated in the 4d theory) is more apparent when considering the action difference $\Delta S$, cf. Eq. (\[eq:deltaS\]). In the left panel of Fig. \[fig:10d\], the results for the $\Delta S$ are shown for the theory with 6 scalars and no scalars on a $2\times 8^3$ lattice. Recalling that this quantity effectively is the derivative of the free energy with respect to the lattice coupling (cf. Eq. \[eq:deltaS\]), the pronounced difference between the two theories translates into a difference in the free energy at high temperature. Thus, at least on coarse lattices such as $2\times 8^3$, the scalars have not decoupled from the theory.
$d=10$
------
It is also technically possible to simulate the original 10d gauge theory on the lattice. This theory is not expected to exist in the sense that it does not have a well defined continuum limit. Yet one may potentially be interested in the 10d theory as a cutoff theory. The lattice spacing $a$ provides such a cutoff and we have performed lattice simulations on a $N_t=1$, $N_s=3$ lattice. The results for the Polyakov and Wilson loop expectation values are shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:10d\].
![\[fig:10d\] Left: Simulation results for the action difference $\Delta S$ (cf. Eq. (\[eq:deltaS\])) for the 4d theory and N=3 on a $2\times 8^3$ lattice with parent dimensions $d=10$ (“6 scalars”) and $d=4$ (“no scalars”), respectively. Right: $d=10$ simulation results for the Polyakov and Wilson loop expectation values on a fixed size $1\times 3^9$ lattice. ](Fig13a-SvsD "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} ![\[fig:10d\] Left: Simulation results for the action difference $\Delta S$ (cf. Eq. (\[eq:deltaS\])) for the 4d theory and N=3 on a $2\times 8^3$ lattice with parent dimensions $d=10$ (“6 scalars”) and $d=4$ (“no scalars”), respectively. Right: $d=10$ simulation results for the Polyakov and Wilson loop expectation values on a fixed size $1\times 3^9$ lattice. ](Fig13b-P10d "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
Simulating supersymmetric gauge theories on the lattice has interesting connections to gravitational theories via holographic dualities. This work is meant as a step in this direction via simulating the high-temperature phase of these supersymmetric theories, which can be approximated as pure gauge theories in this limit. We have performed lattice simulations of pure gauge 10 dimensional Yang-Mills SU($N$) theory toroidally compactified to $p=1,2,4$ dimensions. The compactification naturally turns the gauge field components in the compactified directions into scalars without any extra programming effort. A possible downside of this approach is the generation of potentially sizable scalar masses.
We find excellent agreement with simulation results by other group for the 1d case and for the high-temperature limit of the supersymmetric 2d case. We have confirmed the conjectured phase diagram for the bosonic theory for the 2d case and have presented first results for the bosonic 4d case. More work is clearly needed, for instance to determine the scalar masses in the bosonic lattice simulations, so we intend to revisit this (and other) issues in the future. Another future application of this work concerns the real time simulation of the (semi-classical) pure gauge theory dynamics with our code package. The simulation code is flexible concerning the number of parent dimensions $d$ as well as the number of colors $d$, easy to use, and is publicly available as a service to the community [@codedown].
This work was supported, in part, by the Department of Energy, DOE award No. DE-SC0008132. PR would like to thank S. Catterall, A. Hasenfratz, T. Ishii, W. Jay, A. Kurkela, T. Morita, E. Neil, T. DeGrand and T. Wiseman for many useful discussions and T. Wiseman for providing the numerical data obtained in Ref. [@Catterall:2010fx]. This work utilized the Janus supercomputer, which is supported by the National Science Foundation (award number CNS-0821794) and the University of Colorado Boulder. The Janus supercomputer is a joint effort of the University of Colorado Boulder, the University of Colorado Denver and the National Center for Atmospheric Research."
Comparison between SYM and pure SU($N$) lattice simulations for 2d {#app2}
==================================================================
In this appendix we compare the results from our pure SU($N$) simulations in 2d to those for SYM (gauge theory plus fermions) from Ref. [@Catterall:2010fx]. We compare lattice data for the Wilson loop expectation value on a lattices with $N_s=8$ and $N_t=2,4$ for various values of $\beta_{\rm eff}$. Results are shown in Fig. \[fig:symcomp\]. Note that results from Ref. [@Catterall:2010fx], which were calculated using QCD normalization convention [@Simonpc], to holographic normalization convention (cf. Eq. (\[eq:action\]).
The comparison shown in Fig. \[fig:symcomp\] indicates that results for the SYM simulation indeed coincide with the purely bosonic SU($N$) simulations for high temperatures (low temporal radius). In practice, we find good agreement between the full SYM and bosonic SU($N$) simulations for $\bar{r}_t\leq 0.2$ (corresponding to $T\geq 5 \lambda_{(2)}^{1/2}$).
![\[fig:symcomp\] Comparison between pure SU($N$) simulations for the 2d case (this work) to lattice simulations of SYM for same-size lattices as a function of temporal radius $\bar{r}_t$. All pure SU($N$) results shown in this figure are for the deconfined phase.](Fig14-symcomp){width="60.00000%"}
[^1]: Clearly, approximating SYM by just its bosonic content is limited to observables that are not sensitive to the effective number of degrees of freedom. In particular, the approximation fails for the Stefan Boltzmann limit of the free energy of SYM at high temperature. However, lattice studies in full QCD have indicated that the pure bosonic theory is able to offer quantitatively accurate descriptions for the Wilson loop expectation value at high temperatures [@Cheng:2008bs].
[^2]: Note that, in this context, ‘black string’ does not mean the black 1-brane; it means the smeared, string-shaped distribution of D0-branes.
[^3]: The SYM simulations from Ref. [@Catterall:2010fx] are based on a different discretization scheme, and require stabilization of flat directions in the scalar potential. Without supersymmetry, these flat directions are lifted at the quantum level, which is why stabilization is not needed in simulations of the purely bosonic theory. The fact that quantum effects lift the flat directions can be seen by calculating the interaction between eigenvalues. Essentially the same calculation has been performed in Ref. [@Bhanot:1982cm] for a different motivation.
[^4]: Note that for large $N$, such ‘tunneling’ will be suppressed.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The [*IJCAI–PRICAI–20 Proceedings*]{} will be printed from electronic manuscripts submitted by the authors. The electronic manuscript will also be included in the online version of the proceedings. This paper provides the style instructions.'
author:
- 'Christian Bessiere CNRS, University of Montpellier, France [email protected]'
- First Author$^1$
- Second Author$^2$
- |
Third Author$^{2,3}$Fourth Author$^4$ $^1$First Affiliation\
$^2$Second Affiliation\
$^3$Third Affiliation\
$^4$Fourth Affiliation {first, second}@example.com, [email protected], [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'ijcai20.bib'
nocite:
- '[@abelson-et-al:scheme]'
- '[@bgf:Lixto]'
- '[@brachman-schmolze:kl-one]'
- '[@gottlob:nonmon]'
- '[@gls:hypertrees]'
- '[@levesque:functional-foundations]'
- '[@levesque:belief]'
- '[@nebel:jair-2000]'
title: 'IJCAI–PRICAI–20 Formatting Instructions'
---
Introduction
============
The [*IJCAI–20 Proceedings*]{} will be printed from electronic manuscripts submitted by the authors. These must be PDF ([*Portable Document Format*]{}) files formatted for 8-1/2$''$ $\times$ 11$''$ paper.
Length of Papers
----------------
All paper [*submissions*]{} must have a maximum of six pages, plus at most one for references. The seventh page cannot contain [**anything**]{} other than references.
The length rules may change for final camera-ready versions of accepted papers and will differ between tracks. Some tracks may include only references in the last page, whereas others allow for any content in all pages. Similarly, some tracks allow you to buy a few extra pages should you want to, whereas others don’t.
If your paper is accepted, please carefully read the notifications you receive, and check the proceedings submission information website[^1] to know how many pages you can finally use. That website holds the most up-to-date information regarding paper length limits at all times. Please notice that if your track allows for a special references-only page, the [**references-only page(s) cannot contain anything else than references**]{} (i.e.: do not write your acknowledgments on that page or you will be charged for it).
Word Processing Software
------------------------
As detailed below, IJCAI has prepared and made available a set of LaTeX macros and a Microsoft Word template for use in formatting your paper. If you are using some other word processing software, please follow the format instructions given below and ensure that your final paper looks as much like this sample as possible.
Style and Format
================
LaTeX and Word style files that implement these instructions can be retrieved electronically. (See Appendix \[stylefiles\] for instructions on how to obtain these files.)
Layout
------
Print manuscripts two columns to a page, in the manner in which these instructions are printed. The exact dimensions for pages are:
- left and right margins: .75$''$
- column width: 3.375$''$
- gap between columns: .25$''$
- top margin—first page: 1.375$''$
- top margin—other pages: .75$''$
- bottom margin: 1.25$''$
- column height—first page: 6.625$''$
- column height—other pages: 9$''$
All measurements assume an 8-1/2$''$ $\times$ 11$''$ page size. For A4-size paper, use the given top and left margins, column width, height, and gap, and modify the bottom and right margins as necessary.
Format of Electronic Manuscript
-------------------------------
For the production of the electronic manuscript, you must use Adobe’s [*Portable Document Format*]{} (PDF). A PDF file can be generated, for instance, on Unix systems using [ps2pdf]{} or on Windows systems using Adobe’s Distiller. There is also a website with free software and conversion services: <http://www.ps2pdf.com>. For reasons of uniformity, use of Adobe’s [*Times Roman*]{} font is strongly suggested. In LaTeX2e this is accomplished by writing
in the preamble.[^2]
Additionally, it is of utmost importance to specify the [**letter**]{} format (corresponding to 8-1/2$''$ $\times$ 11$''$) when formatting the paper. When working with [dvips]{}, for instance, one should specify [-t letter]{}.
Title and Author Information
----------------------------
Center the title on the entire width of the page in a 14-point bold font. The title must be capitalized using Title Case. Below it, center author name(s) in 12-point bold font. On the following line(s) place the affiliations, each affiliation on its own line using 12-point regular font. Matching between authors and affiliations can be done using numeric superindices. Optionally, a comma-separated list of email addresses follows the affiliation(s) line(s), using 12-point regular font.
### Blind Review
In order to make blind reviewing possible, authors must omit their names and affiliations when submitting the paper for review. In place of names and affiliations, provide a list of content areas. When referring to one’s own work, use the third person rather than the first person. For example, say, “Previously, Gottlob has shown that…”, rather than, “In our previous work [@gottlob:nonmon], we have shown that…” Try to avoid including any information in the body of the paper or references that would identify the authors or their institutions. Such information can be added to the final camera-ready version for publication.
Abstract
--------
Place the abstract at the beginning of the first column 3$''$ from the top of the page, unless that does not leave enough room for the title and author information. Use a slightly smaller width than in the body of the paper. Head the abstract with “Abstract” centered above the body of the abstract in a 12-point bold font. The body of the abstract should be in the same font as the body of the paper.
The abstract should be a concise, one-paragraph summary describing the general thesis and conclusion of your paper. A reader should be able to learn the purpose of the paper and the reason for its importance from the abstract. The abstract should be no more than 200 words long.
Text
----
The main body of the text immediately follows the abstract. Use 10-point type in a clear, readable font with 1-point leading (10 on 11).
Indent when starting a new paragraph, except after major headings.
Headings and Sections
---------------------
When necessary, headings should be used to separate major sections of your paper. (These instructions use many headings to demonstrate their appearance; your paper should have fewer headings.). All headings should be capitalized using Title Case.
### Section Headings
Print section headings in 12-point bold type in the style shown in these instructions. Leave a blank space of approximately 10 points above and 4 points below section headings. Number sections with arabic numerals.
### Subsection Headings
Print subsection headings in 11-point bold type. Leave a blank space of approximately 8 points above and 3 points below subsection headings. Number subsections with the section number and the subsection number (in arabic numerals) separated by a period.
### Subsubsection Headings
Print subsubsection headings in 10-point bold type. Leave a blank space of approximately 6 points above subsubsection headings. Do not number subsubsections.
#### Titled paragraphs.
You should use titled paragraphs if and only if the title covers exactly one paragraph. Such paragraphs should be separated from the preceding content by at least 3pt, and no more than 6pt. The title should be in 10pt bold font and ended with a period. After that, a 1em horizontal space should follow the title before the paragraph’s text.
In LaTeX titled paragraphs should be typeset using
> [\\paragraph{Title.} text]{} .
### Acknowledgements
You may include an unnumbered acknowledgments section, including acknowledgments of help from colleagues, financial support, and permission to publish. If present, acknowledgements must be in a dedicated, unnumbered section appearing after all regular sections but before any appendices or references.
Use
> [\\section\*{Acknowledgements}]{})
to typeset the acknowledgements section in LaTeX.
### Appendices
Any appendices directly follow the text and look like sections, except that they are numbered with capital letters instead of arabic numerals. See this document for an example.
### References
The references section is headed “References”, printed in the same style as a section heading but without a number. A sample list of references is given at the end of these instructions. Use a consistent format for references. The reference list should not include unpublished work.
Citations
---------
Citations within the text should include the author’s last name and the year of publication, for example [@gottlob:nonmon]. Append lowercase letters to the year in cases of ambiguity. Treat multiple authors as in the following examples: [@abelson-et-al:scheme] or [@bgf:Lixto] (for more than two authors) and [@brachman-schmolze:kl-one] (for two authors). If the author portion of a citation is obvious, omit it, e.g., Nebel . Collapse multiple citations as follows: [@gls:hypertrees; @levesque:functional-foundations].
Footnotes
---------
Place footnotes at the bottom of the page in a 9-point font. Refer to them with superscript numbers.[^3] Separate them from the text by a short line.[^4] Avoid footnotes as much as possible; they interrupt the flow of the text.
Illustrations
=============
Place all illustrations (figures, drawings, tables, and photographs) throughout the paper at the places where they are first discussed, rather than at the end of the paper.
They should be floated to the top (preferred) or bottom of the page, unless they are an integral part of your narrative flow. When placed at the bottom or top of a page, illustrations may run across both columns, but not when they appear inline.
Illustrations must be rendered electronically or scanned and placed directly in your document. They should be cropped outside latex, otherwise portions of the image could reappear during the post-processing of your paper. All illustrations should be understandable when printed in black and white, albeit you can use colors to enhance them. Line weights should be 1/2-point or thicker. Avoid screens and superimposing type on patterns, as these effects may not reproduce well.
Number illustrations sequentially. Use references of the following form: Figure 1, Table 2, etc. Place illustration numbers and captions under illustrations. Leave a margin of 1/4-inch around the area covered by the illustration and caption. Use 9-point type for captions, labels, and other text in illustrations. Captions should always appear below the illustration.
Tables
======
Tables are considered illustrations containing data. Therefore, they should also appear floated to the top (preferably) or bottom of the page, and with the captions below them.
Scenario $\delta$ Runtime
----------- ---------- ---------
Paris 0.1s 13.65ms
Paris 0.2s 0.01ms
New York 0.1s 92.50ms
Singapore 0.1s 33.33ms
Singapore 0.2s 23.01ms
: Latex default table[]{data-label="tab:plain"}
Scenario $\delta$ (s) Runtime (ms)
----------- -------------- --------------
Paris 0.1 13.65
0.2 0.01
New York 0.1 92.50
Singapore 0.1 33.33
0.2 23.01
: Booktabs table[]{data-label="tab:booktabs"}
If you are using LaTeX, you should use the [booktabs]{} package, because it produces better tables than the standard ones. Compare Tables \[tab:plain\] and \[tab:booktabs\]. The latter is clearly more readable for three reasons:
1. The styling is better thanks to using the [booktabs]{} rulers instead of the default ones.
2. Numeric columns are right-aligned, making it easier to compare the numbers. Make sure to also right-align the corresponding headers, and to use the same precision for all numbers.
3. We avoid unnecessary repetition, both between lines (no need to repeat the scenario name in this case) as well as in the content (units can be shown in the column header).
Formulas
========
IJCAI’s two-column format makes it difficult to typeset long formulas. A usual temptation is to reduce the size of the formula by using the [small]{} or [tiny]{} sizes. This doesn’t work correctly with the current LaTeX versions, breaking the line spacing of the preceding paragraphs and title, as well as the equation number sizes. The following equation demonstrates the effects (notice that this entire paragraph looks badly formatted):
$$x = \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n j_i + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n i_j + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n j_i + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n i_j + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n j_i$$
Reducing formula sizes this way is strictly forbidden. We [**strongly**]{} recommend authors to split formulas in multiple lines when they don’t fit in a single line. This is the easiest approach to typeset those formulas and provides the most readable output$$\begin{aligned}
x =& \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n j_i + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n i_j + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n j_i + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n i_j + \nonumber\\
+ & \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n j_i\end{aligned}$$ If a line is just slightly longer than the column width, you may use the [resizebox]{} environment on that equation. The result looks better and doesn’t interfere with the paragraph’s line spacing: $$\resizebox{.91\linewidth}{!}{$
\displaystyle
x = \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n j_i + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n i_j + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n j_i + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n i_j + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n j_i
$}$$ This last solution may have to be adapted if you use different equation environments, but it can generally be made to work. Please notice that in any case:
- Equation numbers must be in the same font and size than the main text (10pt).
- Your formula’s main symbols should not be smaller than [small]{} text (9pt).
For instance, the formula $$\resizebox{.91\linewidth}{!}{$
\displaystyle
x = \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n j_i + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n i_j + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n j_i + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n i_j + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n j_i + \prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n i_j
$}$$ would not be acceptable because the text is too small.
Examples, Definitions, Theorems and Similar
===========================================
Examples, definitions, theorems, corollaries and similar must be written in their own paragraph. The paragraph must be separated by at least 2pt and no more than 5pt from the preceding and succeeding paragraphs. They must begin with the kind of item written in 10pt bold font followed by their number (e.g.: Theorem 1), optionally followed by a title/summary between parentheses in non-bold font and ended with a period. After that the main body of the item follows, written in 10 pt italics font (see below for examples).
In LaTeX We strongly recommend you to define environments for your examples, definitions, propositions, lemmas, corollaries and similar. This can be done in your LaTeX preamble using `\newtheorem` – see the source of this document for examples. Numbering for these items must be global, not per-section (e.g.: Theorem 1 instead of Theorem 6.1).
Examples should be written using the example environment defined in this template.
This is an example of an untitled theorem.
You may also include a title or description using these environments as shown in the following theorem.
This is an example of a titled theorem.
Proofs
======
Proofs must be written in their own paragraph separated by at least 2pt and no more than 5pt from the preceding and succeeding paragraphs. Proof paragraphs should start with the keyword “Proof." in 10pt italics font. After that the proof follows in regular 10pt font. At the end of the proof, an unfilled square symbol (qed) marks the end of the proof.
In LaTeX proofs should be typeset using the `\proof` environment.
This paragraph is an example of how a proof looks like using the `\proof` environment.
Algorithms and Listings
=======================
Algorithms and listings are a special kind of figures. Like all illustrations, they should appear floated to the top (preferably) or bottom of the page. However, their caption should appear in the header, left-justified and enclosed between horizontal lines, as shown in Algorithm \[alg:algorithm\]. The algorithm body should be terminated with another horizontal line. It is up to the authors to decide whether to show line numbers or not, how to format comments, etc.
In LaTeX algorithms may be typeset using the [algorithm]{} and [algorithmic]{} packages, but you can also use one of the many other packages for the task.
**Input**: Your algorithm’s input\
**Parameter**: Optional list of parameters\
**Output**: Your algorithm’s output
Let $t=0$. Do some action. Perform task A. Perform task B. **return** solution
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The preparation of these instructions and the LaTeX and BibTeX files that implement them was supported by Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, AT&T Bell Laboratories, and Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Preparation of the Microsoft Word file was supported by IJCAI. An early version of this document was created by Shirley Jowell and Peter F. Patel-Schneider. It was subsequently modified by Jennifer Ballentine and Thomas Dean, Bernhard Nebel, Daniel Pagenstecher, Kurt Steinkraus, Toby Walsh and Carles Sierra. The current version has been prepared by Marc Pujol-Gonzalez and Francisco Cruz-Mencia.
LaTeX and Word Style Files {#stylefiles}
==========================
The LaTeX and Word style files are available on the IJCAI–PRICAI–20 website, <https://www.ijcai20.org/>. These style files implement the formatting instructions in this document.
The LaTeX files are [ijcai20.sty]{} and [ijcai20.tex]{}, and the BibTeX files are [named.bst]{} and [ijcai20.bib]{}. The LaTeX style file is for version 2e of LaTeX, and the BibTeX style file is for version 0.99c of BibTeX ([*not*]{} version 0.98i). The [ijcai20.sty]{} style differs from the [ijcai19.sty]{} file used for IJCAI–19.
The Microsoft Word style file consists of a single file, [ijcai20.doc]{}. This template differs from the one used for IJCAI–19.
These Microsoft Word and LaTeX files contain the source of the present document and may serve as a formatting sample.
Further information on using these styles for the preparation of papers for IJCAI–PRICAI–20 can be obtained by contacting [[email protected]]{}.
[^1]: <https://proceedings.ijcai.org/info>
[^2]: You may want also to use the package [latexsym]{}, which defines all symbols known from the old LaTeX version.
[^3]: This is how your footnotes should appear.
[^4]: Note the line separating these footnotes from the text.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The time-dependent numerical renormalization group method (TDNRG) \[Anders [*et al.,*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 196801 (2005)\] was recently generalized to multiple quenches and arbitrary finite temperatures \[Nghiem [*et al.,*]{} Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 075118 (2014)\] by using the full density matrix approach \[Weichselbaum [*et al.,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 076402 (2007)\]. The formalism rests solely on the numerical renormalization group (NRG) approximation. In this paper, we numerically implement this formalism to study the response of a quantum impurity system to a general pulse and to periodic driving, in which a smooth pulse or a periodic train of pulses is approximated by a sufficient number of quenches. We show how the NRG approximation affects the trace of the projected density matrices and the continuity of the time-evolution of a local observable. We also investigate the long-time limit of a local observable upon switching from a given initial state to a given final state as a function of both the pulse shape and the switch-on time, finding that this limit is improved for smoother pulse shapes and longer switch-on times. This lends support to our earlier suggestion that the long-time limit of observables, following a quench between a given initial state and a given final state, can be improved by replacing a sudden large and instantaneous quench by a sequence of smaller ones acting over a finite time interval: longer switch-on times and smoother pulses, i.e., increased adiabaticity, favor relaxation of the system to its correct thermodynamic long-time limit. For the case of periodic driving, we compare the TDNRG results to the exact analytic ones for the non-interacting resonant level model, finding better agreement at short to intermediate time scales in the case of smoother driving fields. Finally, we demonstrate the validity of the multiple-quench TDNRG formalism for arbitrary temperatures by studying the time-evolution of the occupation number in the interacting Anderson impurity model in response to a periodic switching of the local level from the mixed valence to the Kondo regime at low, intermediate, and high temperatures.'
author:
- 'H. T. M. Nghiem'
- 'T. A. Costi'
bibliography:
- 'noneq-nrg.bib'
title: 'Time-Dependent Numerical Renormalization Group Method for Multiple Quenches: Application to General Pulses and Periodic Driving'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The time-evolution of strongly correlated systems in response to perturbations, such as quantum quenches, pulses, or periodic driving fields, is a topic of great current interest, with relevance to diverse fields, such as, for example, pump-probe investigations of correlated materials [@Perfetti2006], investigations of coherent control and relaxation in solid-state qubits, [@Petta2005; @Koppens2006] driven quantum tunneling, [@Grifoni1998] the determination of relaxation rates of excited spin states of magnetic adtoms via voltage pulses, [@Loth2010] and non-equilibrium effects in cold atom systems. [@Greiner2002; @Will2010; @Trotzky2012; @Schneider2012] A reliable understanding of the time-dependence of strongly correlated systems, in response to such perturbations, is an important theoretical challenge. Open issues, include, for example, the description of thermalization following a quantum quench,[@Rigol2007; @Moeckel2008; @Polkovnikov2012] or the description of non-equilibrium states in response to stationary or time-dependent fields. [@Rosch2003a; @Anders2008; @Schoeller2009]
For quantum impurity models, a number of techniques are available for studying time-dependent dynamics, including functional renormalization group,[@Metzner2012] generalized to time-dependent problems in Ref. , real-time renormalization group, [@Schoeller2009] time-dependent numerical renormalization group (TDNRG), [@Anders2005; @Anders2006; @Eidelstein2012; @Guettge2013; @Nghiem2014] perturbative scaling,[@Rosch2003a] Keldysh perturbation theory,[@Kamenev2011] real-time[@Saptsov2012] and renormalized perturbation theory,[@Bauer2005] flow-equation, [@Lobaskin2005; @Wang2010] dual-fermion[@Jung2012], slave-boson,[@Langreth1991] quantum Monte Carlo, [@Cohen2014; @Gull2011; @Weiss2008b; @Muehlbacher2008] density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) for impurities embedded in one dimensional chains, [@Daley2004; @White2004; @Schmitteckert2010] the time-dependent Gutzwiller approach,[@Schiro2010b; @Lanata2012], and $1/N$-expansion techniques[@Merino1998; @Ratiani2009]. Applications of these to a number of quantum impurity models have been made, including, to the interacting resonant level [@Andergassen2011; @Karrasch2010; @Kennes2012a; @Kennes2012b], and the Anderson impurity model[@Meir1993; @Shao1994a; @Goker2007; @Oguri2001; @Bauer2005; @Munoz2013; @Ratiani2009; @Saptsov2012; @Nghiem2014; @Schiro2012].
In this paper, we shall be concerned with the TDNRG method. The underlying numerical renormalization group (NRG) method [@Wilson1975; @KWW1980a; @Gonzalez-Buxton1998; @Bulla2008] has proven to be one of the most powerful and accurate methods for dealing with equilibrium properties of strongly correlated quantum impurity systems, yielding essentially exact results.[@Hewson1997; @Bulla2008; @Merker2012b] Despite this, its application to time-dependent phenomena has revealed a number of problems, such as difficulty in obtaining exactly the long-time limit of observables following a quantum quench, [@Rosch2012; @Nghiem2014] or, difficulties in describing non-equilibrium steady states and non-equilibrium spectral functions [@Anders2008]. These problems, together with techniques for extending the NRG to more complex multi-channel models [@Campo2005; @Ferrero2007; @Costi2009; @Hanl2013; @Mitchell2014] are currently under active investigation.
In a previous paper (Ref. , henceforth referred to as [paper I]{}), we presented a generalization of the time-dependent numerical renormalization group method (TDNRG) for single quantum quenches to finite temperatures within the full density matrix (FDM) approach [@Weichselbaum2007]. The results of this finite temperature generalization of the TDNRG approach were illustrated by application to the Anderson impurity model. In addition, in [paper I]{} we also generalized the finite-temperature formalism for the single quench case to multiple quantum quenches. Multiple quantum quenches can be used to describe general continuous pulses and periodic switching by a suitable discretization of the time domain as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:generic\]. While the formalism for the multiple-quench case is considerably more complicated than that for the single-quench case, we showed in [paper I]{} that it is nevertheless numerically feasible. In particular, we showed that the computational time should scale approximately linearly with the number $n_{\rm quench}$ of quenches. In this paper, we implement this approach numerically for the Anderson impurity model and its non-interacting counterpart, the resonant level model (RLM), and present results for two interesting situations, (i), general pulses acting over a finite time interval, the so called called switch-on time $\tilde{\tau}_n$ \[see Fig. \[fig:generic\]\], and, (ii), periodic driving where a system parameter, such as the local level position, is modulated periodically in time. Periodic driving has also been studied for the interacting resonant level model in Ref. [@Eidelstein2012], by using a hybrid TDNRG method, combining the TDNRG at short times with the Chebyshev expansion technique[@Weisse2006] for longer times. In contrast to the TDNRG approach used in Ref. [@Eidelstein2012], which involved additional approximations beyond the NRG approximation, our TDNRG formalism rests solely on the latter approximation (see Sec. \[subsec:formalism\] and [paper I]{} for details).
![ A system driven from an initial to a final state via a sequence of quantum quenches at times $\tilde{\tau}_0=0, \tilde{\tau}_1,\dots,\tilde{\tau}_n$ with evolution according to $H^{Q_p}$ in the time step $\tilde{\tau}_p>t\geq\tilde{\tau}_{p-1}$. Such a sequence of multiple quantum quenches could also be used to describe periodic switching, i.e, a periodic train of pulses, or, to approximate any general continuous pulse (e.g., as indicated by the smooth solid line). For the case shown here, where initial and final states are the same, the switch-on time corresponds to the pulse duration. []{data-label="fig:generic"}](figure01){width="40.00000%"}
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:prelims\], we outline the model and the notation for describing multiple-quenches, provide a brief description of the NRG, the complete basis set and the FDM, and recapitulate the multiple-quench TDNRG formalism from [paper I]{}. For full details of the derivation of the multiple-quench TDNRG, we refer the reader to the previous publication. In Sec. \[sec:limits\] we discuss exact results and limiting cases, the conservation of the trace of the projected density matrices in each time interval, and the continuity of observables at the boundaries of these time intervals, and how these are affected by the use of the NRG approximation. We argue in Sec. \[sec:limits\] that the NRG approximation introduces a cumulative error in the trace of the projected density matrices after all but the first quantum quench, and discuss the size of this finite time error as well as its influence on the continuity of observables. In Sec. \[sec:numerical\], we present our numerical results of the multiple-quench formalism, applied to general pulses for the Anderson impurity model (Sec. \[subsec:general-pulses\]) and to periodic driving for the RLM and Anderson impurity models (Sec. \[subsec:periodic-driving\]). In the former, we analyze the error in the long-time limit of observables, both as a function of the switch-on time for a fixed pulse shape (a linear ramp) , and also its dependence on different pulse shapes, such as linear, trigonometric, and logistic, for a fixed switch-on time. In the latter, periodic driving is investigated for square and triangular pulses, comparing with analytical continuum results for the case of the RLM, which allows us to demonstrate the accuracy and limitations of the method. In addition, periodic driving is applied to the strong correlation limit of the Anderson impurity model in a wide range of temperatures, thereby demonstrating the application of the formalism to finite temperatures. Conclusions and an outlook are given in Sec. \[sec:summary\].
Preliminaries {#sec:prelims}
=============
Model, multiple quenches and time-evolution {#subsec:models}
-------------------------------------------
We shall apply the TDNRG method for multiple quenches and general pulses to the model defined by $$\begin{aligned}
H&= H_{\rm imp}+ H_{\rm bath} + H_{\rm int},\\
H_{\rm imp}&= \sum_{\sigma}\varepsilon_d(t)n_{d\sigma}+U(t)n_{d\uparrow}n_{d\downarrow},\\
H_{\rm bath}&=\sum_{k\sigma}\epsilon_k c^{\dagger}_{k\sigma}c_{k\sigma},\\
H_{\rm int}&=\sum_{k\sigma}V(t)c^{\dagger}_{k\sigma}d_{\sigma}+h.c.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $n_{d\sigma}=d^{\dagger}_{\sigma}d_{\sigma}$ is the number operator for electrons with spin $\sigma$ in a local level with energy $\varepsilon_d(t)$. The Coulomb repulsion between two electrons in the local level is $U(t)$, $\epsilon_k$ is the kinetic energy of the conduction electrons with wavenumber $k$, and $V(t)$ is the hybridization matrix element of the local d-state with the conduction states. For $U(t)\neq 0$, this model corresponds to the Anderson impurity model which for $U(t)=0$ reduces to the non-interacting resonant level model (RLM).
In this paper, we consider a switching protocol in which only the local level position is allowed to have a time-dependence $\varepsilon_d(t)$, with $V(t)=V$ and $U(t)=U$ being kept constant.
Both the Anderson model and its non-interacting counterpart, the RLM, are characterized by the bare energy scales $\varepsilon_d$ and the hybridization strength $\Gamma=\pi\rho V^2$, where $\rho=1/W$ is the density of state for a flat band of width $W=2D=2$, and $D=1$ is the half-bandwidth. In the case of the Anderson model in the strong correlation limit, $U\gg\Gamma$, and for $-\varepsilon_{d}\gg\Gamma$, an additional low energy scale emerges, the Kondo scale $T_{\rm K}=\sqrt{U\Gamma/2}e^{\pi\varepsilon_d(\varepsilon_d+U)/2\Gamma U}$. We shall express the temperature in terms of $T/{\Gamma}$ for the RLM calculations, and in terms of $T/{T_{\rm K}}$ for the Anderson impurity model calculations. In plotting the time-dependence of local observables, we shall use a time-axis variable $t\Gamma$ in all cases, i.e., time is measured in units of $\hbar/\Gamma$ with the Planck constant set to unity $\hbar=1$.
For a system driven through a set of quenches, as in Fig. \[fig:generic\], the time-evolved density matrix at a general time in the interval $\tilde{\tau}_{p+1}>t\geq\tilde{\tau}_p$ is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho(t)=e^{-iH^{Q_{p+1}}(t-\tilde{\tau}_p)}e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}...e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\rho e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}...e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}e^{iH^{Q_{p+1}}(t-\tilde{\tau}_p)},\label{eq:rhot}\end{aligned}$$
in which $H^{Q_{p}},p=1,\dots,n$ are intermediate quench Hamiltonians, acting during time intervals of length $\tau_{p},p$, that determine the time-evolution at intermediate times and $H^{Q_0}=H^{i}$ and $H^{Q_{n+1}}=H^f$ are the initial and final state Hamiltonians, respectively (see Fig. \[fig:generic\]), and $\rho$ is the initial density matrix of the system at time $t<\tilde{\tau}_0=0$ (to be specified in the next section). The time-evolution of a local observable $\hat{O}$ at $\tilde{\tau}_{p+1}>t\geq\tilde{\tau}_p$ is then given by
$$\begin{aligned}
O(t)={\rm Tr}[\rho(t)\hat{O}].\label{eq:Ot}\end{aligned}$$
NRG, complete basis set, and FDM {#subsec:nrg+cbs}
--------------------------------
The $n$ intermediate quench Hamiltonians $H^{Q_{p}},p=1,\dots,n$, together with initial, $H^{i}=H^{Q_0}$, and final, $H^{f}=H^{Q_{n+1}}$, state Hamiltonians are iteratively diagonalized in the usual way within the NRG method [@Wilson1975; @KWW1980a; @Bulla2008], yielding eigenstates and eigenvalues for a sequence of truncated Hamiltonians $H_{m}^{Q_p}, m=1,2,\dots$, which approximate the spectra of $H^{Q_p}$, on successively decreasing energy scales $\omega_{m}\sim \Lambda^{-m/2}$. The discretization parameter $\Lambda>1$ is required to achieve a separation of energy scales in $H^{Q_p}$, such that an iterative diagonalization scheme remains a controlled numerical procedure. This procedure is performed up to a maximum iteration $m=N$ (“the longest Wilson chain”). At each $m$, the states generated, denoted $|qm\rangle_{Q_{p}}$, are partitioned into the lowest energy retained states, denoted $|km\rangle_{Q_p}$, and the high energy eliminated (or discarded) states, $| lm\rangle_{Q_p}$. In order to avoid an exponential increase in the dimension of the Hilbert space, only the former are used to set up and diagonalize the Hamiltonian for the next iteration $m+1$. The eliminated states, while not used in the iterative NRG procedure, are nevertheless crucial as they are used to set up a complete basis set with which the expressions for the time dependent dynamics are evaluated.[@Anders2005] This complete basis set is defined by the product states $|lem\rangle_{Q_p}=|lm\rangle_{Q_p} |e\rangle, m=m_{0},\dots,N$, where $m_{0}$ is the first iteration at which truncation occurs, and $|e\rangle=|\alpha_{m+1}\rangle |\alpha_{m+2}\rangle\dots|\alpha_{N}\rangle$ are environment states at iteration $m$ such that the product states $| lem\rangle_{Q_p}$, for each $m=m_{0},m_{0}+1,\dots,N$, reside in the same Fock space (that of the largest system diagonalized, $m=N$). The $\alpha_m$ represent the configurations of site $m$ in a linear chain representation of the quantum impurity system (e.g. the four states $0$, $\uparrow$, $\downarrow$ and $\uparrow\downarrow$ at site $m$ for a single channel Anderson model) and $"e"$ in $|lem\rangle_{Q_p}$ denotes the collection $e=\{\alpha_{m+1}...\alpha_N\}$. For each quench Hamiltonian $H^{Q_p}$, completeness relations may be defined [@Anders2005; @Anders2006] $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{m=m_0}^N \sum_{le} | lem\rangle_{Q_p}{_{Q_p}}\langle lem|=1,\label{unity-decomposition}\end{aligned}$$ where for $m=N$ all states are counted as discarded (i.e. there are no kept states at iteration $m=N$).
By using the complete basis set for the initial Hamiltonian $H^{Q_0}=H^i$, we can construct an initial state density matrix $\rho$, entering Eq. (\[eq:rhot\]), and which is valid at any temperature, the FDM, [@Weichselbaum2007; @Weichselbaum2012] $$\begin{aligned}
&\rho=\sum_{m=m_0}^N w_m \tilde{\rho}_m,\label{eq:fdm-initial-state}\\
&\tilde{\rho}_m=\sum_{le}|lem\rangle{_i} \frac{e^{-\beta E_l^m}}{\tilde{Z}_m}{_i}\langle lem|,\label{eq:rhom}\end{aligned}$$ which includes all discarded states of $H^i$ from all shells. For later use, we note that, (a), ${\rm Tr}\left[\tilde{\rho}_{m}\right]={\rm Tr}\left[\rho\right]=1$ implies that $\sum_{m=m_0}^{N}w_m =1$, and, (b), ${\rm Tr}\left[\tilde{\rho}_m\right]=1$ implies that $1=\sum_{le}\frac{e^{-\beta E_{l}^m}}{\tilde{Z}_{m}}=\sum_{l}d^{N-m}\frac{e^{-\beta E_{l}^m}}{\tilde{Z}_{m}}=d^{N-m}\frac{Z_{m}}{
\tilde{Z}_{m}}$ where $Z_{m}=\sum_{l}e^{-\beta E_{l}^{m}}$, i.e., $\tilde{Z}_m = d^{N-m}Z_m$, and $d$ is the degeneracy of the Wilson site $\alpha_m$ (with $d=4$ for the Anderson impurity model of this paper). [@Weichselbaum2007; @Costi2010]
Multiple-quench formalism {#subsec:formalism}
-------------------------
With the above notation and background information, we recall the important equations in our multiple-quench TDNRG formalism given in [paper I]{}. A system driven through a sequence of quenches, as in Fig. \[fig:generic\], results in the following time-evolution for a local observable $\hat{O}$ at $\tilde{\tau}_{p+1}>t\geq\tilde{\tau}_p$ $$\begin{aligned}
O(t)=\sum_{mrs}^{\notin KK'}\rho^{i\to Q_{p+1}}_{rs}(m,\tilde{\tau}_p) e^{-i(E^m_r-E^m_s)(t-\tilde{\tau}_p)} O^m_{sr}\label{eq:Otime},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{with}\quad\rho^{i\to Q_{p+1}}_{rs}(m,\tilde{\tau}_p)\nonumber\\
&= \sum_e{_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle rem|e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\rho e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}| sem\rangle{_{Q_{p+1}}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $O_{sr}^{m}={_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle sm|\hat{O}|rm\rangle_{Q_{p+1}}$ the matrix elements of $\hat{O}$. Substituting the FDM of the initial state from Eqs. ([\[eq:fdm-initial-state\]]{}) and (\[eq:rhom\]) into the above projected density matrix, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\rho^{i\to Q_{p+1}}_{rs}(m,\tilde{\tau}_p)=\sum_{m_1l_1e_1e}{_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle rem|e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}|l_1e_1m_1\rangle{_i}\nonumber\\
&\hspace{3em}\times w_{m_1} \frac{e^{-\beta E_{l_1}^{m_1}}}{\tilde{Z}_{m_1}}{_i}\langle l_1e_1m_1|e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}| sem\rangle_{Q_{p+1}}\label{eq:rhomultiquenches}.\end{aligned}$$ We decompose $\rho^{i\to Q_{p+1}}_{rs}(m,\tilde{\tau}_p)$ into three terms, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{i\to Q_{p+1}}_{rs}(m,\tilde{\tau}_p)=&{\tilde{\rho}}^{++}_{rs}(m,\tilde{\tau}_p)+\rho^{0}_{rs}(m,\tilde{\tau}_p)+\rho^{--}_{rs}(m,\tilde{\tau}_p),\label{eq:Totalrhomultiquenches}\end{aligned}$$ corresponding to the $m_1>m$, $m_1=m$, and $m_1<m$ contributions in Eq. (\[eq:rhomultiquenches\]) and following the same notation as in [paper I]{}. Explicitly written out, these are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{\rho}}^{++}_{rs}(m,\tilde{\tau}_p)=&\sum_{kk'}\mathcal{S}^m_{r_{Q_{p+1}}k_i}(-\tilde{\tau}_p)R^m_{\rm red}(k,k')\mathcal{S}^m_{k'_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)\label{eq:rho++multiple}\\
\rho^{0}_{rs}(m,\tilde{\tau}_p)=&\sum_{l}\mathcal{S}^m_{r_{Q_{p+1}}l_i}(-\tilde{\tau}_p)w_{m} \frac{e^{-\beta E_{l}^{m}}}{{Z}_{m}}\mathcal{S}^m_{l_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)\label{eq:rho0multiple}\\
\rho^{--}_{rs}(m,\tilde{\tau}_p)=&\frac{1}{d}\sum_{kk'\alpha_{m}}A^{\alpha_{m}\dagger}_{rk}\bigg\{\rho^0_{kk'}(m-1,\tilde{\tau}_p)+\rho^{--}_{kk'}(m-1,\tilde{\tau}_p)\bigg\}A^{\alpha_{m}}_{k's}\nonumber\\
& \text{with\quad } \rho^{--}_{rs}(m_0,\tilde{\tau}_p)=0\label{eq:rho--multiple},\end{aligned}$$ in which $R^m_{\rm red}(k,k')$ is the full reduced density matrix of the initial state [@Weichselbaum2007; @Costi2010], and can be calculated recursively. [@Nghiem2014] The transformation matrix $A^{\alpha_{m}}_{k's}$ entering above, relates eigenstates $|sm\rangle_{Q_p}$ of $H_{m}^{Q_p}$ to product states $|k'm-1\rangle|\alpha_{m}\rangle_{Q_p}$, i.e., $$|sm\rangle_{Q_p} =
\sum_{k'\alpha_{m}}A^{\alpha_{m}}_{k's}|k'm-1\rangle|\alpha_{m}\rangle.\label{eq:transformation-matrix}$$ The generalized overlap matrix elements $\mathcal{S}^{m}_{r_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)$ appearing in Eqs. (\[eq:rho++multiple\]-\[eq:rho0multiple\]) are diagonal in the environment variables [@Nghiem2014], $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}^{m}_{r_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)\times\delta_{ee'}={_i}\langle rem|e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}|se'm\rangle{_{Q_{p+1}}}\label{eq:overlapTime}.\end{aligned}$$ and assume the values $\mathcal{S}^m_{r_is_{Q_{1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_0)=S^m_{r_is_{Q_{1}}}$ at $\tilde{\tau}_0=0$, with $S^m_{r_is_{Q_{1}}}$ being the ordinary overlap matrix elements between eigenstates of $H^{Q_0}=H^i$ and $H^{Q_1}$. [^1]
Similarly to the projected density matrix, the generalized overlap matrix elements $\mathcal{S}^m_{s_ir_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)$ can be decomposed into three terms and calculated recursively as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{S}^m_{r_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)=\mathcal{S}^{m++}_{r_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)+\mathcal{S}^{m0}_{r_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)+\mathcal{S}^{m--}_{r_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p),\label{eq:totalStau}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{S}^{m++}_{r_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)=\sum_{k}\mathcal{S}^m_{r_ik_{Q_p}}(\tilde{\tau}_{p-1})e^{iE^m_k{\tau}_p}S^m_{k_{Q_p}s_{Q_{p+1}}},\label{eq:totalStau++}\\
&\mathcal{S}^{m0}_{r_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)=\sum_{l}\mathcal{S}^m_{r_il_{Q_p}}(\tilde{\tau}_{p-1})e^{iE^m_l{\tau}_p}S^m_{l_{Q_p}s_{Q_{p+1}}},\label{eq:totalStau0}
\\
&\mathcal{S}^{m--}_{r_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)
=\sum_{\alpha_m}\sum_{kk'}A^{\alpha_m\dagger}_{rk}\Big[\mathcal{S}^{(m-1)0}_{k_ik'_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_{p})+\mathcal{S}^{(m-1)--}_{k_ik'_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_{p})\Big]A^{\alpha_m}_{k's},\label{eq:totalStau--}\nonumber\\
&\hspace{6em}\text{with\quad } \mathcal{S}^{m_0--}_{r_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)=0.\end{aligned}$$ For detailed proofs of these equations, we refer the reader to our previous paper. In reducing the generalized overlap matrix elements from the general expression in Eq. (\[eq:overlapTime\]) to the expressions in terms of the components in Eqs. (\[eq:totalStau++\])-(\[eq:totalStau–\]), the NRG approximation is adopted in the time-evolution factors $e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}$, i.e, we use that $H|qem\rangle\approx H^m|qem\rangle=E^m_q|qem\rangle$ and $e^{iHt}|qem\rangle\approx e^{iH^m t}|qem\rangle=e^{iE^m_qt}|qem\rangle$. Therefore, all the generalized overlap matrix elements are subject to an error coming from the NRG approximation, except for $\mathcal{S}^m_{r_is_{Q_{1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_0)=S^m_{r_is_{Q_{1}}}$ which involves no time-evolution factors. Furthermore, the generalized overlap matrix elements at $\tilde{\tau}_p$ depend recursively on those at $\tilde{\tau}_{p-1}$, Eqs. (\[eq:totalStau++\]) and (\[eq:totalStau0\]). Hence the error in the generalized overlap matrix elements at $\tilde{\tau}_p$ is not just due to the NRG approximation at this step, but also accumulates from the error of overlap matrix elements at previous steps. Since the multiple-quench TDNRG formalism relies on the NRG approximation for evaluating the generalized overlap matrix elements, this approximation results in errors in the projected density matrices for $p>1$, which result also in errors in the time-evolution of a local observable, which we shall quantify in the next section on numerical results.
Nevertheless, our multiple-quench TDNRG formalism, is based solely on the NRG approximation, and explicitly includes all the components of the projected density matrix and generalized overlap matrix elements. As for the single quench case, discussed in our previous paper, the present multiple-quench TDNRG remains valid at arbitrary finite temperatures due to the use of the FDM in Eq. (\[eq:rhomultiquenches\]), see Sec. \[subsubsec:temperature-dependence\]. It differs from previous studies of multiple quenches within the hybrid TDNRG,[@Eidelstein2012] where some components, e.g., $\mathcal{S}^{m--}$ and $\rho^{--}$, are neglected.
Exact results and sources of error {#sec:limits}
==================================
As for the single quench case[@Nghiem2014], the TDNRG for multiple quenches obeys a number of exact results and fulfills some exact limits. We can use these to check the numerical precision of the calculations as well as the accuracy of the multiple-quench TDNRG method. For example, in [paper I]{} we showed that for the single quench case, the short-time limit of observables is exact, i.e., that $O(t\to 0^{+})=O_i$, with $O_i = {\rm Tr} [\rho \hat{O}]$ being the thermodynamic value in the initial state. This result remains true also for the multiple-quench TDNRG method : in both cases it relies on the fact that the NRG approximation is inoperative in the limit $t\to 0^{+}$ (see [paper I]{} for a formal proof of this result). In contrast to this, we find, as for the single quench case, that the long-time limit of observables, $O(t\to\infty)$, has a finite error, which we shall discuss further in Sec. \[subsec:general-pulses\] in the context of general pulses. We next list the various limiting cases and exact results for the multiple-quench TDNRG.
First, if the switch-on time is set to zero, $\sum_n^{p=1} \tau_p = \tilde{\tau}_n=0$, the multiple-quench formalism reduces exactly to our formalism for the finite temperature single quench case in [paper I]{}. In this case, each time interval $\tau_p = 0$ leads to $e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}|rem\rangle_{Q_p}\equiv 1\dot |rem\rangle_{Q_p}$, and no error is incurred in these factors upon adopting the NRG approximation $H^{Q_p}|rem\rangle_{Q_p}\approx H_{m}^{Q_p}|rem\rangle_{Q_p}$. Therefore, from Eqs. (\[eq:totalStau\]-\[eq:totalStau–\]) we have that $\mathcal{S}^m_{r_is_{f}}(\tilde{\tau}_n=0)=S^m_{r_is_{f}}$, and the multiple-quench formalism recovers the single quench one exactly. Indeed, multiple-quench numerical calculations with $\tilde{\tau}_n=0$ yielded results within $10^{-10}$ of the corresponding single quench numerical calculation.
Second, when all quench sizes equal zero, i.e., when $H^{i}=H^{Q_0}=\dots = H^{Q_{n+1}}=H^{f}$, the expectation value of a local observable in Eq. (\[eq:Otime\]) is time-independent and exactly equals the equilibrium thermodynamic value $O(t)=O_{i}=O_{f}$. In this case, $S^m_{r_{Q_p}s_{Q_{p+1}}}=\delta_{rs}$ and the generalized overlap matrix elements in Eqs. (\[eq:totalStau\]-\[eq:totalStau–\]) yield $\mathcal{S}^m_{r_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)=e^{iE^m_r\tilde{\tau}_p}\delta_{rs}$. Substituting this generalized overlap matrix element into Eqs. (\[eq:rho++multiple\]-\[eq:rho0multiple\]), we see that only the $\rho^{0}_{rs}(m,\tilde{\tau}_p)$ component of the projected density matrix contributes in Eq. (\[eq:Otime\]) with the restriction $rs\notin KK'$. Even though, the NRG approximation appears in $\mathcal{S}^m_{r_is_{Q_{p+1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)$, it will be canceled by the complex conjugate $\mathcal{S}^m_{s_{Q_{p+1}}r_i}(-\tilde{\tau}_p)$ in Eq. (\[eq:rho0multiple\]). Eventually, $O(t)=\sum_{ml}w_{m} \frac{e^{-\beta E_{l}^{m}}}{{Z}_{m}}O_{ll}=O_i=O_f$. In this limiting case, the multiple-quench numerical calculation agreed with the exact equilibrium results within an error of typically less than $10^{-10}$. Together with the first exact result above, this provides a useful test that the multiple-quench formalism is correctly implemented numerically.
Third, by setting the local observable in Eq. (\[eq:Otime\]) to be the identity operator, $\hat{O}=1$, we can show that the trace of the projected density matrices is preserved at each time step, i.e., ${\rm Tr}[\rho^{i\to Q_{p+1}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)]=1$, provided that the NRG approximation is not used to evaluate the generalized overlap matrix elements in Eq. (\[eq:overlapTime\]). The proof of this may be found in Appendix \[sec:trace-projected-density-matrix\]. In practice, as outlined at the end of Sec. \[sec:limits\], the evaluation of these generalized overlap matrix elements proceeds via the recursive expressions in Eqs. (\[eq:totalStau\]-\[eq:totalStau–\]) which are obtained by making the NRG approximation. Hence, except for the first time interval $t\leq {\tilde{\tau}}_{1}$, an accumulated error in the trace of the projected density matrices for $p>1$ will arise, which we shall quantify in more detail, numerically, below.
Finally, one can ask whether the continuity in the time-evolution of a local observable is guaranteed at the boundaries of each time step, i.e., whether $O(t\to \tilde{\tau}^-_p)=O(t\to \tilde{\tau}^+_p)$. Here, again, we can prove that this holds within the multiple-quench TDNRG formalism presented above, provided that we do not use the NRG approximation in evaluating the generalized overlap matrix elements in Eq. (\[eq:overlapTime\]), see Appendix \[sec:continuity\]. However, in practice, this approximation is required to arrive at a feasible procedure for the evaluation of these matrix elements, such as the recursion relations in Eqs. (\[eq:totalStau\]-\[eq:totalStau–\]), which are obtained from Eq. (\[eq:overlapTime\]) by making use of only the NRG approximation. Consequently, in actual numerical calculations, which use Eqs. (\[eq:totalStau\]-\[eq:totalStau–\]), discontinuities in the time dependence of observables at the boundaries of the time intervals do arise and we shall discuss these in more detail below (see also the next section on numerical results, particularly Sec. \[subsubsec:dependence-switch-on-time\]).
![ (Color online) Application of the multiple-quench TDNRG to the Anderson impurity model, for $n_{\rm quench}=3$ quenches at low temperature $T/T_{\rm K}\approx 10^{-4}$ (essentially zero temperature). The sequence of quenches, shown in (a), switches the system from $\varepsilon_i=0$ (the mixed valence regime) through two states with local level position at $-2\Gamma$ and $-4\Gamma$, before eventually switching it to the final state at $\varepsilon_f=-6\Gamma$ (the symmetric Kondo regime). (b) The deviation of ${\rm Tr}[\rho^{i\to Q_p}(\tilde{\tau}_{p-1})]$ from the expected value of $1$ at each time step. (c) The time-evolution of the occupation number at each time step. The other parameters are $U=12\Gamma$, and $\Gamma=10^{-3}D$. $T_{\rm K}\approx 2.0\times 10^{-5}D$ is the Kondo temperature in the final state. The calculations are for $\Lambda=4$, no $z$ averaging, and keeping states below $E_{\rm cut}=24$. In this, and all subsequent numerical results, we do not use any damping[@Anders2006] in the exponential factors appearing in Eq. ([\[eq:Otime\]]{}). []{data-label="fig:Error"}](figure02){width="50.00000%"}
In order to obtain further insight into the errors described above, we present here the numerical results of the multiple-quench TDNRG applied to the Anderson impurity model with a simple switching. In Fig. \[fig:Error\] (a), we switch the local level position $\varepsilon_d(t)$ by a sequence of three quenches, which changes the system from the mixed-valence regime to the symmetric Kondo regime. Figure \[fig:Error\] (b) represents the percentage deviation of the trace of projected density matrix from the expected value of $1$ at each time step. At the first step, the trace exactly equals $1$, but the traces at the later steps deviate from unity with errors less than $0.1\%$. Since the projected density matrix at each time step is calculated via the generalized overlap matrix elements at the same time step, while the latter, $\mathcal{S}^m_{r_is_{Q_{1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_p)$, except for $\mathcal{S}^m_{r_is_{Q_{1}}}(\tilde{\tau}_0=0)$, are evaluated by making use of the NRG approximation, we have that ${\rm Tr}[\rho^{i\to Q_{1}}(\tilde{\tau}_0)]=1$ exactly, and the trace of the projected density matrices at later time steps shows a finite error.
For the continuity of the time-evolution of a local observable, we present the time-evolution of the local level occupation number $n_d$ in Fig. \[fig:Error\] (c). The gaps at the boundary of each time step, $\Delta n_d(\tilde{\tau}_p)=|n_d(\tilde{\tau}_p^+)-n_d(\tilde{\tau}_p^-)|$, can not be observed in the figure as they are less than $10^{-4}$. The errors in the trace of projected density matrices and the time-evolution of a local observable are small here due to the short time steps, and the small quench sizes. In the next section, we apply the multiple-quench TDNRG method to some cases, where the errors can become more significant.
Numerical results {#sec:numerical}
=================
In this section, we apply the TDNRG for multiple quenches to the Anderson impurity model for general pulses in Sec. \[subsec:general-pulses\], clarifying the dependence of the error in the long-time limit of observables as a function of the switch-on time and pulse shape, for fixed initial and final states. In Sec. \[subsec:periodic-driving\] we present results for periodic driving, comparing the multiple-quench TDNRG results with analytic continuum results in the case of the RLM and showing the applicability of the method to arbitrary finite temperatures for the non-trivial case of the interacting Anderson impurity model.
General pulses: Anderson impurity model {#subsec:general-pulses}
---------------------------------------
In applying the multiple-quench TDNRG to general pulses, we use the Anderson impurity model in the strong correlation limit $U\gg \Gamma$. We focus on switching from a given initial state (the mixed valence regime for $\epsilon_d=0$) to a given final state (the symmetric Kondo regime with $\varepsilon_d=-U/2$ and local level occupancy $n_{d}=1$). We shall investigate the time-evolution of the local level occupancy for a linear ramp as a function of the switch-on time (Sec. \[subsubsec:dependence-switch-on-time\]), and as a function of increasingly smoother pulses for a fixed switch-on time (Sec. \[subsubsec:dependence-pulse-shape\]), comparing results in both cases to the single quench result. We suggested in [paper I]{} that the multiple-quench TDNRG may describe the long time thermodynamic limit better than the single quench case, and we shall show below, that the results support this suggestion. Increasing the switch-on time for a given pulse, allows the system more time to relax to its correct thermodynamic long-time limit, which we find, while smoother pulses favor equilibration and have a similar effect. In brief, adiabatic changes allow for a better dissipation of energy in response to perturbations and a more accurate description of the long-time limit.
### Dependence on switch-on time {#subsubsec:dependence-switch-on-time}
![ (Color online) Time dependence of the occupation number $n_d(t)$ following pulses $\varepsilon_d(t)$ as in the inset with different switch-on times; $\tilde{\tau}_n\Gamma=0$ (single quench), $0.8$, and $1.6$ (linear ramps). In all cases, switching is from the mixed valence regime with $\varepsilon_d=0$ and $n_d\approx 0.44$ to the symmetric Kondo regime with $\varepsilon_d=-U/2$ and $n_d=1$. The calculation is at the low temperature $T\approx 10^{-4}T_{\rm K}$. The other parameters are $U=12\Gamma$, and $\Gamma=10^{-3}D$. $T_{\rm K}\approx 2.0\times 10^{-5}D$ is the Kondo temperature in the final state. The calculations are for $\Lambda=4$, $N_z=32$, and keeping states below $E_{\rm cut}=24$. []{data-label="fig:OccVsTime"}](figure03){width="50.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:OccVsTime\] shows the time dependence of the occupation number $n_d(t)$ upon switching the system from the mixed valence to the symmetric Kondo regime for different switch-on times: $\tilde{\tau}_n\Gamma=0$ for the sudden quench, and $\tilde{\tau}_n\Gamma=0.8$, and $1.6$ for the linear ramps shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:OccVsTime\]. The linear ramps are approximated by a sequence of smaller quenches. The number of quenches $n_{\rm quench}$ for each linear ramp is chosen by increasing it until the time-evolution converges. We use $n_{\rm quench}=20$ for the linear ramp with $\tilde{\tau}_n\Gamma=0.8$, and $n_{\rm quench}=30$ for $\tilde{\tau}_n\Gamma=1.6$. As expected, the occupation evolves in time with a delay time which increases monotonically with the switch-on time on short time scales. Note that the discontinuity in the time-evolution discussed in Sec. \[sec:limits\] can not be observed here, since all the gaps, $\Delta n_d(\tilde{\tau}_p)$, at the boundaries of the time steps are less than $5\times 10^{-4}$. In the long-time limit, the linear ramp with the longer switch-on time gives us the occupation number closer to the expected value $1$, i.e., the thermodynamic value in the final state. This supports our suggestion in [paper I]{} that the TDNRG can give an improved long-time limit in the case of a sequence of small quenches over a finite time scale than in the case of a sudden large quench.
![ (Color online) The occupation number in long-time limit $n_d(t\to \infty)$ vs the switch-on time $\tilde{\tau}_n$. The system is switched with a linear ramp pulse, which is approximated by a sequence of up to $100$ quenches, depending on $\tilde{\tau}_n$. The inset shows the corresponding deviation of the trace of the projected density matrix from the expected value, $1$. The calculation is for $T\approx 10^{-4}T_{\rm K}$ (essentially zero temperature). The other parameters are $U=12\Gamma$, and $\Gamma=10^{-3}D$. $T_{\rm K}\approx 2.0\times 10^{-5}D$ is the Kondo temperature in the final state. The calculations are for $\Lambda=4$, $N_z=4$, and keeping states below $E_{\rm cut}=24$. []{data-label="fig:longtimelimitVstaun"}](figure04){width="50.00000%"}
To further clarify the above discussion, we investigate the switch-on time $\tilde{\tau}_n$ dependence of the occupation number in the long-time limit, shown in Fig. \[fig:longtimelimitVstaun\]. The system here is also switched from the mixed-valence to the symmetric Kondo regime via a linear ramp, approximated as in the inset of Fig. \[fig:OccVsTime\], but for a wider range of switch-on times $\tilde{\tau}_n$. For $\tilde{\tau}_n\Gamma\ge 4$, the linear ramps are approximated by a sequence of $100$ quenches, a limit set mainly by the available computer memory. For $\tilde{\tau}_n/\Gamma<4$, $n_{\rm quench}$ is chosen such that the occupation number in the long-time limit is converged, and we find in this case that $n_{\rm quench}<100$ suffices. We see that the occupation number in the long-time limit approaches the expected value of $n_d=1$ as the switch-on time increases, exceeds $1$ for $\tilde{\tau}_n\Gamma \gtrsim 2$, and eventually saturates to a finite value. This finite value exceeds the expected one by $\sim 0.6\%$.
From Eq. (\[eq:Otime\]), we have that the occupation number in the long-time limit only depends on the diagonal elements of the projected density matrix at the last time step, $n_d(t\to +\infty)=\sum_{ml}\rho^{i\to f}_{ll}(m,\tilde{\tau}_n)O^m_{ll}$. On the other hand, from Sec. \[sec:limits\] we learn that the TDNRG calculation for multiple quenches gives rise to an error in the trace of the projected density matrix, ${\rm Tr}[\rho^{i\to f}(\tilde{\tau}_{n})]=\sum_{ml}\rho^{i\to f}_{ll}(m,\tilde{\tau}_n)$. One may, therefore, raise a question concerning the switch-on time dependence of the occupation number in the long-time limit, namely, whether the occupation number in the long-time limit is really getting closer to the expected value with increasing switch-on times, or, whether this is a result of the accumulated error of the projected density matrix, e.g., as shown in Fig. \[fig:Error\] (b). To clarify this, we show the error in the trace of the corresponding projected density matrix at the last time step versus the switch-on time in the inset to Fig. \[fig:longtimelimitVstaun\]. This error is seen to also increase with increasing switch-on time, but does not exceed $0.6\%$, and also starts to saturate at longer switch-on times. This suggests that the error in the projected density matrix results in the small $0.6\%$ deviation of $n_d(t\to \infty)$ from its expected long-time limit of $1$ observed in Fig. \[fig:longtimelimitVstaun\]. Therefore, we conclude that longer switch-on times really result in the occupation number coming closer to its expected value in the long-time limit. Since the source of the error in the trace ${\rm Tr}[\rho^{i\to f}(\tilde{\tau}_{n})]$ stems from the NRG approximation used in the evaluation of the generalized overlap matrix elements (see Sec. \[sec:limits\]), improved schemes for evaluating the latter may allow the multiple-quench formalism to obtain the long-time limit of observables exactly.
### Dependence on pulse shape {#subsubsec:dependence-pulse-shape}
![ (Color online) Time dependence of the occupation number $n_d(t)$ in response to pulses with different shapes but with a constant switch-on time $\tilde{\tau}_n=1.6/\Gamma$; $\varepsilon_d(t)$ is shown in the inset for the four pulse shapes \[square (solid line), logistic (long-dashed line), trigonometric (dashed line), and linear (dotted line)\]. The calculation is at the low temperature $T\approx 10^{-4}T_{\rm K}$. The other parameters are $U=12\Gamma$, and $\Gamma=10^{-3}D$. $T_{\rm K}\approx 2.0\times 10^{-5}D$ is the Kondo temperature in the final state. The calculations are for $\Lambda=4$, $N_z=32$, and keeping states below $E_{\rm cut}=24$. []{data-label="fig:OccVsTimePulse"}](figure05){width="50.00000%"}
We now turn to the effect of the pulse shape on the time-evolution for a fixed switch-on time. Figure \[fig:OccVsTimePulse\] shows the time dependence of the occupation number upon switching the system from a fixed initial state in the mixed valence regime (that for $\varepsilon_d=0$) to the final state defined by the symmetric Kondo regime ($\varepsilon_d=-U/2$) using pulses of different shape while maintaining a fixed switch-on time: the step function (the sudden quench), the logistic, trigonometric, and linear functions (smooth pulses) as represented in the inset to Figure \[fig:OccVsTimePulse\]. For comparison between the cases of a sudden quench and general smooth pulses, we shift the sudden quench to start at $\tilde{\tau}_0\Gamma=0.8$, and set the switch-on time equal for all three smooth pulses ($\tilde{\tau}_n\Gamma=1.6$) with $\tilde{\tau}_0\Gamma=0$. Each pulse is approximated by a sequence of $30$ quenches, described by the same set of $\{H^{Q_0},\dots,H^{Q_{n+1}}\}$. Due to the different pulse shapes, however, we have different sets of $\{\tilde{\tau}_1,\dots,\tilde{\tau}_{n}\}$ for each pulse. As expected, the time-evolution of the occupation number at short times is more rapid for pulses which vary more rapidly. As in Fig. \[fig:OccVsTime\], the discontinuity in the time-evolution can not be observed here since the gaps at the boundaries of the time steps are less than $5\times 10^{-4}$. In the long-time limit, the smoother varying pulses result in occupation numbers closer to the expected value of $n_d=1$. Together with the switch-on time dependence of the occupation number in the long-time limit in Fig. \[fig:longtimelimitVstaun\], this suggests that the TDNRG for general pulses gives improved results the smoother the pulse. Smoother pulses also imply increased adiabaticity favoring energy dissipation and relaxation to the correct long-time limit. Note also, the gradual disappearance of the oscillations with increasing switch-on time in Fig. \[fig:OccVsTime\], and with increasing smoothness of the pulse in Fig. \[fig:OccVsTimePulse\]. The former trend has been noted before in the context of the interacting resonant level model. [@Kennes2012b] In general, this suppression of ringing correlates with increased adiabaticity.
Periodic driving {#subsec:periodic-driving}
----------------
In this section we first apply the multiple-quench TDNRG to periodic driving in the exactly solvable RLM and compare the numerical results with analytic continuum results. We consider square and triangular periodic driving of the local level position (Sec. \[subsubsec:rlm\]). We next apply the TDNRG to the non-trivial case of the strongly correlated Anderson impurity model $U\gg \Gamma$ with a triangular periodic driving of the local level, showing, in particular results for the time-evolution of the occupation number at arbitrary finite temperatures (Sec. \[subsubsec:temperature-dependence\]).
### RLM: Comparison with exact results {#subsubsec:rlm}
In the application of the multiple-quench TDNRG method to the RLM, we shall further check the accuracy of the method by comparing the time-evolution of the occupation number to the analytical results in the wide-band limit. The analytic expression for the occupation number following a single quench[@Anders2006] is generalized to the multiple-quench case as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
&n_d(\tilde{\tau}_{p+1}>t\ge \tilde{\tau}_p)=\rho_F\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(\varepsilon)|A(\varepsilon,t)|^2 d\varepsilon,\label{eq:analytic_nd}\\
&A(\varepsilon,\tilde{\tau}_{p+1}>t\ge \tilde{\tau}_p)=\frac{V_{Q_{p+1}}e^{-i\varepsilon t}}{i(\varepsilon^{Q_{p+1}}_{d}-\varepsilon)+\Gamma_{Q_{p+1}}}\label{eq:analytic_A}\\
&-e^{-i(\varepsilon^{Q_{p+1}}_{d}+\Gamma_{Q_{p+1}}) (t-\tilde{\tau}_p)}\left(\frac{V_{Q_{p+1}}e^{-i\varepsilon \tilde{\tau}_p}}{i(\varepsilon^{Q_{p+1}}_{d}-\varepsilon)+\Gamma_{Q_{p+1}}}-A(\varepsilon,\tilde{\tau}_p)\right)\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ in which $A(\varepsilon,\tilde{\tau}_{p+1}>t\ge \tilde{\tau}_p)$ is calculated recursively with $\displaystyle A(\varepsilon,\tilde{\tau}_0)=\frac{V_{i}}{i(\varepsilon^{i}_{d}-\varepsilon)+\Gamma_{i}}$ corresponding to the initial state. $\rho_F$ is the density of state of the fermionic bath, $f(\varepsilon)$ is the Fermi distribution, $\Gamma_{Q_{p}}=\pi\rho_F|V_{Q_{p}}|^2$, and $\{V_{Q_{p}}, \varepsilon_d^{Q_{p}}\}$ are the hybridization and local level associated with the quench Hamiltonian $H^{Q_{p}}$. In both the analytic and the TDNRG calculations, we approximate a smooth pulse, or here, a train of pulses, by exactly the same sequence of small quenches. Thus, we can compare directly the exact continuum results with those of the TDNRG approach.
![ (Color online) Application of the multiple-quench TDNRG to the RLM with the square periodic switching $\varepsilon_d(t)$ as in the upper panel figure. The lower panel shows the time-evolution of the occupation number at the low temperature $T\approx 10^{-4}\Gamma$. The other parameters are $U=0\Gamma$, and $\Gamma=10^{-3}D$. The calculations are for $\Lambda=4$, $z$ averaging with $N_z=16$, and keeping states below $E_{\rm cut}=24$. []{data-label="fig:periodicSquare"}](figure06){width="50.00000%"}
In Fig. \[fig:periodicSquare\] (lower panel), we show the time-evolution of the occupation number, following the periodic switching, represented in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:periodicSquare\]. One sees that the occupation numbers calculated with the TDNRG and the analytical Eqs. (\[eq:analytic\_nd\]-\[eq:analytic\_A\]) both oscillate in time with the same frequency as the driving. The two results agree very well with each other up to $t{\Gamma}<3$ and deviate for longer times. The discontinuity in the time-evolution of the occupation number in the TDNRG calculation can be observed here with visible gaps $\Delta n_d(t)$ at the boundaries of the time steps, $t{\Gamma}=4.5,5.5$, and $6.5$, while the analytical result is obviously continuous. The difference between the results of the two calculations comes partly from the fact that the TDNRG calculation is based on the logarithmic discretization of the conduction band, while the analytic calculation is carried out in the continuum limit. However, the NRG approximation also contributes to this difference, resulting in the observed discontinuities which increase in size with increasing time. We expect, in general, following the discussion of pulse shapes on cumulative errors in Sec. \[subsec:general-pulses\], that smoother driving will show reduced errors at longer times, a topic we discuss next.
![ (Color online) As in Fig. \[fig:periodicSquare\], but with triangular periodic switching approximated by the sequence of small quenches shown in the upper panel. The lower panel shows the time-evolution of the occupation number $n_d(t)$ for this case and the parameters are as in Fig. \[fig:periodicSquare\]. []{data-label="fig:periodicTriangle"}](figure07){width="50.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:periodicTriangle\] shows the time-evolution of the occupation number (lower panel) in response to a triangular periodic driving, which is approximately replaced by a sequence of small quenches, represented in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:periodicTriangle\]. We set the square and triangular periodic drivings in Figs. \[fig:periodicSquare\] and \[fig:periodicTriangle\] to have the same frequency and phase, therefore the oscillations of the occupation numbers calculated by either the TDNRG or the analytical expression in these two figures are period- and phase-matching. In contrast, the amplitude of the oscillations in the occupation numbers in the two cases differ, with triangular switching resulting in a smaller amplitude. In the TDNRG calculations for the square and triangular drivings, we have used the same discretization parameter $\Lambda=4$. However, in comparison to the case of square switching in Figs. \[fig:periodicSquare\], we see that the TDNRG result for the time-evolution of the occupation number with triangular periodic driving exhibits better agreement to the analytical result, and less significant gaps at the boundaries of the time steps. This suggests that the TDNRG calculation for multiple quenches gives the time-evolution of a local observable in closer agreement to the exact result if each quench size is small enough and for sufficiently smooth trains of pulses.
### Periodically driven Anderson model: temperature dependence {#subsubsec:temperature-dependence}
![ (Color online) Application to the Anderson impurity model with triangular periodic switching $\varepsilon_d(t)$ as shown in the upper panel. The lower panel shows the time-evolution of the occupation number for a number of temperatures $T/T_{\rm K}$, ranging from very low, $10^{-4}$ (essentially zero temperature), to very high, $10^{+5}$ (comparable to band width). The other parameters are $U=12\Gamma$, and $\Gamma=10^{-3}D$. $T_{\rm K}\approx 2.0\times 10^{-5}D$ is the Kondo temperature in the final state. The calculations are for $\Lambda=4$, $N_z=16$, and keeping states below $E_{\rm cut}=24$. []{data-label="fig:AIMperiodicTriangle"}](figure08){width="50.00000%"}
So far we have only shown results for very low (essentially zero) temperature. However, the multiple-quench TDNRG formalism is also applicable to arbitrary finite temperatures since it is based on the FDM approach. Temperature effects are particularly important for interacting systems, such as the Kondo or Anderson impurity models. To illustrate the applicability of our formalism to finite temperature, we show in Fig. \[fig:AIMperiodicTriangle\] the time dependence of the occupation number in the Anderson impurity model upon switching the system periodically between the mixed valence and the symmetric Kondo regime at four different temperatures, $T/T_{\rm K}=10^{-4},10^{+2},10^{+3}$, and $10^{+5}$. We use triangular switching, and approximately replace this by a sequence of quenches, $n_{\rm quench}=44$, as shown in the upper part of Fig. \[fig:AIMperiodicTriangle\]. At each temperature, one can see that the occupation number oscillates in time with the driving frequency. The oscillation amplitude decreases with increasing temperature, and, eventually, at the very highest temperature $T=10^{5}T_{\rm K}\approx 2000\Gamma \gg \Gamma$ (comparable to the bandwidth), the oscillations disappear. In this limit, where $T\gg |\varepsilon_d(t)|,U, \Gamma$, all four states of the impurity are equally occupied and the average local level occupancy acquires the time-independent value of $n_{d}=1$. As in the application of the multiple-quench TDNRG to the RLM with triangular periodic driving, the gaps at the boundaries of the time steps are sufficiently small as to not be observable in the figure at all temperatures.
Conclusions {#sec:summary}
===========
In this paper, we numerically implemented the TDNRG formalism for multiple quenches, derived in our previous paper[@Nghiem2014], to study the response of a quantum impurity system to general pulses and periodic switching. Several limiting cases allowed us to test the correctness and accuracy of our numerical implementation.
For general pulses, with switching between a given initial and a given final state, we applied the method to the Anderson impurity model and investigated how the error in the long-time limit depends on the switch-on time and the pulse shape. We found that the long-time limit becomes more accurate with increasing switch-on times for a given pulse shape (a linear ramp) and with increasing smoothness of the pulse (for a fixed switch-on time). We interpret this as implying that longer switch-on times or smoother pulses, i.e., increased adiabaticity, favor equilibration of the system to its correct long-time limit. The switch-on time and pulse shape dependence of the long-time limit supports our suggestion in the previous paper that the long-time limit can be improved if the system is switched by a sequence of many small quenches over a finite time scale instead of a sudden large quench. The multiple-quench TDNRG formalism therefore provides an algorithmic improvement in obtaining the long-time limit of observables, as compared to the single-quench formalism in [paper I]{}. Nevertheless, as discussed in Ref. , the use in NRG calculations of a Wilson chain, which has only a finite (non-extensive) heat capacity, may prohibit thermalization of local observables to their exact thermodynamic values at long times. Support for this comes from the observation in [paper I]{} that the long-time limit of observables is indeed improved for $\Lambda\to 1^{+}$, in which a Wilson chain ($\Lambda>1$) approaches a continuum bath ($\Lambda=1$). Since the limit $\Lambda\to 1^+$ is impractical in NRG calculations [@Wilson1975], it would be interesting in the future to explore ways of including a coupling to a thermal reservoir within NRG in order to address the above problem.
For periodic driving, we compared the multiple-quench TDNRG calculations to available exact analytic results for the RLM. In the short to intermediate time range, the time-evolution of the occupation number shows better agreement to the analytic results in the case of triangular periodic switching than in the case of square periodic switching. This also suggests that the time-evolution is more accurate for smoother periodic pulses than for less smooth periodic pulses (e.g., square pulses). Finally, we applied the TDNRG to the Anderson impurity model with periodic driving and demonstrated the validity of the formalism to an arbitrary finite temperature.
We identified a source of error in the multiple-quench TDNRG, absent in the single-quench case, which is due to the use of the NRG approximation in the time-evolution factors entering the generalized overlap matrix elements (Sec. \[subsec:formalism\] and Sec. \[sec:limits\]). While the errors are small in many situations, see Sec. \[sec:limits\] and \[sec:numerical\], they can become significant after many cycles in the case of periodic driving. It would therefore be of interest in the future to devise alternative schemes for evaluating the generalized overlap matrix elements, in order to reduce or overcome this source of error.
In future, it would be interesting to apply the present formalism to pump-probe spectroscopies of magnetic adatoms to calculate lifetimes of excited states, [@Loth2010] to quantum dots in time-dependent fields, [@Medvedyeva2013; @Nordlander1999; @Plihal2000; @Bruder1994; @Kogan2004; @Haupt2013] and, with a suitable generalization to spectral functions, to time-resolved photoemission and related spectroscopies. [@Perfetti2006; @Loth2010; @Iyoda2014; @Freericks2009; @Eckstein2008] The latter generalization would also be of interest in the context of non-equilibrium dynamical mean field theory.[@Freericks2006; @Aoki2014]
We thank A. Weichselbaum for useful comments and acknowledge supercomputer support by the John von Neumann institute for Computing (Jülich).
Trace of the Projected density matrix {#sec:trace-projected-density-matrix}
=====================================
For the proof of the conservation of the trace of the projected density matrices, we have, starting from the equation preceding Eq. (\[eq:rhomultiquenches\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&{\rm Tr}[\rho^{i\to Q_{p+1}}(\tilde{\tau}_{p})]
=\sum_{mle}{_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle lem|e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\rho e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}| lem\rangle{_{Q_{p+1}}}\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{mle}\sum_{m_1l_1e_1}{_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle lem|e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}|l_1e_1m_1\rangle{_i}w_{m_1} \frac{e^{-\beta E_{l_1}^{m_1}}}{\tilde{Z}_{m_1}}{_i}\langle l_1e_1m_1|e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}| lem\rangle_{Q_{p+1}}\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{mle}\sum_{m_1l_1e_1}{_i}\langle l_1e_1m_1|e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}| lem\rangle_{Q_{p+1}}{_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle lem|e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}|l_1e_1m_1\rangle{_i}w_{m_1} \frac{e^{-\beta E_{l_1}^{m_1}}}{\tilde{Z}_{m_1}}\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{m_1l_1e_1}{_i}\langle l_1e_1m_1|e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}|l_1e_1m_1\rangle{_i}
w_{m_1} \frac{e^{-\beta E_{l_1}^{m_1}}}{\tilde{Z}_{m_1}}\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{m_1l_1}w_{m_1} \frac{e^{-\beta E_{l_1}^{m_1}}}{{Z}_{m_1}}=1.\end{aligned}$$
This is conserved at any step, so that we have ${\rm Tr}[\rho^{i\to Q_{p+1}}(\tilde{\tau}_{p})]=\dots={\rm Tr}[\rho^{i\to Q_{1}}(\tilde{\tau}_{0})]=1$.
Notice, that in this proof, we have not made use of the NRG approximation for the generalized overlap matrix elements defined in Eq. (\[eq:overlapTime\]) that appear in the above expression for the trace of the projected density matrices. In practice, however, the NRG approximation is required to obtain feasible expressions for these matrix elements, such as the recursive expressions in Eqs. (\[eq:totalStau\]-\[eq:totalStau–\]) for each time step (except for $p=1$ where no NRG approximation enters these matrix elements). Use of the latter in the above expression for the trace results, then, in a finite error in all but the first projected density matrix.
Continuity of the time-evolution of a local observable {#sec:continuity}
======================================================
For the continuity, we start from the general equation \[see Eq. (\[eq:Otime\])\] $$\begin{aligned}
O(t\ge \tilde{\tau}_p)=&\sum_{mrse}^{\notin KK'} {_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle rem|e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\rho e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}| sem\rangle{_{Q_{p+1}}}e^{-i(E^m_r-E^m_s)(t-\tilde{\tau}_p)}{_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle sem|\hat{O}| rem\rangle_{Q_{p+1}}\label{eq:general},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\text{then}\quad O(t\to\tilde{\tau}^-_p)=&\sum_{mrse}^{\notin KK'} {_{Q_p}}\langle rem|e^{-iH^{Q_{p-1}}{\tau}_{p-1}}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\rho e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_{p-1}}{\tau}_{p-1}}| sem\rangle{_{Q_{p}}} e^{-i(E^m_r-E^m_s)(\tilde{\tau}_p-\tilde{\tau}_{p-1})}{_{Q_{p}}}\langle sem|\hat{O}| rem\rangle_{Q_{p}}\nonumber \\
=&\sum_{mrse}^{\notin KK'} {_{Q_p}}\langle rem|e^{-iH^{Q_{p-1}}{\tau}_{p-1}}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\rho e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_{p-1}}{\tau}_{p-1}}| sem\rangle{_{Q_{p}}} e^{-i(E^m_r-E^m_s){\tau}_p}{_{Q_{p}}}\langle sem|\hat{O}| rem\rangle_{Q_{p}}\label{eq:Otaup-},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{and}\quad O(t\to\tilde{\tau}^+_p)\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{mrse}^{\notin KK'} {_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle rem|e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\rho e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}| sem\rangle{_{Q_{p+1}}}e^{-i(E^m_r-E^m_s)(\tilde{\tau}_p-\tilde{\tau}_p)}{_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle sem|\hat{O}| rem\rangle_{Q_{p+1}}\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{mrse}^{\notin KK'} {_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle rem|e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\rho e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}| sem\rangle{_{Q_{p+1}}} {_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle sem|\hat{O}| rem\rangle_{Q_{p+1}}\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{mrse}^{\notin KK'}\sum_{m_1l_1e_1}\sum_{m_2l_2e_2} {_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle rem|l_1e_1m_1\rangle{_{Q_p}} {_{Q_p}}\langle l_1e_1m_1|e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\rho e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}| l_2e_2m_2\rangle{_{Q_p}}{_{Q_p}}\langle l_2e_2m_2|sem\rangle{_{Q_{p+1}}} {_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle sem|\hat{O}| rem\rangle_{Q_{p+1}}\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{mrse}^{\notin KK'}\sum_{m_1l_1e_1}\sum_{m_2l_2e_2} {_{Q_p}}\langle l_1e_1m_1|e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\rho e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}| l_2e_2m_2\rangle{_{Q_p}} {_{Q_p}}\langle l_2e_2m_2|sem\rangle{_{Q_{p+1}}} {_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle sem|\hat{O}| rem\rangle_{Q_{p+1}}{_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle rem|l_1e_1m_1\rangle{_{Q_p}}
\label{eq:Otaup+}.\end{aligned}$$ We can prove that $\sum_{mrse}^{\notin KK'}{_{Q_p}}\langle l_2e_2m_2|sem\rangle{_{Q_{p+1}}} {_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle sem|\hat{O}| rem\rangle_{Q_{p+1}}{_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle rem|l_1e_1m_1\rangle{_{Q_p}}={_{Q_p}}\langle l_2e_2m_2|\hat{O}| l_1e_1m_1\rangle{_{Q_p}}$[@Nghiem2014]. Substituting this into Eq. (\[eq:Otaup+\]), we have that $$\begin{aligned}
O(t\to\tilde{\tau}^+_p)=&\sum_{m_1l_1e_1}\sum_{m_2l_2e_2} {_{Q_p}}\langle l_1e_1m_1|e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\rho e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}| l_2e_2m_2\rangle{_{Q_p}} {_{Q_p}}\langle l_2e_2m_2|\hat{O}| l_1e_1m_1\rangle{_{Q_p}}\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{m_1rse_1}^{\notin KK'} {_{Q_p}}\langle re_1m_1|e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\rho e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}| se_1m_1\rangle{_{Q_p}}{_{Q_p}}\langle se_1m_1|\hat{O}| re_1m_1\rangle{_{Q_p}}\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{m_1rse_1}^{\notin KK'} {_{Q_p}}\langle re_1m_1|e^{-iH^{Q_{p-1}}{\tau}_{p-1}}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\rho e^{iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}\dots e^{iH^{Q_{p-1}}{\tau}_{p-1}}| se_1m_1\rangle{_{Q_p}}e^{i(E^{m_1}_s-E^{m_1}_r){\tau}_p}{_{Q_p}}\langle se_1m_1|\hat{O}| re_1m_1\rangle{_{Q_p}}\label{eq:Otaup+2}.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, from equations (\[eq:Otaup-\]) and (\[eq:Otaup+2\]), we have that $O(t\to\tilde{\tau}^+_p)=O(t\to\tilde{\tau}^-_p)$.
As in appendix \[sec:trace-projected-density-matrix\], the above proof of the continuity of observables uses the general form for the generalized overlap matrix elements \[Eq. (\[eq:overlapTime\])\]. Once these are reduced to their recursive form in Eqs. (\[eq:totalStau\]-\[eq:totalStau–\]) via the use of the NRG approximation, continuity is only guaranteed for $t\to 0^{+}$, i.e., for the short-time limit of observables, as in [paper I]{}.
[^1]: The factor $e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}$ is the time-evolution operator at time $\tilde{\tau}_{p}=\sum_{i=1}^{p}\tau_i$ following $p$ intermediate quantum quenches described by $H^{Q_1},\dots,H^{Q_{p}}$. Hence, $\protect{{_{Q_{p+1}}}\langle rem|e^{-iH^{Q_p}{\tau}_p}\dots e^{-iH^{Q_1}{\tau}_1}|se'm\rangle{_i}}$ is the matrix element of this time-evolution operator between the initial states of $H^{i}$ and the states of the quench Hamiltonian $H^{Q_{p+1}}$. These generalized overlap matrix elements reduce to ordinary overlap matrix elements only at $\tilde{\tau}_0=0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently Knutsen found criteria for the curves in a complete linear system $|\mathcal{L}|$ on a smooth surface $X$ in a nodal K-trivial threefold $Y_0$ to deform to a scheme of finitely many smooth isolated curves in a general deformation $Y_t$ of $Y_0$. In this article we develop new methods to check whether the set of nodes of $Y_0$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$. As an application, we find new smooth isolated curves in complete intersection Calabi-Yau threefolds.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210-1174, USA'
author:
- Xun Yu
title: 'On smooth and isolated curves in general complete intersection Calabi-Yau threefolds'
---
0. Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
===============
Calabi-Yau threefolds $Y$ have two related and interesting properties: a) $Y$ is unobstructed; b) the expected dimension of the deformation space of any l.c.i. curve lying in $Y$ is zero.
However, it is difficult to show even the existence of a rational curve of given degree and genus on $Y$, let alone that such a curve is geometrically rigid. Thus, there is interest in measuring the known families of geometrically rigid curves of given degree and genus on general $Y$. For genus zero it is known that there exist rigid rational curves of given degree on the general member of many complete intersection Calabi-Yau (CICY) threefolds $Y$. For higher genus Knutsen has provided many examples in \[5\]. Knutsen’s technique is to construct a curve $C$ of given degree and genus lying in a linear system on a smooth surface $X$ lying in a nodal complete intersection Calabi-Yau threefold $Y_0$. He then uses deformation theory to show that only a finite number of the $C$ deform when $Y_0$ is deformed generally.
In \[5\] he lists and proves a set of conditions sufficient to ensure this construction.
To introduce Knutsen’s criterion, we first state the assumptions.
$\bold{Setting \; and \;assumptions}.$ Let $P$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $r\geq 4$ and $\mathcal{E}$ a vector bundle of rank $r-3$ on $P$ that splits as a direct sum of line bundles $\mathcal{E}=\oplus_{i=1}^{r-3}\mathcal{M}_i$.
Let $s_0=s_{0,1}\oplus ...\oplus s_{0,r-3}\in H^0(P, \mathcal{E})=\oplus_{i=1}^{r-3}H^0(P, \mathcal{M}_i)$ be a regular section, where $s_{0,i}\in H^0(P, \mathcal{M}_i)$ for $i=1,..., r-3$. Set $Y=Z(s_0)$ and $Z=Z(s_{0,1}\oplus ...\oplus s_{0, r-4})$\
(where $Z=P$ if $r=4$).
Let $X\subset Y$ be a smooth , regular surface (i.e. $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X)=0$) and $\mathcal{L}$ a line bundle on $X$.
We make the following additional assumptions:\
(A1) $Y$ has trivial canonical bundle;\
(A2) $Z$ is smooth along $X$ and the only singularities of $Y$ which lie in $X$ are $l$ nodes $\xi_1, ..., \xi_l$. Furthermore $$l\geq dim|\mathcal{L}+2|;$$\
(A3) $|\mathcal{L}|\neq\emptyset$ and the general element of $|\mathcal{L}|$ is a smooth, irreducible curve;\
(A4) for every $\xi_i\in S:=\{\xi_1,...,\xi_l\},$ if $|\mathcal{L}\otimes \mathcal{J}_{\xi_i}|\neq \emptyset$, then its general member is nonsingular at $\xi_i$;\
(A5) $H^0(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/X})\cong H^0(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/Y})$ for all $C\in |\mathcal{L}|$;\
(A6) $H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/P})=0$ for all $C\in |\mathcal{L}|$;\
(A7) the image of the natural restriction map $$H^0(P, \mathcal{M}_{r-3})\longrightarrow H^0(S, \mathcal{M}_{r-3}\otimes\mathcal{O}_S)\cong \mathbb{C}^l$$
has codimension one.
Then Knutsen’s criterion is the following:
(\[5, Theorem1.1\]). Under the above setting and assumptions (A1)-(A7), the members of $|\mathcal{L}|$ deform to a length $$\left( \begin{array}{c}
l-2 \\
dim|\mathcal{L}| \end{array} \right)$$ scheme of curves that are smooth and isolated in the general deformation $Y_t=Z(s_0+ts)$ of $Y_0=Y$. In particular, $Y_t$ contains a smooth, isolated curve that is a deformation of a curve in $|\mathcal{L}|$.
Using Knutsen’s criterion, we find some new smooth and isolated curves in general Calabi-Yau complete intersection (CICY) threefolds in this paper.
To apply Theorem 0.1, we need to choose appropriate surfaces $X$ and line bundles $\mathcal{L}$ on $X$. Then we need to show that we can find a nodal Calabi-Yau threefold $Y$ containing $X$ such that all the conditions (A1)-(A7) are satisfied. \[5, Proposition 4.3\] shows that under certain assumptions, (A5) is equivalent to (A5’). Actually, all cases in this paper satisfy those assumptions and we will always check (A5’) instead of (A5). (A5’) consists of two parts:
$(1)$ The set of nodes $S$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$; ($\star$)
$(2)$ The natural map $\gamma_{C} :H^0(C, \mathcal{N}_{X/Y}\otimes \mathcal{O}_C) \longrightarrow H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/X})$(cf.\[5\] (4.4)) is an isomorphism for all $C\in |\mathcal{L}|$.
The part (1) of (A5’) is critical to this paper, and we denote it as $(\star)$.
In §1 we develop the tools we will need to prove $(\star)$ in our cases. In §2 we treat cases in which $X$ is a K3 surface. Finally in §3 we treat the cases in which $X$ is a rational surface.
Our main results are Theorem 2.9, Theorem 2.12 and Theorem 3.1.
$\mathbf{Theorem \;2.9}$: Let $d\geq 1$ and $g\geq 0$ be integers. Then in any of the following cases the general Calabi-Yau complete intersection threefold $Y$ of a particular type contains an isolated, smooth curve of degree $d$ and genus $g$:
\(a) $Y=(5)\subset \mathbb{P}^4: g=23$ and $d=18$; $g=24$ and $d=19$; $g=26$ and $d=20$; $g=27$ and $d=20$; $g=29$ and $d=21$.
\(b) $Y=(4,2)\subset \mathbb{P}^5:$ $g=16$ and $17\le d\le 19$; $g=17$ and $17\le d\le 20$; $g=18$ and $d=20$; $g=19$ and $d=18,20 \; and\; 21$; $g=20$ and $d=19, 20$; $g=21$ and $d=20, 21$; $g=22$ and $d=20, 21$; $g=23$ and $d=20, 22$; $g=25$ and $d=21, 22$; $g=26$ and $d=22$; $g=27$ and $d=22$; $g=29$ and $d=23$.
\(c) $Y=(3,3)\subset \mathbb{P}^5: g=8$ and $d=12$.
\(d) $Y=(2,2,3 )\subset \mathbb{P}^6: g=11$ and $d=16$.
\(e) $Y=(2,2,2,2 )\subset \mathbb{P}^7:$ $g=4$ and $d=9$; $g=5$ and $d=10, 11$.
$\mathbf{Theorem \;2.12}$: Let $d\geq 1$ and $g\geq 0$ be integers. Then in any of the following cases the general Calabi-Yau complete intersection threefold $Y$ of a particular type contains an isolated, smooth curve of degree $d$ and genus $g$:
\(a) $Y=(5)\subset \mathbb{P}^4: g=23$ and $d=19$; $g=24$ and $d=20$; $g=25$ and $d=19, 20$.
\(b) $Y=(4,2)\subset \mathbb{P}^5:$ $g=16$ and $d=20$; $g=18$ and $d=18, 19$; $g=19$ and $d=19$; $g=20$ and $d=21$; $g=21$ and $d=19$; $g=23$ and $d=21$; $g=24$ and $d=21, 22$; $g=27$ and $d=23$; $g=28$ and $d=23$.
\(c) $Y=(2,2,3 )\subset \mathbb{P}^6: g=4$ and $d=8$.
\(d) $Y=(2,2,2,2 )\subset \mathbb{P}^7:$ $g=4$ and $d=10$; $g=6$ and $d=11$.
In order to use Theorem 0.1 to prove Theorem 2.9 and Theorem 2.12, the surfaces $X$ are complete intersection $K3$ surfaces with $PicX=\mathbb{Z}H\oplus\mathbb{Z}C$. (cf.\[6, Theorem 1.1\]), where $H$ is the hyperplane section of $X$ and $C$ is a smooth irreducible curve of desired genus and degree. The K3 surfaces used in the proof of Theorem 2.9 do not have -2 divisors, but the K3 surfaces used in the proof of Theorem 2.12 have -2 divisors. Furthermore, we define the line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ to be $\mathcal{O}_X(C)$. Let $S$ be nodes of general CICY $Y$ containing $X$. By the construction of $X$ and $Y$, $S=A\cap B$, where $(A,B)$ is a general member of $|\mathcal{O}_X(a)|\times |\mathcal{O}_X(b)|$ and $a\leq b$. The integers $a$ and $b$ vary case by case. The good news is that for all cases in Theorem 2.9 and Theorem 2.12, all the conditions \[5\] (A1)-(A7) except the part (1) of (A5’), say ($\star$), can be easily verified by using results in \[5, §6 & §7\] (Lemma 6.1, Lemma 6.2, Prop.6.5 and the proof of Prop 7.2). The bad news is that ($\star$) is hard to verify. Actually, in \[5, Proposition 7.2\] Knutsen uses the condition (7.2) to guarantee ($\star$), but all cases in Theorem 2.9 and Theorem 2.12 do not satisfy the condition (7.2). For this reason, in §1 and Appendix A we develop two new methods which can be used to verify ($\star$).
Actually, we can appy Corollary 1.8 to show $(\star)$ for all cases in Theorem 2.9 and Theorem 2.12. In order to apply Corollary 1.8, we will need to show that $H^1(X, \mathcal{L}(-a-b))=0$. If the K3 surfaces $X$ do not have -2 divisors like in Theorem 2.9, we can just apply Lemma 2.8 to show $H^1(X, \mathcal{L}(-a-b))=0$. Roughly speaking, Lemma 2.8 gives a numerical criterion for the vanishing of the first cohomology group of line bundles on a K3 surface without -2 divisors. Essentially, Lemma 2.8 comes from the fact that on a K3 surface without -2 divisors all complete linear system are base points free. On the other hand, if the K3 surfaces $X$ have -2 divisors, we first compute the closed cone of curves $\overline{NE(X)}$ and the nef cone $Nef(X)$ and then we can prove $H^1(X, \mathcal{L}(-a-b))=0$ by using the information about these cones.
$\mathbf{Theorem \; 3.1}$: Let $d\geq 1$ and $g\geq 0$ be integers. Then in any of the following cases the general Calabi-Yau complete intersection threefold $Y$ of a particular type contains an isolated, smooth curve of degree $d$ and genus $g$:
\(i) $Y=(3,3)\subset \mathbb{P}^5: g=3$ and $d=6$.
\(ii) $Y=(2,4)\subset \mathbb{P}^5: g=3$ and $d=6$.
The proof of Theorem 3.1 is a quite different story since in this case we use complete intersection rational surfaces instead of complete intersection K3 surfaces. For case (i) of Theorem 3.1 we choose $X=\mathbb{P}^2$ blow-up at six general points and $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{O}_X(H+l)$, where the hyperplane class $H=$proper transform of a cubic through the six points and $l$ is the pull-back of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2}(1)$; for case (ii) we choose $X=(2)\subset\mathbb{P}^3, \mathcal{L}=(2,4)\in \mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}\cong Pic\;X$.
To prove Theorem 3.1, we will also check all conditions (A1)-(A7) for each case. Notice that all these rational surfaces used are Fano varieties, which makes verifying the conditions (A1)-(A7) much easier since some cohomology groups in question vanish by applying Kodaira Vanishing to -$K$.
(A1) and (A2) are easily verified. Because the line bundles $\mathcal{L}$ are very ample, (A3) and (A4) are easily verified. The way to check (A7) is similar to \[5, Lemma 6.2\]. The way to check (A6) is similar to certain parts of the proof of \[5, Proposition 7.2\]. Like before we check (A5’) instead of (A5). The second part of (A5’) is easily checked since it’s easy to show $H^0(C,\mathcal{N}_{X/Y}\otimes\mathcal{O}_C)\cong H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/X})=0,\forall C\in|\mathcal{L}|$. In order to show $(\star)$, we just apply Corollary 1.8.
Because this paper cites many results from reference \[5\] and some of them are not described here, the reader probably need a copy of reference \[5\] in order to read the rest of this paper.
In the Appendix C, a summary for the existence of smooth isolated curves in general CICY threefolds known so far is given by putting results in \[5\] and this paper together.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
I would like to thank my advisor Herb Clemens for his insight, advice and continuous support. This paper grew out of numerous conversations with him. I would also like to thank Andreas Knutsen for reading the first draft of this paper and for giving very helpful comments. One conversation with David Morrison was also very helpful, and is gratefully acknowledged.
DEFINITIONS AND LEMMAS
======================
It is convenient to consider the first half of \[5\] (A5’) i.e. “the nodes $S$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$”, say ($\star$), in a general setting.
Let $X$ be a smooth surface in projective space and let $\mathcal{L}$ be a line bundle on $X$ such that $h^0(X,\mathcal{L})>1$. Let $n=h^0(X, \mathcal{L}).$
Let $S$ be a reduced 0-cycle on $X$. We say $S$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$ if $\forall C\in|\mathcal{L}|$, the natural evaluation map $H^0(X, \mathcal{L})\longrightarrow H^0(S\cap C, \mathcal{O}_{S\cap C})$ is surjective.
Clearly, $S$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$ if and only if $\forall$ subset $D\subset S$, the natural restriction map $H^0(X, \mathcal{L})\longrightarrow H^0(D, \mathcal{L}|_{D})$ of maximal rank.
Note that if $S$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$, then, in particular, the points in $S$ are different from the possible base points of $|\mathcal{L}|$, so that the locus of curves in $|\mathcal{L}|$ passing through at least one point of $S$ is an effective divisor in $|\mathcal{L}|$ consisting of hyperplanes. Therefore the condition that $S$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$ can be rephrased as saying that the locus of curves in $|\mathcal{L}|$ passing through at least one point of $S$ is an effective, simple normal crossing divisor consisting of hyperplanes.
If the cardinality $|S| >n$, then the condition that $S$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$ is equivalent to the condition that at most $dim|\mathcal{L}|=n-1$ points of $S$ can lie on an element of $|\mathcal{L}|$.
For positive integers $a\le b$ let $$l=c_1(\mathcal{O}_X(a))\cdot c_1(\mathcal{O}_X(b)).$$
We will assume through out that $$l>n \; \text{and} \; H^0(X,\mathcal{L}(-a))=0.$$
Let $A\in |\mathcal{O}_X(a)|$ be a smooth irreducible curve. We say the pair $(A, \mathcal{O}_X(b))$ can impose independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$ if there exists $B\in |\mathcal{O}_X(b)|$ such that $B\cap A$ is a set of $l$ distinct points and $B\cap A$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|.$
In later sections, the surface $X$ will be a smooth and complete intersection surface (K3 or rational). The nodes $S$ of a general CICY threefold $Y$ containing $X$ will be a complete intersection on $X$, say $S=A\cap B$ where $A\in |\mathcal{O}_X(a)|$ and $B\in |\mathcal{O}_X(b)|$. The positive integers $a$ and $b$ are determined by complete intersection types of $X$ and $Y$. (cf. Table 1 in section 2). We want to show $S$ imposes independent conditions on the chosen complete linear system $|\mathcal{L}|$ on $X$. Actually, our goal is to show that there is a dense subset $\mathcal{U}$ of $|\mathcal{O}_X(a)|\times|\mathcal{O}_X(b)|$ such that for any $(H_0,H_1)\in \mathcal{U}$ the intersection $H_0\cap H_1$ is a reduced 0-cycle on $X$ and it imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$. Clearly this is reduced to show the following statement: for any fixed smooth irreducible member $A_0\in |\mathcal{O}_X(a)|$ there exists a member $B\in |\mathcal{O}_X(b)|$ such that $A_0\cap B$ is a set of $l$ distinct points that impose independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$. This simple observation motivates the above definition, and this reduction will allow us to bring to bear the classical theory of divisors on a Riemann surface.
From now on, let $A_0\in |\mathcal{O}_X(a)|$ be any fixed irreducible smooth curve.
In this paper two different new methods that can be used to show “the pair $(A_0, \mathcal{O}_X(b))$ can imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$. ” will be presented. The first one, that we call Method I, is a sort of generalization of Knutsen’s method in \[5\] (cf. \[5, Lemma 6.3\]). The second one, Method II, is completely new. For application purposes, in all cases in Theorem 2.9, Theorem 2.12 and Theorem 3.1 of this paper we apply Method I to show $(\star)$ without using Method II at all. Some cases in Theorem 2.9, Theorem 2.12 and Theorem 3.1 also follow from Method II but the others do not. However, theoretically it is possible that in certain situations we can not apply Method I (for example, the condition i) of Corollary 1.8 is not satisfied.) but we can still apply Method II. It is hoped that Method II can find applications somewhere else. Because we only use Method I in §2 and §3, Method II is put in the Appendix A.
Method I
--------
Define $W:=\{(D, B)\in A_{0}^{(n)}\times | \mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|| D\subset B \}$, where $A_{0}^{(n)}$ is the n-th symmetric product of $A_0$. We assume $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_{X}(b-a))=0$. Then $(A_0,\mathcal{O}_X(b))$ can impose independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$ if the following two conditions are satisfied:
i\) $W$ is irreducible;
ii\) $\exists B_0\in |\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|, \ni$ the following restriction map is injective $$H^0(X,\mathcal{L})\longrightarrow H^0(B_0, \mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{B_0})$$
Suppose conditions i) and ii) are satisfied.
Define $W':=\{ (D,B)\in W | $ the restriction map $ H^0(X,\mathcal{L})\longrightarrow H^0(D, \mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{D})$ is not injective$\}$. Let $p: W\longrightarrow |\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|$ be the natural projection map. $dimW=dim|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|$ since $p$ is a finite surjective map.
Define $U=\{B\in |\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)| |$ the restriction map $ H^0(X,\mathcal{L})\longrightarrow H^0(B, \mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{B})$ is injective$ \}.$ By condition ii), $U$ is open dense in $|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|.$ So without loss of generality, we can assume the $B_0$ in ii) consists of $l$ distinct points.
Now because the restriction map $ H^0(X,\mathcal{L})\longrightarrow H^0(B_0, \mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{B_0})$ is injective, by linear algebra $\exists $ subset $D_0\subset B_0$, $\ni D_0$ is a set of $n$ distinct points and the restriction map $H^0(X,\mathcal{L})\longrightarrow H^0(D_0, \mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{D_0})$ is injective too. Therefore, no member of $|\mathcal{L}|$ can contain $D_0$, which implies $(D_0, B_0)\in W$ but $(D_0, B_0)\notin W'.$ By i) $dim W'< dim W=dim|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|.$ So $W'$ cannot dominate $|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|$ via the map $p$.
On the other hand, all divisors in the complementary of $p(W')$ in $|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|$ impose independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$. By the assumption $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X(b-a))=0$, the natural restriction map $ H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(b))\longrightarrow H^0(A_0, \mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b))$ is surjective. So $(A_0,\mathcal{O}_X(b))$ can impose independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|.$
The following general result gives us a nice criterion for the irreducibility of $W$.
Let $A$ be any smooth projective curve and $\mathcal{B}$ is a very ample line bundle on $A$. $deg\mathcal{B}=l$, $dim|\mathcal{B}|=N$. Define the incidence variety $W=\{(D,B)| D\subset B \}\subset A^{(n)}\times |\mathcal{B}|$, where $0\leq n\leq l$. Then $W$ is irreducible if $min\{n, l-n\}\leq N$.
If $n=0$ or $l$, obviously $W$ is irreducible.
Suppose $0<n\le N$. The complete linear system $|\mathcal{B}|$ induces an embedding $\phi : A\hookrightarrow \mathbb{P}^N$ with $\phi^{*}(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^N}(1))=\mathcal{B}$ and $\phi^{*}: H^0(\mathbb{P}^{N}, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^N}(1))\longrightarrow H^0(A,\mathcal{B})$ is an isomorphism. Then $A\subset \mathbb{P}^N$ is a nondegenerate algebraic curve of degree $l$. Let $(\mathbb{P}^N)^*$ be the set of hyperplanes of $\mathbb{P}^N$. By abusing notation, we can identify $(\mathbb{P}^N)^*$ with $|\mathcal{B}|$, and use them interchangeably later on.
Define $U=\{H\in (\mathbb{P}^N)^* |
H\cap A=\{x_1,x_2, ..., x_l \} \; l\;$ distinct points, and any set of $ \; n\; \text{points}\; \{x_{i_1},..., x_{i_n}\} $ imposes $n$ independent conditions on $|\mathcal{B}| \}$. By Castelnuovo’s general position theorem, $U$ is open dense in $(\mathbb{P}^N)^*$.
Let $W_{U}=\{(D, B)\in W | B\in U \}$. Fix any $(D_0, B_0)\in W$. Because $U$ is dense in $(\mathbb{P}^N)^{*}$, we can find a one-parameter family of hyperplanes $H_t\in (\mathbb{P}^N)^{*}$ such that: $H_0\cap A=B_0$, and $\forall t\in \bigtriangleup \setminus\{0\}, H_t\in U$. Clearly then we can find $D_t\subset (H_t\cap A)$, $\ni (D_t, H_t\cap A)$ specialize to $(D_0, B_0)$. Therefore, $(D_0, B_0)\in \overline{W_U}$, which implies $W_U$ is open dense in $W$.
In order to show $W$ is irreducible, we only need to show $W_U$ is irreducible. To this end, consider the projection map $q: W\longrightarrow A^{(n)}$, where $q(D,B)=D$. Let $V=\{D\in A^{(n)}| dim|\mathcal{B}(-D)|=N-n$, i.e. $D$ imposes $n$ independent conditions on $|\mathcal{B}|$ $ \}$. Clearly $V$ is open dense in $A^{(n)}$. Furthermore, $q^{-1}(V)$ is irreducible since $\forall D\in V,$ the fibers $q^{-1}(D)$ are irreducible and of the same dimension. Because $W_U\subset q^{-1}(V)$ open subset, $W_U$ is irreducible too.
Next, suppose $0<l-n\le N$. Define $W'=\{(D',B)| D'\subset B \}\subset A^{(l-n)}\times |\mathcal{B}|$. By the argument above, we know that $W'$ is irreducible. However, obviously $W\cong W'$ so $W$ is irreducible too.
The lemma is proved.
All cases in Knutsen’s paper \[5\] satisfy $n\le N$ in Lemma 1.6. Actually, in \[5\] the method used to prove $(\star)$ requires $n\le N$ (cf.\[5, Lemma 6.3\]). All cases in this paper can only satisfy $l-n\le N$.
We assume $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_{X}(b-a))=0$. Then $(A_0,\mathcal{O}_X(b))$ can impose independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$ if the following two conditions are satisfied:
i\) $\frac{l}{2}\leq dim|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|$;
ii\) $H^0(A_0, \mathcal{L}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{A_0}(-b))=0$.
Furthermore, $H^1(X, \mathcal{L}(-a-b))=0$ implies the condition ii).
$\frac{l}{2}\leq dim|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|$ implies either $n\leq dim|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|$ or $l-n\leq dim|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|$, so $W$ is irreducible by Lemma 1.6.
Clearly $H^0(A_0, \mathcal{L}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{A_0}(-b))=0$ implies the condition ii) in Proposition 1.5.
Next, we need to show $H^1(X, \mathcal{L}(-a-b))=0$ implies $H^0(A_0, \mathcal{L}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{A_0}(-b))=0$.To this end let’s consider the following exact sequence of sheaves, $$0\longrightarrow \mathcal{L}(-a-b)\longrightarrow \mathcal{L}(-b)\longrightarrow \mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(-b)\longrightarrow 0.$$ Taking cohomology groups, we have $H^0(X, \mathcal{L}(-b))\longrightarrow H^0(A_0, \mathcal{L}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{A_0}(-b))\longrightarrow H^1(X, \mathcal{L}(-a-b))) $ exact. By assumption $H^0(X,\mathcal{L}(-a))=0$ and hence $ H^0(X,\mathcal{L}(-b))=0$ since $a\leq b$, so $H^1(X, \mathcal{L}(-a-b))=0$ implies $H^0(A_0, \mathcal{L}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{A_0}(-b))=0$.
In §2 and §3, we will just use Corollary 1.8. to show $(\star)$ for all cases.
Curves on K3 surfaces in nodal Calabi-Yau threefolds
====================================================
In the rest of this paper, we will use Theorem 0.1 to show the existence of smooth and isolated curves in general complete intersection Calabi-Yau (CICY) threefolds. In this section, these curves are obtained by deforming a careful chosen continuous family of curves on a complete intersection K3 surface in a nodal CICY threefold.
We first recall how we can embed a complete intersection K3 surface into a nodal CICY threefold. We will follow notations used in \[5, §6\].
It is well known that there are three types of complete intersection K3 surfaces in projective space, namely the intersection types (4) in $\mathbb{P}^3$, (2,3) in $\mathbb{P}^4$ and $(2,2,2)$ in $\mathbb{P}^5$. Similarly, there are five types of CICY threefolds in projective space, namely the intersection types $(5)$ in $\mathbb{P}^4$, $(3,3)$ and $(4,2)$ in $\mathbb{P}^5$, $(3,2,2)$ in $\mathbb{P}^6$ and $(2,2,2,2)$ in $\mathbb{P}^7$.
Table 1
$Y=(a_1,a_2,...,a_{r-4},a_{r-3}+a_{r-2})\subset \mathbb{P}^r$ $X=(a_1, a_2,...,a_{r-2})\subset \mathbb{P}^r$ $r$
--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ -----
$(5)$ $(4,1)$ 4
$(5)$ $(3,2)$ 4
$(4,2)$ $(4,1,1)$ 5
$(2,4)$ $(2,3,1)$ 5
$(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ 5
$(3,3)$ $(3,2,1)$ 5
$(3,2,2)$ $(3,2,1,1)$ 6
$(2,2,3)$ $(2,2,2,1)$ 6
$(2,2,2,2)$ $(2,2,2,1,1)$ 7
Table 1 here is a part of \[5, Table 1 in §6\]. Notice that in \[5, Table 1 in §6\] the complete intersection types of $Y$ are denoted as $(b_i)$.
Our goal is to embed a given smooth complete intersection K3 surface $X$ of type $(a_1, a_2,...,a_{r-2})$ into a nodal CICY threefold $Y$ of type $(a_1, a_2,...,a_{r-4}, a_{r-3}+a_{r-2})$. To this end, we first choose generators $g_i$ of degrees $a_i$ for the ideal of $X$. So $X=Z(g_1,...,g_{r-2}).$
Define $$f_i:=\sum\alpha_{ij}g_{j}$$ where $\alpha_{ij}$ are general in $H^0( \mathbb{P}^{r},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^r}(a_i-a_j))$ if $1\leq i\leq r-4$ and $\alpha_{(r-3)j}$ are general in $H^0( \mathbb{P}^{r},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^r}(a_{r-3}+a_{r-2}-a_j))$.
Then define $$Y:=Z(f_1,...,f_{r-3}).$$
If the coefficient forms $\alpha_{ij}$ are chosen in a sufficient general way, $Y$ has only $l=a_1a_2...a_{r-4}a_{r-3}^2a_{r-2}^2$ ordinary double points and they lie on $X$. This can be checked using Bertini’s theorem. In fact, the $l$ nodes are the intersection points of two general elements of $|\mathcal{O}_X(a_{r-2})|$ and $|\mathcal{O}_X(a_{r-3})|$ (distinct, when $a_{r-2}=a_{r-3}$). As above, we denote the set of nodes by $S$.
Moreover, for general $\alpha_{ij}$, Bertini’s theorem yields that the fourfold $$Z:=Z(f_1,...,f_{r-4})$$ is smooth. (Note that $Z=\mathbb{P}^r$ if $r=4$.)
We are therefore in the setting of Theorem 0.1 with $P=\mathbb{P}^r$, $$\mathcal{E}:=(\oplus_{i=1}^{r-4}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^r}(a_i))\oplus \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^r}(a_{r-3}+a_{r-2})$$ and $\mathcal{M}_{r-3}:=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^r}(a_{r-2}+a_{r-3})$.
Actually, as mentioned in §1, the integers $a_{r-2}$ and $a_{r-3}$ correspond to the integers $a$ and $b$ used in §1.
As mentioned in the introduction, in this section we will prove the main theorems Theorem 2.9 and Theorem 2.12.
To apply Theorem 0.1 to prove Theorem 2.9 and Theorem 2.12, we first need a smooth regular surface $X$ and a line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ on $X$. All surfaces $X$ which will be used in the proofs of Theorem 2.9 and Theorem 2.12 are complete intersection K3 surfaces as in Table 1 with $Pic\; X=\mathbb{Z}H\oplus \mathbb{Z}C$, where $H$ is the hyperplane section of $X$ and $C$ is a smooth irreducible curve on $X$. Furthermore, the genus $g$ and degree $d$ of $C$ are exactly the genus and degree of the desired smooth and isolated curves in general CICY threefolds. Then we define $\mathcal{L}$ to be $\mathcal{O}_X(C)$. The existence of these K3 surfaces are guaranteed by the following theorem due to Knutsen.
(\[6, Theorem 1.1\]). Let $n\geq 2, d>0, g\geq 0 $ be integers. Then there exists a K3 surface $X$ of degree $2n$ in $\mathbb{P}^{n+1}$ containing a smooth curve $C$ of degree d and genus $g$ if and only if
\(i) $g=\frac{d^2}{4n}+1$ and there exist integers $k, m\geq 1$ and $(k,m)\neq (2,1)$ such that $n=k^2m$ and $2n$ divides $kd$,
\(ii) $\frac{d^2}{4n}<g<\frac{d^2}{4n}+1$ except in the following cases
\(a) $d\equiv \pm 1, \pm 2\; (mod\; 2n)$,
\(b) $d^2-4n(g-1)=1$ and $d\equiv n\pm 1\; (mod\; 2n)$,
\(c) $d^2-4n(g-1)=n$ and $d\equiv n\; (mod\; 2n)$,
\(d) $d^2-4n(g-1)=1$ and $d-1$ or $d+1$ divides $2n$,
\(iii) $g=\frac{d^2}{4n}$ and $d$ is not divisible by $2n$,
\(iv) $g<\frac{d^2}{4n}$ and $(d,g)\neq (2n+1, n+1)$.
Furthermore, in case (i) $X$ can be chosen such that $Pic \;X= \mathbb{Z}\frac{2n}{dk}C=\mathbb{Z}\frac{1}{k}H$ and in cases (ii)-(iv) such that $Pic\; X=\mathbb{Z}H\oplus \mathbb{Z}C$, where $H$ is the hyperplane section of $X$.
If $n\geq 4, \; X$ can be chosen to be scheme-theoretically an intersection of quadrics in cases (i), (iii) and (iv), and also in case (ii), except when $d^2-4n(g-1)=1$ and $3d\equiv \pm 3\; (mod\; 2n)$ or $d^2-4n(g-1)=9$ and $d\equiv \pm 3\; (mod\; 2n)$, in which case $X$ has to be an intersection of both quadrics and cubics.
In order to apply Theorem 0.1, we need to show that $X$ can be embedded into a nodal CICY threefold $Y$ such that the conditions (A1)-(A7) mentioned in the introduction are all satisfied. As explained in the proofs of Theorem 2.9 and Theorem 2.12, all of them except the condition $(\star)$ can be easily verified by using results in \[5\]. We will use Corollary 1.8 to check $(\star)$.
Let X be a K3 surface. A divisor $D\in Div(X)$ is called -2 divisor if the self-intersection $D^2=-2$.
It is easy to see that a K3 surface $X$ has a -2 divisor if and only if it contains a smooth rational curve.
In order to use Corollary 1.8, we need to show $H^0(A_0, \mathcal{L}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{A_0}(-b))=0$, where $A_0$ is any smooth irreducible member in $|\mathcal{O}_X(a)|$. As explained in the Corollary 1.8, it suffices to show $H^1(X, \mathcal{L}(-a-b))=0$. Then there are two different situations: 1) the K3 surfaces $X$ do not have -2 divisors; 2) the K3 surfaces $X$ have -2 divisors. In the first situation, it is very easy to check $H^1(X, \mathcal{L}(-a-b))=0$. (Cf. Lemma 2.8) In the second situation, we explicitly compute the closed cone of curves $\overline{NE(X)}$ and the nef cone $Nef(X)$ and then use the information about these cones to check $H^1(X, \mathcal{L}(-a-b))=0$.
$X$ doesn’t have -2 divisors
----------------------------
### Vanishing of the first cohomology group of line bundles on a K3 surface without -2 divisors
(\[10, Cor. 3.2\]). Let $\Sigma $ be a complete linear system on a K3 surface. Then $\Sigma$ has no base points outside its fixed components.
(\[6, Prop. 2.3\]) Let $|D|\neq \emptyset$ be a complete linear system without fixed components on a K3 surface such that $D^2=0$. Then every member of $|D|$ can be written as a sum $E_1+E_2+...+E_k,$ where $E_i\in|E|$ for $i=1,...,k$ and $E$ is a smooth curve of genus 1.
In other words, $|D|$ is a multiple $k$ of an elliptic pencil.
In particular, if $D$ is part of a basis of $Pic\; X$, then the generic member of $|D|$ is smooth and irreducible.
Let $X$ be a K3 surface without -2 divisors. Let $D$ be a divisor on $X$. Then $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(D))=0$ if and only if the following two conditions are satisfied
\(i) $D^2\geq -4$
\(ii) $\nexists$ a smooth elliptic curve $E$ on $X$ and an integer $k$, $\ni D\sim k E$ and $|k|>1$.
In particular, if $D$ is part of a basis of $Pic\; X$, then (ii) is automatically true.
By Riemann-Roch, $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(D))=0$ easily implies $D^2\geq -4$. $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(D))=0$ also implies (ii). Otherwise, $\exists$ a smooth elliptic curve $E$ on $X$ and an integer $k$, $\ni D\sim k E$ and $|k|>1$. We may assume $k$ is positive, then we have an exact sequence of cohomology groups $0\rightarrow H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-D))\rightarrow H^0(X, \mathcal{O}_X)\rightarrow H^0(kE,\mathcal{O}_{kE})\rightarrow H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-D))\rightarrow 0$. But $dim\;H^0(X, \mathcal{O}_X)=1$ and $dim\; H^0(kE,\mathcal{O}_{kE})=k>1$, so $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(-D))\neq 0$ and hence $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(D))\neq 0$ by Serre duality, contradiction.
On the other hand, suppose both (i) and (ii) are satisfied. Firstly, if $D^2>0$, by R-R, either $|D|$ or $|-D|$ is non-empty. We may assume $D$ is effective. Every irreducible curve $C$ on $X$ has non-negative self-intersection, so the linear system $|C|$ has no fixed components, and hence $|C|$ is base point free by Proposition 2.6. Therefore, every irreducible curve on $X$ is a nef divisor, and hence every effective divisor on $X$ is nef. So $D$ is nef and big, then $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(D))=0$ by Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing Theorem. Secondly, if $D^2=0$, again we may assume $D$ is effective. Clearly $|D|$ doesn’t have fixed components, then by Proposition 2.7 and (ii) $|D|$ is actually an elliptic pencil. Therefore, $|D|$ contains an irreducible member, and hence $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(D))=0$. Lastly, if $D^2=-4$, then both $|D|$ and $|-D|$ are empty, $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(D))=0$ by R-R.
### Curves on $X$ deformed with CICY threefolds
Let $d\geq 1$ and $g\geq 0$ be integers. Then in any of the following cases the general Calabi-Yau complete intersection threefold $Y$ of a particular type contains an isolated, smooth curve of degree $d$ and genus $g$:
\(a) $Y=(5)\subset \mathbb{P}^4: g=23$ and $d=18$; $g=24$ and $d=19$; $g=26$ and $d=20$; $g=27$ and $d=20$; $g=29$ and $d=21$.
\(b) $Y=(4,2)\subset \mathbb{P}^5:$ $g=16$ and $17\le d\le 19$; $g=17$ and $17\le d\le 20$; $g=18$ and $d=20$; $g=19$ and $d=18,20 \; and\; 21$; $g=20$ and $d=19, 20$; $g=21$ and $d=20, 21$; $g=22$ and $d=20, 21$; $g=23$ and $d=20, 22$; $g=25$ and $d=21, 22$; $g=26$ and $d=22$; $g=27$ and $d=22$; $g=29$ and $d=23$.
\(c) $Y=(3,3)\subset \mathbb{P}^5: g=8$ and $d=12$.
\(d) $Y=(2,2,3 )\subset \mathbb{P}^6: g=11$ and $d=16$.
\(e) $Y=(2,2,2,2 )\subset \mathbb{P}^7:$ $g=4$ and $d=9$; $g=5$ and $d=10, 11$.
Case (a) g=23 and d=18:
By Theorem 2.3, there exists a $K3$ surface $X$ of degree 6 in $\mathbb{P}^4$ with $Pic\; X\cong \mathbb{Z}H\oplus \mathbb{Z}C$, where $H$ is the hyperplane section of $X$ and $C$ is a smooth irreducible curve of degree 18 and genus 23. Clearly, $X$ is actually a complete intersection K3 surface of type (2,3) in $\mathbb{P}^4$. $\mathcal{L}$ is defined to be the line bundle $\mathcal{O}_X(C)$.
Using notations introduced above (also the same notations as in \[5, Table 1 in §6\] except that \[5\] doesn’t use $a$ and $b$). : $r=4, \mu =4$ (cf. \[5, Table 1 in §6\]), $a_1=3, a_2=2, b_1=5, l=36, g=23, d=18, a=2$ and $b=3$.
There are two conditions in \[5, Prop 7.2\]:
(7.1)
$d\leq 2a_{r-2}(\mu-1)$ or $da_{r-2}>a_{r-2}^2(\mu-1)+g$
(7.2) $$a_{r-2}(2a_{r-3}-a_{r-2})(\mu-1)\geq \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
g+2 & \mbox{if $a_{r-3}\neq a_{r-2}$};\\
g+1 & \mbox{if $a_{r-3}=a_{r-2}$}.\end{array} \right.$$
The condition (7.1) is satisfied since $18\cdot 2>2^2\cdot(4-1)+23$. The trouble is that condition (7.2) is not satisfied (notice that in the language of Lemma 1.6, condition (7.2) is exactly $n\le N$). However, by looking closely at the proof of \[5, Prop 7.2\], the condition (7.2) is only used to prove the following two statements:
Statement 1). $l\geq g+2$, where $l$ is the number of nodes on a general quintic threefold containing $X$ as before.
Statement 2). For general $\alpha_{ij}$, the set of nodes $S$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$, $(\star)$.
Therefore, in order to get the conclusion of \[5, Prop. 7.2\] we only need to show statements 1) and 2).
$l=36>25=g+2$. Statement 1) is proved.
As in §1, we let $n=h^0(X, \mathcal{L})=24$. Next we are going to use Corollary 1.8 to show $(\star)$.
Notice that in §1, we assume throughout $H^0(X,\mathcal{L}(-a))=0$. So we need to show that in current situation we do have $H^0(X,\mathcal{L}(-2))=0$. (Actually, the following proof for $H^0(X,\mathcal{L}(-a))=0$ can be found in the proof of \[5, Prop. 7.2\]. For the reader’s convenience, we repeat it here.) By \[6, Prop. 1.3\] $h^1(C', \mathcal{O}_{C'}(a_{r-2}))=0$ for all $C'\in |\mathcal{L}|$ if and only if $$d\leq 2a_{r-2}(\mu-1) \;\text{or}\; da_{r-2}>a_{r-2}^2(\mu-1)+g,$$ which is condition (7.1). Next We note from the cohomology of $$0\longrightarrow \mathcal{L}^{\vee}\longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_X\longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_C\longrightarrow 0$$ twisted by $\mathcal{O}_X(a_{r-2})$, Kodaira vanishing and Serre duality, that $$h^0(X, \mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_X(-a_{r-2}))=h^1(\mathcal{O}_C(a_{r-2})),$$ so that also $h^0(X, \mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_X(-a_{r-2}))=0$ if condition (7.1) holds, as we have just seen.
Now as in §1 we fix any smooth irreducible $A_0\in |\mathcal{O}_X(2)|$. First of all, condition i) is satisfied since $l=36$ and $dim|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(3)|=23$. In order to show condition ii), we only need to prove $H^1(X,\mathcal{L}(-5))=0$. However, using some softwares (e.g. Mathematica) it is very easy to check that $X$ has no -2 divisors. For example, the following picture shows us how to do this by using Mathematica. We use $(x,y)$ to represent a divisor $xH+yC$.
By Lemma 2.8, $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(5H-C))=0$ since $(5H-C)^2=14$. By Serre duality, $H^1(X,\mathcal{L}(-5))\cong H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(5H-C))^{\vee}=0$. Therefore, condition ii) in Corollary 1.8 is also true. So $(A_0, \mathcal{O}_X(3))$ can impose independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$. Then by Bertini’s Theorem, for general $\alpha_{ij}$, the set of nodes $S$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$. Therefore, we have the conclusion of \[5, Prop7.2\], which says the conditions (A1)-(A7)are satisfied. Then by Theorem 0.1, the general quintic threefold in $\mathbb{P}^4$ contains an isolated, smooth curve of degree 18 and genus 23.
The proofs for all the other cases are similar to that for the case (a) $g=23$ and $d=18$. However, we need to specify what the complete intersection type of K3 surface is for each case. The information needed is listed in Table 2 in the Appendix B. (All K3 surfaces $X$ in this table have no -2 divisors.)
X has -2 divisors
-----------------
### Nef cone of K3 surfaces with -2 divisors
If a K3 surface $X$ does not have -2 divisors, it is very easy to compute the closed cone of curves $\overline{NE(X)}$ and hence the nef cone $Nef(X)$. (Cf. \[8, Corollary 2.3\]). If there are -2 divisors in $Pic\; X$, it could be difficult to compute the nef cone of $X$ in general. However, if the Picard number of $X$ is 2, it is not hard to do so. In this subsection we will assume throughout that the K3 surface $X$ has a -2 divisor and its Picard number is 2.
Let X be a smooth projective K3 surface with Picard number 2. Then $\exists H, C\in Pic\;X,\ni Pic\;X=\mathbb{Z}H\oplus \mathbb{Z}C$, $H$ is an ample divisor, $H.C>0,$ and $C^2>0$.
Choose any basis for $Pic\; X$, say $Pic\; X=\mathbb{Z}A\oplus\mathbb{Z}B$. Because $X$ is projective, suppose $H=aA+bB$ is an ample class, and we may assume integers a and b are coprime. Then $\exists D\in Pic\;X,\ni Pic\;X=\mathbb{Z}H\oplus\mathbb{Z}D $. Let $C=nH+D$. Obviously, if $n$ is sufficiently large, we have $H.C>0,$ and $C^2>0$.
Let $H,C$ be as in Lemma 2.2. Let $h=H^2, d=H.C$, and $c=C^2$. By \[8, Theorem 2\], we know the two boundary rays of $\overline{NE(X)}$ are spanned by: i) either two smooth rational curves; ii) or one smooth rational curve and one rational curve of self-intersection 0.
We will use $(x,y)$ to denote the $\mathbb{R}-$divisor $xH+yC$. Let’s look at the following picture.
The two lines $L_1$ and $L_2$ consist of $\mathbb{R}-$divisors with self-intersection 0. Their slopes are $-\frac{d+\sqrt{d^2-hc}}{c}$ and $-\frac{d-\sqrt{d^2-hc}}{c}$. The dashed line is defined by the set of $\mathbb{R}-$divisors orthogonal to $H$. So its slope is $-\frac{h}{d}$. Notice that we always have $$0<\frac{d-\sqrt{d^2-hc}}{c}<\frac{h}{d}<\frac{d+\sqrt{d^2-hc}}{c}.$$
Let $D=x_0H+y_0C$ be a -2 divisor, where $x_0$ and $y_0$ are integers. Then $D$ represents a smooth rational curve and hence spans a boundary ray of $\overline{NE(X)}$ if and only if the following two conditions are satisfied:
i\) $D$ is effective, which implies that $D$ is on the right side of the dashed line,
ii\) $\nexists$ integral -2 divisor $E=x_1H+y_1C$, $\ni$ the ratio $\frac{y_1}{x_1}$ is between $\frac{y_0}{x_0}$ and $-\frac{h}{d}$.
Suppose $D$ represents a smooth rational curve. Obviously i) is satisfied. If $\exists$ integral -2 divisor $E=x_1H+y_1C$, $\ni$ the ratio $\frac{y_1}{x_1}$ is between $\frac{y_0}{x_0}$ and $-\frac{h}{d}$. Then $E$ is effective and hence $E\in \overline{NE(X)}$, which means the ray spanned by $D$ is not a boundary ray, contradiction. So ii) is satisfied.
Suppose both i) and ii) are satisfied. Then $D\in \overline{NE(X)}$. By ii) and \[8, Theorem 2\], $D$ spans a boundary ray of $\overline{NE(X)}$ and $D$ represents a smooth rational curve.
Now let’s analysis the slopes of the lines spanned by integral -2 divisors. Suppose $D=xH+yC$ is an integral -2 divisor. By definition, $hx^2+2dxy+cy^2=-2$. Then $\frac{y}{x}=-\frac{d\pm \sqrt{d^2-c(h+\frac{2}{x^2})} }{c}$. When $x$ goes to infinity, the line spanned by $D$ approaches the red lines in the picture above. Therefore, in order to find $D$ satisfying both i) and ii) in Lemma 2.11, we only need to find integral -2 divisors $D$ with $x$ coordinate “small”, which is pretty easy with the help of some softwares(e.g. Mathematica).
Let’s do an example in the following. Suppose $X$ is a smooth projective K3 surface with $Pic\;X=\mathbb{Z}H\oplus \mathbb{Z}C$, $H$ is ample, $h=H^2=6$, $d=H.C=19$, and $c=C^2=48$.
First step: Use Mathematica to determine all -2 divisors satisfying i) in Lemma 2.11. (Notice that no solutions means there are no -2 divisors at all.)
From the result of the first step, in order to find integral -2 divisors $D$ satisfying both i) and ii) in Lemma 2.11, we only need to find the integral -2 divisors $D$ with $x$ as small as possible.
Second step: find -2 divisors with small $x$ coordinates:
Therefore, $\overline{NE(X)}$ is the closed cone spanned by $-7H+4C$ and $215743H-46996C$. Because the nef cone is the dual of $\overline{NE(X)}$, $Nef(X)$ is spanned by $-59H+34C$ and $1843309H-401534C$.
### Curves on $X$ deformed with CICY threefolds
Let $d\geq 1$ and $g\geq 0$ be integers. Then in any of the following cases the general Calabi-Yau complete intersection threefold $Y$ of a particular type contains an isolated, smooth curve of degree $d$ and genus $g$:
\(a) $Y=(5)\subset \mathbb{P}^4: g=23$ and $d=19$; $g=24$ and $d=20$; $g=25$ and $d=19, 20$.
\(b) $Y=(4,2)\subset \mathbb{P}^5:$ $g=16$ and $d=20$; $g=18$ and $d=18, 19$; $g=19$ and $d=19$; $g=20$ and $d=21$; $g=21$ and $d=19$; $g=23$ and $d=21$; $g=24$ and $d=21, 22$; $g=27$ and $d=23$; $g=28$ and $d=23$.
\(c) $Y=(2,2,3 )\subset \mathbb{P}^6: g=4$ and $d=8$.
\(d) $Y=(2,2,2,2 )\subset \mathbb{P}^7:$ $g=4$ and $d=10$; $g=6$ and $d=11$.
Case (a) g=25 and d=19:
By Theorem 2.3, there exists a $K3$ surface $X$ of degree 6 in $\mathbb{P}^4$ with $Pic\; X\cong \mathbb{Z}H\oplus \mathbb{Z}C$, where $H$ is the hyperplane section of $X$ and $C$ is a smooth irreducible curve of degree 19 and genus 25. Clearly, $X$ is actually a complete intersection K3 surface of type (2,3) in $\mathbb{P}^4$. $\mathcal{L}$ is defined to be the line bundle $\mathcal{O}_X(C)$.
Using notations introduced above: $r=4, \mu =4, a_1=3, a_2=2, b_1=5, l=36, g=25, d=19, a=2$ and $b=3$.
Similar to the proof of Theorem 2.9, the condition (7.1) is satisfied since $19\cdot 2>2^2\cdot(4-1)+25$, and the condition (7.2) is not satisfied. As before we only need to prove the following two statements to get the conclusion of \[5, Prop. 7.2\]:
Statement 1). $l\geq g+2$, where $l$ is the number of nodes on a general quintic threefold containing $X$ as before.
Statement 2). For general $\alpha_{ij}$, the set of nodes $S$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$, $(\star)$.
$l=36>27=g+2$. Statement 1) is proved.
As in §1, we let $n=h^0(X, \mathcal{L})=26$. Next we are going to use Corollary 1.8 to show $(\star)$.
Notice that in §1, we assume throughout $H^0(X,\mathcal{L}(-a))=0$. So we need to show that in current situation we do have $H^0(X,\mathcal{L}(-a))=0$. Actually, we have proved that the condition (7.1) implies $H^0(X,\mathcal{L}(-a))=0$ in the proof of Theorem 2.9.
Now as in §1 we fix any smooth irreducible $A_0\in |\mathcal{O}_X(2)|$. First of all, condition i) in Cor. 1.8 is satisfied since $l=36$ and $dim|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(3)|=23$. In order to show condition ii), we only need to prove $H^1(X,\mathcal{L}(-5))=0$. Using the method introduced above we can find the nef cone $Nef(X)$ explicitly. $Nef(X)$ is spanned by $-59H+34C$ and $1843309H-401534C$. Therefore $5H-C$ is a nef divisor. $ (5H-C)^2=8>0$, so $5H-C$ is nef and big and hence $H^1(X,\mathcal{L}(-5))\cong H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(5H-C))^{\vee}=0$ by Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing and Serre duality. Therefore, condition ii) in Corollary 1.8 is also true. So $(A_0, \mathcal{O}_X(3))$ can impose independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$. Then by Bertini’s Theorem, for general $\alpha_{ij}$, the set of nodes $S$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$. Therefore, we have the conclusion of \[5, Prop7.2\], which says the conditions (A1)-(A7)are satisfied. Then by Theorem 0.1, the general quintic threefold in $\mathbb{P}^4$ contains an isolated, smooth curve of degree 19 and genus 25.
The proofs for all the other cases are similar to that for the case (a) $g=25$ and $d=19$. However, as before we need to specify what the complete intersection type of K3 surface is for each case. The information needed is listed in Table 3 in the Appendix B. (All K3 surfaces $X$ in this table have -2 divisors.)
Curves on rational surfaces in nodal Calabi-Yau threefolds
==========================================================
Let $d\geq 1$ and $g\geq 0$ be integers. Then in any of the following cases the general Calabi-Yau complete intersection threefold $Y$ of a particular type contains an isolated, smooth curve of degree $d$ and genus $g$:
\(i) $Y=(3,3)\subset \mathbb{P}^5: g=3$ and $d=6$.
\(ii) $Y=(2,4)\subset \mathbb{P}^5: g=3$ and $d=6$.
In order to prove this theorem, we choose appropriate complete intersection rational surfaces $X$ and line bundles $\mathcal{L}$ on $X$, check conditions (A1)-(A7) in \[5\] and then apply Theorem 0.1. For case (i) we choose $X=(3)\subset\mathbb{P}^3, \mathcal{L}=\mathcal{O}_X(H+l)$(which will be explained in the proof); for case (ii) we choose $X=(2)\subset\mathbb{P}^3, \mathcal{L}=(2,4)\in \mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}\cong Pic(X)$.(cf. \[4, Ch.V §4\] )
The proof for case (ii) is completely similar to that for case (i), so we will only prove case (i).
Notations as in \[5\]:\
$\mathcal{P}=\mathbb{P}^5$ , $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{M}_1\oplus\mathcal{M}_2=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^5}(3)\oplus\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^5}(3)$,\
$X$ is a smooth cubic surface in $\mathbb{P}^3\subset\mathbb{P}^5$ defined by a cubic homogeneous form $F=0$ (for simplicity, we will assume $F=x_0^3+x_1^3+x_2^3+x_3^3$).\
$Z=\{$F$=x_0^3+x_1^3+x_2^3+x_3^3+x_4^3+x_5^3=0\}\subset\mathbb{P}^5$ smooth cubic hypersurface containing $X$,\
$Y=\{$F$=x_4G+x_5P=0 \}\subset Z$ where $G, P\in H^0(\mathbb{P}^5, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^5}(2))$.\
(\*) $X\cong$ Blow-up of $\mathbb{P}^2$ at six points. $H=3l-\sum_{i=1}^{6} e_i$, where $l$ is pullback of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2}(1)$, $H$ is the hyperplane section of $X$. Let $\mathcal{L}$ be the line bundle $\mathcal{O}_X(H+l)$ on $X$.
Suppose $A$ is a smooth curve of genus 4 and degree 6 in $\mathbb{P}^3$, and $A$ is complete intersection of a smooth quadric surface and a smooth cubic surface X. Then $H^0(A, \mathcal{O}_A(H_A-l_A))=0$, where $H_A$ and $l_A$ are restriction of $H$ and $l$ to $A$($H$ and $l$ which are line bundles on $X$ are defined as above) .
Consider short exact sequence of sheaves on $X$ : $$0\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X}(-2H)\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_A\rightarrow 0$$ tensoring $\mathcal{O}_{X}(H-l)$ , we get $$0\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X}(-H-l)\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X(H-l)\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_A(H_A-l_A)\rightarrow 0$$
Taking cohomology groups, we have $H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}(H-l))\rightarrow H^0(A, \mathcal{O}_A(H_A-l_A))\rightarrow H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X(-H-l))$ exact. $H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}(H-l))=0$ since $(H-l).H=0$ and $\mathcal{O}_X(H)\ncong\mathcal{O}_X(l)$, $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X(-H-l))=0$ (by Kodaira vanishing), then $H^0(A, \mathcal{O}_A(H_A-l_A))=0$ .
There exist $G$, $P$ satisfying the following conditions:\
1) $Y$ only has nodal singularities which are in $X$\
2) $\{ G=x_4=x_5=0\}\subset \mathbb{P}^3$ is a smooth quadric surface. $A:=X\cap \{G=0 \}$ is a smooth curve of genus 4 and degree 6\
3) $S:= $the set of nodes of $Y=X\cap\{ G=P=0\}=$12 distinct points\
4) $S$ imposes independent conditions on $\mid\mathcal{L}\mid$
By Bertini’s Theorem, for general $(G, P)\in H^0(\mathbb{P}^5,\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^5}(2))\times H^0(\mathbb{P}^5,\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^5}(2)) $ , conditions 1)-3) are satisfied. That means $\exists $ Zariski open dense subset $U$ of $H^0(\mathbb{P}^5,\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^5}(2))\times H^0(\mathbb{P}^5,\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^5}(2))$ such that $\forall (G, P)\in U$ , conditions 1)-3) are satisfied. Now fix $(G, P)\in U$ .
By Lemma 3.3, the condition ii) in Corollary 1.8 is satisfied.
The conditions i) in corollary 1.8 are satisfied since using the same notations as in §1 $a=b=2, l=12$ and $n=h^0(X, \mathcal{L})=9$.
$H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}(\mathcal{L}-2H))\cong H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}(l-H))=0$ since $(l-H).H=0$ and $\mathcal{O}_X(H)\ncong\mathcal{O}_X(l)$. Therefore, the assumption (1) in the §1 is also satisfied. So by corollary 1.8, $(A, \mathcal{O}_X(2H))$ can imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$.
Notice that the natural restriction map $\rho : H^0(\mathbb{P}^5, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^5}(2))\rightarrow H^0(A, \mathcal{O}_A(2))$ is surjective, so for general $P'\in H^0(\mathbb{P}^5, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^5}(2)), \rho (P')$ viewed as an element in $|2H_A|$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$. Therefore, $\exists P'\in H^0(\mathbb{P}^5, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^5}(2)) $ such that the $(G, P')\in U$ and $\rho (P')$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$ .
$of$ $Theorem$ $3.1$ (case (i)): Notations as in Lemma 3.4. We will check the conditions (A1)-(A7) listed in the introduction.\
(A1): Trivial;\
(A2) By definition $Z$ is a smooth hypersurface in $\mathbb{P}^5$ and hence smooth along $X$. The only singularities of $Y$ which lie in $X$ are 12 nodes $\xi_1,..., \xi_{12}$ . Furthermore, by R-R for $X$ , $h^0(X, \mathcal{L})=9$ and hence $$12\geq dim|\mathcal{L}|+2=10 ;$$\
(A3) and (A4): Trivial (Simply because $\mathcal{L}$ is very ample on $X$);\
(A5): (A5) is equivalent to the condition (A5’) : The set of nodes $S$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$ and the natural map $\gamma_{C}: H^0(C, \mathcal{N}_{X/Y}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{C})\rightarrow H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/X})$ is an isomorphism for all $C\in |\mathcal{L}|$ .
Let $C\in |\mathcal{L}|$ , we have exact sequence $$0\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X\rightarrow \mathcal{L}\rightarrow \mathcal{N}_{C/X}\rightarrow 0$$ taking cohomology groups, we get exact sequence $$H^1(X, \mathcal{L})\rightarrow H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/X})\rightarrow H^2(X, \mathcal{O}_X)$$ Then $H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/X})=0$ because $H^1(X, \mathcal{L})=0$ and $H^2(X, \mathcal{O}_{X})=0$ . By Serre duality, $ H^0(C, \mathcal{N}_{X/Y}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{C})\cong H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/X})$ (cf. \[5, (4.2)\]) , so we have $ H^0(C, \mathcal{N}_{X/Y}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{C})= H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/X})=0$ and hence $\gamma_{C}$ is an isomorphism for trivial reason. By condition 4) in Lemma 3.4, $S$ imposes independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$ . Therefore, (A5’) is satisfied;\
(A6): $\forall C\in |\mathcal{L}|$ we have exact sequence (cf. \[5, (3.9)\]) $$0\rightarrow \mathcal{N}_{C/X}\rightarrow \mathcal{N}_{C/\mathbb{P}^5}\rightarrow \mathcal{N}_{X/\mathbb{P}^5}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{C}\rightarrow 0$$
Again taking cohomology groups, we get exact sequence $$H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/X})\rightarrow H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/\mathbb{P}^5})\rightarrow H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{X/\mathbb{P}^5}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{C})$$\
$H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{X/\mathbb{P}^5}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{C})\cong H^1(C,\mathcal{O}_{C}(3)\oplus \mathcal{O}_{C}(1)\oplus \mathcal{O}_{C}(1))$ , and we have seen $ H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/X})=0$ . In order to show $H^1(C, \mathcal{N}_{C/\mathbb{P}^5})=0$, we just need to show $H^1(C, \mathcal{O}_{C}(1))=H^1(C, \mathcal{O}_{C}(3))=0$ . But by considering exact sequences $0\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X}(H-\mathcal{L})\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X(1)\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{C}(1)\rightarrow 0$ and $0\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X}(3H-\mathcal{L})\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X(3)\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{C}(3)\rightarrow 0$ , it’s easy to show that $H^1(C, \mathcal{O}_{C}(1))=H^1(C, \mathcal{O}_{C}(3))=0$ ;\
(A7): We want to show the image of the natural restriction map $$H^0(\mathbb{P}^5 , \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^5}(3))\rightarrow H^0(S, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^5}(3)\otimes \mathcal{O}_{S})$$ has codimension one. Notice that the natural restriction map $$H^0(\mathbb{P}^5 , \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^5}(3))\rightarrow H^0(A, \mathcal{O}_{A}(3))$$ is surjective, where $A=X\cap\{ G=0\}$ as in Lemma 3.4. Therefore, we just need to show the image of the natural restriction map $$H^0(A , \mathcal{O}_{A}(3))\rightarrow H^0(S, \mathcal{O}_{S}(3))$$ has codimension one. Clearly we have the following exact sequence: $$0\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{A}(1)\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_A(3)\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_S(3)\rightarrow 0$$ Taking cohomology groups we get exact sequence $$H^0(A , \mathcal{O}_{A}(3))\rightarrow H^0(S, \mathcal{O}_{S}(3))\rightarrow H^1(A , \mathcal{O}_{A}(1))\rightarrow H^1(A, \mathcal{O}_{A}(3))$$ but $H^1(A , \mathcal{O}_{A}(1))\cong H^0(A, \omega_A\otimes \mathcal{O}_{A}(-1))^{\vee}=H^0(A, \mathcal{O}_{A})^{\vee}\cong \mathbb{C}$ and $H^1(A , \mathcal{O}_{A}(3))\cong H^0(A, \omega_A\otimes \mathcal{O}_{A}(-3))^{\vee}=H^0(A, \mathcal{O}_{A}(-2))^{\vee}=0$ . So (A7) is satisfied.
Method II
=========
As mentioned in Page 6, we present another method to check the condition ($\star$) in this appendix. We follow notations and conventions used in §1.
Define $Z:=\{(D, B, C)\in A_0^{(n)}\times |\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|\times|\mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{A_0}| | D\subset B,D\subset C\}$. Let $p: Z\longrightarrow |\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|$ be the projection map. We assume $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_{X}(b-a))=0$. Then $(A_0, \mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b))$ can impose independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$ if $p$ is not surjective.
Because $H^0(X, \mathcal{L}(-a))=0$, so the natural restriction map $H^0(X, \mathcal{L})\longrightarrow H^0(A_0, \mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{A_0})$ is injective. Then any element $C\in |\mathcal{L}|$ corresponds to a divisor $C\cap A_0\in |\mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{A_0}|$.
Suppose $p$ is not surjective. Then $|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|\setminus p(Z)$ is open dense in $|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|$. Because $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_{X}(b-a))=0$, the natural restriction map $H^0(X, \mathcal{O}_X(b))\longrightarrow H^0(A_0, \mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b))$ is surjective. So there exists $B\in |\mathcal{O}_X(b)|$ such that $B\cap A_0$ is a set of $l$ distinct points and $B\cap A_0 \in |\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|\setminus p(Z)$. But $B\cap A_0\in |\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|\setminus p(Z)$ precisely means that no member of $|\mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{A_0}|$ can contain $n$ points of $B\cap A_0$. Consequently, at most $n-1$ points of $B\cap A_0$ lies on an element of $|\mathcal{L}|$.
If the restriction map $H^0(X, \mathcal{L})\longrightarrow H^0(A_0, \mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{A_0})$ is an isomorphism, then $(A_0, \mathcal{O}_{X}(b))$ can impose independent conditions on $|\mathcal{L}|$ if and only if $p$ is not surjective.
Next consider the following diagram:
where $m=c_1(\mathcal{O}_X(a))\cdot c_1(\mathcal{L}), \phi (D_1,D_2)=\mathcal{O}_{A}(D_1-D_2)$, $q(D,B,C)=(B-D, C-D)$ and $p$ is the natural projection map. In order to show that $p$ is not surjective, it suffices to show that $dimZ<dim|\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)|$ . Roughly speaking, $Z$ has “small" dimension if the fiber $\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)\otimes\mathcal{L}^{\vee})$ has “small" dimension and the fibers of the map $q$ has “small" dimension. Finally, we need to do the following two steps:
$\mathbf{Step 1}:$ Show that the fiber $\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{O}_{A_0}(b)\otimes\mathcal{L}^{\vee})$ has minimum dimension,
$\mathbf{Step 2)}$:Analyze the map $q$ to show that general fiber of $q$ have small dimensions and the dimensions of special fibers are not too large.
The following general result provide us a way to do Step 1) in the special case $m-n=g_{A_0}-1$.
Let $A$ be a smooth projective curve. Consider the difference map $\phi : A^{(r)}\times A^{(g_A-1)}\longrightarrow Pic^{r-g_A+1}A$, where $\phi (D_1, D_2)=\mathcal{O}_A(D_1-D_2)$, $g_A>1$ and $r>0$. $\mathcal{L}$ is a line bundle on $A$ of degree $r-g_A+1$. Then $dim\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{L})=r-1$ if and only if $H^0(A, \mathcal{L}^{\vee})=0$.
Define $f:A^{(r)}\times A^{(g_A-1)}\longrightarrow A^{(r+g_A-1)}$, $g:A^{(r+g_A-1)}\longrightarrow Pic^{r+g_A-1}A$, where $f$ is the addition map and $g(D)=\mathcal{O}_{A}(D), \forall D\in A^{(r+g_A-1)}$. Let $\psi$ be the composite map $g\circ f$. Consider the following commutative diagram:
where $\alpha (D_1,D_2)=(\mathcal{O}_A(D_1), \mathcal{O}_A(D_2)), \gamma (\mathcal{G}_1, \mathcal{G}_2)=\mathcal{G}_1\otimes\mathcal{G}_2^{\vee}, \tau (D_1, D_2)=(D_1, D_2^{'})$ if $dim|\mathcal{O}_A(D_2)|=0$ and $D_2^{'}\in |\omega_A\otimes \mathcal{O}_A(-D_2)|$, $\beta (\mathcal{G}_1, \mathcal{G}_2)=(\mathcal{G}_1, \omega _A\otimes\mathcal{G}_2^{\vee})$, $\kappa (\mathcal{G})=\omega_A\otimes\mathcal{G}$, $\sigma (\mathcal{G}_1, \mathcal{G}_2)=\mathcal{G}_1\otimes\mathcal{G}_2$ and $\omega_A$ is the canonical sheaf of $A$.
Then $\tau$ is a birational map, $\beta$ and $\kappa$ are isomorphisms. $\phi=\gamma \circ\alpha$, $\psi=\sigma\circ\alpha=g\circ f$. Let $\mathcal{G}\in Pic^{r-g_A+1}A$, then $\gamma^{-1}(\mathcal{G})\cong \sigma^{-1}(\kappa(\mathcal{G}))$. $\forall (\mathcal{G}_1, \mathcal{G}_2)\in \gamma^{-1}(\mathcal{G})$, $dim\alpha^{-1}(\mathcal{G}_1, \mathcal{G}_2)=dim\alpha^{-1}(\beta(\mathcal{G}_1, \mathcal{G}_2))$ by Riemann-Roch. Therefore, $dim\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{G})=dim\psi^{-1}(\kappa(\mathcal{G}))$.
On the other hand, $f$ is a finite surjective map, so $dim\psi^{-1}(\kappa(\mathcal{G}))=dim g^{-1}(\kappa(\mathcal{G}))=^{R.R.}dim|\omega_A\otimes (\kappa (\mathcal{G}))^{\vee}|+(r+g_A-1)+1-g_A=dim|\omega_A\otimes (\kappa (\mathcal{G}))^{\vee}|+r$. Therefore, the fiber $\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{G})$ has minimum dimension, say $r-1$, if and only if $dim|\omega_A\otimes (\kappa (\mathcal{G}))^{\vee}|=-1$, i.e. $h^0(A,\omega_A\otimes (\kappa (\mathcal{G}))^{\vee})=0$. But by the definition of the map $\kappa$, $\omega_A\otimes (\kappa (\mathcal{G}))^{\vee}\cong \mathcal{G}^{\vee}$, so we are done.
Tables for the proof of Theorem 2.9 and Theorem 2.12
====================================================
$$\text{Table 2}$$
($g$, $d$) $Y$ $X$ $D:=(a+b)H-C$ $D^2$
------------ ------------- --------------- --------------- -------
(23, 18) $(5)$ $(3,2)$ $5H-C$ 14
(24, 19) $(5)$ $(3,2)$ $5H-C$ 6
(26, 20) $(5)$ $(3,2)$ $5H-C$ 0
(27, 20) $(5)$ $(3,2)$ $5H-C$ 2
(29, 21) $(5)$ $(3,2)$ $5H-C$ -4
(16, 17) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 22
(16, 18) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 14
(16, 19) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 6
(17, 17) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 24
(17, 18) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 16
(17, 19) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 8
(17, 20) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 0
(18, 20) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 2
(19, 18) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 20
(19, 20) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 4
(19, 21) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ -4
(20, 19) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 14
(20, 20) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 6
(21, 20) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 8
(21, 21) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 0
(22, 20) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 10
(22, 21) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 2
(23, 20) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 12
(23, 22) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ -4
(25, 21) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 8
(25, 22) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 0
(26, 22) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 2
(27, 22) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 4
(29, 23) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $4H-C$ 0
(8, 12) $(3,3)$ $(3,2,1)$ $3H-C$ -4
(11, 16) $(2,2,3)$ $(2,2,2,1)$ $3H-C$ -4
(4, 9) $(2,2,2,2)$ $(2,2,2,1,1)$ $2H-C$ 2
(5, 10) $(2,2,2,2)$ $(2,2,2,1,1)$ $2H-C$ 0
(5, 11) $(2,2,2,2)$ $(2,2,2,1,1)$ $2H-C$ -4
[-0.5in]{}[-.5in]{}
$$\text{Table 3}$$
($g$, $d$) $Y$ $X$ $\overline{NE(X)}$ spanned by $Nef(X)$ spanned by $D:=(a+b)H-C$ $D^2$ reason for $h^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(D))=0$
------------ --------- ----------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------- ------- -----------------------------------------------
(23,19) $(5)$ $(3,2)$ $-34451H+22588C$, $827H-172C$ $-339303H+222466C$, $8145H-1694C$ $5H-C$ 4 $D$ nef and big
(24,20) $(5)$ $(3,2)$ $-3H+2C$, $192H-37C$ $-16H+11C$, $1069H-206C$ $5H-C$ -4 Both $|D|$ and $|-D|$ are empty, then use R-R
(25,19) $(5)$ $(3,2)$ $-7H+4C$, $215743H-46996C$ $-59H+34C$, $1843309H-401534C$ $5H-C$ 8 $D$ nef and big
(25,20) $(5)$ $(3,2)$ $-11H+7C$, $5H-C$ $-37H+58C$, $5H-26C$ $5H-C$ -2 $|D|$ contains a smooth rational curve.
(16,20) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $-H+C$, $4H-C$ $-5H+6C$, $25H-6C$ $4H-C$ -2 $|D|$ contains a smooth rational curve.
(18,18) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $-147H+109C$, $3H-C$ $-530H+393C$, $10H-3C$ $4H-C$ 18 $D$ nef and big
(18,19) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $-6H+5C$, $32006H-9005C$ $-56H+47C$, $301944H-84953C$ $4H-C$ 10 $D$ nef and big
(19,19) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $-17H+13C$, $66233H-19237C$ $-145H+111C$, $565895H-164361C$ $4H-C$ 12 $D$ nef and big
(20,21) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $-425540H+366241C$, $4H-C$ $-4980818H+4286741C$, $46H-11C$ $4H-C$ -2 $|D|$ contains a smooth rational curve.
(21,19) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $-707H+449C$, $3H-C$ $-4527H+2875C$, $17H-5C$ $4H-C$ 16 $D$ nef and big
(23,21) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $-13019H+9005C$, $19H-5C$ $-122821H+84953C$, $179H-47C$ $4H-C$ 4 $D$ nef and big
[-1in]{}[-.5in]{}
$$\text{Table 3 (continued)}$$
($g$, $d$) $Y$ $X$ $\overline{NE(X)}$ spanned by $Nef(X)$ spanned by $D:=(a+b)H-C$ $D^2$ reason for $h^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(D))=0$
------------ ------------- --------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------- ------- -----------------------------------------------
(24,21) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $-29952H+19237C$, $48H-13C$ $-255910H+164361C$, $410H-111C$ $4H-C$ 6 $D$ nef and big
(24,22) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $-984H+701C$, $4H-C$ $-5299H+3775C$, $21H-5C$ $4H-C$ -2 $|D|$ contains a smooth rational curve.
(27,23) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $-26405H+17077C$, $21H-5C$ $-280689H+181531C$, $223H-53C$ $4H-C$ -4 Both $|D|$ and $|-D|$ are empty, then use R-R
(28,23) $(2,4)$ $(2,2,2)$ $-8899156H+5413465C$, $4H-C$ $-87646522H+53316447C$, $38H-9C$ $4H-C$ -2 $|D|$ contains a smooth rational curve.
(4,8) $(3,2,2)$ $(3,2,1,1)$ $-H+2C$, $2H-C$ $-2H+5C$, $5H-2C$ $2H-C$ -2 $|D|$ contains a smooth rational curve.
(4,10) $(2,2,2,2)$ $(2,2,2,1,1)$ $-38H+109C$, $2H-C$ $-137H+393C$, $7H-3C$ $2H-C$ -2 $|D|$ contains a smooth rational curve.
(6,11) $(2,2,2,2)$ $(2,2,2,1,1)$ $-258H+449C$, $2H-C$ $-1652H+2875C$, $12H-5C$ $2H-C$ -2 $|D|$ contains a smooth rational curve.
As pointed out before, the complete intersection K3 surfaces $X$ do not have -2 divisors in Table 2 but have -2 divisors in Table 3.
Summary for the existence of smooth isolated curves in general CICY threefolds known so far
===========================================================================================
Figure 1. Existence of smooth isolated curves in general $Y=(5)\subset\mathbb{P}^4$
Figure 2. Existence of smooth isolated curves in general $Y=(3,3)\subset\mathbb{P}^5$
Figure 3. Existence of smooth isolated curves in general $Y=(2,4)\subset\mathbb{P}^5$
Figure 4. Existence of smooth isolated curves in general $Y=(2,2,3)\subset\mathbb{P}^6$
Figure 5. Existence of smooth isolated curves in general $Y=(2,2,2,2)\subset\mathbb{P}^7$
[99]{}
E. Arbarello, M.Cornalba, P.A Griffiths, *Geometry of Algebraic Curves,Volume I*, Springer-Verlag, 1985. W.Bath, K. Hulek, C. Peters, A. Van de Ven, *Compact complex surfaces, Second Enlarged Edition*, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A , 4. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (2004). H. Clemens, H.P. Kley, *Counting curves that move with threefolds*, J. Algebraic Geom. 9 (2000), 175-200.
R. Hartshorne, *Algebraic Geometry*, Berlin; Springer 1977. A. L. Knutsen, *On isolated smooth curves of low genera in Calabi-Yau complete intersection threefolds*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 364, 5243-5264 (2012). A. L. Knutsen, *Smooth curves on projective K3 surfaces*, Math. Scand. 90 (2002), 215-231. H. P. Kley, *Rigid curves in complete intersection Calabi-Yau threefolds*, Compos. Math. 123 (2000), 185-208.
S. J. Kovács, *The cone of curves of a K3 surface*, Math. Ann. 300 (1994), no.4, 681-691.
R. Lazarsfeld, *Positivity in Algebraic Geometry I*, Springer-Verlag, 2004 B.Saint-Donat, *Projective models of K-3 surfaces*, Amer. J. Math. 96 (1974), 602-639.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We use Brownian Dynamics simulations in combination with the umbrella sampling technique to study the effect of shear flow on homogeneous crystal nucleation. We find that a homogeneous shear rate leads to a significant suppression of the crystal nucleation rate and to an increase of the size of the critical nucleus. A simple, phenomenological extension of classical nucleation theory accounts for these observations. The orientation of the crystal nucleus is tilted with respect to the shear direction.'
author:
- Ronald Blaak
- Stefan Auer
- Daan Frenkel
- Hartmut Löwen
title: Crystal Nucleation of Colloidal Suspensions under Shear
---
The formation of crystals in a supercooled melt is a fascinating yet complex process. It is initiated by a microscopic nucleation event. The resulting embryonic crystal then grows to macroscopic size. Understanding the principles of nucleation and growth is essential for many applications ranging from tailored protein crystallization to metallurgy [@Kelton:1991; @Galkin:2000PNAS; @Shi:1995APL]. At present, the most detailed experimental information on crystal nucleation comes from hard sphere colloids [@Schatzel:1993PRE; @Harland:1997PRE; @Sinn:2001PCPS; @Gasser:2001SC]. Such suspensions are ideal to study crystal formation, as the equilibrium and transport properties of hard-sphere colloids are well understood [@Pusey:1991]. Moreover, recent progress in computer simulations has made it possible to predict the absolute rate of crystal nucleation in colloidal suspensions [@Auer:2001NAT1; @Auer:2002JPCM] and thus to compare with experiment.
In the present Letter we explore the influence of shear flow on colloidal crystal nucleation. Note that applying shear is qualitatively different from the effect of pressure, temperature or additives, as the latter affect the thermodynamic driving force for crystallization or the rate of crystal growth. In contrast, a system under shear ends up in a non-equilibrium steady state. Several experimental studies of the effect of shear on crystallization have been reported in the literature. Some of these report a shear-induced ordering of the liquid which enhances the nucleation rate [@Ackerson:1988PRL; @Yan:1994PA; @Haw:1998PRE; @Amos:2000PRE], while others [@Palberg:1995JCP; @Okubo:1999JCIS] report the observation of shear-induced suppression of crystallization. Both phenomena can be qualitatively understood: on the one hand, shear may induce layering in the meta-stable fluid, thus facilitating crystal nucleation. On the other hand, shear can remove matter from small crystallites and thus works against the birth of crystals. At present, it is not clear which mechanism is dominant, and under what conditions. In this Letter we combine the umbrella sampling technique from equilibrium Monte Carlo simulations with Brownian Dynamics simulations to study this non-equilibrium problem. We confirm that shear suppresses crystal nucleation, at least for small shear rates, as found by Butler and Harrowell [@Butler:1995PRE], and in addition characterize the associated critical nucleus.
Below, we consider homogeneous crystal nucleation in a simple model for charge-stabilized colloidal suspensions subjected to linear shear flow. The charged colloidal particles interact via a repulsive Yukawa potential [@Pusey:1991] $$\label{eq:pairpot}
V(r) = \epsilon \frac{e^{-\kappa r}}{\kappa r},$$ where $\kappa$ is the inverse screening length and $r$ the mutual distance. The dimensionless strength of the interaction $\beta \epsilon$ has been fixed at a value $\beta \epsilon = 1.48 \times 10^4$, where $\beta = 1/(k_B
T)$ the inverse thermal energy and we used a cut-off at a distance $10/\kappa$. To model the time evolution of the sheared suspension, we used Brownian Dynamics [@Book:Allen-Tildesley; @Chakrabarti:1994PRE]. In this approach, hydrodynamic interactions between the colloids are ignored. This is justified at low volume fractions of charged suspensions.
The Brownian-Dynamics equations of motion for a system in the presence of a steady shear rate $\dot{\gamma}$ are of the form $$\label{eq:step}
\vec{r}_i(t+\delta t) = \vec{r}_i(t) + \delta t \frac{\vec{f}_i(t)}{\xi}
+ \delta \vec{r}^G + \delta t \dot{\gamma} y_i(t) \hat{x} \;.$$ Here $\vec{r}_i(t)=(x_i(t),y_i(t),z_i(t))$ is the position of the $i$th colloidal particle at time $t$. In a small time interval $\delta t$ this particle moves under influence of the sum of the conservative forces $\vec{f}_i(t)$ arising from the pair interaction (\[eq:pairpot\]) of particle $i$ with the neighboring particles. During this motion, the solvent exerts a friction. The friction constant $\xi$ with the solvent is related to the diffusion constant $D$ by $\xi = k_B T /D$, while the stochastic displacements are independently draw from a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance $\langle (\delta
r_{i\alpha}^G)^2\rangle = 2 D \delta t$, where $\alpha$ stands for one of the Cartesian components. The last term in Eq. (\[eq:step\]) represents the applied shear in the $x$-direction, and imposes an explicit linear flow field. For the simulations we used a cubic simulation box with 3375 particles and Lees-Edwards periodic boundary conditions [@Lees:1972JPCS]. The total simulation time was up to $10^4/(\kappa^2 D)$ for gathering statistics. The osmotic pressure $P$ is kept at a constant value with isotropic volume moves. In practice this means that after a number of Brownian dynamics time steps the volume of the simulation box is attempted to be modified and the particles locations are scaled accordingly. The resulting difference in potential energy is used either to accept the new volume or to reject and restore the old volume and particle locations, following the rules as used in normal Monte Carlo simulation of the isobaric ensemble [@Book:Allen-Tildesley]. The results for the zero shear case show full agreement with those we obtained by equilibrium Monte Carlo simulations.
The number of particles inside the nucleus is determined with the aid of bond-orientational order parameters [@Steinhardt:1983PRB], which characterize the neighborhood of each particle. By selecting particles with a solid-like environment that are in each others neighborhood, all particles that belong to a cluster are identified.
According to the bulk phase diagram, the stable equilibrium system would be a face-centered-cubic crystalline phase [@Auer:2002JPCM; @Hamaguchi:1997PRE] for our parameters. The system under consideration, however, is supercooled. Hence it remains liquid, even though the solid is more stable because, unless the nucleation rates are huge [@OMalley:2003PRL], the simulation time required to observe spontaneous crystallization is very much longer than the duration of a run. Due to fluctuations the liquid will continuously form and dissolve small nuclei. Yet, the steady state probability $P(n)$ that a critical crystal nucleus of $n$ particles will form spontaneously is extremely small. In order to speed up this process and obtain better statistics on the cluster size distribution, we used the umbrella sampling technique [@Torrie:1974CPL]. The basic assumption underlying its usage is that the probability to find the system with a given cluster size is a unique function of the thermodynamic state of the system and of the shear rate. To compute the probability to find the system in an unlikely state (such as a critical nucleus), we bias the Brownian-dynamics sampling in favor of the states of interest. The actual biasing procedure is identical to the one used in (meta-stable) equilibrium studies of crystal nucleation [@Auer:2001NAT1], and merely works as a mathematical trick to measure the ratio of the function $P(n)$, we want to obtain, over a known and fixed probability $P_{bias}(n)$. All trajectories that are generated follow a normal path and are truncated by the bias when they deviate too much from the preferred cluster size. Rather than generating a new configuration, the last configuration is restored from which a new path is grown. Note that the trick of using umbrella sampling in a dynamical simulation is generally applicable in equilibrium and non-equilibrium situations, is not restricted to Brownian Dynamics, and enables one to obtain information on rare events.
After correcting for the biasing function, the cluster size distribution function is obtained. In Fig. \[Fig:LogP\] the logarithm of the probability function $P(n)$ is shown for three non-vanishing shear rates.
In the case that no shear is applied, one can relate the probability of finding a cluster of given size to the Gibbs free energy. It is therefore tempting to interpret the probability functions as shown in Fig. \[Fig:LogP\] in terms of nucleation barriers [@Auer:2004JCP]. Strictly speaking this is not allowed, since this idea stems from equilibrium considerations, while in the present case we treat a non-equilibrium system. However, application of statistical mechanics outside equilibrium can be useful (see e.g, [@Ono:2002PRL] for an effective temperature in a sheared system) and it is a challenge to check whether and to what extent equilibrium concepts are applicable. In our case we consider the negative logarithm of the cluster size distribution function as an effective free energy.
Under this assumption a simple extension of classical nucleation theory can be made, which incorporates the shear rate. In classical nucleation theory the Gibbs free energy $\Delta G$ of a spherical nucleus of radius $R$ is given by $$\Delta G = - \frac{4}{3} \pi R^3 \rho_S | \Delta \mu | + 4 \pi R^2 \gamma_{SL}.$$ On the one hand there is a gain in energy proportional to the volume of the nucleus due to the difference in chemical potential $\Delta \mu$ between the solid with density $\rho_S$ and the liquid phase. On the other hand we have a loss in energy, since an interface between the solid nucleus and surrounding liquid needs to be formed, described by $\gamma_{SL}$ the interfacial free energy.
It is reasonable to expect that for moderate shear rates the chemical potential difference $\Delta \mu$ and interfacial free energy $\gamma_{SL}$ will not be affected much. This would justify an expansion in powers of the shear rate for both these quantities about their equilibrium values $$\label{eq:mugamma}
\begin{split}
\Delta \mu & = \Delta \mu^{(eq)} \left(1 + c_0 \dot{\gamma}^2 + {\cal
O} (\dot{\gamma}^4) \right) \\
\gamma_{SL} & = \gamma_{SL}^{(eq)} \left(1 + \kappa_0 \dot{\gamma}^2 +
{\cal O} (\dot{\gamma}^4) \right),
\end{split}$$ where due to the invariance of the shear direction only even powers in the shear rate $\dot{\gamma}$ need to be considered.
If we combine these expansions with the expression from classical theory one can easily derive expressions for $\Delta G^*$, the height of the nucleation barrier and $N^*$, the size of the critical nucleus, both of which depend quadratically on the shear rate. In Fig. \[Fig:dG\] we show the results from our simulations where we extracted the height of the nucleation barrier for various pressures and shear rates. The dependence on the shear rate is confirmed by the parabolic fits. However, we caution the reader that this observation should not be considered as evidence that the shear rate can really be considered as a thermodynamic variable. In fact, in a recent study of the effect of shear on the location of the solid-liquid coexistence in a Lennard-Jones system, Butler and Harrowell found that no purely thermodynamic description of the effect of shear was possible [@Butler:2003JCP]. Shear directly affects the transport of particles from the solid to the liquid phase, and this effect is not thermodynamic. The expansion in Eq. (\[eq:mugamma\]) is simply a way to represent the effect of shear as if it were purely thermodynamic. With this caveat in mind, we continue the remainder of the discussion in the language of classical nucleation theory.
We find that $N^*$, the number of particles inside the critical cluster, also depends quadratically on the applied shear rate. Using the classical nucleation theory expressions $N^*=
(32\pi\gamma^3)/(3 \rho_S^2|\Delta\mu|^3)$ and $\Delta G^* =
N^*|\Delta\mu|/2$, we can obtain the values of the second order coefficients in Eq. (\[eq:mugamma\]) from a fit of the simulation data. The results are summarized in Table \[Tab:data\]. We find a negative $c_0$ implying a destabilization of the solid upon shear and a relatively small correction of the interfacial free energy. Both effects do not strongly depend on the pressure. Note, however, that the fits for $\Delta\mu$ and $\gamma$ do not yield a good prediction for the [*shape*]{} of the nucleation barrier. The shape shows deviations from the one expected by classical nucleation theory, which is due to finite size effects of the cluster.
$\beta P/\kappa^3$ $\beta \Delta G^{(eq)}$ $N^{(eq)}$ $c_0 D^2 \kappa^4$ $\kappa_0 D^2\kappa^4$
-------------------- ------------------------- ------------ ---------------------- ------------------------
0.200 34 209 -4.8 $\times$ 10$^4$ 6\. $\times$ 10$^3$
0.224 21 133 -4.1 $\times$ 10$^4$ 5\. $\times$ 10$^3$
0.240 17 97 -3.4 $\times$ 10$^4$ 4\. $\times$ 10$^3$
: Numerical data for different pressures $\beta P/\kappa^3$ on the equilibrium barrier height $\Delta G^{(eq)}$, critical nucleus size $N^{(eq)}$, and second order corrections to the free energy difference and interfacial free energy as obtained from the fitted simulation data.[]{data-label="Tab:data"}
A bond order analysis shows that the structure of the nucleus is predominantly body-centered-cubic. Since small nuclei are in general neither spherical nor compact we have chosen to characterize their shape by the three principal moments of inertia. For a truly spherical nucleus these values would be identical, but since the shape of nucleus is fluctuating these moments are different. For relatively small clusters of 100 particles the ratio of the principle moments is roughly 6:10:12. As the nuclei grow larger, the differences between these moments of inertia get somewhat less. Surprisingly, the imposition of shear does not influence these ratios. This leads to the conclusion that although the size of the critical nucleus increases with shear, the overall shape is hardly influenced. This is different from the radial distribution functions we measured in the liquid under shear. They become increasingly asymmetric for higher shear rates [@Blaak:2004JPCM].
Knowledge of the eigenvectors of the inertia tensor allows us to determine its orientation. We find that the average orientation of the nucleus is weakly coupled to the direction of the applied shear. In particular, we find that the axis with the largest principal moment of inertia is, preferably in the gradient direction, in qualitative difference to a typical nearest neighbor particle cluster in a sheared fluid that prefers to be in the shear direction. The axis of the smallest principal moment of the nucleus tends to align with the vorticity direction. This alignment becomes more pronounced with increasing nucleus size and with increasing shear rate.
In Fig. \[Fig:orient\] we show the orientation of the nucleus with respect to the shear direction. The tilt angle increases linearly with the applied shear rate $\dot{\gamma}$ and only depends weakly on the osmotic pressure. In order to improve the statistical accuracy we have averaged over all cluster sizes between $N=100$ and the critical nucleus size, $N^*$. The inset of Fig. \[Fig:orient\] shows a schematic drawing of the preferred orientation of a nucleus. Note that the largest dimension of the nucleus (smallest principle moment) is preferably along the vorticity direction, i.e. perpendicular to the plane of drawing. Interestingly, a similar tilt occurs when vesicles with a flexible shape are exposed to a linear shear flow [@Abkarian:2002PRL].
In conclusion, we applied the combination of umbrella sampling and Brownian Dynamics simulation to the non-equilibrium problem of nucleation under shear, and found that shear suppresses nucleation and leads to a larger critical nucleus. These results can be described (but not yet understood) using a naive extension of classical nucleation theory. Most importantly, the present numerical predictions can be tested experimentally, by studying the rate of homogeneous crystal nucleation in a homogeneously sheared colloidal suspension. If nucleation were to be studied in Poiseuille flow as realized in a capillary viscometer [@Palberg:1996JP1F], rather than in homogeneous Couette flow, we should expect crystal nuclei to appear preferentially in the middle of the flow channel.
We stress that the present findings apply to the case where the fluid is only weakly sheared, i.e. when shear-induced ordering in the liquid phase is, presumably, unimportant. We also note that the present results indicate that, during sedimentation of crystal nuclei in an otherwise stagnant solution, local shear should decrease the rate of growth of the crystallites. There may even be conditions where the competition between mass gain due to crystal growth and mass loss due to shearing, leads to the selection of one particular crystallite radius. This phenomenon should also be experimentally observable.
In this work, we ignored hydrodynamic interactions because otherwise the computational cost would have been prohibitive. This assumption, while reasonable for dilute suspensions of charged colloids, is certainly not correct in general. Finally, our method can readily be applied to other dynamical simulation methods for rare events and meta-stable systems, such as crystal nucleation in oscillatory shear [@Xue:1989PRA] and heterogeneous nucleation near a system wall in a sheared suspension.
We like to thank T. Palberg, A. Van Blaaderen, G. Szamel, and S. Egelhaaf for helpful discussions. This work has been supported by DFG within subproject D1 of the SFB-TR6 program. The work of FOM Institute is financially supported by the “Nederlandse organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek” (NWO).
[31]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, in **, edited by (, , ), vol. , pp. .
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
*et al.*, ****, ().
, in **, edited by , , (, , ), pp. .
, ****, (); ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
*et al.*, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
*et al.*, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Measurements are reported of the magnetic field dependence of excitations in the quantum critical state of the spin $S=1/2$ linear chain Heisenberg antiferromagnet copper pyrazine dinitrate (CuPzN). The complete spectrum was measured at $k_{B}T/J \le 0.025$ for $H=0$ and $H=8.7$ Tesla where the system is $\sim 30$% magnetized. At $H=0$, the results are in quantitative agreement with exact calculations of the dynamic spin correlation function for a two-spinon continuum. At high magnetic field, there are multiple overlapping continua with incommensurate soft modes. The boundaries of these continua confirm long-standing predictions, and the intensities are consistent with exact diagonalization and Bethe Ansatz calculations.'
author:
- 'M. B. Stone'
- 'D. H. Reich'
- 'C. Broholm'
- 'K. Lefmann'
- 'C. Rischel'
- 'C. P. Landee'
- 'M. M. Turnbull'
title: 'Extended quantum critical phase in a magnetized spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ antiferromagnetic chain'
---
One of the most important ideas to emerge from studies of condensed matter systems in recent years is the concept of quantum criticality [@sachdevbook]. A quantum critical point marks a zero temperature phase transition between different ground states of a many-body system as a result of changes in parameters of the underlying Hamiltonian. Precisely at the quantum critical point the system is without characteristic length scales or energy scales, with power-law spatial correlations and gapless excitations. Finite temperature properties close to quantum criticality are anomalous and reflect universal properties of the underlying quantum field theory.
While fine tuning of a parameter in a system’s Hamiltonian is generally required to achieve quantum criticality, it is inherent to the spin S=1/2 linear chain Heisenberg antiferromagnet (LCHAFM). The spin dynamics of the LCHAFM have been studied in a number of materials [@Tennant95; @dendercubenzprb; @takigawa9697; @araiprl1996; @hammarprb1999], and the elementary excitations are S=1/2 spinons that form a gapless, two-particle continuum [@muller1981; @karbach1997]. In a magnetic field, $H$ the Hamiltonian of the LCHAFM is $
\mathcal{H}\mathit{=\sum_{i}[ J}
\mathbf{S}\mathit{_{i}}\mathbf{S}\mathit{_{i+1}-g\mu_{B}}H
\mathrm{S}_{i}^{z}\mathit{]}$. While changes in ${\mathcal H}$ such as the introduction of dimerization or interchain coupling drive the LCHAFM away from criticality [@chitraprb1997], the system should remain quantum critical at $T=0$ in fields below the fully spin polarized state, which occurs at $H_C = 2J/g\mu_B$ [@bogoliubov1986; @fledderjohann1997]. Prominent among the features predicted to exist along this quantum critical line are a set of field-dependent two-particle continuua [@muller1981; @lefmannprb1996; @karbach_prb_2000; @Karbach02] with incommensurate soft modes that move across the 1D Brillouin zone with increasing field as $\tilde{q}_{i,1} = 2 \pi m$ and $\tilde{q}_{i,2} = \pi - 2 \pi m$, where $0 \le m \le 1/2$ is the reduced magnetization per spin.
Experiments on copper benzoate [@dendercubenzprl] have verified the predicted field-dependence of the incommensurate wavevector $\tilde{q}_{i,2}$. However, due to a combination of a staggered $g$-tensor and Dzayaloshinskii-Moria interactions, the field drives that system away from the critical line to a state with confined spinons and a gap in the excitation spectrum [@AffleckOshikawa]. In contrast, the finite-field critical state of the S=1/2 LCHAFM is accessible in copper pyrazine dinitrate, $\rm Cu(C_{4}H_{4}N_{2})(NO_{3})_{2}$ (CuPzN). This well characterized organo-metallic magnet has $J = 0.9 $ meV, and negligible interchain coupling ($J^{\prime}/J < 10^{-4})$ [@hammarprb1999; @losee1973]. The spin chains in CuPzN are uniform, with one Cu$^{2+}$ ion per unit cell along the chain, and specific heat measurements have shown that CuPzN remains gapless for $H \le 0.6 H_C = 9$ T [@hammarprb1999]. In this paper we report inelastic neutron scattering measurements of the full spectrum of CuPzN, both at $H=0$ and at $H=8.7$ T, where $m = 0.15$. In zero field, the spectrum is consistent with the exact two-spinon contribution to the spin fluctuation spectrum [@karbach1997]. The finite field data show the long-sought field-dependent continua [@muller1981], and are in detailed agreement with theoretical and numerical work [@lefmannprb1996; @karbach_prb_2000; @Karbach02].
The measurements were performed using the SPINS cold neutron triple axis spectrometer at the NIST Center for Neutron Research. The sample studied contained 22 single crystals of deuterated CuPzN [@StoneThesis] with a total mass of 3.06 grams,and a measured mosaic of two degrees. We used a dispersive analyzer configuration that detects scattered neutrons with an angular range of 10$^{\circ}$ and an energy range 2.7 meV $\le E_{f}\le$ 3.55 meV [@zaliznyak]. We used a Be filter before the sample for $E_i < 5.15$ meV, and a BeO filter after the sample. The measured full width at half maximum (FWHM) elastic energy resolution was $\delta\hbar\omega = 0.14$ meV, and the FWHM wave-vector resolution along the \[100\] chain axis was $\delta{\mathbf{Q}}_{\parallel}=0.03$ Å$^{-1}$ at ${\mathbf{Q}}= (hkl) = (\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{4}0)$ at $\hbar\omega=0$ [@chesser1973]. Data were obtained along the line between ${\mathbf{Q}} =(1\frac{1}{4}0)$ and ${\mathbf{Q}}=(2\frac{1}{4}0)$, with $H \parallel \hat{c}$.
Figure \[fig:zerofieldcontour\](a) shows the normalized magnetic scattering intensity $\tilde{{\mathcal I}}_{m}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ for CuPzN, measured in zero field at $T= 0.25$ K. Wave-vector transfer along the chain is represented as $\tilde{q}=2\pi(h-1)$, This data set was obtained by combining data taken at $E_i = $ 3.35 meV, 3.55 meV, and for 3.75 meV $\le E_i \le$ 5.75 meV with 40 $\mu$V steps. After subtracting the background scattering measured with the analyzer in a non-reflecting geometry, the incoherent elastic scattering profile of the sample was determined from data that were at least 0.2 meV outside of the known bounds [@hammarprb1999] of the $H=0$ spinon continuum. This profile was scaled to to the measured elastic incoherent scattering intensity at each $\tilde{q}$, and subtracted from the raw data. The data were converted to the normalized scattering intensity by comparison with the measured incoherent scattering intensity of a vanadium standard. The data at $2\pi - \tilde{q}$ were then averaged with that at $\tilde{q}$, binned in bins of size $\delta\hbar\omega = 25$ $\mu$eV by $\delta\tilde{q} = 0.026\pi$, and averaged over a rectangle of the same size as the FWHM energy and wave-vector resolutions to produce the color contour plot shown in Fig. \[fig:zerofieldcontour\](a).
![(a) Magnetic inelastic neutron scattering intensity $\tilde{{\mathcal I}}_{m}$ for CuPzN at $T=0.25$ K and $H=0$ versus wave-vector and energy transfer. (b) Calculated two-spinon contribution to $\tilde{{\mathcal I}}_{m}$. Solid lines are the predicted lower and upper bounds of the spinon continuum. A representative FWHM resolution ellipsoid is shown in (a). []{data-label="fig:zerofieldcontour"}](fig1Stone)
These data provide a complete picture of the zero-field spinon continuum (SC) in CuPzN. The solid lines are the SC’s lower and upper bounds, calculated for $J = 0.9$ meV [@muller1981]. Figures \[fig:constE\](a)-(c) and \[fig:constQ\](a)-(c) show cuts through the data, and highlight several important features. These include the monotonically decreasing intensity at $\tilde{q} = \pi$ \[Fig. \[fig:constQ\](a)\], the peaks near $\tilde{q} = \pi$ associated with the divergence in $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ at the SC lower bound [@karbach1997] \[Fig.\[fig:constE\](a)-(c)\], and the smaller feature at low $\tilde{q}$ where the SC narrows as $\tilde{q} \rightarrow 0$. Figures \[fig:constQ\](b)-(c) show the asymmetric lineshapes produced by the SC for $\tilde{q} \ne \pi$. Figure \[fig:constE\](c) also shows data taken at $T=35$ K. The decrease in intensity at $\tilde{q} = \pi$ confirms that the low-$T$ scattering is magnetic.
![Magnetic scattering intensity vs $\hbar\omega$ at constant $\tilde{q}$ for CuPzN at $T=0.25$ K and $H=0$ (a)-(c), and at $H=8.7$ T (d)-(f). Each point includes scattering within a width of $\Delta\tilde{q}=0.05 \pi$. The solid (dashed) lines in (a)-(c) are the exact (approximate) model for $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ described in the text. []{data-label="fig:constQ"}](fig2Stone)
![Magnetic scattering intensity vs $\tilde{q}$ at constant $\hbar\omega$ for CuPzN at $T=0.25$ K at $H=0$ (a)-(c), and at $H=8.7$ T (d)-(f). The data for $\tilde{q} < \pi$ have been averaged with the data at $2\pi - \tilde{q}$. The data displayed for $\tilde{q} > \pi$ have not been averaged in this manner. Each point includes scattering within a width of $\Delta\hbar\omega=0.1$ meV. The solid (dashed) lines in (a)-(c) are the exact (approximate) model for $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ described in the text. The scattering measured at $T=35$ K is shown as open symbols in panel (c).[]{data-label="fig:constE"}](fig3Stone)
Figure \[fig:zerofieldcontour\](b) shows $\tilde{{\mathcal I}}_{m}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ calculated [@hammarprb1999] from the recently derived exact two-spinon contribution to $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ [@bougourzi1996; @fledderjohann1996; @karbach1997] with $J = 0.9$ meV, with the addition of a constant intensity fixed at the average residual background measured 0.5 meV away from the continuum. $\tilde{{\mathcal I}}_{m}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ is also shown as solid lines on the cuts in Figs. \[fig:constE\](a)-(c) and \[fig:constQ\](a)-(c). There are no adjustable parameters in the model, and the agreement with the data is excellent, although we note that there is an overall 10% uncertainty in the vanadium normalization.
Figures \[fig:constE\] and \[fig:constQ\] also show a comparison (dashed lines) to the lineshapes produced by a global fit to the approximate form [@muller1981] for $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ that has been previously used to model measurements of the $H=0$ SC in CuPzN [@hammarprb1999] and other materials [@Tennant95; @dendercubenzprb]. This approximation is now known to overestimate $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ near the upper SC boundary [@karbach1997; @lefmannprb1996]. Indeed, some indications of this effect are seen in Figs. \[fig:constQ\](b) and \[fig:constQ\](b), and although our data are not optimal for observing these differences, the exact model does give an overall better description of the data.
The spectrum of CuPzN in a magnetic field is considerably more complex than at zero field, as seen in Fig. \[fig:fieldcontour\](a), which shows $\tilde{{\mathcal I}}_{m}$ measured at $H = 8.7$ T. This data set combines data taken in the range 3.35 meV $\le E_i \le$ 4.75 meV with 20 $\mu$V increments, and at $E_i = 5.15$ meV. An identical background subtraction, averaging, and binning procedure as used at $H=0$ was applied to these data, using the $H=0$ incoherent elastic profile.
![(a) Inelastic neutron scattering intensity $\tilde{{\mathcal I}}_{m}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ for CuPzN at $T=0.25$ K and $H=8.7$ T. (b) Calculations of the different components of $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ for $N=26$ spins and $m= 2/13$ ($H=8.67$ T for CuPzN). The area of each circle is proportional to $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$. (c) $\tilde{{\mathcal I}}_{m}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ calculated for ensemble of chains with $N=24$, $26$, and $28$. Lines show bounds of excitation continua for the finite-length $S=1/2$ LCHAFM. Solid lines: continua predicted to predominate as $N \rightarrow \infty$.[]{data-label="fig:fieldcontour"}](fig4StoneDS)
Several continua and prominent features have emerged that were not present at $H=0$. These are highlighted in cuts shown in Figs. \[fig:constE\](d)-(f) and \[fig:constQ\](d)-(f). First, a continuum of scattering is still observed at $\tilde{q} = \pi$ down to the lowest energy probed, which demonstrates that the system indeed remains gapless and critical at $H=8.7$ T. The spectrum has generally shifted to lower energy, and the strong ridge of scattering with linear dispersion near $\tilde{q} = \pi$ has a smaller slope than at $H=0$, showing explicitly that the velocity of the elementary excitations has decreased [@hammarprb1999].
There is a strong peak in $\tilde{{\mathcal I}}_{m}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ centered at $\tilde{q} = \pi$ at the field energy $\hbar\omega = g \mu_B H \approx1.1$ meV ($g_c = 2.07$ [@McGregor76]). A weaker peak at this same energy can also be seen at $\tilde{q}=0$, which corresponds to uniform spin precession. Moving away from $\tilde{q} = \pi$, there is another ridge of scattering intensity, which decreases in energy towards the expected field induced incommensurate wavevector $\tilde{q}_{i,2} =0.7\pi$. As shown in Fig. \[fig:constQ\](e), the incommensurate mode is seen in increased scattering at the lowest energies probed at $\tilde{q}_{i,2}$ compared to zero field \[Fig. \[fig:constQ\](b)\]. Finally, there is a mode that begins at the field energy at $\tilde{q} = 0$, and decreases in energy with increasing $\tilde{q}$, but which loses intensity close to $\tilde{q}_{i,1} = 0.3\pi$, consistent with numerical work [@lefmannprb1996].
Using the Bethe Ansatz, Müller [*et al.*]{} identified six classes of excitations out of the partially magnetized ground state of an $N$-spin chain that can contribute to $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ [@muller1981]. Each class produces a continuum, and Müller [*et al.*]{} determined their approximate boundaries. However, three of these are predicted to dominate $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ as $N \rightarrow \infty$, with (adopting the notation of Ref. [@muller1981],) class (ii) contributing to ${\mathcal{S}}_{zz}(\tilde{q},\omega)$, class (iii) to ${\mathcal{S}}_{-+}(\tilde{q},\omega)$, and class (vi) to ${\mathcal{S}}_{+-}(\tilde{q},\omega)$. The boundaries of these three continua, ${\cal E}_2$, ${\cal E}_3$, and ${\cal E}_6$, are shown as solid lines in Fig. \[fig:fieldcontour\]. They closely track the principal features of the data.
We have calculated $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ for chains of length $N=24$, $26$, and $28$, using the Lanczos technique [@lefmannprb1996]. Figure \[fig:fieldcontour\](b) depicts the results for $N=26$ and $m = 2/13$, corresponding to $H=8.67$ T for CuPzN [@muller1981]. Each eigenstate of the chain is marked by a circle with an area proportional to the corresponding contribution to $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ [@lefmannprb1996]. The circles are color-coded to indicate which component of $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ the state contributes to. Note that in our experimental geometry we measure ${\mathcal {I}}_{m}(\tilde{q},\omega)\propto {\mathcal {S}}_{zz}+
\frac{1}{4}({\mathcal {S}}_{+-}+{\mathcal {S}}_{-+})$. The corresponding continuum boundaries are also shown color-coded. Some spectral weight for this finite chain is seen outside of continua (ii), (iii) and (vi), and so for reference the boundaries of the other three finite-$N$ continua, ${\cal E}_1$, ${\cal E}_44$, and ${\cal E}_5$, are included as dashed lines. The finite-chain results reproduce all trends and features of the measured intensity, and together with the continuum bounds, suggest polarization assignments.
A more direct comparison is achieved by combining the calculations in Fig. \[fig:fieldcontour\](b) with results for $N=24$, $m=1/6$ and $N=28$, $m=1/7$, which correspond to $H=9.18$ T and 8.21 T for CuPzN, respectively, and greatly increase the number of wavevectors sampled. The results at each $N$ were smoothed by convolving them with the response function of a finite-size system, so that $${\mathcal{S}}_{\alpha\beta}(\tilde{q}, \hbar\omega) = \sum_{N}\sum_{\tilde{q}_{N}}
{\mathcal{S}}_{\alpha\beta,N}(\tilde{q}_{N},
\hbar\omega)\left|\frac{\sin((\tilde{q}-\tilde{q}_{N})N/2)}{\sin((\tilde{q}-\tilde{q}_N)/2)}
\right|^{2}.$$ The calculated results were then converted to $\tilde{{\mathcal I}}_{m}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ [@hammarprb1999], and binned and averaged as described above. After multiplication by an overall scale factor, we obtain the contour plot shown in Fig. \[fig:fieldcontour\](c) which represents the measured intensity expected from an equal weighted ensemble of 24, 26, and 28 membered spin chains. While the relatively short chains yield stronger discrete energy bands than in the measurements, the simulation clearly captures the main features of the data.
Karbach and Müller have recently identified a new class of quasiparticles for the partially magnetized S=1/2 chain. These “psinons” play a similar role in the spectrum as do the spinons at $H=0$, yielding a continuum for each component of $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ [@karbach_prb_2000; @Karbach02], with boundaries that are consistent with the approximate analytic expressions that were used above. Karbach [*et al.*]{} have computed the psinon lineshapes for $m = 0.25$, where $\tilde{q}_{i,1} = \tilde{q}_{i,2} =\pi/2$. This occurs at $H = 11.9 $ T for CuPzN, but a qualitative comparison can still be made, as the properties of the lineshapes should vary smoothly. Of particular interest is the peak at the upper boundary of the psinon continuum for $ {\mathcal S}_{zz}(\tilde{q},\omega)$, which is due to a singularity in the psinon density of states. This may explain the line of scattering intensity in Fig. \[fig:fieldcontour\](a) that tracks the top of the ${\cal E}_2$ continuum. This is notably different from the zero-field case, where the corresponding singularity in the spinon density of states is compensated by a vanishing matrix element, and $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ vanishes at the upper boundary of the spinon continuum, as seen in Fig. \[fig:zerofieldcontour\].
Finally, we note that Fig. \[fig:fieldcontour\](a) shows some evidence of weak scattering intensity for $\hbar\omega > 2 $ meV. This could possibly be due to the presence of short chains resulting from impurities, or to higher-order processes not included in the spinon/psinon picture. However, we note that our error bars are much larger here than at lower energy due to shorter counting times, (see Fig. \[fig:constQ\]), and so a definitive statement on the existence of excitations in this energy range cannot be made at this time.
In summary, our experiments in CuPzN provide the first experimental example of an extended critical state in a quantum magnet. This detailed mapping of the spin excitation spectrum in the spin-1/2 linear chain antiferromagnet verifies long-standing predictions based on the Bethe Ansatz of a field driven and critical incommensurate state. There is excellent agreement with finite chain calculations, and good qualitative agreement with the lineshapes predicted at higher fields based on novel “psinon" quasiparticles. Recent advances in Bethe Ansatz techniques show promise for full calculations of the psinons’ contribution to $ {\mathcal S}(\tilde{q},\omega)$ [@Karbach02; @Biegel02]. A direct comparison of such calculations to our data would clearly be very interesting.
This work was supported by NSF Grant No. DMR-0074571 and utilized facilities supported by NIST and the NSF under Agreement No. 9986442. X-ray characterization was carried out using facilities maintained by the JHU MRSEC under NSF Grant No. DMR-0080031.
[99]{}
S. Sachdev, “Quantum Phase Transitions" Cambridge University Press (2000).
D. A. Tennant [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 13368 (1995). D. C. Dender [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 2583 (1996).
M. Takigawa [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 4612 (1996); Phys Rev. B. [**56**]{}, 13681 (1997).
M. Arai [*et al.*]{}, Phys Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 3649 (1996). P. R. Hammar [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 1008 (1999).
G. Müller [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**24**]{}, 1429 (1981).
M. Karbach [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 12510 (1997).
R. Chitra and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 5816 (1997).
N. M. Bogoliubov [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**275**]{}, 687 (1986).
A. Fledderjohann [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 7168 (1996). K. Lefmann and C. Rischel, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 6340 (1996).
M. Karbach and G. Müller, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 14871 (2000).
M. Karbach [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B. [**66**]{}, 054405 (2002).
D. C. Dender [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 1750 (1997).
M. Oshikawa and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 2883 (1997); I. Affleck and M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 1038 (1999).
D. B. Losee [*et al.*]{}, J. Chem. Phys. [**59**]{}, 3600 (1973); G. Mennenga [*et al*]{}, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**44**]{}, 89 (1984); A. Santoro [*et al.*]{}, Acta Crystallogr., Sec. B [**26**]{}, 9979 (1970).
M. B. Stone, Ph.D. Thesis, Johns Hopkins University, 2002.
I. Zaliznyak, J. Appl. Phys. [**91**]{}, 8390 (2002).
N. D. Chesser and J. D. Axe, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A [**29**]{}, 160 (1973).
A. H. Bougourzi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [ **54**]{}, R12669 (1996).
A. Fledderjohann [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 11543 (1996).
K. T. McGregor and S. G. Soos, J. Chem. Phys. [**64**]{}, 2506 (1976).
D. Biegel [*et al.*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**59**]{}, 882 (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using the two-component model that includes charmonium production from both initial nucleon-nucleon hard scattering and regeneration in the produced quark-gluon plasma, we study $J/\psi$ production in heavy-ion collisions at the SPS, RHIC and LHC. For the expansion dynamics of produced hot dense matter, we use a schematic viscous hydrodynamic model with the specific shear viscosity in the quark-gluon plasma and the hadronic matter taken, respectively, to be twice and ten times the lower bound of $1/4\pi$ suggested by the AdS/CFT correspondence. For the initial dissociation and the subsequent thermal decay of charmonia in the hot dense matter, we use the screened Cornell potential to describe the properties of charmonia and perturbative QCD to calculate their dissociation cross sections. Including regeneration of charmonia in the quark-gluon plasma via a kinetic equation with in-medium chamonium decay widths, we obtain a good description of measured $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factors in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=1.73$ GeV at SPS and in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at RHIC. A reasonable description of the measured nuclear modification factor of high transverse momenta $J/\psi$ in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV at LHC is also obtained.'
author:
- Taesoo Song
- Kyong Chol Han
- Che Ming Ko
title: 'Charmonium production in heavy-ion collisions from the SPS to LHC'
---
introduction
============
Since $J/\psi$ suppression was first suggested by Matsui and Satz as a signature of quark-gluon plasma (QGP) formation in relativistic heavy-ion collisions [@Matsui:1986dk], there have been many experimental [@Alessandro:2004ap; @Adare:2006ns] and theoretical studies [@Vogt:1999cu; @Zhang:2000nc; @Zhang:2002ug; @Zhao:2007hh; @Yan:2006ve] on this very interesting phenomenon; see, e.g., Refs. [@Rapp:2008tf; @Andronic:2006ky] for a recent review. The original idea of Matsui and Satz was that the color screening in the produced QGP would prohibit the binding of charm and anticharm quarks into the $J/\psi$ and thus suppress its production. However, lattice QCD calculations of the $J/\psi$ spectral function have since shown that the $J/\psi$ can survive above the critical temperature for the QGP phase transition [@Hatsuda04; @Datta04]. As a result, the study of $J/\psi$ suppression in relativistic heavy-ion collisions has been changed from being a signature of the QGP to a probe of its properties. Indeed, we have recently shown in a two-component model, which includes $J/\psi$ production from both initial hard nucleon-nucleon scattering and regeneration from charm and anticharm quarks in the produced QGP, that the in-medium effect on $J/\psi$ interactions in the QGP can affect the $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor and elliptic flow in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) [@Song:2010er]. In the present study, we extend this study to $J/\psi$ production in Pb+Pb collisions at the higher energy of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [@:2010px; @cms] and also at the lower energy of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=17.3$ GeV at the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) [@Alessandro:2004ap]. Furthermore, a schematic viscous hydrodynamic model is used to include the effect of viscosity on the expansion dynamics of the produced hot dense matter that was neglected in our previous studies. We find that the two-component model can give a good description of the experimental data from heavy-ion collisions at these different energies.
To make the present paper self contained, we briefly review in Sec. \[two\] the two-component model for $J/\psi$ production, in Sec. \[hydrodynamics\] the schematic causal viscous hydrodynamical model used in modeling the expansion dynamics of produced hot dense matter, and in Sec. \[properties\] the in-medium dissociation temperatures and thermal decay widths of charmonia. Results obtained from our study for the $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factors in heavy-ion collisions at SPS, RHIC and LHC are then presented in Sec. \[suppression\]. Finally, a summary is given in Sec. \[summary\].
The two-component model {#two}
=======================
The two-component model for $J/\psi$ production in heavy-ion collisions [@Grandchamp:2002wp; @Grandchamp:2003uw] includes contributions from both initial hard nucleon-nucleon scattering and regeneration from charm and anticharm quarks in the produced QGP. For initially produced $J/\psi$’s, their number is proportional to the number of binary collisions between nucleons in the two colliding nuclei. Whether these $J/\psi$’s can survive after the collisions depends on many effects from both the initial cold nuclear matter and the final hot partonic and hadronic matters. The cold nuclear matter effects include the Cronin effect of gluon-nucleon scattering before the production of the primordial $J/\psi$ from the gluon-gluon fusion [@Cronin:1974zm]; the shadowing effect due to the modification of the gluon distribution in a heavy nucleus [@Eskola:2009uj]; and the nuclear absorption by the passing nucleons [@Alessandro:2003pi; @Lourenco:2008sk; @Vogt:2010aa]. In our previous work [@Song:2010fk] on $J/\psi$ production in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC, we have considered only the most important nuclear absorption effect. In this case, the survival probability of a primordial $J/\psi$ after the nuclear absorption is given by [@Kharzeev:1996yx; @Ferreiro:2008wc] $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm cnm}({\bf b},{\bf s})=
\frac{1}{T_{AB}({\bf b},{\bf s})}\int dz dz' \rho_A({\bf s},z)\rho_B({\bf b}-{\bf s},z')\nonumber\\
\times {\rm exp}\bigg\{ -(A-1)\int_z^\infty dz_A \rho_A ({\bf s},z_A)\sigma_{\rm abs}\bigg\}~~~~~~~\nonumber\\
\times {\rm exp}\bigg\{ -(B-1)\int_{z'}^\infty dz_B \rho_B
({\bf b}-{\bf s},z_B)\sigma_{\rm abs}\bigg\},
\label{absorption}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf b}$ is the impact parameter and ${\bf s}$ is the transverse vector from the center of nucleus A; $T_{AB}({\bf b},{\bf s})$ is the nuclear overlap function; $\rho_A ({\bf s},z)$ is the density distribution in the nucleus; $\sigma_{\rm abs}$ is the $J/\psi$ absorption cross section by a nucleon. For the latter, it is obtained from p+A collisions and has values of 4.18 and 2.8 mb for the SPS and RHIC, respectively [@Alessandro:2004ap; @Adare:2007gn]. Presently, there are no p+A data available from the LHC. Since the cross section for $J/\psi$ absorption is expected to decrease with increasing energy [@Lourenco:2008sk], we consider in the present study the two extreme values of 0 and 2.8 mb to study its effect on the $J/\psi$ yield in heavy-ion collisions at LHC.
Although the shadowing effect has usually been neglected in heavy-ion collisions at SPS and RHIC, this may not be justified at LHC. In the present study, we thus include also the shadowing effect for heavy-ion collisions at LHC using the EPS09 package [@Eskola:2009uj]. The shadowing effect is expressed by the ratio $R_i^A$ of the parton distribution $f_i^A(x,Q)$ in a nucleus to that in a nucleon $f_i^{\rm nucleon}(x,Q)$ multiplied by the mass number $A$ of the nucleus, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
R_i^A(x,Q)=\frac{f_i^A(x,Q)}{A f_i^{\rm nucleon}(x,Q)}, \quad i=q, \bar{q}, g.\end{aligned}$$ In the above, $x=m_T/\sqrt{s_{NN}}$, with $m_T$ being the transverse energy of the produced charmonium and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ being the center-of-mass energy of colliding nucleons, is the momentum fraction and $Q=m_T$ is the momentum scale. Assuming the shadowing effect is proportional to the path length, we can then express the spatial dependence of $R_i^A$ as [@Vogt:2004dh; @Lansberg:2005pc; @Ferreiro:2008wc]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{R_i^A({\bf s},x,Q)-1}{R_i^A(x,Q)-1}=N\frac{\int dz \rho_A({\bf s},z)}{\int dz \rho_A({\bf 0},z)},\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is a normalization factor determined from the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{A}\int d^2{\bf s}\int dz \rho_A({\bf s},z) R_i^A({\bf s},x,Q)=R_i^A(x,Q).\end{aligned}$$
---------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- ----------------------
SPS RHIC LHC LHC
\[2pt\] $p_T>$6.5 GeV
\[2pt\] production ($\mu$b)
\[2pt\] $d\sigma_{J/\psi}^{pp}/dy$ 0.05 [@Andronic:2006ky] 0.774 [@Adare:2006kf] 4.0
\[2pt\] $d\sigma_{c\bar{c}}^{pp}/dy$ 5.7 [@Andronic:2006ky] 119 [@Adare:2010de] 615
\[2pt\] feed-down (%)
\[2pt\] $f_{\chi_c}$ 25 [@Faccioli:2008ir] 32 [@Adare:2011vq] 26.4 [@Abe:1997yz] 23.5 [@Abe:1997yz]
\[2pt\] $f_{\psi^\prime(2S)}$ 8 [@Faccioli:2008ir] 9.6 [@Adare:2011vq] 5.6 [@Abe:1997yz] 5 [@Abe:1997yz]
\[2pt\] $f_b$ 11 [@Acosta:2004yw] 21 [@Acosta:2004yw]
\[2pt\] $R_g^A$ for charm 0.813 0.897
\[2pt\] $\tau_0$ (fm/c) 1.0 0.9 [@Song:2011qa] 1.05 [@Song:2011qa]
\[2pt\] $\eta/s$ 0.16 0.16 [@Song:2011qa] 0.2 [@Song:2011qa]
\[2pt\]
---------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- ----------------------
: Parameters for $J/\psi$ production and the firecylinder expansion in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=17.3$ GeV at SPS and at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV at LHC and in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=17.3$ GeV at RHIC. $d\sigma_{J/\psi}^{pp}/dy$ and $d\sigma_{c\bar{c}}^{pp}/dy$ are, respectively, the differential $J/\psi$ and $c{\bar c}$ production cross sections in rapidity in p+p collisions; $f_{\chi_c}$, $f_{\psi^\prime(2S)}$, and $f_b$ are, respectively, the fraction of $J/\psi$ production from the decay of $\chi_c$, $\psi^\prime$, and bottom hadrons in p+p collisions; $R_g^A$ is the gluon shadowing effect on charm production; and $\tau_0$ and $\eta/s$ are the thermalization time and the specific viscosity of the produced $QGP$. Also shown in the last column are the parameters for the feed-down contribution to the production of $J/\psi$’s of transverse momentum $p_T > 6.5$ GeV at LHC.[]{data-label="parameters"}
The shadowing effect reduces the survival probability of a primordial $J/\psi$ after the nuclear absorption (Eq.(\[absorption\])) by the factor $R_g^A({\bf s},x,Q)R_g^B({\bf b}-{\bf s},x,Q)$. Taking the momentum scale $Q=4.2~{\rm MeV}$ to be the average $J/\psi$ transverse energy at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=1.96$ TeV [@Acosta:2004yw], we obtain the value of the ratio $R_g^{\rm pb}(x,Q)$ given in Table \[parameters\] for charm production in heavy-ion collisions at the LHC.
For the hot partonic and hadronic matter effect, the model includes the dissociation of charmonia in the QGP of temperatures higher than the dissociation temperature and the thermal decay of survived charmonia through interactions with thermal partons in the expanding hot dense mater. Since the number of produced charm quarks in relativistic heavy-ion collisions is not small, charmonia can also be regenerated from charm and anticharm quarks in the QGP. The effect of thermal dissociation and regeneration of charmonia on the number $N_i$ of charmonium of type $i$ is taken into account via the rate equation [@Grandchamp:2003uw] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dN_i}{d\tau}=-\Gamma_i(N_i-N_i^{\rm eq}),
\label{rate}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ is the longitudinal proper time, while $N_i^{\rm eq}$ and $\Gamma_i$ are, respectively, the equilibrium number and thermal decay width of charmonia and will be discussed in Sec. \[properties\].
Since charm quarks are not expected to be completely thermalized either chemically or kinetically during the expansion of the hot dense matter, the fugacity parameter $\gamma$ and the relaxation factor $R$ are introduced to describe their distributions. Assuming that the number of charm and anticharm quark pairs does not change during the fireball expansion, the fugacity is obtained from [@BraunMunzinger:2000px; @Gorenstein:2000ck] $$\begin{aligned}
N_{c\bar{c}}^{AB}=\bigg\{\frac{1}{2}\gamma n_o\frac{I_1(\gamma n_o V)}{I_0(\gamma n_o V)}+\gamma^2 n_h \bigg\}V,
\label{fugacity}\end{aligned}$$ where $N_{c\bar{c}}^{AB}$ is the number of $c\bar{c}$ pairs produced in an A+B collision; $n_o$ and $n_h$ are, respectively, the number densities of open- and hidden-charm hadrons in grand canonical ensemble; $V$ is the volume of the hot dense matter; and $I_0$ and $I_1$ are modified Bessel functions resulting from the canonical suppression of charm quarks in heavy-ion collisions [@Gorenstein:2000ck; @Ko:2000vp]. For the relaxation factor, it is defined as $R(\tau)=1-\exp[-(\tau-\tau_0)/\tau_{\rm eq}]$ with the relaxation time $\tau_{\rm eq}=3~{\rm fm/c}$ of charm quarks in the QGP taken from Ref. [@Zhao:2007hh] and $\tau_0$ being the initial thermalization time.
Since charmonia can only be regenerated in the QGP of temperature below the dissociation temperature $T_i$, the number of equilibrated charmonium of type $i$ in the QGP is $$\begin{aligned}
N_i^{\rm eq}=\gamma^2 R~ n_i ~f V\theta(T_i-T),\end{aligned}$$ where $n_i$ is its number density in grandcanonical ensemble; $f$ is the fraction of QGP in the mixed phase and is 1 in the QGP; and $\theta(T_i-T)$ is the step function.
For the initial charmonium number $N_i$ and the charm quark pair number $N_{c\bar{c}}$, they are obtained from multiplying their respective differential cross sections in rapidity $d\sigma_i^{pp}/dy$ and $d\sigma_{c\bar{c}}^{pp}/dy$ in p+p collisions [@Andronic:2006ky; @Adare:2006kf; @Adare:2010de] by the number of binary collisions $N_{\rm coll}$ in heavy-ion collisions. Since only the $J/\psi$ production cross section at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV [@Khachatryan:2010yr] has been measured in p+p collisions at LHC, its value at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV is obtained by using a linear function in $\sqrt{s}$ to interpolate from the measured values at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV by the CDF Collaboration at the Fermi Lab [@Acosta:2004yw] to the one at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV at LHC. The cross section for $c\bar{c}$ pair production at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV is then determined by assuming that the ratio between the $J/\psi$ and $c\bar{c}$ pair production cross sections is the same as that at RHIC. In Table \[parameters\], we list the differential cross sections for $J/\psi$ and $c\bar{c}$ pair production in p+p collision at SPS, RHIC and LHC that are used in the present study.
Since $J/\psi$ production in p+p collisions includes the contribution from the decay of excited charmonium states, the cross section $d\sigma_{J/\psi}^{pp}/dy$ shown in Table \[parameters\] is the sum of the production cross sections for the $J/\psi$ and its excited states. For p+p collisions at SPS, we use the global average values of the fractions $f_{\chi_c}=$ 25% from the $\chi_c$ decay and $f_{\psi^\prime(2S)}=$ 8% from the $\psi'$ decay [@Faccioli:2008ir]. The cross sections for $J/\psi$, $\chi_c$ and $\psi^\prime$ production in a p+p collision at the SPS are then given, respectively, by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{J/\psi}^*&=&0.67 ~\sigma_{J/\psi}\nonumber\\
\sigma_{\chi_c}&=&\frac{0.25 ~\sigma_{J/\psi}}{{\rm Br}(\chi_c \rightarrow J/\psi+X)},\nonumber\\
\sigma_{\psi'}&=&\frac{0.08 ~\sigma_{J/\psi}}{{\rm Br}(\psi' \rightarrow J/\psi+X)},
\label{excited}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_{J/\psi}^*$ is the cross section for $J/\psi$ production without the feed-down contribution, and ‘${\rm Br}$’ denotes the branching ratio.
For p+p colisions at RHIC, the fractions of $J/\psi$’s from $\chi_c$ and $\psi^\prime (2S)$ decays are taken to be $f_{\chi_c}=$ 32% and $f_{\psi^\prime}=$ 9.6 %, respectively, based on recent experimental results by the PHENIX Collaboration [@Adare:2011vq]. Since the fractions of $J/\psi$’s from $\chi_c$ and $\psi^\prime(2S)$ decays are not known at LHC, we use the values inferred from $p+{\bar p}$ annihilation at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=1.96$ TeV by the CDF Collaboration at the Fermi Lab. It was found in these reactions that among promptly produced $J/\psi$’s, about 64% are directly produced and about 29.7% from the $\chi_c$ decay, and both are approximately independent of the $J/\psi$ transverse momentum [@Abe:1997yz]. This leads to the fraction of promptly produced $J/\psi$’s from the $\psi^\prime(2S)$ decay to be 6.3%. Using the experimental result that promptly produced $J/\psi$’s constitute about 89% of measured $J/\psi$’s [@Acosta:2004yw], we obtain the fractions $f_{\chi_c}=26.4\%$ and $f_{\psi^\prime(2S)}=5.6\%$ of measured $J/\psi$’s that are from $\chi_c$ and $\psi^\prime(2S)$ decays, respectively. Since the fraction of prompt $J/\psi$’s is reduced to 79% for $J/\psi$ of transverse momentum $p_T>6.5$ GeV [@Acosta:2004yw], the fractions of measured $J/\psi$’s of $P_T>6.5$ GeV that are from $\chi_c$ and $\psi^\prime(2S)$ decays are reduced to $f_{\chi_c}=23.5\%$ and $f_{\psi^\prime(2S)}=5.0\%$, respectively. Besides the contribution from excited charmonia, the decay of bottom hadrons can also contribute to $J/\psi$ production in high-energy collisions. This contribution increases significantly with $p_T$ as shown in the experiments by the CDF [@Acosta:2004yw], CMS [@Khachatryan:2010yr], LHCb [@Collaboration:2011sp] and ATLAS [@Aaij:2011jh] Collaborations. The fraction is between 5 % and 10 % for $p_T < 3$ GeV, depending on the rapidity of the $J/\psi$, then increases to more than 40 % at $p_T\sim 15$ GeV, and reaches 60-70 % for $p_T$ above 25 GeV. On the average, about 11 % of produced $J/\psi$’s are from the decay of bottom hadrons in $p+{\bar p}$ annihilation at $\sqrt{s}=1.96~{\rm TeV}$ at the Fermi Lab [@Acosta:2004yw], and the fraction increases to about 21 % for $J/\psi$’s of transverse momentum $p_T > 6.5$ GeV [@Acosta:2004yw]. These values and other input parameters used in the present study are shown in Table \[parameters\].
A schematic viscous hydrodynamic model {#hydrodynamics}
======================================
For the expansion dynamics of the hot dense matter formed in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, we describe it by a schematic causal viscous hydrodynamic model recently developed in Ref. [@Song:2010fk]. It is based on the assumption that all thermal quantities such as the energy density, temperature, entropy density, and pressure as well as the azimuthal and space-time rapidity components of the shear tensor are uniform along the transverse direction in the hot dense matter. Assuming the boost-invariance and using the $(\tau, r, \phi, \eta)$ coordinate system $$\begin{aligned}
\tau&=&\sqrt{t^2-z^2}, ~~\eta=\frac{1}{2}\ln \frac{t+z}{t-z},\nonumber\\
r&=&\sqrt{x^2+y^2}, ~~\phi=\tan^{-1}(y/x),\end{aligned}$$ then the following equations are obtained from the usual Israel-Stewart viscous hydrodynamic equations: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\partial_\tau (A\tau \langle T^{\tau \tau}\rangle)=-(p+\pi^\eta_\eta)A,\label{energy7}\\
\nonumber\\
&&\frac{T}{\tau}\partial_\tau (A\tau s \langle \gamma_r\rangle)=-A\bigg\langle\frac{\gamma_r v_r}{r}\bigg\rangle \pi^\phi_\phi-\frac{A\langle \gamma_r\rangle}{\tau}\pi^\eta_\eta\nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~+\bigg\{\partial_\tau(A\langle \gamma_r\rangle)-\frac{\gamma_R \dot{R}}{R}A\bigg\}(\pi^\phi_\phi+\pi^\eta_\eta),\label{entropy7}\\
\nonumber\\
&&\partial_\tau (A\langle \gamma_r\rangle \pi^\eta_\eta) -\bigg\{\partial_\tau(A\langle\gamma_r\rangle)+2\frac{A\langle\gamma_r\rangle}{\tau} \bigg\}\pi^\eta_\eta\nonumber\\
&&~~~~=-\frac{A}{\tau_\pi}\bigg[\pi^\eta_\eta-2\eta_s\bigg\{\frac{\langle\theta\rangle}{3}-\frac{\langle\gamma_r\rangle}{\tau}\bigg\}\bigg],\label{entropy7}\\
\nonumber\\
&&\partial_\tau(A\langle\gamma_r\rangle~ \pi^\phi_\phi)-\bigg\{\partial_\tau(A\langle\gamma_r\rangle)+2A\bigg\langle\frac{\gamma_r v_r}{r}\bigg\rangle\bigg\}\pi^\phi_\phi\nonumber\\
&&~~~~=-\frac{A}{\tau_\pi}\bigg[ \pi^\phi_\phi-2\eta_s \bigg\{\frac{\langle\theta\rangle}{3}-\bigg\langle\frac{\gamma_r v_r}{r}\bigg\rangle\bigg\}\bigg]\label{shear7b}.\end{aligned}$$ In the above, $T^{\tau\tau}=(e+P_r)u_\tau^2 -P_r$ is the time-component of the energy-momentum tensor, $\pi^\phi_\phi=r^2\pi^{\phi\phi}$ and $\pi^\eta_\eta=\tau^2\pi^{\eta\eta}$ are, respectively, the azimuthal and the space-time rapidity component of the shear tensor; $\eta_s$ and $\tau_\pi$ are the shear viscosity of the hot dense matter and the relaxation time for the particle distributions, respectively; $\theta=\frac{1}{\tau}\partial_\tau (\tau \gamma_r)+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r(rv_r \gamma_r)$ with $\gamma_r=1/\sqrt{1-v_r^2}$ in terms of the radial velocity $v_r$; $A=\pi R^2$ with $R$ being the transverse radius of the uniform matter; and $\langle\cdots\rangle$ denotes average over the transverse area. For the radial flow velocity that is a linear function of the radial distance from the center, i.e., $\gamma_r v_r=\gamma_R \dot{R}(r/R)$, where $\dot{R}=\partial R/\partial \tau$ and $\gamma_R=1/\sqrt{1-\dot{R}^2}$, we have $\langle\gamma_r^2\rangle=1+\gamma_R^2 \dot{R}^2/2$, $\langle\gamma_r^2 v_r^2\rangle=\gamma_R^2 \dot{R}^2/2$, $\langle\gamma_r\rangle=2(\gamma_R^3-1)/(3\gamma_R^2 \dot{R}^2)$, and $\langle\gamma_r v_r/r\rangle=\gamma_R \dot{R}/R$. With the energy density $e$ and pressure $p$ related by the equation of state of the matter through its temperature $T$, Eqs.(\[energy7\])-(\[shear7b\]) are four simultaneous equations for $T$, $\dot{R}$, $\pi^\phi_\phi$ and $\pi^\eta_\eta$, and can be solved numerically by rewriting them as difference equations.
For the equation of state of the produced dense matter, we use the quasiparticle model with three flavors for the QGP phase [@Levai:1997yx; @Song:2010ix] and the resonance gas model for the HG phase. As to the specific shear viscosity $\eta_s/s$, where $s$ is the entropy density, its value in the QGP is taken to be 0.16 for SPS and RHIC, and 0.2 for LHC [@Song:2011qa], while it has the same value of $5/2\pi$ in the HG [@Demir:2008tr]. The specific viscosity in the mixed phase is assumed to be their linear combination, i.e., $(\eta/s)_{QGP}f+(\eta/s)_{HG}(1-f)$, where $f$ is the fraction of QGP in the mixed phase. The initial thermalization time is taken to be 1.0 fm/$c$ for SPS, which has usually been used, and 0.9 fm/c and 1.05 fm/c for RHIC and LHC, respectively [@Song:2011qa]. Although the initial thermalization time for RHIC is 0.6 fm/c in ideal hydrodynamics [@Hirano:2001eu], the nonzero viscosity generates additional transverse flow [@Song:2010fk] and requires a late thermalization to fit the experimental data on $p_T$ spectra and elliptic flows. This is the same reason for the later thermalization at LHC in viscous hydrodynamics.
The initial local temperature of produced matter can be calculated from the equation of state and the local entropy density, which we parameterize as [@Song:2010ix; @Bozek:2011wa] $$\frac{ds}{d\eta}=C\left[(1-\alpha)\frac{n_{\rm part}}{2}+\alpha~n_{\rm coll}\right],
\label{entroden}$$ with $\alpha=$ 0, 0.11 and 0.15 for SPS, RHIC and LHC, respectively [@Antinori:2000ph; @Kharzeev:2000ph; @Bozek:2011wa]. The number density $n_{\rm part(coll)}$ in Eq. (\[entroden\]) is defined as $\Delta N_{\rm part(coll)}/(\tau_0\Delta x \Delta y)$, where $\Delta N_{\rm part(coll)}$ is the number of participants (binary collisions) in the volume $\tau_0\Delta x\Delta y$ of the transverse area $\Delta x\Delta y$ and is obtained from the Glauber model with the inelastic nucleon-nucleon cross sections of 30, 42 and 64 mb for SPS, RHIC and LHC, respectively [@Back:2004je; @Ferreiro:2011rw]. The factor $C$ is determined by fitting the multiplicity of final charged particles after the hydrodynamical evolution to the measured one.
Assuming the same chemical freeze out temperature $T_f=160$ MeV for all charged particles, their pseudorapidity distribution at midrapidity is then [@Song:2010er] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dN_{\rm ch}}{d\eta}\bigg|_{y=0}&=&\sum_i \int dp_T \sqrt{1-\frac{m_i^2}{{m_{Ti}}^2}}D_i\frac{dN_i}{dydp_T}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{\tau}{\pi}\sum_i D_i\int dp_T~ p_T^2 \int_0^R rdr \nonumber\\
&&\times I_0\bigg[\frac{p_T \sinh
\rho}{T_f}\bigg] K_1\bigg[\frac{m_{Ti} \cosh \rho}{T_f}\bigg],
\label{multiplicity}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho=\tanh^{-1}(v_r)$. The summation $i$ includes all mesons lighter than 1.5 GeV and all baryons lighter than 2.0 GeV. In including the contribution from the decays of particles, we simply multiply their pseudorapidity distributions by the product $D_i$ of their decay branching ratio and the number of charged particles resulting from the decay. We have thus neglected the difference between the rapidity of the daughter particles and that of the decay particle. Also, we have used the thermal momentum distributions at chemical freeze out as well as during the expansion of the hot dense matter, thus ignoring the viscous effect on the particle momentum distributions as it is only important for particles of large momenta [@Dusling:2009df]. From the multiplicities of charged particles per half participant, $(dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta)/(N_{\rm part}/2)$, which are roughly 2, 4 and 8.4 in central collisions of Pb+Pb at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=17.3$ GeV at SPS, of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at RHIC, and of Pb+Pb at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV at LHC, respectively [@Back:2004je; @Aamodt:2010cz], we obtain the corresponding values of 14.6, 18.7 and 27.0 for the parameter $C$ in Eq. (\[entroden\]).
![Temperature profiles along the radial direction at initial thermalization time as functions of radial distance in central Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=17.3$ GeV at SPS and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV at LHC, and in central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at RHIC from viscous hydrodynamics.[]{data-label="temperaturea"}](profiles.eps){width="8.5"}
In Fig. \[temperaturea\], we show the temperature profile along radial direction at initial thermalization time in heavy-ion collisions at SPS, RHIC, and LHC from the viscous hydrodynamics. Defining the firecylinder as the region where the initial temperature is above $T_c=170~{\rm MeV}$, its transverse radius in the case of viscous hydrodynamics has values of 6.5, 6.6 and 7.1 fm in central collisions at SPS, RHIC and LHC, respectively. The time evolution of the average temperature of the firecylinder determined from the schematic hydrodynamic model is shown in Fig. \[temperatureb\]. The initial average temperatures at SPS and RHIC are 218 and 269 MeV, respectively, and are consistent with those extracted from the experimental data on dileptons at SPS [@Collaboration:2010xu] and on direct photons at RHIC [@:2008fqa]. The predicted initial average temperature in heavy-ion collisions at LHC is 311 MeV.
![Average temperatures of firecylinder as functions of time in central Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=17.3$ GeV at SPS and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV at LHC, and in central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at RHIC from the viscous hydrodynamics.[]{data-label="temperatureb"}](evolution.eps){width="8.5"}
For non-central heavy-ion collisions where the initial geometry of the transverse area is an ellipse, the schematic viscous hydrodynamic model described here needs to be extended. For simplicity, the present model is used by taking the circular transverse area to be the same as that of the ellipse as in Ref. [@Song:2010ix] based on a parameterized firecylinder model.
thermal properties of charmonia {#properties}
===============================
To describe the properties of charmonia in QGP, we need the potential between heavy quark and its antiquark at finite temperature. Although some information on this can be obtained from the lattice gauge theory [@Kaczmarek:2003dp; @Wong:2004zr] or from the static QCD [@Brambilla:2008cx; @Brambilla:2010vq], we use in the present study the extended Cornell model that includes the Debye screening effect on color charges [@Karsch:1987pv]. The Cornell model [@Eichten:1979ms] was devised to imitate the asymptotic freedom and confinement of the QCD interaction with a Coulomb-like potential for short distance and a linear potential for long distance. In the QGP, the linear potential becomes weaker due to the Debye screening between color charges, leading to the screened Cornell potential [@Karsch:1987pv] $$\begin{aligned}
V(r,T)=\frac{\sigma}{\mu(T)}\bigg[1-e^{-\mu(T) r}\bigg]-\frac{\alpha}{r}e^{-\mu(T) r}
\label{Cornell}\end{aligned}$$ with $\sigma=0.192~{\rm GeV^2}$ and $\alpha=0.471$. The screening mass $\mu(T)$ depends on temperature and is given in thermal pQCD by $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(T)=\sqrt{\frac{N_c}{3}+\frac{N_f}{6}}~gT,
\label{screening}\end{aligned}$$ where $N_c$ is the number of colors, $N_f$ is the number of light quark flavors, and $g$ is the QCD coupling constant. In the limit of $\mu \rightarrow 0$, we recover the original Cornell potential.
![Binding energy of $J/\psi$ in the QGP as a function of temperature for the QCD coupling constant $g=1.87$.[]{data-label="bindingE"}](bindingE.eps){width="9"}
The wavefunctions and binding energies of charmonia in the QGP are obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation with the screened Cornell potential. With the binding energy $\varepsilon_0$ defined as [@Karsch:1987pv] $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_0=2m_c+\frac{\sigma}{\mu}-E,\end{aligned}$$ where the charm quark mass is taken to be $m_c=1.32~{\rm GeV}$ and $E$ is the eigenvalue of the Schrödinger equation, we show in Fig. \[bindingE\] the binding energy of $J/\psi$ as a function of temperature for the case of $g=1.87$. It is seen that the $J/\psi$ becomes unbound or dissociated in the QGP for temperatures above $\sim 300$ MeV. As indicated by Eq. (\[screening\]), the $J/\psi$ dissociation temperature decreases as the QCD coupling constant $g$ increases. This is shown in Fig. \[disso\] not only for the $J/\psi$ but also for its excited states $\chi_c$ and $\psi^\prime$. In obtaining the dissociation temperatures for $\chi_c$ and $\psi^\prime$, we have assumed that they are always above the critical temperature $T_c=170~{\rm MeV}$ even for large $g$. We note that the screening mass $\mu$ is nonzero in QCD vacuum but has a value of 180 MeV [@Karsch:1987pv]. In this case, the binding energy of $J/\psi$ in the vacuum is 600$\sim$700 MeV.
![Charmonium dissociation temperatures in the QGP as functions of the QCD coupling constant $g$.[]{data-label="disso"}](dissociation.eps){width="9"}
Although the charmonium can be formed in the QGP at high temperature, it can still be dissociated by scattering with thermal partons. In the leading order (LO) pQCD, the charmonium breaks up by absorbing a thermal gluon, while in the next-to-leading order (NLO) the dissociation is induced either by a quark or a gluon, and their invariant matrix elements are given, respectively, by [@Park:2007zza] $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{|\mathcal{M}|}_{\rm LO}^2=\frac{2}{3N_c}g^2m_C^2m_\Phi
(2k_{10}^2+m_G^2) {\Big|\frac{\partial \psi({\bf
p})}{\partial {\bf p}}\Big|}^2,
\label{LO}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{|\mathcal{M}|}_{\rm qNLO}^2=\frac{4}{3} g^4 m_C^2 m_\Phi
{\Big|\frac{\partial \psi({\bf p})}{\partial {\bf p}}\Big|}^2
\bigg\{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{k_{10}^2+k_{20}^2}{2 k_1 \cdot k_2}\bigg\},\nonumber\\
\label{qNLO}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{|\mathcal{M}|}_{\rm gNLO}^2=\frac{4}{3} g^4 m_C^2 m_\Phi
{\Big|\frac{\partial \psi({\bf p})}{\partial {\bf p}}\Big|}^2
\Bigg\{-4+\frac{k_1 \cdot k_2}{k_{10}k_{20}}\nonumber \\
+\frac{2k_{10}}{k_{20}}+\frac{2k_{20}}{k_{10}}
-\frac{k_{20}^2}{k_{10}^2}-\frac{k_{10}^2}{k_{20}^2} +\frac{2}{k_1
\cdot k_2}~~~~~\nonumber\\
\times\bigg[
\frac{(k_{10}^2+k_{20}^2)^2}{k_{10}k_{20}} -2 k_{10}^2-2
k_{20}^2+k_{10}k_{20}\bigg] \Bigg\}.
\label{gNLO}\end{aligned}$$ In the above, $k_1$ and $k_2$ are, respectively, the momenta of incoming and outgoing thermal partons; $\psi({\bf p})$ is the wavefunction of charmonium with ${\bf p}=({\bf k}_1-{\bf k}_2)/2$; $N_c$ is the number of colors; $m_G$ is the mass of thermal gluon and can be extracted from the lattice QCD [@Levai:1997yx]; $m_\Phi$ is the mass of charmonium in the QGP; and $m_C\equiv m_c+\sigma/2\mu$ is the mass of the constituent charm quark. With the screening mass $\mu=0.18~{\rm GeV}$ in the vacuum [@Karsch:1987pv], the latter has a value of $m_C=1.85~{\rm GeV}$ in the vacuum and is similar to the mass of $D$ meson. The dissociation cross sections of charmonia are then obtained by integrating Eq. (\[LO\])-(\[gNLO\]) over the phase space.
The same pQCD formula can be used for charmonium dissociation by partons inside hadrons in the HG. It was found, however, that the charmonium is not heavy enough for pQCD to be applicable [@Song:2005yd]. In the present study, we thus take the cross section for charmonium dissociation by a hadron to be proportional to its squared radius as in Ref. [@Song:2010ix] or given by that from a phenomenological hadronic Lagrangian [@Lin:1999ad; @Lin:2000ke]. We note that the effect of charmonium dissociation in the HG is negligible compared to that in the QGP due to the much smaller thermal decay width [@Grandchamp:2002wp; @Song:2010ix].
In terms of its dissociation cross section $\sigma_i^{\rm diss}$, the thermal decay width of a charmonium is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(T)&=&\sum_i \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}v_{\rm rel}(k)n_i(k,T) \sigma_i^{\rm diss}(k,T),
\label{width}\end{aligned}$$ where $i$ denotes the quarks and gluons in the QGP, and the baryons and mesons in the HG; $n_i$ is the number density of particle $i$ in grand canonical ensemble; and $v_{\rm rel}$ is the relative velocity between charmonium and the particle. For the thermal width in the mixed phase, it is taken to be a linear combination of those in the QGP and the HG as following: $$\Gamma(T_c)=f~\Gamma^{\rm QGP}(T_c)+(1-f)\Gamma^{\rm HG}(T_c),
\label{mixed}$$ where $f$ is the fraction of QGP in the mixed phase.
![Thermal decay widths of charmonia in the QGP as a function of temperature for the QCD coupling constant $g=1.87$.[]{data-label="widths"}](widths.eps){width="8.5"}
The thermal decay widths of charmonia also depend both on the QCD coupling constant and the temperature of QGP. In Fig. \[widths\], they are shown as functions of temperature for $g=1.87$. It is seen that the thermal decay width of $J/\psi$ diverges at the dissociation temperature $T=300~{\rm MeV}$, while those of $\chi_c$ and of $\psi^\prime$ become divergent at the critical temperature $T_c=170~{\rm MeV}$. An infinitely large thermal decay width implies that the particles instantly reach their maximally allowed equilibrium value $N_i^{\rm eq}$. Therefore, the $J/\psi$ abundance is not expected to reach this value at $T_c$, in contrast to that of the $\chi_c$ and $\psi^\prime$. We note that the value $g=1.87$ is slightly larger than that used in our previous studies based on a schematic firecylinder model as a result of the viscous effect that is included in the present study.
Results {#suppression}
=======
Using the above described two-component model based on the schematic viscous hydrodynamics and taking into account the in-medium effects on charmonia, we can calculate the nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ in heavy ion collisions according to $$\begin{aligned}
R_{AA}&=&(1-f_{\chi_c}-f_{\psi^\prime(2S)}-f_b)R_{\rm pri}+f_b R_b+R_{\rm reg},\nonumber\\
\label{Raa-highpt}\end{aligned}$$ where $R_{\rm pri}$, $R_b$, and $R_{\rm reg}$ are the nuclear modification factors for $J/\psi$’s that are produced from primordial hard nucleon-nucleon scattering, the decay of bottom hadrons, and the regeneration in the QGP, respectively. In writing the above expression, we have used the fact that all primordial $\chi_c$ and $\psi^\prime$ are dissociated above the critical temperature $T_C$. For $R_{\rm pri}$, it is calculated according to [@Song:2010ix]: $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\rm pri}(\vec{b})=\int d^2 {\bf s}~ S_{\rm cnm}({\bf b},{\bf s}){\rm exp}\bigg\{-\int_{\tau_0}^{\tau_f} \Gamma_{J/\psi}d\tau\bigg\},\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_f$ is the freeze-out proper time. For $R_b$, it is taken to be one as a result of the expected conservation of total bottom and antibottom numbers. As to $R_{\rm reg}$, it is calculated from the ratio of the number of $J/\psi$’s obtained from solving Eq.(\[rate\]) to the number of $J/\psi$’s from p+p collisions at same energy multiplied by the number of binary collisions in A+A collisions.
Nuclear modification factor of $J/\psi$ at SPS and RHIC
-------------------------------------------------------
![Nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ (solid line) as a function of the participant number $N_{\rm part}$ in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=17.3$ GeV at SPS (upper panel) and in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at RHIC (lower panel). Dashed and dotted lines represent, respectively, the contributions to $J/\psi$ production from primordial hard nucleon-nucleon scattering and regeneration in the QGP. Experimental data are from Refs. [@Alessandro:2004ap; @Adare:2006ns].[]{data-label="Raa"}](SPS-RHIC.eps){width="7.5"}
In Fig. \[Raa\], we show the nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ as a function of the participant number in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=17.3$ GeV at SPS and in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV at RHIC. These results are obtained with the QCD coupling constant $g=1.87$, which gives a good description of the experimental data as shown by solid lines in the upper and lower panels. It is seen that the $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ becomes smaller as the number of participants in the collision increases. Also shown in Fig. \[Raa\] are results from the primordial (dashed lines) and the regenerated $J/\psi$ in the QGP (dotted lines), and they clearly indicate that the contribution from the primordial $J/\psi$ decreases and that from the regenerated ones increases as the collision energy increases.
Nuclear modification factor of $J/\psi$ at LHC
----------------------------------------------
![Nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ as a function of the participant number $N_{\rm part}$ without (upper panel) and with (lower panel) the shadowing effect in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV at LHC. Upper and lower solid lines are the $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ for the nuclear absorption cross sections of $\sigma_{\rm abs}=$0 and 2.8 mb, respectively. Dashed, dotted, dot-dashed lines denote, respectively, the contributions to $J/\psi$ production from primordial hard nucleon-nucleon scattering, regeneration in the QGP, and decay of bottom hadrons.[]{data-label="Raalhc"}](LHC.eps){width="7.5"}
In Fig. \[Raalhc\], we show the $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ GeV at LHC with (lower panel) and without the shadowing effect (upper panel). It is seen that the shadowing effect suppresses the production of charm pairs and consequently the regeneration of $J/\psi$. In obtaining these results, we have included the contribution to $J/\psi$ production from the decay of bottom hadrons, which becomes non-negligible at LHC [@Collaboration:2011sp; @Aaij:2011jh], by assuming that the $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ from the decay of bottom hadrons is independent of the centrality as indicated by the measured data from the CMS Collaboration [@cms] and shown by the dash-dotted line in Fig. \[Raalhc\] as a function of the participant number. This contribution is comparable to that from the regenerated $J/\psi$ (dotted lines) in peripheral collisions and more important than the primordial ones (dashed lines) in more central collisions. The upper and lower solid lines are the final $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ obtained with the nuclear absorption cross section of 0 and 2.8 mb, respectively. It is seen that the difference between the results obtained with and without the nuclear absorption is mainly in collisions of small number of participants as the primordial $J/\psi$s are mostly dissolved in central and semi-central collisions.
![Transverse momentum $p_T$ spectrums of $J/\psi$ from $p+{\bar p}$ annihilation at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=1.96$ TeV by the CDF Collaboration at Fermi Lab (filled squares and solid line) [@Acosta:2004yw] and of regenerated $J/\psi$ (dashed line) in central Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV at LHC.[]{data-label="spectrum"}](pt-spectrum.eps){width="8.5"}
To compare the results from our model with the experimental data from LHC [@:2010px; @cms], which have a transverse momentum cut $p_T>6.5$ GeV for the measured $J/\psi$, we note that the fraction of produced $J/\psi$’s with transverse momentum larger than 6.5 GeV from the decay of bottom hadrons is about 21% in $p+{\bar p}$ annihilation at 1.96 TeV from the CDF Collaboration at the Fermi Lab [@Acosta:2004yw]. Parameterizing the latter by $~[1+(p_T/4.1{\rm GeV})^2]^{-3.8}$ as shown by the solid line in Fig. \[spectrum\], we obtain that the fraction of $J/\psi$’s with transverse momentum larger than 6.5 GeV is 3%. This is significantly larger than that from the regeneration contribution in Pb+Pb collisions, which is only 0.17%, as shown by the dashed line that is obtained from the two-component model but is arbitrarily normalized. It was first pointed out in Ref. [@Zhao:2011cv] that limiting the $J/\psi$ transverse momentum to 6.5 GeV suppresses the contribution from the regenerated $J/\psi$. For $J/\psi$’s of high transverse momenta, their nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ can thus be calculated by multiplying the last term in Eq.(\[Raa-highpt\]) by the percentage of regenerated $J/\psi$’s with transverse momentum larger than 6.5 GeV divided by the percentage of primordial $J/\psi$’s with the same range of transverse momenta, which is 0.12 in central Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV.
![Nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ with transverse momentum larger than 6.5 GeV versus the number of participants without (upper panel) and with (lower panel) the shadowing effect in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV at LHC. Dashed, dotted and dot-dashed lines represent, respectively, the contributions to $J/\psi$ production from primordial hard nucleon-nucleon scattering, regeneration from QGP, and decay of bottom hadrons, and the solid line is the sum of them, without nuclear absorption. Upper and lower solid lines are the $R_{AA}$ obtained with the nuclear absorption cross section of 0 and 28 mb, respectively.[]{data-label="LHCa"}](LHCc.eps){width="7.5"}
Since it takes time for an initially produced $c\bar{c}$ pair to form a charmonium, which depends on the charmonium radius and the relative velocity between charm and anticharm quark [@Blaizot:1988ec; @Karsch:1987zw], thermal dissociation of charmonia is thus delayed until charmonia are formed. Since the $J/\psi$ formation time increases with its transverse momentum as a result of time dilation, this effect becomes more important for $J/\psi$’s of high transverse momenta that are measured in experiments at LHC. In this study, we treat the formation time as a free parameter to fit the experimental data. Using the formation time of 0.5 fm/$c$, which corresponds to 1.4 fm/$c$ in the firecylinder frame based on the average of the $J/\psi$ transverse momenta that are above 6.5 GeV, our results for the the nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ with transverse momentum larger than 6.5 GeV as a function of the participant number are shown in Fig. \[LHCa\] without (upper panel) and with (lower panel) the shadowing effect as well as without (upper solid curve) and with (lower solid curve) the nuclear absorption effect. It is seen that the results obtained without the shadowing and the nuclear absorption effect describe reasonably the recent experimental results from the CMS Collaboration at LHC [@cms] shown by solid squares. Also, it is interesting to see that the shoulder structure around $N_{\rm part}=100$ in the measured $R_{AA}$ at LHC is roughly reproduced by our model. As suggested in our previous study on the $J/\psi$ $R_{AA}$ in Au+Au collisions at RHIC, the sudden drop in its value at certain value of $N_{\rm part}$ reflects the maximum temperature of the formed QGP that is above the dissociation temperature of $J/\psi$, because the survival probability of $J/\psi$ is discontinuous at its dissociation temperature. Moreover, the fact that the shoulder seen at LHC occurs at a smaller number of participants than the value $N_{\rm part}=190$ at RHIC is consistent with the expectation that the maximum temperature of the QGP formed at LHC that is above the dissociation temperature of $J/\psi$ happens in more peripheral collisions than at RHIC. We note that the CMS Collaboration has also measured the fraction of $J/\psi$ from the decay of bottom hadrons in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV and found that its nuclear modification factor is about 0.37, which corresponds to $R_b$ in Eq. (\[Raa-highpt\]), and is almost independent of the centrality [@cms].
![Ratio $R_{\rm cp}$ of the $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ with transverse momentum larger than 6.5 GeV in a given centrality to that in the peripheral collision versus the centrality of Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV at LHC. Experimental data shown by solid squares are from Ref. [@:2010px].[]{data-label="LHCb"}](LHCd.eps){width="10.0"}
Our results can further be compared with the experimental data from the ATLAS collaboration at LHC [@:2010px] on the centrality dependence of the ratio $R_{\rm cp}$ of the $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ in a collision of certain centrality to that in the peripheral collision. For this purpose, we determine the centrality of a collision using the Glauber model as follows [@Miller:2007ri]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Centrality}(b)=\frac{\sigma_{\rm inel}^{AB}(b)}{\sigma_{\rm total~inel}^{AB}}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber\\
=\frac{\int^b_0 2\pi b^\prime db^\prime \bigg\{1-\bigg[1-T_{AB}(b^\prime)\sigma_{\rm inel}^{NN}\bigg]^{AB}\bigg\}}{\int^\infty_0 2\pi b^\prime db^\prime \bigg\{1-\bigg[1-T_{AB}(b^\prime)\sigma_{\rm inel}^{NN}\bigg]^{AB}\bigg\}},\end{aligned}$$ where the numerator is the inelastic cross section of nuclei A and B with the impact parameters between 0 and b, and the denominator is the total inelastic cross section of the two nuclei; and $\sigma^{NN}_{\rm inel}$ is the inelastic cross section of a p+p collision at the same collision energy. In Fig. \[LHCb\], we show the calculated centrality dependence of $R_{cp}$ in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV at LHC with the uncertainty of the reference point, i.e., the $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ in the peripheral collision, shown as dashed lines. It is seen that results from our model calculations can reproduce the measured $R_{\rm cp}$ of $J/\psi$’s with high transverse momenta, and the shadowing and the nuclear absorption effect do not make significant difference in the $R_{\rm cp}$ of $J/\psi$.
summary
=======
Modeling the evolution of the hot dense matter produced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions by a schematic viscous hydrodynamics, we have extended the two-component model, that was previously used to describe $J/\psi$ production in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC, to those at SPS and LHC. As in our previous studies, we have included the effect due to absorption by the cold nuclear matter on the primordially produced charmonia from initial nucleon-nucleon hard scattering, the dissociation of survived charmonia in the produced hot dense matter, and the regeneration of chamronia from charm and anticharm quarks in the quark-gluon plasma. For heavy-ion collisions at LHC, we have further included the shadowing effect in the initial cold nuclei. We have also taken into account the medium effects on the properties of the charmonia and their dissociation cross sections by using the screened Cornell potential model and the NLO pQCD. With the same quasiparticle model for the equation of state of the QGP and the resonance gas model for that of the HG as used before, we have obtained a lower initial temperature than in our previous study to reach the same final entropy density as a result of the finite viscosity. Consequently, a slightly larger QCD coupling constant was needed to reproduce the measured centrality dependence of the nuclear modification factor at RHIC. The calculated nuclear modification factor for heavy-ion collisions at the SPS was found to agree with the measured value as well. For both the SPS and RHIC, the contribution from the primordial charmonia was found to dominate, although the contribution from the regenerated ones increases from the SPS to RHIC. For heavy-ion collisions at LHC, the regenerated charmonia becomes most important in semi-central to central collisions as a result of the larger number of charm and anticharm quark pairs produced in higher energy collisions. Since the available experimental data from the LHC are for $J/\psi$’s of transverse momentum $p_T > 6.5$ GeV, we have further considered the contribution of $J/\psi$ production from the decay of bottom hadrons as its effect increases with increasing $J/\psi$ transverse momentum and the effect due to the formation time of the $J/\psi$. A reasonable agreement with the preliminary experimental data has been obtained if the shadowing and the nuclear absorption effect is absent. However, a definitive conclusion can only be made after more refined experimental data becomes available. Furthermore, we have found the similar trend in the centrality dependence of the $R_{AA}$ of $J/\psi$ at both RHIC and LHC that it decreases monotonously in peripheral collisions and then drops at a certain centrality as a result of the onset of an initial QGP temperature higher than the $J/\psi$ dissociation temperature. Moreover, this takes place in less central collisions at LHC than at RHIC, indicating that the initial temperature at the same centrality is higher at LHC than at RHIC.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. PHY-0758115 and PHY-1068572, the US Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-FG02-10ER41682, and the Welch Foundation under Grant No. A-1358.
[99]{} T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B [**178**]{}, 416 (1986). B. Alessandro [*et al.*]{} \[NA50 Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**39**]{}, 335 (2005) A. Adare [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 232301 (2007) R. Vogt, Phys. Rept. [**310**]{}, 197-260 (1999).
B. Zhang, C. M. Ko, B. A. Li, Z. w. Lin and B. H. Sa, Phys. Rev. C [**62**]{}, 054905 (2000) B. Zhang, C. M. Ko, B. A. Li, Z. W. Lin and S. Pal, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 054909 (2002) X. Zhao and R. Rapp, Phys. Lett. B [**664**]{}, 253 (2008) L. Yan, P. Zhuang and N. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 232301 (2006) R. Rapp, D. Blaschke, P. Crochet, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**65**]{}, 209-266 (2010). A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich and J. Stachel, Nucl. Phys. A [**789**]{}, 334 (2007) M. Asakawa and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 012001 (2004) S. Datta, F. Karsch, P. Petreczky and I. Wetzorke, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 094507 (2004) T. Song, C. M. Ko, S. H. Lee and J. Xu, Phys. Rev. C [**83**]{}, 014914 (2011) G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[Atlas Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**697**]{}, 294 (2011) CMS Collaboration, “Quarkonium production in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$2.76 TeV”, (2011). CMS-PAS-HIN-10-006.
L. Grandchamp and R. Rapp, Nucl. Phys. A [**709**]{}, 415 (2002) L. Grandchamp, R. Rapp and G. E. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 212301 (2004) J. W. Cronin, H. J. Frisch, M. J. Shochet, J. P. Boymond, R. Mermod, P. A. Piroue and R. L. Sumner, Phys. Rev. D [**11**]{}, 3105 (1975). K. J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, C. A. Salgado, JHEP [**0904**]{}, 065 (2009). B. Alessandro [*et al.*]{} \[ NA50 Collaboration \], Phys. Lett. [**B553**]{}, 167-178 (2003).
C. Lourenco, R. Vogt, H. K. Woehri, JHEP [**0902**]{}, 014 (2009). R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. [**C81**]{}, 044903 (2010). T. Song, K. C. Han and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C [**83**]{}, 024904 (2011) E. G. Ferreiro, F. Fleuret, J. P. Lansberg, A. Rakotozafindrabe, Phys. Lett. [**B680**]{}, 50-55 (2009). D. Kharzeev, C. Lourenco, M. Nardi, H. Satz, Z. Phys. [**C74**]{}, 307-318 (1997). A. Adare [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**77**]{}, 024912 (2008) \[Erratum-ibid. C [**79**]{}, 059901 (2009)\] R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. [**C71**]{}, 054902 (2005). J. P. Lansberg, J. R. Cudell, Y. .L. Kalinovsky, Phys. Lett. [**B633**]{}, 301-308 (2006). D. Acosta [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 032001 (2005) P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, Phys. Lett. B [**490**]{}, 196 (2000) M. I. Gorenstein, A. P. Kostyuk, H. Stoecker and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett. B [**509**]{}, 277 (2001) C. M. Ko, V. Koch, Z. -w. Lin, K. Redlich, M. A. Stephanov, X. -N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 5438-5441 (2001). A. Adare [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 232002 (2007) A. Adare [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], arXiv:1005.1627 \[nucl-ex\]. V. Khachatryan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], \[arXiv:1011.4193 \[hep-ex\]\].
P. Faccioli, C. Lourenco, J. Seixas [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**0810**]{}, 004 (2008). A. Adare [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], \[arXiv:1105.1966 \[hep-ex\]\].
F. Abe [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 578-583 (1997).
T. A. Collaboration, \[arXiv:1104.3038 \[hep-ex\]\].
R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. [**C71**]{}, 1645 (2011). P. Levai and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C [**57**]{}, 1879 (1998) T. Song, W. Park and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C [**81**]{}, 034914 (2010) H. Song, S. A. Bass, U. W. Heinz, \[arXiv:1103.2380 \[nucl-th\]\].
N. Demir and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 172302 (2009) T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 011901 (2002) P. Bozek, arXiv:1101.1791 \[nucl-th\]. F. Antinori [*et al.*]{} \[WA97 Collaboration and NA57 Collaborations\], Nucl. Phys. A [**661**]{}, 357 (1999) D. Kharzeev and M. Nardi, Phys. Lett. B [**507**]{}, 121 (2001) B. B. Back [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. A [**757**]{}, 28 (2005) E. G. Ferreiro, F. Fleuret, J. P. Lansberg, N. Matagne and A. Rakotozafindrabe, arXiv:1101.0488 \[hep-ph\]. K. Dusling, G. D. Moore and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C [**81**]{}, 034907 (2010) K. Aamodt [*et al.*]{} \[ALICE Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 032301 (2011). H. J. S. Collaboration, AIP Conf. Proc. [**1322**]{}, 1 (2010) A. Adare [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 132301 (2010) O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, P. Petreczky, F. Zantow, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**129**]{}, 560-562 (2004). C. -Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. [**C72**]{}, 034906 (2005). N. Brambilla, J. Ghiglieri, A. Vairo, P. Petreczky, Phys. Rev. [**D78**]{}, 014017 (2008). N. Brambilla, M. A. Escobedo, J. Ghiglieri, J. Soto, A. Vairo, JHEP [**1009**]{}, 038 (2010). F. Karsch, M. T. Mehr and H. Satz, Z. Phys. C [**37**]{}, 617 (1988). E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane, T. -M. Yan, Phys. Rev. [**D21**]{}, 203 (1980).
Y. Park, K. I. Kim, T. Song, S. H. Lee and C. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. C [**76**]{}, 044907 (2007) T. Song and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 034002 (2005) Z. w. Lin and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C [**62**]{}, 034903 (2000) Z. w. Lin and C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. B [**503**]{}, 104 (2001) X. Zhao and R. Rapp, arXiv:1102.2194 \[hep-ph\]. J. P. Blaizot, J. -Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. [**D39**]{}, 232 (1989).
F. Karsch, R. Petronzio, Z. Phys. [**C37**]{}, 627 (1988).
M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders [*et al.*]{}, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**57**]{}, 205-243 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Low-ionization nuclear emission-line regions (LINERs) exist in the nuclei of a large fraction of luminous galaxies, but their connection with the active galactic nucleus (AGN) phenomenon has remained elusive. We present [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} ([*HST*]{}) narrowband (\[\]$\lambda
5007$ and H$\alpha$+\[\]) emission-line images of the central regions of 14 galaxies with LINER nuclei. This is the first such study of a sizable sample of LINERs at [*HST*]{} resolution. The compact, $\sim$1-scale, unresolved emission which dominates the line flux in ground-based observations of these LINERs is mostly resolved in the [*HST*]{} images. The bulk of the H$\alpha$ and \[\] emission comes from regions with sizes of tens to hundreds of parsecs. The resolved emission comes from a combination of knots, filaments, and diffuse gas whose morphology differs from galaxy to galaxy. Most of the galaxies do not show clear linear structures or ionization cones analogous to those often seen in Seyfert galaxies. An exception is NGC1052, the prototypical LINER, in which we find a 3-long ($\sim 250$ pc) biconical structure that is oriented on the sky along the galaxy’s radio jet axis. M84 also shows signs of possible biconical gas structures. Seven of the galaxies have been shown in previously published [*HST*]{} images to have a bright compact ultraviolet (UV) nuclear source, while the other seven do not display such a central UV source. Our images show a dusty environment in the nuclear region of all 14 galaxies, with clear indications of obscuration of the nuclei in most of the “UV-dark” cases. The data thus suggest that the line-emitting gas in most LINERs is photoionized by a central source (which may be stellar, nonstellar, or a combination thereof) but that this source is often hidden from direct view in the UV by dust in the host galaxy. We find no obvious differences between the morphologies of the nine “LINER 1.9s” with detected weak broad H$\alpha$ wings in their spectra and the morphologies of the other five objects. Likewise, there is no clear distinction in morphology between objects whose UV spectra are dominated by hot stars (e.g., NGC4569) and those that are more AGN-like (e.g., NGC4579).
author:
- 'Richard W. Pogge'
- Dan Maoz
- 'Luis C. Ho'
- Michael Eracleous
title: 'The Narrow-Line Regions of LINERs as Resolved with the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{}[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Nuclear activity in galaxies, which finds its most dramatic expression in quasars, also appears in systems with much lower luminosities. Many galactic nuclei exhibit broad H$\alpha$ emission lines which, while much weaker, are nonetheless qualitatively similar to those observed in quasars (Stauffer 1982; Keel 1983b; Filippenko & Sargent 1985; Ho et al. 1997b). A significant fraction of emission-line objects, which may be physically related to AGNs, are galaxies containing low-ionization nuclear emission-line regions (LINERs; Heckman 1980; see the reviews included in Eracleous et al. 1996). LINERs, present in over 30% of all galaxies and in 60% of Sa–Sab spirals with $B\,\leq$ 12.5 mag (Ho, Filippenko, & Sargent 1997a), could thus represent the low-luminosity end of the AGN phenomenon. In fact, about 15%–25% of LINERs have a broad component in the H$\alpha$ line — the “type 1.9” LINERs — similar to the fraction in Seyferts (Ho et al. 1997b). Recently, Barth, Filippenko & Moran (1999a, b) have shown that some LINERs have weakly polarized broad emission lines, analogous to the polarized broad lines from the “hidden broad-line region” of some Seyfert 2 galaxies (e.g., Antonucci & Miller 1985). However, unlike Seyfert nuclei and QSOs, whose enormous luminosities and rapid variability argue for a nonstellar energy source, the luminosities of LINERs are sufficiently low that one cannot unambiguously associate them with AGNs of higher luminosities. For example, stellar energy sources are plausible both on energetic and spectroscopic grounds (e.g., Terlevich & Melnick 1985; Filippenko & Terlevich 1992; Shields 1992; Maoz et al. 1998). The potential role of LINERs in constituting the faint end of the AGN luminosity function is important for understanding the nature of AGNs, their evolution, and their contribution to the X-ray background.
To address some of the above issues, Maoz et al. (1995) obtained ultraviolet (UV; 2300 Å) images of an unbiased selection from a complete sample of nearby galaxies with the [*Hubble Space Telescope ([*HST*]{})*]{} Faint Object Camera (FOC). They discovered that 6 out of 25 LINERs in the sample contain unresolved ($<0\farcs1$, or $<1-2$ pc) nuclear UV emission sources. A similar result was found by Barth et al. (1998), using UV images taken with the Wide-Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) on [*HST*]{}. The extreme-UV emission from such sources may provide some or all of the energy required to produce the nuclear emission lines by photoionization. More specifically, Maoz et al. (1998) showed that in three out of seven UV-bright LINERS, the extreme-UV flux, based on a reasonable extrapolation from the UV, is sufficient to account for the observed H$\alpha$ flux. In the other four objects, the extreme-UV flux is deficient by a factor of a few, but these four objects have X-ray/UV flux ratios 100 times larger than the previous three, which suggests that there is much more flux in the extreme-UV than a simple extrapolation from the UV would indicate. This suggestion is also supported by the spectral energy distributions of LINERs and low-luminosity AGNs presented by Ho (1999). Any mild foreground extinction would alleviate the deficit even further. It is thus plausible to conclude that the line-emitting gas of UV-bright LINERs is powered by photoionization.
The 6 UV-bright and 19 UV-dark LINERs studied by Maoz et al. (1995) are otherwise similar in terms of spectral line ratios and overall emission-line luminosities. A nuclear UV source may therefore exist in all LINERs, but may be obscured by dust in 75% of the objects. Alternatively, Eracleous, Livio, & Binette (1995) have suggested that the emission lines are produced in response to a variable continuum that is in its “off” state with a 25% duty cycle (due, perhaps, to sporadic tidal disruption and accretion of individual stars by a central black hole). Another possibility is that the emission lines in UV-dark LINERs are produced in shocked, rather than photoionized, gas (Koski & Osterbrock 1976; Fosbury et al. 1978; Heckman 1980; Dopita & Sutherland 1995), thus accounting for the absence of a central, point-like UV source. Moreover, the UV-bright LINERs are not necessarily AGNs, as the UV sources could be hot star clusters. Indeed, UV spectroscopy with the [*HST*]{} has shown that, while some LINERs may be AGNs (Ho et al. 1996; Barth et al. 1996), the UV emission in other UV-bright LINERs is clearly dominated by massive stars (Maoz et al. 1998). Interestingly though, there is not a clear correspondence between the existence of a point-like nuclear UV source and the detection of broad H$\alpha$ wings in the spectrum, as is the case in most Seyfert 1s.
An independent source of information comes from the X-ray band, where the morphologies and spectra of LINERs suggest that some of them could harbor low-luminosity AGNs. Published and archival X-ray images of LINERs with high angular resolution (5–8), taken with the [*Einstein*]{} and [*ROSAT*]{} HRIs (e.g., Fabbiano, Kim, & Trinchieri 1992; Koratkar et al. 1995), show a wide variety of X-ray morphologies: point sources, with or without a surrounding halo, and diffuse sources, which do not seem to be related to the UV morphology. The 0.5–10 keV spectra of LINERs obtained with [*ASCA*]{} can generally be fitted by a linear combination of a Raymond-Smith plasma model ($kT\approx 0.6-0.8$ keV) and an absorbed (column densities in excess of $10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$) hard component. The soft, thermal plasma emission is usually attributed to circumnuclear hot gas. In the case of LINER 1.9s, the hard component is well fitted by a power law with photon indices $\Gamma\,\approx$ 1.7–2.0 (e.g., Serlemitsos, Ptak, & Yaqoob 1996; Ptak et al. 1999; Awaki 1999; Terashima 1999; Ho et al. 1999), as seen in luminous Seyfert 1s (Nandra et al. 1997), and the emission has a compact, spatially unresolved morphology within the coarse angular resolution of [*ASCA*]{} (FWHM $\approx 3\arcmin$). Where higher resolution [*ROSAT*]{} HRI images are available, a central compact core is seen in the soft X-rays as well. These characteristics strengthen the case that LINER 1.9s are genuine AGNs. The situation for LINER 2s is more complicated. Terashima et al. (1999) have recently analyzed [*ASCA*]{} observations of a small sample of LINER 2s, and they find that the hard component, while consistent with a power law with $\Gamma\approx 2$, can also be represented by a thermal bremsstrahlung model with a temperature of several keV. Moreover, the emission in the hard band is seen to be extended on scales of several kpc, consistent with a population of discrete sources such as low-mass X-ray binaries. Terashima et al. also show that, based on an extrapolation of their absorption-corrected X-ray fluxes into the UV, there is perhaps insufficient power to drive the luminosities of the optical emission lines. These findings suggest that either LINER 2s do not contain an AGN or that the AGN component, if present, must be heavily obscured by matter with a column density much greater than $10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$.
Another important tool for studying AGNs, which we employ here, is narrowband, emission-line imaging of the nuclear regions. Narrowband imaging of Seyfert 1 and 2 nuclei has revealed, in some cases, striking ionization cones emerging from the active nuclei and well aligned with the axes of the radio jets (Haniff, Wilson, & Ward 1988; Pogge 1989a; Wilson & Tsvetanov 1995). This technique produces spectacular results when combined with the angular resolution of [*HST*]{} (e.g., NGC5728, Wilson et al. 1993). The ionization structure of the narrow-line region gas, as revealed by such studies, gives complementary information to that provided by single-aperture spectra. Ground-based narrowband imaging of LINERs by Keel (1983a) and by Pogge (1989b) has shown that they are distinct from Seyferts in their circumnuclear emission, at least when probed on the same ($\sim 1$) angular scale. At these scales, some LINERs have faint diffuse emission, as opposed to the linear structures in many Seyferts, and the emission is usually dominated by a compact, marginally resolved nuclear region. Resolving the nuclear structures of LINERs can provide further clues to their relation to AGNs. The small scales and faintness of these structures relative to the bright host-galaxy background mean that the capabilities of [*HST*]{} are needed for this task. To this end we have carried out a study of the narrow-line regions of LINERs using narrowband \[\] $\lambda 5007$ and H$\alpha$+\[\] WFPC2 images of 14 objects. The results of our study are the subject of this paper. In §2 we describe the observations and the data reduction. In §3 we present the final images and measurements and we discuss them in §4. Finally, in §5 we summarize the results and present our conclusions. Throughout this paper we assume a Hubble constant of $H_0=75~{\rm km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}}$.
Observations and Reduction
==========================
The galaxies we have chosen for narrowband imaging with [*HST*]{}represent the two classes of LINERs, UV-bright and UV-dark, that have been identified in previous [*HST*]{} UV observations (Maoz et al. 1995; Barth et al. 1998). They were selected on the basis of their bright, high-contrast H$\alpha$ lines, as determined from spectra and narrowband images obtained from the ground. We have supplemented these data with archival images of eight other galaxies, classified as LINERs by Ho et al. (1997a), and observed with WFPC2 using the same narrowband filters. In Table 1 we list the galaxies included in our collection, and we summarize their basic properties. We emphasize that these galaxies do not constitute a statistically well-defined sample, but rather a random selection of LINERs with relatively strong emission lines. At any rate, this is the first time that the spatial structure of the narrow-line region is studied at [*HST*]{} resolution for a sizable number of such objects.
The galaxies were imaged with WFPC2, generally with the nucleus positioned on the PC CCD, which has a scale of $0\farcs0455~{\rm pixel^{-1}}$. In the case of NGC3031 the nucleus was positioned on the WF3 CCD, whose scale is $0\farcs10~{\rm pixel^{-1}}$. Table 2 summarizes the observations of each galaxy, gives the filters used, their corresponding exposure times, and the observing programs under which the observations were carried out. All the galaxies were observed through either the F656N or the F658N filters, in order to sample the H$\alpha$+\[\] complex at the proper redshift. Images through the F502N filter, which covers the \[\]$\lambda
5007$ line, exist for only five of these galaxies with sufficient integration time to be useful. Broad- and medium-band images of each galaxy were also obtained, as detailed in Table 2, and used for continuum subtraction and derivation of color maps. For NGC1052, whose narrowband image was obtained from the [*HST*]{} archive, no broad-band images are available. However, the extended line emission in this object is strong enough that is can be seen even without continuum subtraction. In fact, this is the only object in which, after some additional image processing, we find an unambiguous ionization cone, analogous to those seen in Seyferts (see §3).
All of the WFPC2 images used in this study were processed by the standard STScI OPUS pipeline (described by Biretta et al. 1996), and required only minimal post-processing to combine multiple images, correct for saturated pixels, and remove cosmic rays. We present only the WFPC2 PC1 detector images since the nuclei of the galaxies were centered on this CCD. The exception is NGC3031 (M81), for which the archival images had the nucleus centered on the WF3 detector. For the targets in our own observing program (GO-6436), continuum images were acquired as two pairs of short and long integrations. If the object was particularly bright, an additional, 6 s integration was also obtained. The short-exposure images were used to correct for saturated pixels in the long-exposure images. Our narrowband images were acquired as two or three long integrations, since saturation was not expected to be a problem.
For pairs or triplets of images of the same integration time, we combined the images using a statistical differencing technique implemented as an [XVista]{} command script (Pogge & Martini 1999). This technique is as follows. The difference image, formed by subtracting one image in a pair from the other, consists primarily of positive and negative cosmic-ray hits, as the galaxy, foreground stars, and background, all cancel to within the noise. All pixels within $\pm5\sigma$ of the mean residual background level on the difference image are then set to zero (tagging them as unaffected by cosmic rays), and a pair of cosmic-ray templates are derived by separating the remaining positive and negative pixels. These templates are then subtracted from the original images, and the two cosmic-ray subtracted images are added together to form the final galaxy image. When three images are available, all pair-wise combinations are used to generate the templates. In all cases, the statistical differencing method produced superior cosmic-ray rejection compared to standard tasks (e.g., [CRREJ]{} in [STSDAS]{}), and it is computationally much faster.
Archival data sets with pairs of images were processed in the same way. In a few cases, however, only single integrations were available, and the cosmic ray hits were removed manually, using the interactive [TVZAP]{} routine in [XVista]{}. When the archival images pairs had unequal integration times (e.g., for NGC404, 500s and 1200s for the F656N filter), we scaled the long integration to the shorter one and applied the differencing method, followed by additional manual cleaning. The resulting image cleaning is not as thorough as with well-matched integration times, but it still is better than the other algorithms we tried.
In all of our images, the mean intensity level of the background sky is negligible (a few counts at most). This was estimated by examining the outskirts of one of the WF frames without much galaxy light in it, and computing a modal sky level in reasonably clear regions. The combined on-band emission-line and off-band continuum images were converted to units of flux density per pixel, based on the May 1997 updated photometry values for each filter for the PC detector.
Continuum-subtracted emission-line images were created by subtracting the associated continuum-band images. In a few cases, it was clear that our background estimate was in error (it left either positive or negative fields of pixels), and so we refined the continuum estimation and iterated. The final continuum-subtracted images were left in units of flux density per pixel. For several archival data sets, the continuum images had to be registered and/or rotated to match the narrowband images. This presented no problem, and standard [XVista]{} tools were used (the procedure is analogous to the one described in Pogge 1992).
Color maps were generated for all six of our GO program images by converting flux density per pixel into standard Johnson/Cousins magnitudes using the transformations derived by Holtzman et al. (1995), and then dividing the two images. For NGC4192 and NGC4569, we had both F547M and F791W image pairs from our own program as well as archival F555W and F814W images, so we could verify the conversion between these bands and estimates of the ($V-I$) colors. We were careful to register the original on-band and off-band images so that we could later directly compare our emission-line and color maps. We use these below to study the associations between the emission-line regions and the patches of dust and star clusters in the galaxies. For the LINERs for which we have only archival images, we could create ($V-I$) color maps for three galaxies (NGC3998, NGC4374, and NGC4594).
For four galaxies with F547M images and no corresponding red broad-band image (NGC3031, 4486, 4036, and 4258), we were able to map the distribution of dust using an “unsharp masking” technique described by Pogge & Martini (2000). In brief, an unsharp mask for an image was created by smoothing the original F547M image with a model PSF image computed using TinyTim (Krist & Hook 1997). The (Image[$\otimes$]{}PSF) convolution was carried out in the Fourier domain using an [XVista]{} command script. The original image was then divided by the smoothed image to form a normalized residual image in which dusty features appear as negative residuals, and emission or stars appear as positive residuals. Using this technique on F547M images of galaxies for which we have $V-I$ color maps shows that the normalized unsharp residual images can retrieve all of the dust structures seen in the color maps.
Results
=======
Images and Measurements
-----------------------
Figures 1a–e show our reduced narrowband images and dust maps. For each galaxy in Figure 1a–d we show the continuum-subtracted H$\alpha$+\[\] PC1 image on the left, and on the right show either the $(V-I)$ color map, or an unsharp residual map of the F547M image if there was no second broadband filter image. In both the $V-I$ and the F547M unsharp mask images darker shades denote the regions of dust absorption. Each panel of these figures shows a $10\arcsec\times10\arcsec$ segment of the image centered on the nucleus (oriented with North up and East to the left), and with a scale bar in the lower left corner of each emission-line image showing 100pc projected at the galaxy’s distance (see Table 1). The contrast of the emission-line images is chosen to emphasize the faint circumnuclear emission regions. Figure 1e shows our images of NGC3031 which, unlike the others, is on the WF3 detector. Here we show H$\alpha$+\[\] emission on the left, and the unsharp residual map of the F574M filter image on the right for the central 30 of this galaxy. The scale bar on the lower left shows 100pc at the distance of NGC3031 (Table 1). Figure 2 shows on the left the original F658N image (i.e., without continuum subtraction) of NGC1052, with a normalized unsharp residual map of the same on the right. This residual map shows emission as bright and absorption (presumably dust) as dark. Each panel shows the inner 15 of NGC1052, and the scale bar indicates 100pc. The axis of the VLA radio jet (Wrobel 1984) is shown as a dashed line.
Figures 3a and 3b show the continuum-subtracted \[\] $\lambda5007$ images for the 5 galaxies for which these data are available. In Figure 3a, we pair \[\] $\lambda5007$ emission-line images with “excitation maps” of the H$\alpha$+\[\]/\[\] $\lambda
5007$ ratio for NGC4258, NGC4579, and NGC5005. Although noisy, these maps do not reveal any clear high-excitation knots with the exception of NGC4258. Here we see relatively-highly excited gas in a segment of the braided jet that lies to the north of the nucleus in our images (Cecil, Wilson, & Tully 1992; Cecil, Wilson, & DePree 1995; Cecil, Morse, & Veilleux 1995). Figure 3b shows only the continuum-subtracted \[\] images for the remaining two galaxies, NGC4192 and NGC4569. The excitation maps constructed for these galaxies are extremely noisy due to the low signal-to-noise ratio in the \[\] images, and only total fluxes in synthetic apertures can be measured with any confidence (see Table 3). Overall, the entire resolved emission-line regions of these LINERs seem to be in a low-ionization state.
We have measured the integrated emission-line fluxes through various apertures, separating the nuclear and circumnuclear contributions. These measurements are summarized in Table 3. Circular apertures were used, except in the cases of NGC4192 and NGC5005, where rectangular apertures were used to avoid strong dust lanes (in both) and regions (in NGC4192). Since NGC4192 and NGC5005 have no discernible nuclei in their narrowband images, the nuclear fluxes were estimated in apertures centered using the brightness peaks in their F791W continuum images. Table 3 gives “band” fluxes, without an attempt to convert to emission in a particular line by correcting for the filter transmission of other lines in the bandpasses (i.e., \[\] $\lambda$4959 and \[\] $\lambda\lambda$6548, 6583).
In the next section we describe the main features of the images of individual galaxies. We refer to an object as being “UV-bright” if space-UV observations (generally the [*HST*]{}/FOC F220W images of Maoz et al. 1995) have revealed a bright compact nuclear UV source in the galaxy. We will base the optical spectral classification of these objects on Ho et al. (1997a), and follow their terminology, where a “LINER 2” is a LINER without detected broad H$\alpha$ wings, a “LINER 1.9” is a LINER that does have such weak broad wings, and a “transition object” is one whose optical narrow emission-line ratios are intermediate between those of a LINER and an nucleus. Data on these properties are also summarized in Table 1.
Individual Objects
------------------
NGC404 {#ngc404 .unnumbered}
------
This is a UV-bright LINER 2, whose UV spectrum has a significant contribution from massive stars (Maoz et al. 1998). In the [*HST*]{}emission-line images, much of the nuclear emission appears as a hollow one-sided fan extending into filamentary wisps at distances of 5 or more from the nucleus. These wisps are reminiscent of gaseous structures blown out by supernovae, which are expected, given that the spectrum of this object is dominated by hot stars. There is also one bright point source 016 north of the nucleus, possibly a planetary nebula or a compact region. It is not obviously associated with a secondary UV source seen in the FOC image of this galaxy. The nuclear region is dusty, but has a blue nucleus, suggesting the nucleus itself is unobscured.
The distance to this galaxy is controversial, as discussed in detail by Wiklind & Henkel (1990). The distance we have adopted in Table 1 is Tully’s (1988) value of 2.4 pc (for $H_0=75~{\rm km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}}$), which was assigned based on NGC404’s probable membership in his so-called “14+12” group. On the other hand, the CO observations of Wiklind & Henkel (1990) can only be reconciled with other observational data if the distance is 10 Mpc. The $I$-band (F814W) image shows the galaxy beginning to be resolved into stars (the brightest giants are apparently visible). If so, then our measurements favor the shorter distance.
NGC1052 {#ngc1052 .unnumbered}
-------
This galaxy is often considered to be the prototypical LINER, with weak broad H$\alpha$ wings that give it a LINER 1.9 classification (Ho et al. 1997a). The broad wings have recently been shown by Barth et al. (1999a) to be preferentially polarized relative to the narrow lines and the continuum, suggesting the presence of a hidden broad-line region that is seen in scattered light. Recent [*HST*]{} observations (Allen, Koratkar, & Dopita 1999; Gabel et al. 1999) show the UV-bright nucleus has a UV–optical spectrum consisting of narrow lines on top of a featureless continuum. The archival H$\alpha$+\[\] F658N WFPC2 image presented here shows a collimated, conical structure emerging from a compact core. The high surface-brightness line emission is evident in the original image even though we do not have a broad-band image to perform continuum subtraction. The biconical nature of the structure is most clearly brought out in the normalized unsharp residual map of the image (Figure 2b), which reveals the rear (west) side of the cone. Together with M84 (see below), these are the only objects among the LINERs imaged which show a clear indication of a Seyfert-like emission-line cone. The cone’s axis is at position angle 96 with a full opening angle of about 70. This corresponds roughly to the axis of the radio lobes observed in this galaxy (Wrobel 1984), and is similar to the alignment generally found in Seyferts. Our result thus adds another AGN characteristic to this LINER. We also note that there are two faint knots of emission straddling the nucleus, about 5 from it, along a position angle of 81.
NGC3031 (M81) {#ngc3031-m81 .unnumbered}
-------------
Detailed modeling of the narrow- and broad-line spectrum of this object (Ho et al. 1996) clearly shows that the line-emitting gas has the low-ionization state expected of LINERs, even if the measured \[\]/H$\beta$ ratio technically places it in the Seyfert class (Ho et al. 1997a). The UV spectrum (Ho et al. 1996; Maoz et al. 1998) consists of broad, AGN-like, emission lines superposed on a featureless continuum. Devereux, Ford, & Jacoby (1997) have already presented the H$\alpha$+\[\] data shown here, and have also shown that the galaxy possesses a UV-bright nucleus. The H$\alpha$+\[\] emission comes mostly from a bright compact source, surrounded by symmetric, disk-like, diffuse emission (Figure 1e, left). The unsharp-residual processed image (Figure 1e, right) shows a spiral-like dust lane extending $\sim$12north of the nucleus. The major axis of the disk is at a position angle of 18 and has a minor-to-major axis ratio of 0.78. It extends up to about 5 from the center, while faint, filamentary structure is visible out to 8.
NGC3718 {#ngc3718 .unnumbered}
-------
This is a UV-dark LINER 1.9. The emission in the [*HST*]{} narrowband images is dominated by a strong point source, surrounded by some diffuse circumnuclear H$\alpha$ emission. The diffuse emission is brighter on one side. The $V-I$ image shows the nucleus is clearly very dusty and likely obscured. This is not surprising given its very red optical spectrum (Ho et al. 1995).
NGC3998 {#ngc3998 .unnumbered}
-------
This LINER 1.9 has been shown to be UV-bright by Fabbiano, Fassnacht, & Trinchieri (1994). Ultraviolet spectra from [*HST*]{} do not exist, to date. The H$\alpha$+\[\] image shows a 100-pc disk-like structure surrounding a compact nucleus. The major axis of this disk is oriented along a position angle of 90 with a length of 3, while the minor axis length is 2. The $V-I$ map shows little indication of dust in the nuclear region.
NGC4036 {#ngc4036 .unnumbered}
-------
This LINER 1.9 is UV-dark, based on WFPC2 F218W images (Barth et al. 1998). Its H$\alpha$+\[\] image has a complex filamentary and clumpy structure, with several “tentacles” extending up to 4northeast of the nucleus along a position angle of 70. The nucleus proper resembles an ellipse with a major axis of 06 along a position angle of 45. The unsharp-masked F547M image reveals wisps of dust in a disk-like configuration surrounding the nucleus on all scales probed. This is one of the few LINERs in our sample whose emission-line morphology can possibly be termed “linear” in some sense, but it seems that this morphology is in the plane of the inclined dusty disk, rather than perpendicular to it.
NGC4192 (M98) {#ngc4192-m98 .unnumbered}
-------------
This object has been classified by Ho et al. (1997a) as a “transition object,” one whose optical spectrum is intermediate between that of a LINER and an nucleus. It appears dark in UV images. In the [*HST*]{} emission-line images, the nucleus is resolved into knots spanning 05 in an east-west direction. In the continuum images the nucleus appears “soft”, rather than having a sharp point source like NGC4569. The $V-I$ map shows nuclear region is dusty and the nucleus probably obscured. On larger scales, there is a ring of regions, partially obscured by dust, and already seen in the ground-based images of Pogge (1989b).
NGC4258 (M106) {#ngc4258-m106 .unnumbered}
--------------
This galaxy contains the famous masing disk (Watson & Wallin 1994; Miyoshi et al. 1995) whose Keplerian rotation provides some of the best evidence for a massive black hole in a galactic nucleus. It has variably been classified as a LINER or a Seyfert 1.9, and is another example of a borderline case. Wilkes et al. (1995) and Barth et al. (1999c) have shown that the spectrum in polarized light has emission lines that are broader than the lines in the total flux spectrum. However, this is seen not only in the Balmer lines but in most of the forbidden lines as well, with the width of the lines in the polarized spectrum depending on the critical density of the transition. The phenomenon is thus different from that of the hidden broad-line regions revealed in polarized light in some Seyfert 2 galaxies.
A WFPC2 F218W image taken by Ho et al. (2000a) shows no conspicuous UV nucleus. We therefore aligned the brighter O/B star knots on the F218W image with those in an archival F300W image of this galaxy. We detect 2180 Å flux from all the blue stars easily visible in the F300W and F547M images (see Figure 4). We then find that a “nucleus” [*per se is*]{} visible in the F218W image, but it is weak and its contrast low compared to its surroundings. Translation of the nuclear count rate to a UV flux is not straightforward, because of the large time fluctuations in the UV sensitivity of WFPC2, plus the proneness of the F218W filter to red leaks when observing such obviously-red sources. The UV flux for this nucleus, which we list in Table 1, accounts for neither effect and must therefore be treated as uncertain. In any case, it is clear the flux is quite low compared with the UV-bright objects in our sample. It is reasonable to treat this nucleus as intermediate, between UV-bright and UV-dark.
The emission-line images show a compact core and a spiral feature emerging to the north (extending up to 5from the nucleus) which could be the base of the helical emission-line jet seen on larger scales by Cecil, Wilson, & Tully (1992). Thus, this may be considered another LINER with collimated (or at least organized) narrow-line emission. Although there is ample evidence for circumnuclear dust in the images, there is no dust that obviously covers the nucleus in the unsharp-masked F547M image. This is confirmed also in “$U-V$” image we have formed using the F330W and F547M images. Since the masing molecular gas disk is viewed nearly edge-on (Miyoshi et al. 1995), with significant optical depth along the line of sight to the nucleus, perhaps it is the dust in this disk itself that is partially obscuring the nucleus in the UV, and thus making it appear so weak.
NGC4374 (M84) {#ngc4374-m84 .unnumbered}
-------------
The LINER 2 nucleus of this galaxy is UV-dark, based on FOC F220W imaging by Zirbel & Baum (1998). M84 has a nonthermal, flat-spectrum radio core and compact X-ray emission (see discussion in Ho 1999), and its nucleus has recently been found to contain a massive compact dark object, presumably a supermassive black hole (Bower et al. 1998). The H$\alpha$+\[\] data have been previously presented by Bower et al. (1997). The images show an inclined gas disk surrounding the nucleus. Our $V-I$ map clearly shows that the nucleus is covered by a thick dust lane. Bower et al. (1997) also argued for the possible presence of an ionization cone that is roughly aligned with the radio structure in this object (Birkinshaw & Davies 1985), but we find the case for such a cone is not clear. At the very least, it is not an obvious morphological structure in the extended H$\alpha$ emission-line gas (Figure 1c, top left panel). This structure takes the form of filaments that extend roughly east-west and north-south, along position angles 85 and 0. The east-west complex extends 5 east and 3 west of the nucleus, while the north-south complex extents 2 north and south of the nucleus.
NGC4486 (M87) {#ngc4486-m87 .unnumbered}
-------------
This LINER 2, a giant elliptical galaxy in the Virgo cluster, is well known for its collimated jet seen at radio, optical, and UV wavelengths. Both the jet and the dynamical evidence for a supermassive black hole (Sargent et al. 1978; Harms et al. 1994; Macchetto et al. 1997) testify to the existence of an AGN. The nucleus is UV-bright (Boksenberg et al. 1992; Maoz et al. 1996). Recent UV spectroscopy of the nucleus with [*HST*]{}/FOS (Sankrit, Sembach, & Canizares 1999) and [*HST*]{}/STIS (Ho et al. 2000b) reveals emission lines of width $\sim 3000$ km s$^{-1}$ on top of a featureless continuum. The H$\alpha$+\[\] image was previously published by Ford et al. (1994). It shows a compact disk with a major axis of length 077 along position angle 0, and a minor axis of length 059. The disk is surrounded by wispy filaments extending in various directions up to 10 from the nucleus. It is noteworthy that the optical jet, which is conspicuous in the raw data (and also visible in the unsharp residual map in Figure 1c), disappears completely in the continuum-subtracted image, indicating very little line emission from the jet itself. The unsharp residual map also shows very little evidence of nuclear dust.
NGC4569 (M90) {#ngc4569-m90 .unnumbered}
-------------
This galaxy has a bright, point-like nucleus at optical and UV bands, with a LINER 2 optical spectrum. Maoz et al. (1998) have shown that the UV spectrum is dominated by massive stars. The new [*HST*]{} images show an unresolved nucleus in both continuum and emission lines. The nucleus dominates the emission. On larger scales, there is a disk or spiral-arm-like structure in the H$\alpha$ image, extending up to 2from the nucleus in the north-south direction (position angle 4). Similar structures are seen in \[\] although they are not as well defined. The $V-I$ map shows that, while the circumnuclear region is dusty, the nucleus itself is apparently unobscured by dust.
NGC4579 (M58) {#ngc4579-m58 .unnumbered}
-------------
This is a LINER 1.9 galaxy with many AGN characteristics (Filippenko & Sargent 1985; Barth et al. 1996; Ho et al. 1997b; Maoz et al. 1998; Terashima et al. 1998). The H$\alpha$ emission is dominated by a nuclear point source, but is surrounded by complex clumpy and filamentary emission. The overall complex has an elliptical shape with a major axis of length 2 along position angle 120and a minor axis of length 1. The filamentary emission may be likened to a shell or a ring (perhaps part of a disk) with a dark lane going across it. A similar structure is seen in \[\], although the signal-to-noise ratio is lower. The $V-I$ image shows that, while the filaments are associated with circumnuclear dust, the nucleus appears to be unobscured.
NGC4594 (M104) {#ngc4594-m104 .unnumbered}
--------------
The “Sombrero” galaxy has a LINER 2 nucleus which may be, like NGC4258, borderline between UV-bright and UV-dark. Crane et al. (1993) have shown that the nucleus appears unresolved and isolated in [*HST*]{} images at 3400 Å. However, the [*HST*]{}/FOS UV spectrum of this galaxy, analyzed by Nicholson et al. (1998) and Maoz et al. (1998), shows shortward of 3200 Å a red continuum falling with decreasing wavelength, and becoming dominated by scattered light within the spectrograph below around 2500Å. In Table 1 we quote the flux density measured by Maoz et al. (1998) from this spectrum, but because of the scattered light contamination and the lack of a UV image, we regard the quoted flux density as an upper limit to the true value. Due to the low signal-to-noise ratio of the UV spectrum, the nature of the UV light source (stars or AGN) is ambiguous. Fabbiano & Juda (1997) observed this galaxy with the [*ROSAT*]{}/HRI and detected a point-like soft X-ray source coincident with the nucleus but noted that the source could be highly absorbed. The H$\alpha$+\[\] image shows “S”-shaped wisps emerging from a bright, compact, possibly disky H$\alpha$ core. The two wisps extent up to 4 east and west and up to 1 south of the nucleus. The $V-I$ image shows that the dust generally follows the H$\alpha$ morphology, but with the nucleus behind a dust lane.
NGC5005 {#ngc5005 .unnumbered}
-------
This is a LINER 1.9, which is dark in UV images. In the new [*HST*]{}images, the line emission is distributed in a number of compact clumps within 1of the nucleus. These are surrounded by fan-shaped filaments and diffuse emission extending up to 3 southeast of the nucleus. The emission-line and $V-I$ images both show clearly that the nucleus is obscured. In an attempt to identify whether the emission-line clumps are associated with individual stars or star clusters, we have tried to align the H$\alpha$+\[\] image with the FOC 2200Å image of Maoz et al. (1996). We find no unique registration that will align all the major regions and the UV knots in a region 10 south of the nucleus, and no registration that can align the nuclear UV and H$\alpha$ knots. It thus appears that here, as in the other galaxies, the line-emitting gas is dusty, causing the UV and H$\alpha$ emission to be mutually exclusive. As a consequence, we cannot answer conclusively the question of whether, in this galaxy, there is direct evidence for the excitation of the emission-line gas by hot stars.
Discussion
==========
With the information given above, we are in a position to address some of the following questions.
1. Do any of the LINERs, when observed at [*HST*]{} resolution, show ionization cones or linear structures analogous to those seen in Seyferts? If so, what are their general characteristics (e.g., opening angles, linear extent, excitation level)? Ionization cones (or lobes) are probably the best evidence for obscuration of the nucleus by a toroidal structure, which would account for the absence of a nuclear UV source in UV-dark LINERs.
2. Is there a difference in the morphology of the ionized gas in the circumnuclear regions of UV-bright and UV-dark LINERs? Differences in morphology can afford direct tests of competing scenarios, as follows:
1. [*Obscuration:*]{} The nuclear UV source could be hidden by a toroidal structure, as detailed above, or with patchy foreground obscuration by circumnuclear dust (e.g. van Dokkum & Franx 1996), not necessarily associated with the nucleus itself.
2. [*An ionizing continuum source temporarily in its “off” state*]{}: The duty-cycle hypothesis of Eracleous et al. (1995) predicts a spatial gap between the nucleus and the ionization front in the \[\]-emitting region because of rapid recombination of the O$^{+2}$ ion. In contrast, the long recombination time scale of the ionized zone implies that its corresponding gap should be unobservable across the narrow-line region. The recurrence time of active phases of the nuclear source in this scenario is of order a century. In view of the distances of these galaxies the implied angular size of a typical \[\] ring would be around 0.$^{\prime\prime}$6, well within the resolution of these [*HST*]{} images.
3. [*Shock excitation of the emission-line gas*]{}: This could manifest itself as filamentary and bow-shaped structures indicative of shock fronts. The emission-line images can be particularly informative at scales of a few arcseconds where the high angular resolution of the [*HST*]{} and the often-seen clumpiness of line-emitting gas can reveal faint line-emitting structures that are undetectable from the ground.
First, we find that only one of the LINER nuclei observed, NGC1052, shows an unambiguous ionization cone of the kind often seen in Seyfert galaxies. M84 may also exhibit a biconical structure, but the evidence in that object is less clear. Two other galaxies, NGC4036 and NGC4258, have structures that could plausibly be termed “linear.” None of the remaining 10 LINERs show this kind of morphology. Our attempt to find a link between LINERs and AGNs through this avenue has therefore given a positive result in only one, or at most four, cases. In NGC1052, which already has various known AGN features, the cones are indeed aligned with the radio structure, as in Seyferts. Similarly, the possible biconical gas structure in M84, if real, would be roughly aligned with the axis of its radio jets (Birkinshaw & Davies 1985). Obviously, in the other objects we cannot search for alignment of the complex emission line structures with radio structures. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see in the future whether or not elongated radio structures are common in LINERs.
Second, there is no clear difference in emission-line morphology between the UV-dark and UV-bright LINERs, but rather, there is a large variety from object to object. On the other hand, there is clear evidence for obscuration of the nucleus by clumps and lanes of dust in all of the clearly UV-dark objects, but not in the UV-bright ones. We conclude that foreground obscuration by nuclear dust is the cause of the non-detection of a central UV point source in these LINERs, if such a source is present. In the one possible exception, NGC4258, the detected but weak central UV source may be attenuated by dust mixed with the molecular gas in the masing disk that is known to exist on the line of sight to the nucleus. Although our sample is small and statistically incomplete, one may speculate that this is the reason that 75% of LINERs are UV-dark (Maoz et al. 1995; Barth et al. 1998) — that is, that all LINERs are photoionized by a central UV source, whose nature is of yet unknown, but that this source is obscured by circumnuclear dust in 75% of the cases.
In the same vein, we have found no evidence for obscuration by toroidal structures on smaller scales (which would produce the ionization cones we have generally failed to find), nor signs of a central source with “gaps” in the gas morphology hypothesized by Eracleous et al. (1995) in their duty-cycle picture. Nor do we find clear signs of outflows and shock-like morphologies, although there are hints of structures that may turn out to be related to such phenomena, if studied with deeper images at higher resolution. If, as the above results suggest, all LINERs have a central UV source with a photon flux of the right order of magnitude to power the observed emission line spectrum, then shocks are not needed to explain the excitation of the emission-line gas.
Our sample contains similar numbers of so-called LINER 1.9s, i.e., LINERs with weak broad H$\alpha$ emission, and LINER 2s, in which such broad lines have not been detected. The relative numbers of these two types among the LINER population are similar to the relative numbers of Seyfert 1 and Seyfert 2 galaxies (Ho et al. 1997b), and this may be another clue to a relation between LINERs and higher-luminosity AGNs. We find, however, no obvious differences in the emission line morphologies of the two LINER types. This is contrary to Seyferts, where the line morphologies of Seyfert 1s are more compact (Pogge 1989b; Schmitt & Kinney 1996), suggestive of a geometry in which the central engine and broad-line region are viewed unobscured along the axis of an obscuring torus. A caveat to this point is that the above study has compared Seyfert 1s and 2s, rather than 1.9s and 2s, and this distinction may be important.
One can imagine a number of physical reasons for the differences in the morphologies of LINERs and Seyferts. LINERs may, as a general rule, lack the toroidal collimating structures postulated in Seyferts. Alternatively, they may generally lack the relativistic jets that are often coaligned with extended emission structures in Seyferts. The jet/emission-line region alignment in Seyferts is thought to arise because both jets and ionizing radiation are collimated by related structures, or because the jet opens a path through the interstellar medium for ionizing photons to follow, or because the jet itself excites the line emission. Among our sample, this explanation cannot apply to M87, which has a conspicuous jet, yet no linear emission-line structure, either coincident with the jet or elsewhere.
Another possible explanation for the difference between LINERs and Seyferts is a deficit of circumnuclear gas or of ionizing photons in LINERs on the larger scales where linear structures appear in Seyferts. However, all Seyferts with extended narrow-line regions that have been imaged at [*HST*]{} resolution to date show that the collimated linear structures and cones persist all the way to the smallest angular scales probed (NGC1068: Axon et al. 1998; NGC4151: Evans et al. 1993; NGC5252: Tsvetanov et al. 1996), and this is also what we have found in the biconical emission of the LINER NGC1052. On the other hand, one might argue that these objects were preselected to have the narrowest and brightest extended narrow-line regions, and do not represent the Seyfert population as a whole. Finally, we note that the absence of linear emission-line structures in LINERs do [*not*]{} preclude them from being AGNs. Indeed, many of the LINERs in our sample have radio jets and/or broad-line regions, features that are considered characteristic of nuclear activity in more powerful objects. While linear emission-line features are found in many powerful AGNs, they are by no means a defining characteristic of the class.
A further point that has interesting physical and practical implications is that, when imaged at [*HST*]{} resolution, LINERs do not reveal simple disk-like gas structures, but rather more complex geometries. This implies that the kinematics of the circumnuclear gas are also likely to be quite complicated and could lead astray the interpretation of kinematic measurements aimed at determining the central black hole masses. Of special interest is the morphology of the line-emitting gas in the innermost regions close to the nucleus. In most of the cases in our sample, there is no indication of a small-scale disk, even if such a disk exists on larger scales. The kinematics of the gas at small radii, therefore, is unlikely to be governed predominantly by rotation. Indeed, recent [*HST*]{}spectroscopy of several galactic nuclei shows that the ionized gas has velocity dispersions that are large even in the innermost regions, as opposed to the circular velocity field expected from a cold gas disk. For example, the [*HST FOS*]{} emission-line spectra of the nuclear ionized gas disk in M87 (Harms et al. 1994; Macchetto et al. 1997) show line widths of $\sigma\approx 500~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ at projected radii of 02 to 06 where the rotational velocity is $500-600{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ (see Figure 5 of Macchetto et al. 1997). A similar trend is seen in NGC4261 (Ferrarese, Ford, & Jaffe 1996): at a deprojected distance of $\sim
0\farcs2$ from the nucleus, the gas disk shows $v/\sigma\approx 1$. Finally, the nuclear ionized gas disk of M84 observed by Bower et al. (1998) also displays large nonrotational motions near the center.
It is puzzling how gas in such a disturbed kinematic state within such a small ($\sim 10^3$ pc$^3$) volume can avoid settling into a cool, rotationally-dominated disk. The clumpy gas filaments will collide with each other at supersonic velocities of order 100–200 km s$^{-1}$ on a dynamical time scale, which at a distance of 5 pc from a $10^8 M_{\odot}$ central mass is $10^5$ yr. This is much shorter than the expected lifetime of the AGN or the nuclear starburst, but much longer than the cooling time, which, for free-free emission, is of order 100 yr for gas with a density $10^5~{\rm cm^{-3}}$ that has been heated to $\sim 10^6$ K by collisions.
Summary
=======
We have presented narrowband (\[\]$\lambda 5007$ and H$\alpha$+\[\]) emission-line images of 14 galaxies with LINER nuclei. Most of these data have not been previously published, and this is the first time that the narrow-line regions of a significant number of LINERs are studied at [*HST*]{} resolution. The objects in our sample include representatives of the various subclasses of LINERs that have emerged in recent years: “type 1.9” and “type 2,” UV-bright and UV-dark, objects with starburst-dominated or AGN-dominated UV spectra.
Our main observational findings are as follows.
1. The narrow-line regions of nearby LINERs are resolved by [*HST*]{}, with much of the line emission coming from regions with sizes of 10–100 pc.
2. In general, the emission-line morphology is complex and disordered, with varying contributions from a compact core, a disk, clumps, and filaments. We find no obvious distinctions in morphologies among the various LINER subclasses.
3. In only one object, NGC1052, possibly two if we include M84, have we found clear evidence for an ionization cone analogous to those seen in Seyfert galaxies. The ionization cone of NGC1052 is well-aligned with its radio structure. Two or three other objects have morphologies that can perhaps be termed “linear.”
4. Obscuration of the nucleus by circumnuclear clumps of dust is fairly ubiquitous in the UV-dark LINERs but absent in the UV-bright ones.
These findings lead us to the following conclusions. First, the data are consistent with a picture in which most or all LINERs are objects that are photoionized by a central UV source, even when the central source is not visible directly. As discussed in §1, Maoz et al. (1998) showed that in UV-bright LINERS, the extreme-UV flux, based on a reasonable extrapolation from the UV, is of the right magnitude to account for the observed H$\alpha$ in a photoionization scenario. Any mild foreground extinction, which appears to be common based on the images presented here, would only strengthen this conclusion. Hence, the line emission UV-bright LINERs is likely to be powered by photoionization. Our results suggest that the UV visibility of the nucleus is determined simply by the circumnuclear dust morphology along our line of sight. This suggestion is reinforced by the the anti-correlation between UV brightness on the one hand, and galaxy inclination and Balmer decrement on the other, found by Barth et al. (1998). A similar inclination effect has been seen in Seyfert galaxies at visible (Keel 1980) and X-ray wavelengths (Lawrence & Elvis 1982). Thus, the fact that the majority of the LINERs in optically-selected samples are UV dark (Maoz et al. 1995; Barth et al. 1998) does not necessarily imply that these objects are excited by processes other than photoionization (e.g., shocks; Dopita & Sutherland 1995) or that they are in an “off” state (Eracleous et al. 1995). There is also no correspondence between UV darkness and the absence of broad lines in LINERs, which one might expect in a duty-cycle scenario when the continuum source is turned off. Moreover, the UV spectra of the nuclei of individual LINERs have so far failed to reveal the emission-line signatures predicted by shock models. This result argues against these alternative explanations for the UV-bright/dark dichotomy. If, as our results suggest, UV-dark LINERs appear as such only because of foreground extinction, then it is plausible to conclude that all LINERs harbor a source of ionizing radiation, and hence that their line-emitting gas is powered by photoionization.
In passing, we note that in the non-elliptical galaxies in our sample, the circumnuclear dust, though patchy and sometimes chaotic in appearance, generally lies in a preferred plane. The position angle of this plane coincides remarkably closely to the direction of the major axis of the large-scale galactic disk (data compiled in Ho et al. 1997a). This explains why the UV visibility of the nuclei correlates with the inclinations of the host galaxies (Barth et al. 1998) despite the fact that the obscuration, as seen in our images, actually occurs on much smaller scales.
Second, whatever the nature of the central source in a LINER, be it an accretion flow onto a black hole, a compact star cluster, or a combination of the two, it is not generally revealed by the narrowband images we have obtained. The one LINER that shows a clear Seyfert-like ionization cone, NGC1052, does have additional AGN characteristics: weak broad wings in its H$\alpha$ emission profile (Ho et al. 1997b), a hidden broad-line region (Barth et al. 1999a), a radio jet and compact, flat-spectrum core (Wrobel 1984), and a nonthermal hard X-ray spectrum (Guainazzi & Antonelli 1999; Weaver et al. 1999). On the other hand, many of the other LINERs which have AGN features, such as NGC4579, M81, and M87, show no evidence for ionization cones in our images.
Finally, we have pointed out that the complex gas morphologies revealed by our images suggest caution in interpreting the gas kinematics in the innermost regions of these objects, for example, in searches for, and mass measurements of, central black holes.
This work was supported by grant GO-06436.01-95A from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. Undergraduate research assistant S. Benfer (Ohio Wesleyan) helped with the initial reductions of our GO imaging data. D.M. acknowledges support by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation. L.C.H. is grateful to Sandra Faber for bringing to his attention the issue concerning the kinematics of the compact narrow-line regions in LINERs that we discussed at the end of §3.2.
Allen, M. G., Koratkar, A. P., & Dopita, M. A. 1999, , 194, 4901 Antonucci, R. R. J., & Miller, J. S. 1985, , 297, 621 Awaki, H. 1999, Advances in Space Research, 23 (5-6), 837 Axon, D. J., Marconi, A., Capetti, A., Maccetto, D. F., Schreier, E., & Robinson, A. 1998, , 496, L75 Barth, A. J., Filippenko, A. V., & Moran, E. C. 1999a, , 515, L61 Barth, A. J., Filippenko, A. V., & Moran, E. C. 1999b, , in press (astro-ph/9905290) Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1998, , 496, 133 Barth, A. J., Reichert, G. A., Filippenko, A. V., Ho, L. C., Shields, J. C., Mushotzsky, R. F., & Puchnarewicz, E. M. 1996, , 112, 1829 Barth, A. J., Tran, H., Brotherton, M. S., Filippenko, A. V., Ho, L. C., van Breugel, W., Antonucci, R., & Goodrich, R. W. 1999c, , in press (astro-ph/9907269) Biretta, J. A., et al. 1996, WFPC2 Instrument Handbook (Baltimore: STScI) Birkinshaw, M. & Davies, R. L. 1985, , 291, 32 Boksenberg, A., et al. 1992, , 261, 393 Bower, G. A., Heckman, T. M., Wilson , A. S., & Richstone, D. O. 1997, , 483, L33 Bower, G. A., et al. 1998, , 492, L111 Cecil, G., Wilson, A. S., Tully, R. B. 1992, , 390, 365 Cecil, G., Wilson, A. S., & DePree C. 1995, , 440, 181 Cecil, G., Morse, J. A., & Veilleux, S. 1995, , 452, 613 Crane, P., et al. 1993, , 106, 1371 Devereux, N., Ford, H., & Jacoby, G. 1997, , 481, L71 Dickey, J. M. & Lockman, F. J. , 28, 215 Dopita, M. A. & Sutherland, R. S. 1995, , 455, 468 Eracleous, M., Livio, M., Binette, L. 1995, , 445, L1 Eracleous, M., Koratkar, A., Leitherer, C., & Ho, L. 1996, The Physics of LINERs in View of Recent Observations (San Francisco: ASP) Evans, I. N., Tsvetanov, Z., Kriss, G. A., Ford, H. C., Caganoff, S., & Koratkar, A. P. 1993, , 417, 82 Fabbiano, G., Fassnacht, C., & Trinchieri, G. 1994, , 434, 67 Fabbiano, G. & Juda, J. Z. 1997, , 476, 666 Fabbiano, G., Kim, D.-W., & Trinchieri, G. 1992, , 80, 531 Ferrarese, L, Ford, H. C., & Jaffe, W. 1996, , 470, 444 Filippenko, A. V. & Sargent, W. L. W. 1985, , 57, 503 Filippenko, A. V. & Terlevich, R. 1992, , 397, L79 Fosbury, R. A. E., Melbold, U., Goss, W. M., & Dopita, M. A. 1978, , 183, 549 Freedman, W. L., et al. 1994, , 427, 628 Ford, H. C., et al. 1994, , 435, L27 Gabel, J. R., Bruhweiler, F. C., Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., & Miskey, C. L. 1999, , 194, 4902 Guainazzi, M. & Antonelli, L. A. 1999, , 304, L15 Haniff, C. A., Wilson, A. S., & Ward, M. J. 1988, , 334, 104 Harms, R. J., et al. 1994, , 435, L35 Heckman, T. M. 1980, , 87, 152 Herrnstein, J. R., et al. 1999, , in press (astro-ph/9907013) Ho, L. C. 1999, , 516, 672 Ho, L. C., et al. 2000b, in preparation Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1995, , 98, 477 Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1996, , 462, 183 Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1997a, , 112, 315 Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., Sargent, W. L. W., & Peng, C. Y. 1997b, , 112, 391 Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 2000a, in preparation Ho, L. C., Ptak, A., Terashima, Y., Kunieda, H., Serlemitsos, P. J., Yaqoob, T., & Koratkar, A. P. 1999, , in press (astro-ph/9905013) Holtzman, J. A., et al. 1995, , 107, 1065 Keel, W. C. 1980, , 85, 198 Keel, W. C. 1983a, , 268, 632 Keel, W. C. 1983b, , 269, 466 Koratkar, A. P., Deustua, S., Heckman, T. M., Filippenko, A. V., Ho, L. C. & Rao, M. 1995, , 440, 132 Koski, A. T. & Osterbrock, D. E. 1976, , 203, L49 Krist, J. & Hook, R. 1997, The Tiny Tim User’s Guide, Version 4.4 (Baltimore: STScI) Lawrence. A. & Elvis, M. 1982, , 256, 410 Macchetto, F., Marconi, A., Axon, D. J., Capetti, A., Sparks, W. B., & Crane, P. 1997, , 489, 579 Maoz, D., Filippenko, A. V., Ho, L. C., Rix, H.-W., Bahcall, J. N., Schneider, D. P., & Macchetto, F. D. 1995, , 440, 91 Maoz, D., Filippenko, A. V., Ho, L. C., Macchetto, F. D., Rix, H.-W., & Schneider, D. P. 1996, , 107, 215 Maoz, D., Koratkar, A. P., Shields, J. C., Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sternberg, A. 1998, , 116, 55 Miyoshi, M., Moran, J., Herrnstein, J., Greenhill, L., Nakai, N., Diamond, P., & Inoue, M. 1995, , 373, 127 Nandra, K., George, I. M., Mushotzky, R. F., Turner, T. J., & Yaqoob, T. 1997, , 477, 602 Nicholson, K. L., Reichert, G. A., Mason , K. O., Puchnarewicz, E. M., Ho, L. C., Shields, J. C., & Filippenko, A. V. 1998, , 300, 893 Pogge, R. W. 1989a, , 345, 730 Pogge, R. W. 1989b, , 71, 433 Pogge, R. W. 1992, in Astronomical CCD Observing and Reduction Techniques, ed. S. B. Howell (San Francisco: ASP), 195 Pogge, R. W. & Martini 2000, in preparation Ptak, A., Serlemitsos, P., Yaqoob, T., & Mushotzky, R. F. 1999, , 120, 179 Sankrit, R., Sembach, K.R., & Canizares, C.R. 1999, , in press (astro-ph/9907406) Sargent, W. L. W., Young, P. J., Boksenberg, A., Shortridge, K., Lynds, C. R., & Hartwick, F. D. A. 1978, , 221, 731 Schmitt, H. R. & Kinney, A.L. 1996, , 463, 498 Serlemitsos, P., Ptak, A., & Yaqoob, T. 1996, in The Physics of LINERs in View of Recent Observations, ed. M. Eracleous, A. Koratkar, C. Leitherer, & L. Ho (San Francisco: ASP), 70 Shields, J. C. 1992, , 399, L27 Stauffer, J. R. 1982, , 262, 66 Terashima, Y. 1999, Advances in Space Research, 23 (5-6), 851 Terashima, Y., Ho, L. C., Ptak, A. F., Mushotzky, R. F., Serlemitsos, P. J., Yaqoob, T., & Kunieda, H. 1999, , submitted Terashima, Y., Kunieda, H., Misaki, K., Mushotzky, R. F., Ptak, A., & Reichert, G. A. 1998, , 503, 212 Terlevich, R. & Melnick, J. 1985, , 213, 841 Tsvetanov, Z., Morse, J. A., Wilson, A. S., & Cecil, G. 1996, , 458, 172 Tully, R. B. 1988, Nearby Galaxies Catalog (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press) van Dokkum, P. G. & Franx, M. 1996, , 110, 2027 Watson, W. D. & Wallin, B. K. 1994, , 432, L35 Weaver, K. A., Wilson, A. S., Henkel, C., & Braatz, J. A. 1999, , 520, 130 Wiklind, T. & Henkel, H. 1990, , 227, 394 Wilkes, B. J., Schmidt, G. D., Smith, P. S., Mathur, S., & McLeod, K. K. 1995, , 455, L13 Wilson, A. S. & Tsvetanov, Z. I. 1994, , 107, 1227 Wilson, A. S., Braatz, J. A., Heckman, T. M., Krolik, J. H., & Miley, G. K. 1993, , 419, L61 Wrobel, J. M. 1984, , 284, 531 Zirbel, E. L. & Baum, S. A. 1998, , 114, 177
[[**Figure 1a-d**]{}: Narrowband PC1 images and dust maps. For each galaxy we show the continuum-subtracted H$\alpha$+\[\] image on the left, and on the right either the $(V-I)$ color map or the unsharp mask of the F547M frame if no $I$-band image is available. Darker shades denote regions of dust absorption. Each panel shows a 10$\times$10 segment of the image centered on the nucleus (oriented with North up, East to the left), and with a scale bar in the lower left corner of each emission-line images showing 100pc projected at the galaxy’s distance (see Table 1). The contrast of the emission-line images is chosen to emphasize the faint circumnuclear emission regions.]{}
[[**Figure 1e**]{}: Narrowband WF3 images of the central 30 of NGC3031, shown like the others in Figure 1a-d. H$\alpha$+\[\] emission is on the left, and the unsharp residual map is on the right. The scale bar in the lower left shows 100pc at the distance of NGC3031 (Table 1).]{}
[[**Figure 2**]{}: Narrowband PC1 images of the central 15 of NGC1052. Left panel: F658N image (without continuum subtraction); Right panel: normalized unsharp residual map of the same. The residual map shows emission as bright and absorption (presumably dust) as dark. Each panel shows of NGC1052, and the scale bar indicates 100pc. The axis of the VLA radio jet (Wrobel 1984) is shown with the dashed line.]{}
[[**Figure 3a**]{}: Continuum-subtracted PC1 \[\]$\lambda5007$ emission-line images (left) of NGC4258, NGC4579, and NGC5005, shown alongside of “excitation maps” of the H$\alpha$+\[\]/\[\] $\lambda 5007$ ratio (right). The scaling and orientation follow that in Figures 1a-d.]{}
[[**Figure 3b**]{}: Continuum-subtracted PC1 \[\]$\lambda5007$ images of NGC4192 (left) and NGC4569 (right). For these galaxies the “excitation maps” are extremely noisy and contain no useful information. The scaling and orientation are as in Figure 3a.]{}
[[**Figure 4**]{}: Montage of PC1 images of NGC4258 showing (left-to-right, top-to-bottom) F547M, \[\]$\lambda5007$ emission, F300W, and F218W. All maps show the central 10of the galaxy centered on the active nucleus. The scaling and orientation are as in Figures 1–3.]{}
[^1]: Based on observations with the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It has been shown that the mass of the scalar field in the charged stringy black hole is never able to generate a potential well outside the event horizon to trap the superradiant modes. This is to say that the charged stringy black hole is stable against the massive charged scalar perturbation. In this paper we will study the superradiant instability of the massless scalar field in the background of charged stringy black hole due to a mirror-like boundary condition. The analytical expression of the unstable superradiant modes is derived by using the asymptotic matching method. It is also pointed out that the black hole mirror system becomes extremely unstable for a large charge $q$ of scalar field and the small mirror radius $r_m$.'
author:
- Ran Li
- Junkun Zhao
title: Superradiant instability of the charged scalar field in stringy black hole mirror system
---
[^1]
Long ago, there is proposal of building the black hole bomb [@press] by using the classical superradiance phenomenon [@zeldovich; @bardeen; @misner; @starobinsky]. It seems that the mechanism of black hole bomb is very simple. When an impinging bosonic wave with the frequency satisfying the superradiant condition is scattered by the event horizon of the rotating black hole, the amplitude of this bosonic wave will be enlarged. If one places a mirror outside of the hole, the enlarged wave will be reflected into the hole once again. Then this wave will be bounced back and forth between the event horizon and the mirror. Meanwhile, the energy of this wave can become sufficiently big in this black hole mirror system until the mirror is destroyed.
The black hole bomb mechanism firstly proposed by Press and Teukolsky [@press] was studied by Cardoso et. al. in [@cardoso2004bomb] recently. It is found that there exists a minimum mirror’s radius to make the black hole mirror system unstable. See also the Refs.[@Rosa; @Lee; @leejhep; @jgrosa; @hod2013prd; @hodbhb] for the recent studies on this topic. The black hole bomb mechanism can be generalized to other cases. The first case is to study the massive bosonic field in rotating black holes, for example in [@kerrunstable; @detweiler; @strafuss; @dolan; @Hod; @hodPLB2012; @konoplyaPLB; @DiasPRD2006; @zhangw; @dolanprd2013], where the mass term can play the role of the reflecting mirror. In this case, the wave will be trapped in the potential well outside of the hole and the amplitude will grow exponentially, which triggers the instability of the system. The second case is to study the bosonic field perturbation in black hole background with the Dirichlet boundary condition at asymptotic infinity. These background spacetimes include the black holes in AdS spacetime [@cardoso2004ads; @cardoso2006prd; @KKZ; @aliev; @uchikata; @rlplb; @zhang], the black holes in Gödel universe [@knopolya; @rlepjc], and the black hole in linear dilaton background [@clement; @randilaton]. In all these spacetimes, the Dirichlet boundary condition provides the reflecting mirror, which results in the instabilities of the systems.
For a charged scalar wave in the background of the spherical symmetric charged black hole, if the frequency of this impinging wave satisfying the superradiant condition, the wave will also undergo the superradiant process when scattered by the horizon [@bekenstein]. However, it is proved by Hod in [@hodrnplb2012; @hodrnplb2013] that, for the Reissner-Nordström (RN) black holes, the existence of a trapping potential well outside the black hole and superradiant amplification of the trapped modes cannot be satisfied simultaneously. This means that the RN black holes are stable under the perturbations of massive charged scalar fields. Soon after, Degollado et. al. [@Degolladoprd; @Degollado] found that the same system can be made unstable by adding a mirror-like boundary condition like the case of the Kerr black hole. However, whether all of the charged black holes have the similar properties as the RN black hole is still an interesting question deserves further studies.
In [@liprd], we shown that the mass term of the scalar field in the charged stringy black hole is never able to generate a potential well outside the event horizon to trap the superradiant modes. This is to say that the charged stringy black hole is stable against the massive charged scalar perturbation. In this paper, we will further study the superradiant instability of the massless scalar field in the background of the charged stringy black hole due to a mirror-like boundary condition.
This black hole is a the static spherical symmetric charged black holes in low energy effective theory of heterotic string theory in four dimensions, which is firstly found by Gibbons and Maeda in [@GM] and independently found by Garfinkle, Horowitz, and Strominger in [@GHS] a few years later. The metric is given by $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2&=&-\left(1-\frac{2M}{r}\right)dt^2+\left(1-\frac{2M}{r}\right)^{-1}
dr^2\nonumber\\
&&+r\left(r-\frac{Q^2}{M}\right)(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2)\;,
\end{aligned}$$ and the electric field and the dilaton field $$\begin{aligned}
&&A_t=-\frac{Q}{r}\;,\nonumber\\
&&e^{2\Phi}=1-\frac{Q^2}{Mr}\;.
\end{aligned}$$
The parameters $M$ and $Q$ are the mass and electric charge of the black hole respectively. The event horizon of black hole is located at $r=2M$. The area of the sphere of the charged stringy black hole approaches to zero when $r=Q^2/M$. Therefore, the sphere surface of the radius $r=Q^2/M$ is singular. When $Q^2\leq 2M^2$, this singular surface is surrounded by the event horizon. We will consider the black hole with the parameters satisfying the condition $Q^2\leq 2M^2$ in this paper. When $Q^2=2M^2$, the singular surface coincides with the event horizon. This is the case of extremal black hole.
We start with analysing the scalar field perturbation in the background of the charged stringy black hole. The dynamics of the charged massless scalar field perturbation is governed by the Klein-Gordon equation $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla_\nu-iqA_\nu)(\nabla^\nu-iqA^\nu)\Psi=0\;,
\end{aligned}$$ where $q$ denote the charge of the scalar field. By taking the ansatz of the scalar field $\Psi=e^{-i\omega t}R(r)Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)$, where $\omega$ is the conserved energy of the mode, $l$ is the spherical harmonic index, and $m$ is the azimuthal harmonic index with $-l\leq k\leq l$, one can deduce the radial wave equation in the form of $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\frac{d}{dr}\left(\Delta \frac{dR}{dr}\right)+UR=0\;,
\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced a new function $\Delta=\left(r-r_+\right)\left(r-r_-\right)$ with $r_+=2M$ and $r_-=Q^2/M$, and the potential function is given by $$\begin{aligned}
U=\left(r-\frac{Q^2}{M}\right)^2(\omega r-qQ)^2-\Delta l(l+1)\;.
\end{aligned}$$
The classical superradiance phenomenon for the scalar field perturbation is present in charged stringy black hole [@dilatonsr]. In particular, by studying the asymptotic solutions of the radial wave equation near the horizon and at spatial infinity with the appropriate boundary conditions, one can obtain the superradiant condition of the charged scalar field [@liprd] $$\begin{aligned}
\omega<q\Phi_H\;,
\end{aligned}$$ with $\Phi_H=\frac{Q}{2M}$ being the electric potential at the horizon.
It has been shown by analyzing the behavior of the effective potential that for both the nonextremal black holes and the extremal black holes there is no potential well which is separated from the horizon by a potential barrier. Thus, the superradiant modes of charged scalar field can not be trapped and lead to the instabilities of the black holes. This indicates that the extremal and the nonextremal charged black holes in string theory are stable against the charged scalar field perturbations [@liprd].
In this paper, we will make the black hole unstable by placing a reflecting mirror outside of the hole. More precisely, we will impose the mirror’s boundary condition that the scalar field vanishes at the mirror’s location $r_m$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(r=r_m)=0
\end{aligned}$$ The complex frequencies satisfying the purely ingoing boundary at the black hole horizon and the mirror’s boundary condition are called boxed quasinormal (BQN) frequencies [@cardoso2004bomb]. The scalar modes in the superradiant regime will bounce back and forth between event horizon and mirror. Meanwhile, the energy extracted from black hole by means of superradiance process will grow exponentially. This will cause the instability of the black hole mirror system. In the following, we will present an analytical calculations of BQN frequencies in a certain limit and show the instability in the superradiant regime caused by the mirror’s boundary condition.
Now we will employ the matched asymptotic expansion method [@page; @unruh] to compute the unstable modes of a charged scalar field in this black hole mirror system. We shall assume that the Compton wavelength of the scalar particles is muck larger than the typical size of the black hole, i.e. $1/\omega\gg M$. With this assumption, we can divide the space outside the event horizon into two regions, namely, a near-region, $r-r_+\ll 1/\omega$, and a far-region, $r-r_+\gg M$. The approximated solution can be obtained by matching the near-region solution and the far-region solution in the overlapping region $M\ll r-r_+\ll 1/\omega$. At last, we can impose the mirror’s boundary condition to obtain the analytical expression of the unstable modes in this system.
Firstly, let us focus on the near-region in the vicinity of the event horizon, $\omega(r-r_+)\ll 1$. The radial wave function can be reduced to the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\partial_r(\Delta\partial_rR(r))
+\left[(r_+-r_-)^2\varpi^2
-l(l+1)\Delta\right]R(r)=0\;,
\end{aligned}$$ with the parameter $\varpi$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\varpi=r_+(\omega-q\Phi_H)\;.
\end{aligned}$$ Introducing the new coordinate variable $$\begin{aligned}
z=\frac{r-r_+}{r-r_-}\;,
\end{aligned}$$ the near-region radial wave equation can be rewritten in the form of $$\begin{aligned}
z\partial_z(z\partial_z R(z))
+\left[\varpi^2-l(l+1)\frac{z}{(1-z)^2}\right]R(z)=0\;.
\end{aligned}$$ Through defining $$\begin{aligned}
R=z^{i\varpi}(1-z)^{l+1}F(z)\;,
\end{aligned}$$ the near-region radial wave equation becomes the standard hypergeometric equation $$\begin{aligned}
z(1-z)\partial_z^2F(z)+[c-(1+a+b)]\partial_zF(z)-abF(z)=0\;,
\end{aligned}$$ with the parameters $$\begin{aligned}
a&=&l+1+2i\varpi\;,\nonumber\\
b&=&l+1\;,\nonumber\\
c&=&1+2i\varpi\;.
\end{aligned}$$
In the neighborhood of $z=0$, the general solution of the radial wave equation is then given in terms of the hypergeometric function [@handbook] $$\begin{aligned}
R&=&Az^{-i\varpi}(1-z)^{l+1}F(l+1,l+1-2i\varpi,1-2i\varpi,z)
\nonumber\\
&&+Bz^{i\varpi}(1-z)^{l+1}F(l+1,l+1+2i\varpi,1+2i\varpi,z)\;.
\end{aligned}$$ It is obvious that the first term represents the ingoing wave at the horizon, while the second term represents the outgoing wave at the horizon. Because we are considering the classical superradiance process, the ingoing boundary condition at the horizon should be employed. Then we have to set $B=0$. The physical solution of the radial wave equation corresponding to the ingoing wave at the horizon is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
R=Az^{-i\varpi}(1-z)^{l+1}F(l+1,l+1-2i\varpi,1-2i\varpi,z)\;.
\end{aligned}$$
In the far-region, $r-r_+\gg M$, the effects induced by the black hole can be neglected. The metric is reduced to be the Minkowski metric in the spherical coordinates. Then the radial wave equation reduces to the wave equation of a scalar field in the flat background $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_r^2(rR(r))+\left[\omega^2-\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\right](rR(r))=0\;.
\end{aligned}$$ This equation can be solved by the Bessel function, which is given by [@handbook] $$\begin{aligned}
R=r^{-1/2}\left[\alpha J_{l+1/2}(\omega r)+\beta J_{-l-1/2}(\omega r)\right]\;.
\end{aligned}$$
In order to match the far-region solution with the near-region solution, we should study the large $r$ behavior of the near-region solution and the small $r$ behavior of the far-region solution. For the sake of this purpose, we can us the $z\rightarrow 1-z$ transformation law for the hypergeometric function [@handbook] $$\begin{aligned}
F(a,b,c;z)&=&\frac{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(c-a-b)}{\Gamma(c-a)\Gamma(c-b)}
F(a,b,a+b-c+1;1-z)\nonumber\\
&&+(1-z)^{c-a-b}
\frac{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(a+b-c)}{\Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)}\nonumber\\
&&\times
F(c-a,c-b,c-a-b+1;1-z)\;\;.
\end{aligned}$$ By employing this formula and using the properties of hypergeometric function $F(a,b,c,0)=1$, we can get the large $r$ behavior of the near-region solution as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nearsolutionlarge}
R&\sim& A\Gamma(1-2i\varpi)\left[\frac{(r_+-r_-)^{-l}\Gamma(2l+1)}
{\Gamma(l+1)\Gamma(l+1-2i\varpi)}r^{l}\right.
\nonumber\\&&\left.
+\frac{(r_+-r_-)^{l+1}\Gamma(-2l-1)}
{\Gamma(-l)\Gamma(-l-2i\varpi)}r^{-l-1}\right]\;.
\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, using the asymptotic form of the Bessel function [@handbook], $J_\nu(z)=(z/2)^\nu/\Gamma(\nu+1)\;(z\ll 1)$, one can the small $r$ behavior of the far-region solution as $$\begin{aligned}
R\sim \alpha \frac{(\omega/2)^{l+1/2}}{\Gamma(l+3/2)}r^l
+\beta\frac{(\omega/2)^{-l-1/2}}{\Gamma(-l+1/2)}r^{-l-1}\;.
\end{aligned}$$
By comparing the large $r$ behavior of the near-region solution with the small $r$ behavior of the far-region solution, one can conclude that there exists the overlapping region $M\ll r-r_+\ll 1/\omega$ where the two solutions should match. This matching yields the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\beta}{\alpha}&=&\frac{\Gamma(-l+1/2)}{\Gamma(l+3/2)}
\frac{\Gamma(l+1)}{\Gamma(2l+1)}
\frac{\Gamma(-2l-1)}{\Gamma(-l)}
\frac{\Gamma(l+1-2i\varpi)}{\Gamma(-l-2i\varpi)}\nonumber\\
&&
\times\left(\frac{\omega}{2}\right)^{2l+1}(r_+-r_-)^{2l+1}\;.
\end{aligned}$$ By using the property of Gamma function, $\Gamma(x+1)=x\Gamma(x)$, one can easily derive these relations $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{\Gamma(-l+1/2)}{\Gamma(l+3/2)}=\frac{(-1)^l 2^{2l+1}}{(2l-1)!!(2l+1)!!}\;,\nonumber\\
&&\frac{\Gamma(-2l-1)}{\Gamma(-l)}=\frac{(-1)^{l+1}l!}{(2l+1)!}\;,\nonumber\\
&&\frac{\Gamma(l+1-2i\varpi)}{\Gamma(-l-2i\varpi)}
=(-1)^{l+1}2i\varpi \prod_{k=1}^{l}(k^2+4\varpi^2)\;.
\end{aligned}$$ Applying these formulas into the matching condition, one can derive $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\beta}{\alpha}&=&2i\varpi \frac{(-1)^l}{(2l+1)}
\left(\frac{l!}{(2l-1)!!}\right)^2
\frac{(r_+-r_-)^{2l+1}}{(2l)!(2l+1)!} \nonumber\\
&&\times \prod_{k=1}^{l}(k^2+4\varpi^2) \omega^{2l+1}\;.
\end{aligned}$$
Now we want to impose the mirror’s boundary condition to study the unstable modes. We assume that the mirror is placed near the infinity at a radius $r=r_m$. The far-region radial solution should vanish when reflected by the mirror. This yields the extra condition between the amplitudes $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of the far-region radial solution, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\beta}{\alpha}=-\frac{J_{l+1/2}(\omega r_m)}{J_{-l-1/2}(\omega r_m)}\;.
\end{aligned}$$
This mirror condition together with the matching condition give us the following equation which determines the BQN frequencies of the scalar field in this black hole mirror system $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{J_{l+1/2}(\omega r_m)}{J_{-l-1/2}(\omega r_m)}
&=&2i\varpi \frac{(-1)^{l+1}}{(2l+1)}
\left(\frac{l!}{(2l-1)!!}\right)^2
\frac{(r_+-r_-)^{2l+1}}{(2l)!(2l+1)!}\nonumber\\
&&\times \prod_{k=1}^{l}(k^2+4\varpi^2) \omega^{2l+1}\;.
\end{aligned}$$
For the very small $\omega$, the analytical solution of BQN frequencies can be found from the above relation. In this case, the right hand side of the above relation is very small and then can be set to be zero. This means that $$\begin{aligned}
J_{l+1/2}(\omega r_m)=0\;.
\end{aligned}$$ The real zeros of the Bessel functions were well studied. We shall label the $n$th positive zero of the Bessel function $J_{l+1/2}$ as $j_{l+1/2,n}$. Then we can get $$\begin{aligned}
\omega r_m=j_{l+1/2,n}\;.
\end{aligned}$$ In the first approximation for BQN frequencies, the solution of the eq.(26) has a small imaginary part, which can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{BQN}=\frac{j_{l+1/2,n}}{r_m}+i\delta\;,
\end{aligned}$$ where the introduced imaginary part $\delta$ is small enough comparing the real part of BQN frequency.It can be considered as a correction to eq.(28). For the small $\delta$, we can use the Taylor expansion of Bessel function $J_{l+1/2}(\omega r_m)=i\delta r_m J'_{l+1/2}(j_{l+1/2,n})$. Then the equation (26) can be reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
i\delta r_m
\frac{J'_{l+1/2}(j_{l+1/2,n})}{J_{-l-1/2}(j_{l+1/2,n})}
=2i\varpi \frac{(-1)^{l+1}}{(2l+1)}
\left(\frac{l!}{(2l-1)!!}\right)^2&&\nonumber\\
\times\frac{(r_+-r_-)^{2l+1}}{(2l)!(2l+1)!}
\prod_{k=1}^{l}(k^2+4\varpi^2) \left(\frac{j_{l+1/2,n}}{r_m}\right)^{2l+1}\;.&&
\end{aligned}$$ From this we can easily obtain the small imaginary part of the BQN frequencies as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta=-\gamma \left(\frac{j_{l+1/2,n}}{r_m}-q\Phi_H\right) \frac{(-1)^lJ_{-l-1/2}(j_{l+1/2,n})}{J'_{l+1/2}(j_{l+1/2,n})}\;,
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma=\frac{2}{(2l+1)}\left(\frac{l!}{(2l-1)!!}\right)^2
\frac{r_+(r_+-r_-)^{2l+1}}{r_m(2l)!(2l+1)!}&&\nonumber\\
\times\left(\prod_{k=1}^{l}(k^2+4\varpi^2)\right)
\left(\frac{j_{l+1/2,n}}{r_m}\right)^{2l+1}\;.&&
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $\gamma$ is always greater than zero, and $(-1)^lJ_{-l-1/2}(j_{l+1/2,n})$ and $J'_{l+1/2}(j_{l+1/2,n})$ always have the same sign. So we have $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \propto -(\textrm{Re}[\omega_{BQN}]-q\Phi_H)\;.
\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that, in the superradiance regime, $\textrm{Re}[\omega_{BQN}]-q\Phi_H<0$, the imaginary part of the complex BQN frequency $\delta>0$. The scalar field has the time dependence $e^{-i\omega t}=e^{-i \textrm{Re}[\omega] t}e^{\delta t}$, which implies the exponential amplification of superradiance modes. This indicates that the BQN frequencies in the superradiant regime is unstable for the charged scalar field in the stringy black hole with a mirror placed outside of the hole.
Here, we shall discuss our analytical result briefly. The instability time scaling that characterizes the composed black hole mirror system is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\tau=\frac{1}{\delta}\;.
\end{aligned}$$ Firstly, the imaginary part of the complex BQN frequency $\delta$ decreases when the mirror’s radius $r_m$ increases. This means that the instability time scaling becomes larger for the larger mirror radius.
Secondly, from equation (29), we can observe that wave frequencies of these unstable superradiant modes is propotional to the inverse of the mirror radius. When the mirror radius decreases, the allowed wave frequencies will increase. The superradiant condition then restricts that the mirror can not be placed very near the horizon. There exist a critical radius $r_m^{crit}$ at which this instability disappears. From the analytical result, one can obtain the critical radius is given by $$\begin{aligned}
r_m^{crit}=\frac{j_{l+1/2,n}}{q\Phi_H}\;.
\end{aligned}$$ However, from the above equation, one can see that we can still place the mirror at a very small radius as long as the charge $q$ of the scalar field is big enough.
At last, one can also observe that $\delta$ grows with the charge $q$ of the scalar field. This implies the instability becomes more stronger as $q$ increases. So one can expect that, for the large $q$ and small $r_m$, the instability time scale of this charge spherical symmetric black hole mirror system will become very short. This result is different from the rotating black hole mirror system. For the rotating black hole [@cardoso2004bomb], the superradiant condition is given by $\omega<m\Phi_H$, where $m$ and $\Phi_H$ are the azimuthal number and the angular velocity of the horizon, respectively. The value of $m$ can not be taken arbitrarily large because of the limit condition $m\leq l$ with $l$ being the spherical harmonic index.
In summary, we have studied the instability of the massless charged scalar field in the stringy black hole mirror system. By imposing the mirror boundary condition, we have analytically calculated the expression of BQN frequencies. Based on this result, we also point out that the black hole mirror system becomes extremely unstable for the large charge $q$ of scalar field and the small mirror radius $r_m$. In [@hod2013prd], it is deduced by Hod using the analytical method that, for the RN black hole, the instability time scale can be made arbitrary short in special limit. So, the analytical computation and the numerical simulation are still required to verify the conclusion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by NSFC, China (Grant No. 11205048).
[99]{}
W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, Nature (London) **238**, 211 (1972).
Ya. B. Zel’dovich, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **14**, 270 (1971) \[JETP Lett. **14**, 180 (1971)\]; Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **62**, 2076 (1972) \[Sov. Phys. JETP **35**, 1085 (1972)\].
J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. **178**, 347 (1972).
C. W. Misner, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. **17**, 472(1972).
A. A. Starobinsky, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **64**, 48 (1973) \[Sov. Phys. JETP **37**, 28 ( 1973)\]; A. A. Starobinsky and S. M. Churilov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **65**, 3 (1973) \[Sov. Phys. JETP **38**, 1 (1973)\].
V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, J. P. S. Lemos, and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D **70**, 044039 (2004).
J. G. Rosa, JHEP **1006**, 015(2010).
J.-P. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A **27**, 1250038(2012).
J.-P. Lee, JHEP **1201**, 091(2012).
J. G. Rosa, JHEP **02**, 014(2013).
S. Hod, Phys. Rew. D **88**, 064055 (2013).
S. Hod, Phys. Rew. D **88**, 124007 (2013).
T. Damour, N. Deruelle, and R. Ruffini, Lett. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. **15**, 257(1976).
S. Detweiler, Phys. Rev. D **22**, 2323(1980); T. M. Zouros, and D. M. Eardley, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) **118**, 139(1979); H. Furuhashi and Y. Nambu, Prog. Theor. Phys. **112**, 983(2004).
M. J. Strafuss and G. Khanna, Phys. Rev. D **71**, 024034(2005).
S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D **76**, 084001(2007).
S. Hod, and O. Hod, Phys. Rev. D **81**, 061502(2010).
S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B **708**, 320(2012).
R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Lett. B, **666**, 283(2008).
O. J. C. Dias, Phys. Rev. D **73**, 124035(2006).
S.-J. Zhang, B. Wang, E. Abdalla, arXiv: 1306.0932.
S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D **87**, 124026 (2013).
V. Cardoso, and O. J. C. Dias, Phys. Rev. D **70**, 084011(2004).
V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D **74**, 044008(2006).
H. Kodama, R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D **79**, 044003(2009).
A. N. Aliev, and O. Delice, Phys. Rev. D **79**, 024013(2009).
N. Uchikata, and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D **83**, 064020(2011).
R. Li, Phys. Lett. B **714**, 337(2012).
S.-J. Zhang, Q. Pan, B. Wang, E. Abdalla, JHEP **09**, 101 (2013).
R. A. Konoplya, and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D **84**, 104022(2011).
R. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C **73**, 2274(2013).
G. Clement, D. Galtsov and C. Leygnac, Phys. Rev. D **67**, 024012(2003).
R. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C **73**, 2296(2013).
J.D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D **7** (1973) 949.
S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B **718** (2013) 1489.
S. Hod, Phy. Lett. B **713** (2012) 505.
J. C. Degollado, C. A. R. Herdeiro, and H. F. Runarsson, Phys. Rev. D **88**, 063003 (2013).
J. C. Degollado, C. A. R. Herdeiro, arxiv: 1312.4579\[gr-qc\].
R. Li, Phys. Rev. D **88**, 127901 (2013).
G. W. Gibbons and K. Maeda, Nucl. Phys. B **298**, 741(1998).
D. Garfinkle, G. T. Horowitz, and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. **D**43(1991)3140.
K. Shiraishi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A **7**, 3449 (1992); J. Koga and K. Maeda, Phys. Lett. B **340**, 29 (1994).
D.N. Page, Phys. Rev. D **13**, 198(1976).
W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D **14**, 3251(1976).
M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, *Handbook of Mathematical Function* (Dover Publications, New York, 1970).
[^1]: Electronic mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The higher dimensional Frobenius problem was introduced by a preceding paper \[Fan, Rao and Zhang, Higher dimensional Frobenius problem: maximal saturated cones, growth function and rigidity, Preprint 2014\]. In this paper, we investigate the Lipschitz equivalence of dust-like self-similar sets in $\R^d$. For any self-similar set, we associate with it a higher dimensional Frobenius problem, and we show that the directional growth function of the associate higher dimensional Frobenius problem is a Lipschitz invariant.
As an application, we solve the Lipschitz equivalence problem when two dust-like self-similar sets $E$ and $F$ have coplanar ratios, by showing that they are Lipschitz equivalent if and only if the contraction vector of the $p$-th iteration of $E$ is a permutation of that of the $q$-th iteration of $F$ for some $p, q\geq 1$. This partially answers a question raised by Falconer and Marsh \[On the Lipschitz equivalence of Cantor sets, *Mathematika,* **39** (1992), 223–233\].
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Hua Zhong Normal University, Wuhan 430072, China'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Hua Zhong Normal University, Wuhan 430072, China'
author:
- Hui Rao
- 'Yuan Zhang$\dagger$'
title: Higher dimensional Frobenius problem and Lipschitz equivalence of Cantor sets
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
introduction
============
Let $ E,F$ be subsets of $\R^d $. We say that $ E$ and $F $ are *Lipschitz equivalent*, write $E\sim F$, if there exists a bijection $ f: E\rightarrow F$ and a constant $ C>0$ such that $$C^{-1}\mid x-y \mid \leq \mid f(x)-f(y)\mid \leq C\mid x-y \mid$$ for all $ x,y \in E.$
An area of interest in the study of self-similar sets is the Lipschitz equivalence property. With Lipschitz equivalence many important properties of a self-similar set are preserved. The earliest works on this area are Cooper and Pignataro [@CP] (1988), Falconer and Marsh [@FaMa92] (1992), and David and Semmes [@DS] (1997). A survey on recent progress can be found in [@RRW13].
There are two different types of problems in this area. The first type problem, raised by Falconer and Marsh [@FaMa92], assumes that two self-similar sets $E$ and $F$ have nice topological property, precisely, they are dust-like, and asks how the Lipschitz equivalence relates to the contraction ratios of $E$ and $F$. The second type problem, initialled by David and Semmes [@DS], assumes that $E$ and $F$ have the same contraction ratios, and asks how the geometrical placements of the branches affect the Lipschitz equivalence.
The first progress on the second type problem was made by Rao, Ruan and Xi [@RRX06], which solved the so-called $\{1,3,5\}-\{1,4,5\}$ problem posed in [@DS]. After that, there are many generalizations and further progresses, for example, [@XiRu07; @RWX12; @DengGT1] on one dimensional case, [@XiXi10; @Ro10; @XiXi12] on higher dimensional case, [@DengGT2; @Lau13] on self-similar sets that are not totally discrete.
The first type problem is more tricky, and there is no progress until recent works of Rao, Ruan and Wang [@RRW12] (2012) and Xiong and Xi [@XiXi13] (2013). The work [@RRW12] introduced a matchable condition, and showed that two dust-like self-similar sets must satisfy a matchable condition if they are Lipschitz equivalent; as applications, the authors solved the problem if both self-similar sets have full rank or both of them are two-branch self-similar sets. Xiong and Xi [@XiXi13] studied the problem when $E$ and $F$ have rank $1$. They showed that if the Hausdorff dimension is fixed, the number of different Lipschitz equivalence class equals the class number of the field generated by the ratios.
For related works on Lipschitz equivalence of other fractals, see [@FaMa89] on quasi-circles, [@Xi04] on self-conformal sets, [@MS08; @Llo09] on bi-Lipschitz embedding of self-similar sets, [@RRY08] on general Cantor sets, [@LLM] on Bedford-McMullen carpets.
Recall that a self-similar set is the attractor of an iterated function system (IFS). Let $\{\phi_j\}_{j=1}^{m}$ be an IFS on $\mathbb{R}^d ~$, where each $ \phi_j$ is a contractive similarity with contraction ratio $ 0< \rho_j<1$. The attractor of the IFS is the unique nonempty compact set $E$ satisfying $E=\bigcup_{j=1}^m \phi_j(E)$. We say that the attractor $E$ is *dust-like*, or alternatively, the IFS $\{\phi_j\}$ satisfies the *strong separation condition*, if the sets $ \{\phi_j( E)\}$ are disjoint. It is well known that if $E$ is dust-like, then the Hausdorff dimension $ \delta=\dim_{H}(E)$ of $E$ satisfies $\sum_{j=1}^m \rho_j^\delta=1.$ See [@Hut81; @Fal-book2].
For any $ \rho_1,\dots,\rho_m \in (0,1)$ with $ \sum_{j=1}^m \rho_j^d<1$, we will call $ \boldsymbol{\rho}=(\rho_{1},\cdot\cdot\cdot,\rho_{m})$ a *contraction vector*, and use the notation ${\cal D}(\boldsymbol{\rho})={\cal D}( \rho_1, \dots,\rho_m) $ to denote the set of all dust-like self-similar sets with contraction ratios $ \rho_j, \ j=1,\dots,m $. All sets in $ {\cal D}(\boldsymbol{\rho})$ have the same Hausdorff dimension, which we denote by $\dim_{H}{\cal D}(\boldsymbol{\rho})$. It is well-known that the elements in ${\cal D}(\rho_1,\dots,\rho_m)$ are Lipschitz equivalent to each other; hence we denote ${\cal D}(\boldsymbol{\rho})\sim {\cal D}(\boldsymbol{\tau})$, if $E \sim F$ for some (and thus for all) $E \in {\cal D}(\boldsymbol{\rho})$ and $F \in {\cal D}(\boldsymbol{\tau}).$ See [@FaMa92; @RRW12].
In the study of Lipschitz equivalence, a main idea is to construct Lipschitz invariants. Falconer and Marsh [@FaMa92] introduced Lipschitz invariants related to the algebraic properties of the contraction ratios. Let $\langle \rho_1,\dots,\rho_m \rangle$, or $\langle{{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}\rangle$, denote the subgroup of $( \mathbb{R}^{+} ,\times)~$ generated by $ \rho_1,\dots,\rho_m$; let $sgp(a_1,\dots, a_m)$ denote the multiplicative semi-group generated by $a_1,\dots, a_m$; let $\mathbb{Q}(a_1,\dots,a_m)$ denote the subfield of $\mathbb{R}$ generated by $\mathbb{Q}$ and $a_1,\dots,a_m$.
The *rank* of $\langle{{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}\rangle$, which we denote by rank $\langle \boldsymbol{\rho}\rangle$, is defined to be the cardinality of the basis of $\langle \rho_{1},\cdot\cdot\cdot,\rho_{m} \rangle~$.
\[FM-theo\] ([@FaMa92]) Let ${\cal D}(\rho_1,\dots, \rho_m )\sim {\cal D}(\tau_1,\dots, \tau_n) $, and $\delta$ be their common Hausdorff dimension. Then
1. There exist positive integers $p,~q$ such that $$sgp(\rho_1^p,\dots,\rho_m^p)\subseteq sgp(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_n),\quad
sgp(\tau_1^q,\dots,\tau_n^q)\subseteq sgp(\rho_1,\dots,\rho_m);$$
2. $\mathbb{ Q}(\rho_1^\delta,\dots,\rho_m^\delta)=\mathbb{ Q}(\tau_1^\delta,\dots,\tau_n^\delta).$
Property (ii) shows that $\Q(\rho_1^\delta,\dots, \rho_m^\delta)$ is a Lipschitz invariant. In Section 2, we show that item (i) can also be made into a Lipschitz invariant. Define $$V_{{{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}}^+=\Q^+ \log \rho_1+\cdots+\Q^+ \log \rho_m.$$
\[thm-V+\] Let ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}$ be two contraction vectors. Property (i) in Theorem \[FM-theo\] holds if and only if $V_{{{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}}^+=V_{{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}}^+.$
Xi and Ruan [@XiRu08] observed that bi-Lipschitz maps between two dust-like self-similar sets $E$ and $F$ enjoy a certain measure-preserving property. Using this property, Rao, Ruan and Wang [@RRW12] constructed a family of relations between symbolic spaces related to two dust-like self-similar sets $E$ and $F$, and showed that these relations must satisfy a *matchable condition* if they are Lipschitz equivalent. As applications, they show that
\[pro-RRW\] ([@RRW12]) Let $(\rho_1,\dots,\rho_m )$ and $(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_n)$ be two contraction vectors.
\(i) If $\text{rank}\langle{{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}\rangle=m$ and $\text{rank} \langle {{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}\rangle=n$, *i.e.*, both vectors have full rank, then ${\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}})\sim {\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\tau}}})$ if and only if ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}$ is a permutation of ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$.
\(ii) If $m=n=2$, then ${\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}})\sim {\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\tau}}})$ if and only if either ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}$ is a permutation of ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$, or there exists a real number $0<\lambda<1$ such that $
\{\rho_1,\rho_2\}=\{\lambda^5,\lambda\},\quad \{\tau_1,\tau_2\}= \{ \lambda^3,\lambda^2\}.
$
As the existing results show, the Lipschitz equivalence of self-similar sets are tightly related to the multiplicative groups generated by contraction ratios. Instead of working with the multiplicative subgroup $\langle {{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}\rangle$ it is more practical for us to work with the additive groups of $(\mathbb{Z}^s,+),$ which is associated to $\langle {{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}\rangle$ ($s$ being the rank of $\langle {{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}\rangle$). For this purpose, [@RRW12] introduced the notion of pseudo-basis.
We call positive numbers $\omega_1,\dots,\omega_s \in \R$ a *pseudo-basis* of $\langle \boldsymbol{\rho}\rangle$, or of ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$ in short, if $\langle \boldsymbol{\rho}\rangle \subset \langle \omega_1,\dots,\omega_{s} \rangle$ and $\text{rank~} \langle \boldsymbol{\rho}\rangle=s$. Clearly, $V_{{{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}}^+=V_{{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}}^+$ implies that ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}$ have a *common* pseudo-basis.
Actually, we shall fix a (common) pseudo-basis ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}=(\lambda_1,\dots, \lambda_s)$, then the group $\langle {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}\rangle$ is isomorphic to $(\mathbb{Z}^s,+),$ and $\langle {{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}\rangle$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $(\mathbb{Z}^s,+).$ This leads to the following notations.
For $x=(x_1,\dots,x_s)\in \mathbb{Z}^s,$ we define $\text{exp}_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}}: \mathbb{Z}^s\rightarrow \langle {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}\rangle$ by $$\boldsymbol{\lambda}^x=\prod_{i=1}^s{\lambda_i}^{x_i}.$$ Also, we define the inverse function $\log_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}: \langle {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}\rangle\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}^s$ as $$\log_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}z=x, \text{ where } \ z=\boldsymbol{\lambda}^x \in \langle {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}\rangle.$$
For $X_1,\dots, X_m\in \R^s$, we shall use the notation $X=\{X_1,\dots, X_m\}$ and denote $${\mathbf C}_X= \R^+X_1+\cdots+\R^+X_m.$$ to be the cone generated by $X_1,\dots, X_m$, where $\R^+$ denotes the set of non-negative real numbers. We note that $X_j$’s are not required to be distinct.
In the preceding paper Fan, Rao and Zhang [@FRZ14], we introduced the higher dimensional Frobenius problem and investigated its various properties. Especially, a *directional growth function* $\gamma_{_X}$ is defined (see Section 3). For a contraction vector $(\rho_1,\dots, \rho_m)$ with a pseudo-basis $(\lambda_1,\dots, \lambda_s)$, we can associate with it a higher dimensional Frobenius problem as follows. Set $$X_i=\log_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\rho_i, \quad i=1, \dots, m.$$ Put ${{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}=-(\log \lambda_1,\dots,\log \lambda_s ),$ then $X_j\cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}=-\log \rho_j>0$ for all $j$, where $\cdot$ denotes the inner product in $\R^s$. Therefore, the vectors $X_i$ are located in an (open) half-space of $\R^s$ and a higher dimensional Frobenius problem can be defined by the defining data $X=\{X_1,\dots, X_m\}$, called the *associate higher dimensional Frobenius problem*.
Using the matchable condition in [@RRW12], we show that the directional growth function $\gamma$ is a Lipschitz invariant, which is the main result of this paper.
\[main-1\] Let $(\rho_1,\dots,\rho_m )$ and $(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_n)$ be two contraction vectors such that ${\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}})\sim {\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\tau}}})$, let ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}$ be a common pseudo-basis of ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}$. Denote $$X_j=\log_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}\rho_j(1\leq j\leq m), \quad Y_k=\log_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}\tau_k(1\leq k\leq n).$$ Then
\(i) ${\mathbf C}_X={\mathbf C}_Y$, where $X=\{X_1,\dots, X_m\}$ and $Y=\{Y_1,\dots, Y_n\}$;
\(ii) $ \gamma_{_X}(\theta)= \gamma_{_Y}(\theta)$ for all unit vector $\theta\in {\mathbf C}_X.$
Comparing to the matchable condition, the function $\gamma$ is much easier to handle. Especially, explicit formulas of $\gamma$ are obtained in the so-called coplanar case in [@FRZ14].
[We say a contraction ratio ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$ (of rank $s$) is *coplanar*, if there exists a pseudo-basis ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}$ of $\langle {{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}\rangle$, such that $\{\log_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}} \rho_j\}$ locate in a common hyperplane of ${\mathbb R}^s$.]{}
The coplanar property is independent of the choice of the pseudo-basis, for if ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}'$ is another pseudo-basis of $\langle {{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}\rangle$, then there is an invertible matrix $L$ such that $\log_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}'} \rho_j=L \log_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}} \rho_j$ for all $j$.
We define the *$k$-th iteration* of ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$, denoted by ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}^k$, to be the vector $$(\rho_{{{\mathbf{i}}}})_{{{\mathbf{i}}}\in\{1,\dots,m\}^k},$$ where $\rho_{i_1\dots i_k}=\prod_{j=1}^k\rho_{i_j}$, and ${{\mathbf{i}}}$ is ordered by the lexicographical order. Fan, Rao and Zhang [@FRZ14] proved that, in the coplanar case, the directional growth function completely determines the defining data, see Theorem 1.6 in [@FRZ14] (or Theorem \[rigidity\] in Section 3). As a consequence, we have
\[main-2\] If ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}$ are coplanar. Then ${{\mathcal D}}({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}})\sim {{\mathcal D}}({{\boldsymbol{\tau}}})$ if and only if, there exist $p$ and $q$ such that the $p$-th iteration of ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$ is a permutation of the $q$-th iteration of ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}$.
As the following example shows, Proposition \[pro-RRW\] (i), one of the main results in [@RRW12], is a very special case of Theorem \[main-2\].
\[exam-full\] [Let $a_j, k_j, b_j, \ell_j$ ($1\leq j\leq s$) be positive integers such that $${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}=(\rho_1,\dots, \rho_m)=\left (\underbrace{\lambda_1^{k_1},\dots, \lambda_1^{k_1}}_{a_1},\dots,
\underbrace{\lambda_s^{k_s},\dots, \lambda_s^{k_s}}_{a_s} \right ),$$ $${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}=(\tau_1,\dots, \tau_n)=\left (\underbrace{\lambda_1^{\ell_1},\dots, \lambda_1^{\ell_1}}_{b_1},\dots,
\underbrace{\lambda_s^{\ell_s},\dots, \lambda_s^{\ell_s}}_{b_s} \right ).$$ Then ${\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}})\sim {\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\tau}}})$ if and only if ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$ is a permutation of ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}$. When all $a_j=b_j=1$, we obtain Proposition \[pro-RRW\](i). (We leave the simple proof to Section \[sec-final\].) ]{}
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce vector spaces as Lipschitz invariants; Theorem \[thm-V+\] and Theorem \[main-1\](i) are proved there. In Section 3, we recall the notations and results on higher dimensional Frobenius problem. Our main result, Theorem \[main-1\], is proved in Section 4. Theorem \[main-2\] is proved in Section 5.
**Lipschitz invariants**
========================
First, we show that vector spaces can serve as Lipschitz invariants. Let $(\rho_1,\dots, \rho_m)$ be a contraction vector, define $$V_{{{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}}=\Q \log \rho_1+\cdots+\Q \log \rho_m.$$ Then $(V_{{{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}},\mathbb{Q})$ is a vector space.
If ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}=(\rho_1,\dots,\rho_m)$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}=(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_n)$ possessing a common pseudo-basis ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}=(\lambda_1,\dots, \lambda_s)$, then $$V_{{{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}}=V_{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}=\Q \log \lambda_1+\cdots+\Q \log \lambda_s,$$ and so $(V_{{{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}},\mathbb{Q})$ is a Lipschitz invariant.
Theorem \[thm-V+\] asserts that $V_{{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}^+=\Q^+ \log \rho_1+\cdots+\Q^+ \log \rho_m$ is also a Lipschitz invariant.
**Proof of Theorem \[thm-V+\].** Assume that Property (i) of Proposition \[FM-theo\] holds. Notice that $\tau_1,\dots,\tau_n$ belong to the semigroup generated by $\rho_1^{1/q},\dots,\rho_m^{1/q}.$ Let $a_{ji},1\leq j \leq n,1\leq i \leq m,$ be non-negative integers such that $\tau_j=\prod_{i=1}^m(\rho_i^{1/q})^{a_{ji}},$ then $$\log \tau_j=\sum_{i=1}^m\frac{a_{ji}}{q}\log \rho_i \in V^+_{\rho}.$$ and so that $V^+_{\tau}\subset V^+_{\rho}.$ By symmetry, we have $V^+_{\rho} \subset V^+_{\tau}.$
Next, we prove the other direction. Let $a_{ji}\in\mathbb{Q}^+,1\leq j \leq n,1\leq i \leq m,$ such that $\log \tau_j=\sum_{i=1}^m a_{ji}\log \rho_i.$ Let $q>0$ be an integer such that $qa_{ji}\in \mathbb{Z}^+$ for all $i,j$. Then $\tau_j^q\in sgp(\rho_1,\dots,\rho_m)$, hence $sgp(\tau_1^q,\dots,\tau_n^q)\subseteq sgp(\rho_1,\dots,\rho_m).$ By symmetry, there exists a positive integer $p$ such that $sgp(\rho_1^p,\dots,\rho_m^p)\subseteq sgp(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_n).$ $\Box$
**Proof of Theorem \[main-1\] (i).** By Proposition \[FM-theo\] (i), there exist integers $p, k_1,\dots, k_n\geq 1$ such that $\rho_1^p=\tau_1^{k_1}\cdots \tau_n^{k_n}$. Applying $\log_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}}$ to both sides of the equation, we obtain $$X_1=\frac{k_1}{p}Y_1+\cdots +\frac{k_n}{p}Y_n.$$ Therefore $X_1\in {\mathbf C}_Y$. By the same reason $X_j\in {\mathbf C}_Y$ for all $j$ and so ${\mathbf C}_X\subset {\mathbf C}_Y$. Finally, by symmetry, we obtain ${\mathbf C}_X= {\mathbf C}_Y$. $\Box$
**Higher dimensional Frobenius Problem**
========================================
Let $a_1,\dots,a_m$ be positive integers, and assume they are coprime without loss of generality. Set $${\mathcal J}=a_1\mathbb{N}+\dots+a_m\mathbb{N},$$ where $\N=\{0,1,2,\dots\}$ denotes the set of natural numbers. Clearly ${\mathcal J}\subset \N,$ and there exists a minimum integer $g=g(a_1,\dots,a_m)$ such that $
(g+1+\mathbb{N})\subset {\mathcal J}.
$ Finding the value of $g$ is the famous *Frobenius problem*. See for instance, Ramírez-Alfonsín [@Alf05].
Fan, Rao and Zhang [@FRZ14] introduced the higher dimensional Frobenius problem and investigated the basic properties. Let $X_1,\dots,X_m$ in $\mathbb{Z}^s$ be vectors locating in a half-space, that is, there is a non-zero vector ${{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}\in {\mathbb R}^s$ such that $\ X_j\cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}>0$ for all $j=1,\dots, m,$ and assume that $X_1,\dots, X_m$ span the space $\R^s$. The concern is to understand the structure of the semi-group $$\label{equ9}
\CJ=X_1\mathbb{N}+\dots+X_m\mathbb{N}.$$
To a higher dimensional Frobenius problem, [@FRZ14] defines a *directional growth function*, which is useful for our purpose. In the rest of this section, we review the definitions and results of [@FRZ14].
Multiplicity
------------
Let $\Sigma_m^*:=\bigcup_{k=0}^{\infty}\{1,2,\dots,m \}^k$ be the set of words over the alphabet $\{1,2,\dots,m \}$, which can be also considered as a tree. For any word $\mathbf{i}=i_1\dots i_n \in \Sigma_m^*,$ we define $$\label{kappa}
\kappa (\mathbf{i})=X_{i_1}+\cdots+X_{i_n}.$$ We consider $\kappa: \Sigma_m^* \to \mathbb{Z}^s$ as the walk in $\mathbb{Z}^s$ guided by $X_1,\dots,X_m$ along with the tree $\Sigma_m^*$. Elements in $\Sigma_m^*$ are also called [*pathes*]{} of the walk and $\kappa (\mathbf{i})$ is called the [*visited position*]{} following the path $\mathbf{i} $. Clearly, a point $z\in \mathbb{Z}^s$ is a visited position (of some path) if and only if $z\in {\mathcal J}$. We define the *multiplicity* of a point $z\in\mathcal J$ to be $$\label{equ10}
{\mathbf m}(z):=\# \{\omega\in \Sigma_m^*; \ \kappa(\omega)=z\},$$ which measures how many times a position is visited. For point $x\in {\mathbf C}_X$ but not in ${\mathcal J}$, instead of setting ${\mathbf m}(x)=0$, we define ${\mathbf m}(x)$ to be the multiplicity of the point in $\CJ$ which is nearest to $x$, that is, $${\mathbf m}(x):=\min \{{\mathbf m}(z); \ z\in {\mathcal J} \text{ and } |x-z|=d(x,{\mathcal J})\},$$ where $|\cdot|$ denote the Euclidean norm and $d(x,{\mathcal J}):=\min\{|x-z|; ~z\in {\mathcal J}\}$.
The following theorem asserts that $\m(z)$ does not vary dramatically, which plays an important role in [@FRZ14] as well as in the present paper.
\[Q(x)\] ([@FRZ14]) Let $C_0$ be a positive integer. There exists a polynomial $Q(x)$ with positive coefficients such that $$ \frac{1}{Q(|z|)}\leq\frac{{\mathbf m}(z)}{{\mathbf m}({z^{'}})}\leq Q(|z|)
$$ provided that $z,z'\in {\mathcal J}$ and $|z-z'| <C_{0}.$
Directional growth function
---------------------------
The directional growth function $\gamma(\theta)$ defined below describes the exponential increasing speed of the multiplicity along the direction $\theta$.
For a unit vector $\theta\in {\mathbf C}_{X}$, the *directional growth function* is defined as $$\label{gamma}
\gamma(\theta)=\underset{k \rightarrow \infty}{\lim}\frac{\log \mathbf{m}(k\theta)}{k}$$ as soon as the limit exists.
It is shown [@FRZ14] that the above limit always exists. Moreover, according to Theorem \[Q(x)\], the limit in still exists if $k$ tends to infinity in $\R^+$ instead of in $\N$.
In general, it is difficult to obtain an explicit formula of $\gamma(\theta)$; nevertheless, explicit formulas are obtained in a special case called coplanar case.
We say $X_1,\dots, X_m$ are *coplanar*, if they locate at a same hyper-plane, *i.e.*, there exists a vector $\eta \in \R^s$ such that $$\langle \eta, X_j \rangle =1, \quad j=1,\dots, m.$$ In this case, [@FRZ14] showed that $$\label{entropy}
\gamma(\theta) = {\langle \theta, \eta \rangle } \sup \left \{ h(p);~ p_1X_1+\cdots+p_mX_m=\frac{\theta}{\langle \theta, \eta\rangle} \right \},$$ where $p=(p_1,\dots, p_m)$ is a probability vector (we allow $p_j$ to take value $0$), and $h(p)$ is the entropy of $p$ defined as $
h(p)=-\sum_{j=1}^m p_j\log p_j.
$
Rigidity results
----------------
Given two collections of vectors $X=\{X_1,\dots, X_m\}$ and $Y=\{Y_1,\dots, Y_{n}\}$, if they define the same directional growth function, *i.e.*, $${\mathbf C}_X={\mathbf C}_Y \text{ and } \gamma_X=\gamma_Y$$ what can we say about $X$ and $Y$? Rao, Ruan and Wang [@RRW12] essentially obtained the following rigidity result.
([@RRW12]) Suppose $X=\{X_1,\dots, X_s\}$ and $Y=\{Y_1,\dots, Y_{s}\}$ are two collections of linearly independent vectors in ${\mathbb Z}^s$. If they define the same directional growth function, then $X$ is a permutation of $Y$.
The rigidity property also holds in the coplanar case (but the proof is much more difficult). We define the $p$-th *iteration* of $X$ to be the vector $$X^{(p)}=\left ( X_{i_1}+\cdots+X_{i_p}\right )_{{i_1\dots i_p}\in \{1,\dots,m\}^p}.$$ For example, the second iteration of $X=\left \{ (1,0),(0,1)\right \}$ is $\left \{(2,0),(1,1),(1,1),(0,2)\right \}$.
\[rigidity\] ([@FRZ14]) Suppose both $X=\{X_1,\dots, X_m\}$ and $Y=(Y_1,\dots, Y_{n})$ are coplanar, and they define the same directional growth function. Then there exist integers $p,q\geq 1$ such that the $p$-th iteration of $X$ is a permutation of the $q$-th iteration of $Y$.
**Proof of Theorem \[main-1\] (ii)**
====================================
Let $ \boldsymbol{\rho}=(\rho_1,\dots,\rho_m)$ be a contraction vector, $E\in{\cal D}(\boldsymbol{\rho})$, and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_s)$ be a pseudo-basis of $\langle \boldsymbol{\rho} \rangle$. Set $$X_j=\log_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\rho_j ~(j=1,\dots,m)
\text{ and }
{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}=-(\log \lambda_1,\dots, \log \lambda_s)$$ as in Section 1. Then a higher dimensional Frobenius problem can be defined.
For a word $ \mathbf{i}=i_1\dots i_k \in \Sigma_m^*,$ we define $ \rho_{\mathbf{i}}=\prod_{j=1}^k \rho_{i_j};$ then $$\label{eq-r2z}
\log_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}\rho_{\mathbf i}=\kappa ({\mathbf i})=X_{i_1}+\cdots+X_{i_k}.$$
\[lem-easy\] For any ${{\mathbf{i}}}\in \Sigma_m^*$, it holds that
$\displaystyle (i) \ \log \rho_{{{\mathbf{i}}}}=-\kappa({{\mathbf{i}}})\cdot \alpha; \quad \quad
(ii) \
|{{\mathbf{i}}}|\leq \frac{ |\kappa({{\mathbf{i}}}) \cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}|}{\underset{1\leq j \leq m}\min (X_j\cdot {{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}}) }.\quad\quad\quad
$
\(i) By the definition of $\log_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}}$, we have $\rho_j=\lambda_1^{X_{j,1}}\cdots \lambda_s^{X_{j,s}}$ for all $j=1,\dots, m$. It follows that $\log \rho_j=-X_j\cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}$ for all $j$. Therefore $\log \rho_{{{\mathbf{i}}}}=-\kappa({{\mathbf{i}}})\cdot \alpha$.
\(ii) This follows from the fact $ X_j \cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}>0$ for all $j$.
Cut sets
--------
For any $t\in (0,1),$ the *cut-set* determined by the threshold $t$ is defined as $$\label{E,t}
{\cal W}_E(t):=\left \{ \mathbf{i}\in \Sigma_m^* :
\mathbf{\rho}_{\mathbf{i}}\leq t <\mathbf{\rho}_{\mathbf{i}^*} \right \}$$ where $\mathbf{i}^*$ is the word obtained by deleting the last letter of $\mathbf{i},$ *i.e.*, $\mathbf{i}^*=i_1,\dots,i_{k-1}$ if $\mathbf{i}=i_1,\dots,i_k.$ (We define $ \rho_{\mathbf{i}^*}=1$ if the length of $\mathbf{i}$ equals $1.$) (see [@Fal-book2]).
For $k\in \mathbb{N}^+,$ set $$\label{eq-AkE}
{\cal A}_{k,E}={\cal A}_k:=\left \{\log_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}} \rho_{{{\mathbf{i}}}};~ {{\mathbf{i}}}\in {\cal W}_E(e^{-k})\right\}.$$ Then, by , ${\cal A}_{k}$ are subsets of $\CJ:=X_1\N+\cdots +X_m\N$. The following lemma describes the distribution of ${\cal A}_k$. See Figure \[fig-Ak\].
\[chikaku\] (i) For any ${\mathbf b}'\in {\mathcal A}_k$, it holds that $$\label{equ-b'}
k\leq {\mathbf b}'\cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}< k-\log \rho_{\min},$$ where $\rho_{\min}=\underset{1\leq j\leq m}{\min}\rho_j$.
\(ii) There is a constant $C_1$ (independent of $k$) such that $$d(x, {\cal A}_{k})<C_1$$ for all $x\in {\mathbf C}_X$ with $x \cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}=k$.
\(i) Take any ${\mathbf b}'=\kappa({\mathbf i}) \in {\mathcal A}_k$. Then $
e^{-k} \rho_{\min} < \rho_{\mathbf{i}} \leq e^{-k},
$ so, taking logarithm at all sides of the inequality and using Lemma \[lem-easy\](i), we obtain .
\(ii) By Lemma 2.2 in [@FRZ14], there is a constant $R_0$ such that ${\mathcal J}$ is *$R_0$-relatively dense* in ${\mathbf C}_X$ , that is, for any $x\in {\mathbf C}_X$, there exists $y\in \CJ$ such that $|x-y|<R_0$.
Take any $x\in {\mathbf C}_X$ on the hyperplane $x \cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}=k$. Let ${\mathbf b}$ be a point in ${\mathcal J}$ such that $|x-{\mathbf b}|\leq R_0$, then, by the triangle inequality, $$\label{equ-b}
k-R_0|{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}|\leq {\mathbf b} \cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}\leq k+R_0|{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}|.$$ Let ${{\mathbf{i}}}=i_1 \dots i_l\in \Sigma_m^*$ be a path such that $\kappa({{\mathbf{i}}})={\mathbf b}.$
If $\rho_{i_1 \dots i_l}\leq e^{-k}, $ then there exists $p\leq l$ such that $i_1\dots i_p\in {\cal W}_E(e^{-k})$. Set ${\mathbf b}'=\log_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}}\rho_{i_1\dots i_p}$. Then and imply that $$| ({\mathbf b}-{\mathbf b}')\cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}|\leq -\log \rho_{\min}+R_0|{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}|,$$ so, since ${\mathbf b}-{\mathbf b}'=X_{i_{p+1}}+\cdots+X_{i_l}$, by Lemma \[lem-easy\](ii), we have $$|l-p| \leq \frac{-\log\rho_{\min}+R_0|{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}|}{\underset{1\leq j \leq m}\min (X_j\cdot {{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}}) }:=C',$$ and $$|{\mathbf b}-{\mathbf b}'|
\leq C'\underset{1\leq j\leq m}\max|X_j|.$$
If $\rho_{i_1,\dots,i_l}>e^{-k},$ then there exists $i_{l+1}\dots i_p\in \Sigma_m^*$ such that $i_1\dots i_li_{l+1}\dots i_p\in {\cal W}_E(e^{-k}).$ An argument similar as above shows that all the above relations still hold.
Hence, we always have $\displaystyle
|x-{\mathbf b}'|\leq R_0+C'\underset{1\leq j\leq m}\max|X_j|:=C_1,
$ which proves (ii).
![ Distribution of ${\mathcal A}_k$. The solid line is the hyperplane $x\cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}=k$, and the dot line is the hyperplane $x\cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}=k-\log \rho_{\min}$. []{data-label="fig-Ak"}](RaoZh02.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}\
Matchable condition
-------------------
Let $E$ and $F$ be two dust-like self-similar sets with contraction vectors $\boldsymbol{\rho}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tau}$, respectively. Suppose $\boldsymbol{\rho}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ have a common pseudo-basis $\boldsymbol{\lambda}=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_s)$. Let $h$ be a distance on the group $ \langle \boldsymbol{\rho},\boldsymbol{\tau}\rangle$ defined by $$\label{dis}
h(x_1,x_2):=|\log_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}x_1-\log_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}x_2 |.$$ Denote $\#A$ the cardinality of a set $A$.
([@RRW12]) Let $M_0>0$ be a constant and $t\in (0,1).$ We say that ${\cal W}_E(t)$ and ${\cal W}_F(t)$ are $(M_0,h)$-*matchable*, or simply $M_0$-matchable, if there exists a relation $ {\cal R}\subset {\cal W}_E(t)\times {\cal W}_F(t)$ such that
- $1\leq \# \{ \mathbf{j}:( \mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}) \in {\cal R}\}\leq M_0$ for any $\mathbf{i}\in {\cal W}_E(t) $, and\
$1\leq \# \{ \mathbf{i}:( \mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}) \in {\cal R}\}\leq M_0$ for any $\mathbf{j}\in {\cal W}_F(t); $
- If $ ( \mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}) \in {\cal R},$ then $h(\rho_{\mathbf{i}},\tau_{\mathbf{j}})\leq M_0.$
The matchable condition is necessary for bi-Lipschitz equivalence.
\[thm-match\] ([@RRW12]) Let $E$ and $F$ be two dust-like self-similar sets. If $E\sim F,$ then there exists a constant $M_0$ such that for all $t\in(0,1),$ ${\cal W}_E(t) $ and $ {\cal W}_F(t)$ are $M_0$-matchable.
We shall use $\m_E$ to denote the multiplicity function of the higher dimensional Frobenius problem associated with $E$, and $\m_F$ the function corresponding to $F$. Similarly, let $\gamma_E$ and $\gamma_F$ be the directional growth function corresponding to $E$ and $F$, respectively; let $\CJ_E$ and $\CJ_F$ be the semi-group corresponding to $E$ and $F$ respectively.
**Proof of Theorem \[main-1\] (ii).**
-------------------------------------
Suppose $E\sim F$. Let $M_0$ be the constant in Theorem \[thm-match\]. Then, for each $k\ge 1,$ there exists an $M_0$-matchable relation ${\cal R}_k$ between $ {\cal W}_E(e^{-k})$ and $ {\cal W}_F(e^{-k}).$
First, ${\mathbf C}_{X}={\mathbf C}_{Y}$ by Theorem \[main-1\] (i), and we denote this common cone by ${\mathbf C}$.
Fix a unit vector $\theta\in {\mathbf C}$ and $k\geq 1$. Denote $${O}_{k}=\frac{k\theta} {\theta \cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}},$$ then $O_k \cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}=k$. Let $w_{k,E}$ be a point in ${\mathcal A}_{k,E}$ such that $$\label{OK-1}
|w_{k,E}-O_{k}|<C_1,$$ where $C_1$ is the constant in Lemma \[chikaku\]; similarly, let $w_{k, F}$ be a point in ${\mathcal A}_{k,F}$ such that $$\label{OK-2}
|w_{k,F}-O_{k}|<C_1.$$ (Here we choose $C_1$ such that Lemma \[chikaku\] holds for $E$ and $F$ simultaneously.) We claim
*Claim 1. There exists a polynomial $P(x)$ (independent of $\theta$) with positive coefficients such that $$\frac{{{\mathbf{m}}}_E(w_{k,E}) }{{{\mathbf{m}}}_F(w_{k,F})}\leq P(k)$$ for all $k\geq 1$ and all unit vector $\theta\in {\mathbf C}$.* For a path ${{\mathbf{i}}}=i_1\dots i_\ell \in \Sigma_m^*$, we say ${{\mathbf{i}}}$ *enters* a set $B$ w.r.t. $E$ if $$\log_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}} \rho_{{{\mathbf{i}}}}=X_{i_1}+\cdots+X_{i_\ell}\in B.$$ Let $
I_{k}=\{\mathbf{i};~ \log_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}}\rho_{{{\mathbf{i}}}}=w_{k,E}\}
$ be the collection of paths entering the singleton set $\{w_{k,E}\}$. Then, by definition, $$\label{eq-vs-1}
{\mathbf m}_E(w_{k,E})=\#I_{k}.$$
We divide the proof of Claim 1 into three steps.
**Step 1. Comparing $\#I_k$ and $\#I_k^*$.**
Set $I_k^*$ to be the paths in ${\mathcal W}_E(e^{-k})$ which will *eventually enter* $\{w_{k,E}\}$, *i.e.*, $$I^*_k=\{{{\mathbf{i}}}'\in {\cal W}_E(e^{-k});~{{\mathbf{i}}}' \text{ is a prefix of some }{{\mathbf{i}}}\in I_k\}.$$ Write ${{\mathbf{i}}}={{\mathbf{i}}}'{{\mathbf{i}}}''$. Then, by Lemma \[chikaku\](i), since both $\kappa({{\mathbf{i}}})$ and $\kappa({{\mathbf{i}}}')$ belong to ${\mathcal A}_{k,E}$, $$\kappa({{\mathbf{i}}}'')\cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}=\kappa({{\mathbf{i}}})\cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}-\kappa({{\mathbf{i}}}')\cdot {{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}\leq -\log \rho_{\min}.$$ Hence, by Lemma \[lem-easy\](ii), there is a constant $K_0$ (independent of $k$ and $\theta$) such that $|{{\mathbf{i}}}|-|{{\mathbf{i}}}'|<K_0$, and from which we obtain estimates on the cardinality and the entering positions of $I_k^*$ as follows.
First, for any ${{\mathbf{i}}}'\in I_k^*$, there are at most $m^{K_0}$ elements in $I_k$ having ${{\mathbf{i}}}'$ as prefix, so $$\label{eq-vs-2}
m^{K_0} (\#I_k^*)\geq \# I_k.$$
Secondly, all elements of $I^*_k$ enter (w.r.t. $E$) the disc with center $w_{k,E}$ and radius $R_1$, where $$R_1=K_0\max_{1\leq j\leq m}|X_j|.$$ In other words, $\displaystyle |\log_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}}\rho_{{{\mathbf{i}}}'}-w_{k,E}|<R_1 $ for all ${{\mathbf{i}}}'\in I_k^*$. The above disc $B(w_{k,E}, R_1)$ is the small disc in Figure \[discs\].
![The black point is $O_k$, the red point is $w_{k,F}$, and the blue point is $w_{k,E}$; the small disc and the medium disc have the common center $w_{k,E}$, their radii are $R_1$ and $R_2$ respectively, the large disc has center $w_{k,F}$ and radius $R_3$.[]{data-label="discs"}](RaoZh03 "fig:"){width="8cm"}\
**Step 2. Comparing $\#I_k^*$ and $\#J_k^*$.**
Let $J_k^*$ be the set of elements in ${\cal W}_F(e^{-k})$ which has ${\mathcal R}_k$-relation with at least one element of $I_k^*$, *i.e.*, $$J_{k}^*= \{\mathbf{j}\in {\cal W}_F(e^{-k});~
\exists \mathbf{i} \in I_{k}^* \text { such that }(\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j})\in {\cal R}_k\}.$$
Condition (i) in the definition of the matchable condition implies that $$\label{eq-vs-3}
\# J_{k}^*\geq M_0^{-1}(\#I_{k}^*),$$ and Condition (ii) there implies that for every $\mathbf{j}\in J_{k}^*$, $$\label{IJ-2}
| \log_{\boldsymbol{\lambda} }(\tau_{\mathbf{j}})-w_{k,E}|\leq |\log_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}} (\tau_{\bj})-\log_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}} (\rho_{{{\mathbf{i}}}'})|+|\log_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}}(\rho_{{{\mathbf{i}}}'})-w_{k,E}|\leq M_0+R_1:=R_2,$$ where $\mathbf i'$ is any element in $I_k^*$ such that it is ${\mathcal R}_k$-related to ${\mathbf j}$. We shall call the disc $B(w_{k,E}, R_2)$ the *medium disc*, see Figure \[discs\].
**Step 3. Comparing $\#J_k^*$ and $\m_F(w_{k,F})$.**
Let $G$ be the collection of paths (w.r.t. $F$) entering the medium disc, precisely, $$G= \{ \mathbf{j};~| \log_{\boldsymbol{\lambda} }(\tau_{\mathbf{j}})-w_{k, E}|\leq R_2 \}.$$ From , we see that $J_k^*\subset G$, so $$\label{eq-vs-4}
\# G \geq \# J_{k}^*.$$
Hence we need only compare $\#G$ and $\m_F(w_{k,F})$. This is done by the following lemma.
There is a polynomial $\tilde P(x)$ (independent of $\theta$) with positive coefficients such that $$\#G\leq \tilde P(k) \mathbf{m}_F(w_{k,F}).$$
We move the center from $w_{k,E}$ to $w_{k,F}$, and call the disc with center $w_{k,F}$ and radius $R_3:=R_2+2C_1$ the *large disc*. It is easy to verify that the large disc contains the medium disc as a subset.
Let $z$ be a point in the large disc. Then $|z|$ is bounded by $$|z|<|O_{k}|+C_1+R_3\leq (\theta\cdot \alpha)^{-1}k+R_3+C_1<ck,$$ where $c=\max\left \{(\theta\cdot \alpha)^{-1}; ~\theta\in {\mathbf C}_X \text{ and } |\theta|=1\right \}+R_3+C_1.$ By a compact argument, we see that $c<+\infty$. Hence, by Theorem \[Q(x)\], there exists a polynomial $Q(x)$ such that $$\label{eq-wEF-2}
{\mathbf{m}_F(z)}\leq Q(|z|) \cdot {\mathbf{m}_F(w_{k,F}) }
\leq Q(ck) \cdot {\mathbf{m}_F(w_{k,F}) }$$ for all $z\in \CJ_F$ in the large disc.
Denoting $N_0$ the number of integer points containing in the large disc, we have $$\begin{array}{rl}
\#G= &\#\{\text{paths entering the medium disc w.r.t. $F$}\}\\
\leq & \#\{\text{paths entering the large disc w.r.t. $F$}\}\\
= & \sum_\text{$z\in \CJ_F$ in the large disc} \mathbf{m}_F(z) \\
\leq &N_0 Q(ck)\mathbf{m}_F(w_{k,F}). \quad \quad (\text{By } \eqref{eq-wEF-2})
\end{array}$$ The lemma is valid by setting $\tilde P(x)=N_0Q(cx)$.
Summarizing the above estimates, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\m_E(w_{k,E})&=& (\#I_k)\leq m^{K_0}(\#I_k^*)\leq m^{K_0}M_0(\# J_k^*)\\
&\leq & m^{K_0}M_0(\#G)\leq m^{K_0}M_0 \tilde P(k) \m_F(w_{k,F}),\end{aligned}$$ which proves Claim 1, where we set $P(x)=m^{K_0}M_0 \tilde P(x)$.
It follows that, for all $k\geq 1$, $$\label{log3}
\frac{\log {{\mathbf{m}}}_E(w_{k,E})}{|O_k|}
\leq \frac{\log (P(k))}{|O_k|}+\frac{\log {{\mathbf{m}}}_F(w_{k,F})}{|O_k|}.$$
Let $z_{k,E}$ be a point in ${\mathcal J}_E$ such that $|O_{k}-z_{k,E}|$ attains the minimal value and $\m_E(O_k)=\m_E(z_{k,E})$. Since $$|z_{k, E}-w_{k,E}|\leq |z_{k,E}-O_k|+|O_k-w_{k,E}|<2C_1,$$ again by Theorem \[Q(x)\], we have $$\lim_{k\to \infty} \frac{\log {{\mathbf{m}}}_E(w_{k,E})}{|O_k|}=\lim_{k\to \infty} \frac{\log {{\mathbf{m}}}_E(z_{k,E})}{|O_k|}:=\gamma_{_E}(\theta).$$ Similar result holds for $\gamma_{_F}(\theta)$ by the same argument as above. Hence, taking limits over both sides of (\[log3\]), we obtain $ \gamma_{_E}(\theta)\leq \gamma_{_F}(\theta)$. Finally, by symmetry, we get the other side inequality and hence $\gamma_{_E}(\theta)= \gamma_{_F}(\theta)$. $\Box$
**Proof of Theorem \[main-2\] and Example \[exam-full\]** {#sec-final}
==========================================================
Proof of Theorem \[main-2\].
-----------------------------
Suppose ${\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}})\sim {\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\tau}}})$. By Theorem \[main-1\], we have $\gamma_{_X}=\gamma_{_Y}$. Hence, by Theorem \[rigidity\], there exist $p$ and $q$ such that the $p$-th iteration of $X$ is a permutation of the $q$-th iteration of $Y$. It follows that the $p$-th iteration of ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$ is a permutation of the $q$-th iteration of ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}$.
On the other hand, suppose that ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}^{p}$ is a permutation of ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}^{q}$, then $${\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}^{p})\sim {\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}^{q}).$$ Since an IFS and its $n$-th iteration define the same invariant set ([@Fal-book2]), we have ${\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}})\sim {\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}^{p})$ and ${\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\tau}}})\sim {\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}^{q})$. Therefore, ${\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}})\sim {\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\tau}}})$. $\Box$
Proof of Example \[exam-full\]
------------------------------
Notice both ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}$ are coplanar. Hence ${\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}})\sim {\mathcal D}({{\boldsymbol{\tau}}})$ implies that their exist two integers $p,q>0$ such that the $p$-iteration of ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$ is a permutation of the $q$-th iteration of ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}$.
Take any $j\in \{1,\dots, s\}$. There are $a_j^p$ terms in the vector ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}^{p}$ being a power of $\lambda_j$, actually, equal to $\lambda_j^{pk_j}$; similarly, there are $b_j^q$ terms in ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}^{q}$ being a power of $\lambda_j$ and actually equal to $\lambda_j^{q\ell_j}$. We conclude that $$a_j^p=b_j^q, \quad \text{ for all } j=1,\dots, s.$$ Counting the dimensions of ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}^{p}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}^{q}$, we obtain $$(a_1+\cdots+a_s)^p=(b_1+\cdots+b_s)^q.$$ By the convexity of the function $f(x)=x^{p/q}$ and Jensen’s inequality, these equations can hold simultaneously only when $p=q$, and $a_j=b_j$ for all $j$. Hence, we can take $p=q=1$, and it follows that ${{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}$ is a permutation of ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}$. $\Box$
[99]{}
J. Ramirez Alfonsin, *The Diophantine Frobenius problem,* Oxford Univ. Press, 2005.
D. Cooper and T. Pignataro, [*On the shape of Cantor sets*]{}, J. Differential Geom., **28** (1988), 203–221.
G. David and S. Semmes, [*Fractured fractals and broken dreams : self-similar geometry through metric and measure*]{}, Oxford Univ.Press, 1997.
G. T. Deng and X. G. He, *Lipschitz equivalence of fractal sets in $\R$,* Sci. China. Math., **55** (2012), 2095–2107.
J. Deng, Z. Y. Wen, Y. Xiong and L. F. Xi, *Bilipschitz embedding of self-similar sets,* J. Anal. Math., **114** (2011), 63–97.
K. J. Falconer, [*Fractal Geometry: Mathematical Foundations and Applications*]{}, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1990.
K. J. Falconer and D. T. Marsh, [*Classification of quasi-circles by Hausdorff dimension*]{}, Nonlinearity, **2** (1989), 489–493.
K. J. Falconer and D. T. Marsh, [*On the Lipschitz equivalence of Cantor sets*]{}, Mathematika, **39** (1992), 223–233.
A. H. Fan, H. Rao and Y. Zhang, *Higher dimensional Frobenius problem: maximal saturated cone, growth function and rigidity,* Preprint 2014.
T. W. Hungerford, [*Algebra*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics [**73**]{}, Springer, New York, 1980.
J. E. Hutchinson, [*Fractals and self-similarity*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J., [**30**]{} (1981), 713–747.
J. J. Luo and K. S. Lau, [*Lipschitz equivalence of self-similar sets and hyperbolic boundaries*]{}, Adv. Math., **235** (2013), 555–579.
M. Llorente and P. Mattila, *Lipschitz equivalence of subsets of self-conformal sets,* Nonlinearity, **23** (2010), 875–882. B. M. Li, W. X. Li and J. J. Miao, *Lipschtiz Equivalence of Mcmullen sets,* Fractals, **21** (2013), 3–11.
P. Mattila and P. Saaranen, [*Ahlfors-David regular sets and bilipschitz maps*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math., **34** (2009), 487–502.
H. Rao, H. J. Ruan, and Y. Wang, [*Lipschitz equivalence of Cantor sets and algebraic properties of contraction ratios*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., **364** (2012), 1109-1126.
H. Rao, H. J. Ruan and Y. Wang, *Lipschitz equivalence of self-similar sets: algebraic and geometric properites,* Contemp. Math., **600** (2013).
H. Rao, H. J. Ruan and L. F. Xi, [*Lipschitz equivalence of self-similar sets*]{}, C. R. Acad. Math. Sci. Paris., **342** (2006), 191–196.
H. Rao, H. J. Ruan and Y. M. Yang, [*Gap sequence, Lipschitz equivalence and box dimension of fractal sets*]{}, Nonlinearity, **21** (2008), 1339–1347.
K. A. Roinestad, [*Geometry of fractal squares*]{}, Ph.D. Thesis, The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (2010).
H. J. Ruan, Y. Wang, L. F. Xi, [*Lipschitz equivalence of self-similar sets with touching structures*]{}, Nonlinearity, **27** (2014), 1299–1321.
Z. X. Wen, Z. Y. Zhu and G. T. Deng, [*Lipschitz equivalence of a class of general Sierpinski carpets,*]{} J. Math. Anal. Appl., **385** (2012), 16–23.
L. F. Xi, [*Lipschitz equivalence of dust-like self-similar sets*]{}, Math. Z., **266** (2010), 683–691.
L. F. Xi, [*Lipschitz equivalence of self-conformal sets*]{}, J. London Math. Soc.(2), **70** (2004), 369–382.
L. F. Xi and H. J. Ruan, [*Lipschitz equivalence of generalized $\{1,3,5\}-\{1,4,5\}$ self-similar sets*]{}, Sci. China Ser. A, **50** (2007), 1537–1551.
L. F. Xi and H. J. Ruan, [*Lipschitz equivalence of self-similar sets satisfying the strong separation condition*]{} (in Chinese), Acta Math. Sinica (Chin. Ser.), **51** (2008), 493–500.
L. F. Xi and Y. Xiong, [*Self-similar sets with initial cubic patterns*]{}, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, **348** (2010), 15-20.
L. F. Xi and Y. Xiong, [*Lipschitz equivalence of fractals generated by nested cubes*]{}, Math Z., **271** (2012), 1287–1308.
L. F. Xi and Y. Xiong, *Lipschitz Equivalence Class, Ideal Class and the Gauss Class Number Problem,* Preprint 2013 (arXiv:1304.0103 \[math.MG\]).
[^1]: The work is supported by CNSF No. 11171128 and NSFC No. 11431007.
[^2]: [**Key words and phrases:**]{} Lipschitz equivalence, self-similar set, higher dimensional Frobenius problem, matchable condition
[^3]: $\dagger$ The correspondence author.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the existence of an almost Souslin Kurepa tree is consistent with $ZFC$. We also prove their existence in $L$. These results answer two questions from \[16\].'
author:
- Mohammad Golshani
title: Almost Souslin Kurepa trees
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The theory of trees forms a significant and highly interesting part of set theory. In this paper we study $\omega_1-$trees and prove some consistency results concerning them. Let $T$ be a normal $\omega_1-$ tree. Let’s recall that:
- $T$ is an Aronszajn tree if it has no branches,
- $T$ is a Kurepa tree if it has at least $\omega_2-$many branches,
- $T$ is a Souslin tree if it has no uncountable antichains (and hence no branches),
- $T$ is an almost Souslin tree if for any antichain $X \subseteq T,$ the set $S_X = \{ht(x):x \in X
\}$ is not stationary (see \[1\], \[16\]),
- $T$ is regressive if for any limit ordinal $\alpha < \omega_1,$ there is a function $f:T_{\alpha} \rightarrow T_{< \alpha}$ such that for any $x \in
T_{\alpha}, f(x)<_T x,$ and for any $x \neq y$ in $T_{\alpha},$ at least one of $f(x)$ or $f(y)$ is above the meet of $x$ and $y$ (see \[8\]).
Intuitively a Kurepa tree is very thick. On the other hand a Souslin tree is very thin, and obviously no Kurepa tree is a Souslin tree. We can think of an almost Souslin tree as a fairly thin tree. The following are well known:
- There is an Aronszajn tree (Aronszajn, see \[3\] for proof),
- It is consistent with $ZFC$ that a Souslin tree exists (Jech \[2\], Tennenbaum \[13\]),
- $V=L$ implies the existence of a Souslin tree (Jensen \[5\], see also \[6\]),
- It is consistent with $ZFC+ \neg CH$ to assume there is no Souslin tree (Solovay and Tennenbaum \[11\]),
- It is consistent with $ZFC+GCH$ to assume there is no Souslin tree (Jensen \[7\], see \[9\] for proof),
- It is consistent with $ZFC$ that a Kurepa tree exists (Stewart \[12\], see \[3\] for proof),
- $V=L$ implies the existence of a Kurepa tree (Solovay, see \[3\] for proof),
- It is consistent, relative to the existence of an inaccessible cardinal, that there is no Kurepa tree (Silver \[10\]).
For more details on trees, we refer the readers to the articles \[3\] and \[14\]. The following example shows that almost Souslin trees exist in $ZFC.$
Let $T=\{t \in$$^{< \omega_1}2: Supp(t)$ is finite$ \}$. Then it is easily seen that $T$ is an almost Souslin tree with $\omega_1-$many branches and with no Aronszajn subtrees (See also \[14\] Theorem 4.1).
Now, in \[16\], Zakrzewski asked the following questions:
Is the existence of an almost Souslin Kurepa tree consistent with $ZFC$?
Does the axiom of constructibility guarantee the existence of an almost Souslin Kurepa tree?
In this paper, we answer both of these questions positively. In section 2 we answer question 1.2 by building a model of $ZFC$ in which an almost Souslin Kurepa tree exists, and in section 3 we answer question 1.3 by showing that the existence of an $(\omega_1, 1)-$morass implies the existence of an almost Souslin Kurepa tree.
Forcing an almost Souslin Kurepa tree
=====================================
In this section we answer question 1.2. In fact we will prove something stronger, which also extends some results from \[8\].
Assume $GCH$. Then there exists a cardinal preserving generic extension of $V$ in which an almost Souslin regressive Kurepa tree exists.
Let $\kappa \geq \omega_2.$ We produce a cardinal preserving generic extension of $V$ which contains an almost Souslin regressive Kurepa tree with $\kappa-$many branches. First we define a forcing notion $\mathbb{P}$ which adds a regressive Kurepa tree with $\kappa-$many branches. This forcing is essentially the forcing notion of \[8\]. Conditions in $\mathbb{P}$ are of the form $p=\langle T_{p}, \leq_{p}, g_{p}, f_{p}\rangle$ where:
1. $T_p \subseteq \omega_1$ is countable,
2. $\langle T_p, \leq_p \rangle$ is a normal $\alpha_p+1-$tree, where $\alpha_p$ is an ordinal less than $\omega_1,$
3. $g_{p}$ is a bijection from a subset of $\kappa$ onto $(T_p)_{\alpha_p},$ the $\alpha_p-$th level of $T_p$,
4. $f_p: T_{p, lim} \rightarrow T_p,$ where $T_{p, lim}= \{x
\in T_p: ht(x)$ is a limit ordinal $ \},$
5. For all $x \in T_{p, lim}, f_p(x) <_p x,$
6. For each $x \neq y$ in $T_{p, lim},$ if $ht(x)=ht(y),$ then at least one of $f_p(x)$ or $f_p(y)$ is above the meet of $x$ and $y$,
The order relation on $\mathbb{P}$ is defined by $p \leq q$ ($p$ is an extension of $q$) iff:
1. $\langle T_p, \leq_p \rangle$ end extends $\langle T_q,
\leq_q \rangle$,
2. $domg_{p} \supseteq domg_{q},$
3. for all $\alpha \in domg_{q}, g_{p}(\alpha) \geq_{p} g_{q}(\alpha),$
4. $f_p \supseteq f_q.$
The following lemma can be proved easily (see also \[8\] Theorem 5).
$(a)$ Let $p \in \mathbb{P}$ and $\alpha <
\kappa.$ Then there exists $q \leq p$ such that $\alpha \in
domg_{q}.$ Furthermore $q$ can be chosen so that $\alpha_{q} = \alpha_{p}+1,$ and $domg_{q}= domg_{p} \cup \{ \alpha \}.$
$(b)$ Let $\langle p_n:n < \omega \rangle$ be a descending sequence of conditions in $\mathbb{P}.$ Then there exists $q \in
\mathbb{P}$ which extends all of the $p_n$’s. Furthermore $q$ can be chosen so that $\alpha_q = sup_{n \in \omega}\alpha_{p_n},$ and $dom(g_{q})= \bigcup_{n < \omega}
dom(g_{p_n}).$
$(c)$ $\mathbb{P}$ satisfies the $\omega_2-c.c.$.$\Box$
It follows from the above lemma that $\mathbb{P}$ is a cardinal preserving forcing notion. Let $G$ be $\mathbb{P}-$generic over $V$. Let
- $T = \bigcup_{p \in G}T_p,$
- $\leq_T = \bigcup_{p \in G}\leq_p,$
- $f= \bigcup_{p \in G}f_p: T_{lim}
\rightarrow T,$ where $T_{lim}= \{x \in T: ht(x)$ is a limit ordinal$ \}.$
It is easy to show that $\langle T, \leq_T \rangle$ is a normal regressive $\omega_1-$tree.
$\langle T, \leq_T \rangle$ has $\kappa-$many branches, in particular it is a Kurepa tree.
The lemma follows easily from the following facts:
\(1) For each $\xi < \kappa, \{g_{p}(\xi): p \in G, \xi \in
dom(g_{p}) \}$ determines a branch $b_{\xi}$ of $T$.
\(2) For $\xi \neq \zeta$ in $\kappa, b_{\xi} \neq
b_{\zeta}.$
Let $S= \{\alpha_{p}: p \in G, domg_{p}=\bigcup \{domg_{q}: q \in G, \alpha_{q}< \alpha_{p} \} \}$.
$S$ is a stationary subset of $\omega_1.$
Let $\dot{S}$ be a $\mathbb{P}-$name for $S$. Let $p \in \mathbb{P}$ and $\dot{C}$ be a $\mathbb{P}-$name such that
$p \vdash \ulcorner \dot{C}$ is a club subset of $\omega_1 \urcorner$.
We find $q \leq p$ which forces $\dot{S} \cap \dot{C} \neq
\emptyset.$ Define by induction two sequences $\langle p_n: n <
\omega \rangle $ of conditions in $\mathbb{P}$ and $\langle
\beta_n: n< \omega \rangle$ of countable ordinals such that:
- $p_{0}=p,$
- $p_{n+1} \leq p_{n},$
- $\alpha_{p_{n}} < \beta_{n} < \alpha_{p_{n+1}},$
- $p_{n+1} \vdash \ulcorner \beta_{n} \in \dot{C} \urcorner$
By Lemma 2.2(b), there is $q \in \mathbb{P}$ such that $q$ extends $p_{n}$’s, $n < \omega,$ and such that $\alpha_q = sup_{n \in
\omega}\alpha_{p_n},$ and $dom(g_{q})= \bigcup_{n < \omega}
dom(g_{p_n}).$ Then it is easily seen that $q \vdash \ulcorner
\alpha_{q} \in \dot{S} \cap \dot{C} \urcorner.$
Working in $V[G],$ let $\mathbb{Q}$ be the usual forcing notion for adding a club subset to $S$. Thus conditions in $\mathbb{Q}$ are closed bounded subsets of $S$ ordered by end extension. Let $H$ be $\mathbb{Q}-$generic over $V[G].$ The following is well-known (see \[4\] Theorem 23.8).
$(a)$ $\mathbb{Q}$ is $\omega_1-$distributive,
$(b)$ $\mathbb{Q}$ satisfies the $\omega_2-c.c.$,
$(c)$ $C =\bigcup H \subseteq S$ is a club subset of $\omega_1.$$\Box$
It follows that $\mathbb{Q}$ is a cardinal preserving forcing notion and hence $\langle T, \leq_{T} \rangle$ remains a regressive Kurepa tree with $\kappa-$many branches in $V[G][H]$. We show that in $V[G][H], \langle T, \leq_{T} \rangle$ is also almost Souslin.
In $V[G][H],$ $\langle T, \leq_T \rangle$ is almost Souslin.
Suppose not. Let $Z \subseteq T$ be an antichain of $T$ such that $S_Z = \{ht(x): x \in Z \}$ is stationary in $\omega_1.$ We may further suppose that for $x \neq y$ in $Z,
ht(x) \neq ht(y)$, and that $S_Z \subseteq C.$
First we define a map $h$ on $T \upharpoonright C= \{x \in T: ht(x) \in C \}$ as follows: Let $\alpha \in C$ and $x \in T_{\alpha}.$ Pick $p \in G$ such that $\alpha= \alpha_{p}.$ Then $x= g_{p}(\xi),$ for some $\xi \in domg_{p}$. Let $h(x)=g_{q}(\xi),$ where $q \in G$ is such that $\alpha_{q}$ is minimal with $\xi \in domg_{q}.$ Note that $\alpha_{q} < \alpha_{p},$ and $h(x) <_{T} x$ (as $C \subseteq S$).
The map $ht(x) \mapsto ht(h(x))$ is well-defined and regressive on $S_Z,$ hence by Fodor’s lemma there is $Y \subseteq Z$ and an ordinal $\gamma < \omega_1$ such that $S_Y$ is stationary and for all $x \in Y,
ht(h(x))= \gamma.$ Since $T_{\gamma}$ is countable, we can find $X
\subseteq Y,$ and $t \in T$ such that $S_X$ is stationary, and for all $x \in X, h(x)= t.$ Now
$\forall x \in X, \exists p_x \in G, \exists \xi_x \in dom(g_{p_x})(x = g_{p_x}(\xi_x)).$
and then for all $x \in X, h(x)= g_{q_x}(\xi_x),$ where $q_x \in
G$ is such that $\alpha_{q_{x}}$ is minimal with $\xi_x \in
domg_{q_x}.$ The map $\alpha_{p_{x}} \mapsto \alpha_{q_{x}}$ is regressive on $S_X$, and hence we can find $W \subseteq X,$ and $\eta < \omega_1$ such that $S_W$ is stationary and for all $x \in
W, \alpha_{q_{x}}= \eta.$ Let $q \in G$ be such that $\alpha_{q}=
\eta$ Then for all $x \in W, h(x)= g_{q}(\xi_x).$ As $domg_{q}$ is countable, there are $V \subseteq W$ and $\xi \in domg_{q}$ such that $S_V$ is stationary and for all $x \in V, \xi_x= \xi.$ Then for all $x \in V, x = g_{p_x}(\xi).$ Choose $x \neq y$ in $V$, and let $p \in G$ be such that $p \leq p_x, p_y$. Then $g_{p}(\xi)
\geq_{p} x=g_{p_x}(\xi),y=g_{p_y}(\xi)$. It follows that $x$ and $y$ are compatible and we get a contradiction. The lemma follows.
Thus in $V[G][H],$ $\langle T, \leq_T \rangle$ is an almost Souslin regressive Kurepa tree with $\kappa-$many branches. This completes the proof of Theorem 2.1.
As we will see in the next section, just working in $V[G]$, it is possible to define a subtree $T^{*}$ of $T$ which is an almost Souslin regressive Kurepa tree with $\kappa-$many branches. We gave the above argument for Theorem 2.1, since it was our original motivation for defining $T^{*}$.
Almost Souslin Kurepa trees in $L$
==================================
In this section, answering question 2.2, we show that an almost Souslin Kurepa tree exists in $L$. Again as in section 2, we prove something stronger.
If there exists an $(\omega_1, 1)-$morass, then there is an almost Souslin regressive Kurepa tree.
To prove the above theorem, we need some definitions and facts from \[15\]. Let $(\mathbb{P}, \leq)$ be a partial order and $\mathbb{D}= \{ D_{\alpha}: \alpha < \omega_2 \}$ be a family of open dense subsets of $\mathbb{P}.$ For $p \in \mathbb{P},$ let $rlm(p)= \{ \alpha < \omega_2: p \in D_{\alpha} \},$ and for $\alpha < \omega_2$ let $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha} = \{p \in \mathbb{P}:
rlm(p) \subseteq \alpha \}.$ Also let $\mathbb{P}^* =
\bigcup_{\alpha < \omega_1}\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$.
$\mathbb{D}$ is an $\omega_1-$indiscernible family if the following conditions are satisfied:
\(1) $\mathbb{P}^* \neq \emptyset,$ and for all $\alpha < \omega_1,
\mathbb{P}^* \cap \textit{D}_{\alpha}$ is open dense in $\mathbb{P}^*$,
\(2) For all $\alpha < \omega_1, (\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}, \leq)$ is $\omega_1-$closed,
Also for each order preserving function $f: \alpha \rightarrow
\gamma, \alpha < \omega_1, \gamma < \omega_2$ there is a function $\sigma_f: \mathbb{P}_{\alpha} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}_{\gamma}$ such that
\(3) $\sigma_f$ is order preserving,
\(4) For all $p \in \mathbb{P}_{\alpha},
rlm(\sigma_f(p))=f[rlm(p)]$,
\(5) If $\beta < \omega_1, f \upharpoonright \beta = id \upharpoonright \beta, f(\beta)
\geq \alpha, \gamma < \omega_1$ and $p \in \mathbb{P}_{\alpha},$ then $p$ and $\sigma_f(p)$ are
$\hspace{.5cm}$ compatible in $\mathbb{P}^*,$
\(6) If $f_1: \alpha_1 \rightarrow \alpha_2, f_2: \alpha_2
\rightarrow \gamma $ are order preserving, $\alpha_1, \alpha_2 <
\omega_1, \gamma < \omega_2,$ then
$\hspace{.5cm}$ $\sigma_{f_2 \circ
f_1}=\sigma_{f_2}\circ \sigma_{f_1}.$
We also need the following theorem (See \[15\] Theorem 1.1.3).
The following are equivalent:
$(a)$ There exists an $(\omega_1, 1)-$morass,
$(b)$ Whenever $\mathbb{P}$ is a partial order and $\mathbb{D}$ is an $\omega_1-$indiscernible family of open dense subsets of $\mathbb{P}$, then there is a set $G$ which is $\mathbb{P}-$generic over $\mathbb{D}.$ Furthermore $G$ can be chosen to be $\omega_1-$complete.$\Box$
We are now ready to give the proof of Theorem 3.1.
Assume an $(\omega_1, 1)-$morass exists. Let $(\mathbb{P}, \leq)$ be the forcing notion of section 2, when $\kappa = \omega_2,$ for adding a regressive Kurepa tree with $\omega_2-$many branches. For each $\alpha < \omega_2$ let $\textit{D}_{\alpha}= \{p \in
\mathbb{P}: \alpha \in domg_{p} \},$ and let $\mathbb{D}= \{
D_{\alpha}: \alpha < \omega_2 \}$. Then it is easy to see that for each $p \in \mathbb{P}, rlm(p)= domg_{p},$ for each $\alpha <
\omega_2, \mathbb{P}_{\alpha}= \{p \in \mathbb{P}: domg_{p}
\subseteq \alpha \},$ and $\mathbb{P}^*=\mathbb{P}_{\omega_1}.$
By Theorem 1.2.1 of \[15\], $\mathbb{D}$ is an $\omega_1-$indiscernible family of open dense subsets of $\mathbb{P}.$ Thus using Theorem 3.3, there exists $G \subseteq
\mathbb{P}$ which is $\mathbb{P}-$generic over $\mathbb{D}$ and is $\omega_1-$complete. Define $T, \leq_T$ and $f$ exactly as in the proof of Theorem 2.1. By Theorem 1.2.2 of \[15\], $\langle T, \leq_T
\rangle$ is a normal Kurepa tree, and using $f$ it is regressive.
We now define a subtree of $T$ which is an almost Souslin regressive Kurepa tree. Let $S= \{\alpha_p: p \in G \}$ and let $C$ be the set of limit points of $S$. Then $C$ is a club subset of $\omega_1.$ We first define by induction on $\alpha < \omega_1$ a sequence $\langle T^{\alpha}: \alpha < \omega_1 \rangle$ of subtrees of $T$ as follows:
$\hspace{.5cm}\bullet$ $\alpha=0:$ Let $T^{0}=T$,
$\hspace{.5cm}\bullet$ $\alpha= \beta+1:$ Let $T^{\alpha}=T^{\beta}$,
$\hspace{.5cm}\bullet$ $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal, $\alpha \notin C:$ Let $T^{\alpha}= \bigcap_{\beta < \alpha}T^{\beta}$,
$\hspace{.5cm}\bullet$ $\alpha \in C:$ First let $T^{*}= \bigcap_{\beta < \alpha}T^{\beta}.$ Now we define $T^{\alpha}$ as follows:
$\hspace{.5cm}-$ $(T^{\alpha})_{< \alpha}= (T^{*})_{< \alpha}$,
$\hspace{.5cm}-$ $(T^{\alpha})_{\alpha}= \{x \in (T^{*})_{\alpha}: \exists \xi < \kappa, \forall p \in G (\alpha_{p} < \alpha \wedge \xi \in domg_p \Rightarrow g_{p}(\xi) \leq_{T} x) \}$,
$\hspace{.5cm}-$ for $\gamma > \alpha, (T^{\alpha})_{\gamma}= \{x \in (T^{*})_{\gamma}: \exists y \in (T^{\alpha})_{\alpha}, x \geq_{T} y \}$.
For $x \in (T^{\alpha})_{\alpha},$ the required $\xi$ is unique. Furthermore If $y \in T^{\alpha}$, and $x \leq_{T} y,$ then $x \in T^{\alpha}.$
Finally let $T^{*}= \bigcap_{\alpha < \omega_1}T^{\alpha}.$ Clearly $T^{*}$ is a subtree of $T$ with $\omega_2-$many branches, and hence it is a regressive Kurepa tree. We show that it is almost Souslin.
For $\alpha \in C$ we define $g_{\alpha}: \bigcup \{domg_{p}: p \in G, \alpha_{p} < \alpha \} \rightarrow (T^{*})_{\alpha}$ as follows: Let $\xi \in domg_{p},$ where $p \in G, \alpha_{p} < \alpha $. Then there is a unique $x \in (T^{*})_{\alpha}$ such that:
$\forall q \in G (\alpha_{q} < \alpha \wedge \xi \in domg_{q} \Rightarrow x \geq_{T} g_{q}(\xi)).$
Let $g_{\alpha}(\xi)=x.$ Let us note that $g_{\alpha}$ is a bijection and for $\alpha \in C \cap S, g_{\alpha}=g_{p}$ where $p
\in G$ is such that $\alpha_{p}=\alpha.$ Next we define a function $h: T^{*} \upharpoonright C \rightarrow T^{*}$ as follows: Let $\alpha \in C$ and $x \in (T^{*})_{\alpha}.$ Then $x=g_{\alpha}(\xi)$ for some $\xi \in domg_{\alpha}.$ Let $h(x)=g_{\beta}(\xi),$ where $\beta$ is the least ordinal such that for some $p \in G,
\beta=\alpha_{p},$ and $\xi \in domg_{p}.$ Note that $\beta <
\alpha$ and $h(x)<_{T} x.$ Now as in the proof of Lemma 2.6, we can show that $T^{*}$ is almost Souslin. Hence $T^{*}$ is an almost Souslin regressive Kurepa tree. This completes the proof of Theorem 3.1.$\Box$
The methods of this paper can be used to get more consistency results about trees. For example we can show that the existence of an almost Souslin Kurepa tree with no Aronszajn subtrees is consistent with $ZFC,$ and that such a tree exists in $L$.
The following question from \[16\] remained open.
Does there exist a Souslin tree T such that for each $G$ which is $T-$generic over $V, T$ is an almost Souslin Kurepa tree in $V[G]$?
[10]{}
KK.J. Devlin, S. Shelah, Souslin properties and tree topologies, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3), vol 39(1979), 237-252. MR0548979 (80m:54031)
TT. Jech, Non-provability of Souslin’s hypothesis, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 8 1967 291-305. MR0215729 (35 $\sharp$6564)
TT. Jech, Trees, J. Symbolic Logic, vol 36(1971)1-14. MR0284331 (44$\sharp$1560)
TT. Jech, Set theory, 3rd millennium ed., 2003, Springer Monographs in Mathematics. MR1940513 (2004g:03071)
RR. B. Jensen, SH is incompatible with V = L, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 15 (1968), 935.
RR. B. Jensen, The fine structure of the constructible hierarchy, Ann. Math. Logic 4 (1972), 229-308; erratum, ibid. 4 (1972), 443. MR0309729 (46 $\sharp$8834) RR. B. Jensen, SH is compatible with CH, (mimeographed).
BB. König, Y. Yoshinobu, Kurepa trees and Namba forcing, in preparation.
SS. Shelah, Proper forcing, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 940. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1982. MR0675955 (84h:03002)
JJ. Silver, The independence of Kurepa hypothesis and two cardinal conjecture in model theory, 1971 Axiomatic Set Theory (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIII, Part I, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1967) pp. 383-390 Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I. MR0277379 (43 $\sharp$3112)
RR. Solovay, S. Tennenbaum, Iterated Cohen’s extensions and Souslin’s problem, Ann. of Math. (2) 94 (1971), 201-245. MR0294139 (45 $\sharp$3212)
DD. H. Stewart, M.Sc. Thesis, Bristol, 1966.
SS. Tennenbaum, Souslin’s problem, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 59 (1968) 60-63. MR0224456 (37 $\sharp$55)
SS. Todorčević, Trees and linearly ordered sets, Handbook of set-theoretic topology, 235-293, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984. MR0776625 (86h:54040)
DD. Velleman, Morasses, diamond and forcing, Ann. Math. Logic 23 (1982), no. 2-3, 199-281 (1983). MR0701126 (85e:03121)
MM\. Zakrzewski, Some problems concerning Kurepa trees, J. sumbolic Logic, Vol. 52, No. 3 (1987)894.
Department of Mathematics, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman-Iran and School of Mathematics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran-Iran.
[email protected]
[^1]: The author would like to thank the School of Mathematics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM) for their supports during the preparation of this paper. He also wishes to thank Dr. E. Eslami and Dr. Sh. Mohsenipour for their inspiration and encouragement.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The geometric theory of vortex tunnelling in superfluid liquids is developed. Geometry rules the tunnelling process in the approximation of an incompressible superfluid, which yields the identity of phase and configuration space in the vortex collective co-ordinate. To exemplify the implications of this approach to tunnelling, we solve explicitly for the two-dimensional motion of a point vortex in the presence of an ellipse, showing that the hydrodynamic collective co-ordinate description limits the constant energy paths allowed for the vortex in configuration space. We outline the experimental procedure used in helium II to observe tunnelling events, and compare the conclusions we draw to the experimental results obtained so far. Tunnelling in Fermi superfluids is discussed, where it is assumed that the low energy quasiparticle excitations localised in the vortex core govern the vortex dynamical equations. The tunnelling process can be dominated by Hall or dissipative terms, respectively be under the influence of both, with a possible realization of this last intermediate case in unconventional, high-temperature superconductors.'
author:
- 'Uwe R. Fischer'
title: |
Tunnelling of topological line defects\
in strongly coupled superfluids
---
Introductory considerations
===========================
The primary notion we have of a superfluid is that it shows no dissipation of the flow, under certain, well-defined conditions. Friction can be caused by the creation of elementary quasiparticle excitations in the superfluid, that is, irreversible energy transfer from the coherently moving superfluid state to incoherent degrees of freedom. This can occur if the superflow (relative to some reference frame) exceeds the Landau critical velocity, creating the excitation, and thereby reducing the superfluid current. A different kind of dissipation can be caused by a topological excitation, the quantized vortex, representing a travelling defect structure in the order parameter of the superfluid. The dissipation mechanism is then represented by the vortex crossing the streamlines of the flow, diminishing the superfluid current by reducing the superfluid phase difference between points on a line perpendicular to the vortex motion. To cause current reduction, a vortex first has to be generated. The task of this paper is to develop a formalism describing a quantized vortex entering a superfluid at the absolute zero of temperature by the quantum mechanism of tunnelling.
The nucleation theory of quantized vortices in the Bose superfluid helium II has been an elusive subject ever since the existence of quantized vortices was conjectured by Lars Onsager in 1949 [@onsager]. The difficulty to grasp their coming into existence in a quantitative manner from first principles has one fundamental reason: There is no microscopic theory of this dense superfluid. We do not know how to describe the motion of a vortex on atomic scales, where this motion is governed by the full quantum many-body structure of the superfluid. One can even go further, and state that we even do not know precisely what a vortex should [*be*]{} on these small scales. Its very definability as a stable topological object essentially depends on the usage of a large scale approach.
Before we describe the problems inherent in vortex nucleation theory, to clarify terminology we use here and further in this work, it is advisable to fix some notions. The treatment of a fluid will be called [*hydrodynamic*]{} or [*large scale*]{}, with the frequency of excitations of the fluid approaching zero for large wavelengths, if the underlying atomic structure of the fluid is not relevant for the phenomena under investigation. The fluid is reasonably well, on these large scales, approximated to consist of structureless, pointlike particles. In particular, a flow [*field*]{} can be defined, with the prescription that a volume element moving with a certain flow velocity contains enough particles for the hydrodynamic formulation to make sense.
The definition of [*semiclassicality*]{} is related to the existence of quantum ‘fluctuations’ or, better, the fact that a quantum mechanical variable is indeterminate in its value with respect to the outcome of different measurements. If quantum fluctuations are small against the expectation value of a quantum operator, we speak of the semiclassical limit. The notions of hydrodynamic and semiclassical in the dense superfluid helium II are mutually corresponding to each other, and a hydrodynamic treatment on macroscopic scales has semiclassical accuracy. A [*mean field*]{} theory asserts that it is reasonable to replace the field operator by its expectation value, in particular within expressions of order higher than the second in the operator and its conjugate (an example is to replace two of the field operators in the quartic interaction term of the second quantized Hamiltonian by their expectation value). It therefore makes the assumption that the system can be treated on any scale by making use of such a replacement. This procedure certainly cannot be used in the case of helium II. Though, on large scales, this dense superfluid is, to a good approximation, described by an order parameter function $\phi$, on the atomic scales of order the coherence length $\xi$, it is necessary to solve the full second quantized problem. There the indeterminacy of, [*e.g.*]{}, the operator particle density is as large as its expectation value. A measure of the applicability of mean field theory can be obtained if we consider the effective strength $g$ of interaction. It can, in the limit of long wavelengths, be defined to be the spatial integral of the two-body interaction of $^4\!$He atoms, and is related to the $s$-wave scattering length $a$ [@ll], the speed of sound $c_s$, and the bulk density $\rho_0$ by $g=4\pi \hbar^2 a /m=m{c}^2_s/\rho_0$ (repulsive interaction, $a>0$, [@fetterwal1]). A mean field treatment is useful if $\rho_0 a^3\ll 1$ [@BECreview], which implies $a=\pi (m c_s/h)^2/\rho_0 \ll d$, with $d\equiv \rho_0^{-1/3}$ the interparticle spacing. Using the data of [@donnelly2], we have in helium II (at $p\simeq 1$ bar), $d\simeq 3.58$ Å, $c_s\simeq 238$ m/s and thus $a \simeq 8 $ Å, increasing further to approximately double this value at solidification pressure. The scattering length, that is, the effective range of the scattering potential of the atoms for long wavelength excitations, is larger than the interparticle spacing, and the condition for the applicability of mean field theory is violated. This fact entails that one has to consider helium II as a strongly coupled system, which has caused quite formidable computational efforts trying to understand its behaviour on sub-$a$ scales [@apaja]–[@dalfovo2]. Based on the above considerations, we will understand a [*dense*]{}, strongly coupled superfluid as one fulfilling the condition $a\gtrsim d$ and, correspondingly, a [*dilute*]{}, weakly coupled superfluid as one having $a\ll d$, the Bose-Einstein condensed atomic vapours [@BECreview] being examples of this kind of superfluid. The condition $a\gtrsim d$ implies that, in strongly coupled superfluids, the coherence length is of order the interparticle spacing. We have already mentioned at the beginning that there are two classes of excitations related to dissipation, the first being Landau quasiparticles, the second one defects in the order parameter. There arises the question if these different branches of excitations merge in a certain manner, approximately for a wavevector $2\pi/d$ corresponding to the interparticle spacing. The roton, [*i.e.*]{} the excitation at the local minimum of the excitation spectrum of superfluid helium II, has a wavevector $k_r$ which is very close to this value, $k_r\simeq 2\pi /d$. The idea that the roton could correspond to a vortex ring of the smallest possible size (namely, such that just one atom can pass through it), goes back to the seminal papers of Feynman [@feyn1]–[@feyn3]. Evidence for such an identification would indeed provide justification to speak of some kind of, at least, similarity on the scale of the interparticle distance, of the two types of excitations. There is still a debate going on about this possibility (recent contributions are found, [*e.g.*]{}, in [@apaja],[@galli]) In this work, we will, however, not enter into such a discussion, for it is evidently still a long way to a complete understanding of the microscopic [dynamical]{} behaviour of vortices, as even their stationary microscopic character (provided that a vortex ring of atomic size is properly definable at all), is not yet completely clear. We will take the (classic) point of view that a vortex is a topological object, well-defined as a defect structure in the order parameter. Then, a vortex ring of atomic size is termed virtual, because it does not constitute a topological object on this scale. The lack of a microscopic idea of vortex motion makes it necessary to resort to a hydrodynamic theory of the motion of a vortex, be this motion in real or imaginary time, the latter of interest for the tunnelling processes we intend to investigate. In a hydrodynamic treatment, the existence of the vortex as a semiclassical object has to be assumed [*ab initio*]{}. No details of the underlying microscopic dynamics, [*i.e.*]{} of the actual nucleation event, are to be described in such a theory, but only the laws which rule vortex motion on curvature scales well beyond the atomic one. The microscopic dynamical behaviour of the vortex is, in such a description, bound to appear only in cutoff parameters determining the borderline to the microscopic realm. We will consequently consider the vortex motion as it results from the Lagrangian in terms of a collective co-ordinate for the vortex, which is useful as long as the curvature radii of the line described by this co-ordinate are much larger than $\xi$. Such an approach in terms of a collective co-ordinate makes sense and is physically meaningful, if we additionally assume that the potential barriers, through which the vortex has to tunnel, have themselves effective curvature radii well beyond a scale $O(\xi)$. If tunnelling events can be actually observable, then, depends for a given superfluid at a given temperature $T$ on the ratios $\xi/d$, $T^*/T$, where $k_B T^*\equiv \hbar^2/(m d^2)$ is a characteristic quantum energy of the quantum fluid constituted by particles of mass $m$ and $T^*$ an associated temperature; for helium II, $T^*\approx 1$ K. This dependence can qualitatively be understood as follows [@parts]. Consider a vortex ring of radius $R_0$, which has in the bulk an energy $E(R_0)=(m\rho_0\kappa^2/2) R_0 \ln (R_0/R_c)$ (see section \[introhalfring\]), where $R_c = O(\xi)$ is the vortex core radius. \[energyconsider\] The relevant quantity to compare this energy with, is the thermal energy $k_B T$. If $E(R_0)\gg k_B T$, quantum tunnelling is exponentially suppressed. Writing the energy in terms of the above quantities, $E(R_0)/k_B T = (T^*/T)(R_0/d)\ln (R_0/R_c)$ (barring a factor of $1/4$ for pair-correlated superfluids). The ratio $\xi/d$ then effectively enters, because the smallest possible value of the radius of the vortex appearing in the fluid is $R_0\gtrsim R_c = O(\xi)$. Considering the fact that thus simultaneously $T\sim O(T^*)$ and $R_0\sim O(d)$ are to be fulfilled, helium II is the most promising candidate for quantum tunnelling to happen. The conventional superconductors and $^3\!$He, with their large $T^*/T$ as well as $\xi/d$ are, already on this ground, ruled out. Hence the only possible candidates remaining for an observation of quantum tunnelling of vortices are, save for helium II, high-$T_c$ superconductors. \[mentiontunnelhigh\]
Overview {#overview .unnumbered}
--------
To give the reader a concise impression of what follows, we provide here an overview of the principal directions to be pursued, and ideas to be developed in the three sections of this work to follow. The theory of quantum tunnelling is developed in the next section. It is shown that in the limit of long wavelengths, which we are required to be using in a dense superfluid, the probability of quantum tunnelling is predominantly determined by external geometrical quantities connected to the geometry of the flow. The tunnelling exponent is separated into a dominant volume contribution solely associated with the tunnelling path of the vortex, which is a contribution independent from the fact that the fluid is compressible or incompressible, and a subdominant area contribution associated with that same path [*and*]{} the fact that the fluid is compressible. The dependence of the dominant volume term in the tunnelling exponent on geometrical quantities is exemplified by the analytically solvable problem of a point vortex in the presence of an ellipse, where the long wavelength, collective co-ordinate treatment is shown to impose strict constraints on the motions allowed for the vortex. In the third section the experimental procedure to observe the temperature independent quantum mechanical triggering of vortex generation, which we wish to explain, is demonstrated. We discuss the data obtained in these experiments, with particular emphasis on the applicability of our predictions in this work. The fourth section describes some aspects of pair-correlated, charged Fermi superfluids. We discuss, in particular, the role which might be played by the existence of bound quasi-particle states for observable vortex tunnelling phenomena in superconductors. The high-$T_c$ superconductors, on account of their small coherence lengths, play a prominent role in these considerations, as emphasised above. It is explained that, even for very low temperatures, in the case of unconventional ($d$-wave) high-$T_c$ superconductors of practically feasible purity, the tunnelling phenomenon is not adequately described by the theory of sections one and two, as this were the case for conventional ($s$-wave), extreme type II superconductors, on a length scale well below that of the magnetic penetration depth.
Quantum tunnelling of vortices
==============================
General introduction
--------------------
The quantum mechanical phenomenon of tunnelling has attracted attention from researchers in theoretical and experimental condensed matter physics, field theory and other areas. It belongs to the most remarkable properties solely pertaining to systems obeying the laws of quantum mechanics. Essentially, quantum mechanical tunnelling in a condensed matter system is described by the motion of a few degrees of freedom (subsumed in what follows into the term ‘particle’) under a potential barrier in configuration space. The particle is assumed to have less energy than represented by the height of the barrier (setting the bottom of the potential equal to the zero of energy). Because of wave-particle duality, a wave function can be associated with the particle. This wave function is damped under the barrier or, in other words, the particle travels with imaginary momentum there. To some extent and with some probability, the particle is thus located under the barrier. It can then even completely penetrate it, if the damping is small enough, getting with some nonzero probability from one side of the barrier to the other, whereas classically this is a completely forbidden process. There are different means to describe the tunnelling motion. The canonical way is to calculate wave functions for the problem, solving, [*e.g.*]{}, the Schrödinger equation for the potential of interest with appropriate boundary conditions imposed [@schmid; @eckern]. The most popular formal means to investigate tunnelling, however, is provided by the calculation of the Euclidean action of the system along the tunnelling trajectory [@coleman; @coleman1; @coleman2]. The Euclidean action is obtained from the Minkowski action by rotating to purely imaginary times $S_e\equiv -i S[t \rightarrow -it_e]$. The time on the imaginary axis of the complex $t$-plane will be denoted $t_e$. If the action is dominated by the classical path in Euclidean time, the tunnelling probability can be calculated in the semiclassical approximation. The corresponding solution of the second order Euclidean classical (field) equations of motion with finite action is called instanton. The name stems from the fact that the instanton is a particle-like object localised in Euclidean time. It exists, so to speak, just long enough for the actual particle to tunnel.
In the semiclassical limit, the tunnelling probability for a given energy $E$ is taking the form $$\label{PASe}
P(E)=A(E)\exp\left[-\frac{S_e(E)}\hbar\right]\,.$$ In this relation, $S_e(E)$ is the Legendre transform of the Euclidean action $S_e(T_e)\gg \hbar$ as a function of $T_e$, the Euclidean period of motion [@ll]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SE}
S_e(E)= S_e(T_e)-\frac{\partial S_e}{\partial T_e} T_e= S_e(T_e)- ET_e\,.\end{aligned}$$ The quantity $A(E)$, frequently called [*prefactor*]{}, represents the influence of fluctuations around the classical path. It is essentially given by the inverse determinant of the co-efficients of the second order deviations from the classical path in the action [@coleman; @kleinert].
The collective co-ordinate action of the vortex
-----------------------------------------------
It is a quite commonly accepted wisdom that any complex condensed matter problem remains intractable if we do not single out certain central, collective degrees of freedom, termed in general ‘[collective co-ordinates]{}’. This is possible because there are conservation laws and symmetries governing the behaviour of the system as a whole: We can actually describe essential features while not referring explicitly to the $10^{20}\cdots 10^{23}$ particles and their interaction.
The obvious choice for the vortex collective co-ordinate is its center $X^i(t,\sigma)$, which also indicates the center of topological stability and thus conserved topological charge. That this co-ordinate represents the vortex sufficiently accurate requires that we consider scales much larger than the vortex core size of order the coherence length $\xi$. Furthermore, we assume that there is a canonical collective vortex momentum related to this central co-ordinate. The action (\[SE\]) then is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SEKP}
S_e(E) & = & -i\int_0^{T_e}\!\!\oint\! dt_e \, d\sigma \,\dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}\cdot
{{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}}
=-i \oint\! d\sigma\!\oint d{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}\cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}}\nonumber\\&=&
\oint\! d\sigma\!\oint d{{\mbox{\boldmath$K$}}}\cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}}\,,\label{SeEKP}\end{aligned}$$ where we defined the imaginary differential co-ordinate vector $d{{\mbox{\boldmath$K$}}}=-i d{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}$ of the vortex.[^1] The parameter $\sigma$ labels points on the vortex string, and ${{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}}$ is the canonical momentum per $\sigma$-length.
Note that the co-ordinate [*differential*]{} vectors in (\[SeEKP\]) are no function of $\sigma$, as the co-ordinate [*position*]{} vectors themselves of course are. The closed time integral indicates that we take the integral over a full period of the motion. That such a periodic motion exists, is of course a highly nontrivial assumption for arbitrary dimension of the phase space. Only in an effectively one-dimensional problem (one spatial dimension), respectively for multidimensional systems separable into such one-dimensional problems (cf. [@ll] §48), closed phase space trajectories necessarily exist.
### Contributions in the tunnelling action {#contributions}
In two dimensions and in a conventional, [*electrically uncharged*]{} superfluid, vortices and charged particles have identical dynamical equations in the hydrodynamic limit. According to the three-dimensional extension of this duality, [*i.e.*]{} as a vortices–charged strings analogy, the vortex Hamiltonian takes the form [@annalspaper] $$H_V = \oint\! d\sigma \sqrt\gamma\, \left[M_0 c_s^2
+ \frac 1{2\gamma M_0} \left( {{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}}
-q{{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}}\right)^2
+\frac{M_0 c_s^2}{2\gamma}\,
{{\mbox{\boldmath$Q$}}}'{}^2\right]
+ q\int\! d\sigma \left(\frac12 a^0_C
+a^0_{u}\right)\,.\nonumber \\
\hspace*{-3em}
\vspace*{-1em}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HV}
$$ The first integral represents the self energy of the vortex, which has static, kinetic, and elastic contributions, respectively. The arc length of the line is written as $\sqrt\gamma d\sigma$, and the vector ${{\mbox{\boldmath$Q$}}}$ is a perturbation of some equilibrium string configuration perpendicular to the tangent vector ${{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'$ of the line. The rest frame mass $M_0$ is given by $M_0=E_0/c_s^2$ [@duan], where $E_0$ is the logarithmically divergent static self energy of the vortex (per unit length). In helium II this energy reads $E_0 = [{N_v^2 \kappa^2m\rho_0}/{(4\pi )}]\ln \left({8R_c}/{\xi e^C}
\right)\,$, with $\rho_0$ the bulk number density, $m$ the helium mass, $\kappa = h/m$ the velocity circulation quantum, $R_c$ the infrared cutoff (the local curvature radius of the line), $\xi$ the ultraviolet cutoff (the core size), and $C$ a constant characterising the core structure. The second integral represents the ‘electrostatic’ energy, in which we split the scalar potential $a^0$ into a Coulomb contribution from the interaction with other vortices, $a^0_C$ and the interaction with a nonvortical background flow, $a^0_u$. The vectorial generalization of the stream function $\psi$ of classical hydrodynamics [@milne-t], is related to $a_0=-a^0$ by $a_0=\rho_0 {{\mbox{\boldmath$\psi$}}}\cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'$. The factor 1/2 in front of $a^0_C$ stems from the Coulomb gauge for the vector potential, div${{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}}=0$, and makes sure that the energy of each vortex is counted only once. The ‘charge’ $q=N_v h $ is given by the winding number $N_v$ multiplying Planck’s quantum of action.[^2]
The gauge potentials are derived from the external flow field at the position of the line element at $\sigma$ by a gauge invariant duality relation [@annalspaper]. In its nonrelativistic form needed here, this reads $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm rot}\, {{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}} & = & - \rho {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'\,,\label{rotaBX'}\\
\partial_t {{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}} +\nabla a^0 & = & {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'\times {{\mbox{\boldmath$j$}}}\label{Efield}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where ${{\mbox{\boldmath$j$}}}=\rho{{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}$ is the conserved particle current, $\partial_t\rho + {\rm div}{{\mbox{\boldmath$j$}}} = 0$. The quantity of crucial importance in the Euclidean action of constant energy (\[SeEKP\]), determining the tunnelling exponent, is the canonical momentum $$\label{Pcanon}
{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}} = {\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}^{\rm inc} + {\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}^{\rm kin}
=q {\mbox{\boldmath$a$}} + M_0 \sqrt\gamma \dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}
\, .$$ It consists of a contribution ${\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}^{\rm inc}$, which is related to the Magnus force acting on the vortex, and a second contribution $ {\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}^{\rm kin}$ related to the existence of a nonzero vortex mass, that is, to a finite compressibility and thus finite $c_s$. It follows by integration of (\[rotaBX’\]) that the ratio of the momentum contributions ${{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}}^{\rm kin}$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}}^{\rm inc}$ is in order of magnitude $\approx (N_v \kappa)/(c_s|{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}|)(|\dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}|/c_s)$ (neglecting the vortex energy logarithm). Hence for large scales (large curvature radii), and small velocities, that is in the hydrodynamic limit, $ {\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}^{\rm kin}$ is dominated by ${\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}^{\rm inc}$.
The Euclidean action is given by $$\begin{aligned}
S_e(T_e) & = &
\int_0^{T_e}\!\oint dt_e d\sigma\sqrt{\gamma(t_e,\sigma)}M_0 c_s^2\left\{
1+\frac1{2c_s^2} \dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$Q$}}}{}^2 +\frac1{2\gamma}\,
{{\mbox{\boldmath$Q$}}}'{}^2\right\}\nonumber\\
& & \quad + q\int_0^{T_e}\!\oint dt_e d\sigma\left[ a^0 -i {\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}\cdot
\dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}\right]\,.\label{SEQ}\end{aligned}$$ In case that a tunnelling process of constant energy is under consideration, the quantity of interest is the action as a function of constant energy (\[SEKP\]). According to the relation (\[Pcanon\]), this action consists of a part related to the vector potential and another part related to the vortex effective mass $(\dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}= \dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$Q$}}})$: $$\begin{aligned}
S_e(E) & = & S^{\rm inc}_e(E)+S^{\rm kin}_e(E)=
\int_0^{T_e}\!\oint dt_e d\sigma \dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}\cdot \left[{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}^{\rm inc}
+ {\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}^{\rm kin}\right]\nonumber\\
& = & \int_0^{T_e}\!\oint dt_e d\sigma \dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}\cdot \left[
-iq {\mbox{\boldmath$a$}} + M_0 \sqrt\gamma \dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}\right]\,.\label{SEtotal}\end{aligned}$$ The Euclidean action splits into a part $S_e^{\rm inc}$, due to the interaction of the vortex with an (approximately) incompressible background superfluid, and a part $S_e^{\rm kin}$ which can be ascribed to the kinetic (‘vortex matter’) term in the vortex momentum. We will now show that $S^{\rm inc}_e(E)$ is given by a volume associated with the path the vortex line traces out in configuration space, whereas $S_e^{\rm
kin}$ is connected with an area associated with that path.
To demonstrate this, we integrate relation (\[rotaBX’\]), multiplied with $q$, to obtain ($\rho=\rho_0$) $$-\oint\!\!\oint P^{\rm inc}_{\it a} {d}X^{\it a} {d}\sigma
= {N_v}h\rho_0\int\!\!\int\!\!\int\!
\sqrt g \, {d}X^{\it 1}{d}X^{\it 2}{d}\sigma\,,$$ where $g$ is the determinant of the coordinate basis on the line (unity for a triad). The closed surface with surface elements of magnitude ${d}X^{\it a} {d}\sigma$ ([*a= 1,2*]{} is the index of the two ${{\mbox{\boldmath$Q$}}}$-directions), encloses the total volume with local element $\sqrt g \, {d}X^{\it 1}{d}X^{\it 2}{d}\sigma$ traced out by the line on its path. Further, using the gauge freedom for the momentum, we can express the action $S^{\rm inc}_e(E)$ by the volume integral $$\label{volume}
\frac{S^{\rm inc}_e (E)}\hbar =2\pi{N_v}\,
\rho_0\,\int\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\int\! \sqrt g\,
dZ^1 dZ^2 \, d\sigma\, \,,$$ wherein the co-ordinate differentials are defined to be $$\begin{aligned}
dZ^1 & = & \cos\alpha \, dK^{\it 1} + \sin\alpha\, dK^{\it2}
= -i \left(\cos\alpha \, dX^{\it 1} + \sin\alpha\, dX^{\it
2}\right)\,,
\nonumber\\
dZ^2 & = & -\sin\alpha\, dX^{\it 1} + \cos\alpha\, dX^{\it 2}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The angle $\alpha (\sigma)$ parameterizes in these differentials the local (co-ordinate) gauge freedom for the momentum, of rotations about the line tangent ${{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'$. It expresses the fact that one degree of freedom is still available, namely that for the direction of the local gauge dependent momentum ${{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}}^{\rm inc}(\sigma)$, even after a local basis on the string has been chosen. For the components of ${\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}^{\rm inc} $ in the two ${\mbox{\boldmath$Q$}}$-directions ${{\mbox{\boldmath$e$}}}_{\it 1}$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath$e$}}}_{\it 2}$ the relation $$\label{p1p2}
\partial_{\it 2} P^{\rm inc}_{\it 1} -\partial_{\it 1} P^{\rm inc}_{\it 2}
= N_v h \rho_0\sqrt g\,$$ obtains [@geo], cf. relation (\[rotaBX’\]). The simplest example is a rectilinear line in $z$-direction, for which the local momentum can rotate in the $x$-$y$ plane. The gauge invariant quantity is the integral $\oint\!\!\oint P^{\rm inc}_{\it a} {d}X^{\it a} d\sigma$, which is left unchanged by the rotation freedom. The relation (\[p1p2\]) implies that in the hydrodynamic limit of $|{{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}}^{\rm kin}|/|{{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}}^{\rm inc}|
\rightarrow 0$, phase space and configuration space become indistinguishable, since the momentum components then become functions of the co-ordinates alone, and are no longer independent variables [@onsagerstathydro].
It is illuminating to go back to our ‘electrodynamic’ quantities and rewrite $$S_e^{\rm inc}(E)= iq\, \int\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\int\! B_\sigma \,\sqrt g\,
dX^{\it 1} dX^{\it 2} \, d\sigma \,,$$ where $B_\sigma = - \rho_0$ is the (nonrelativistic) ‘magnetic’ field, pointing antiparallel to the direction of the line tangent. The part $S_e^{\rm inc}(E)$ is thus the Aharonov-Bohm type Berry phase [@berry] in the Euclidean wave function of the adiabatically moving quantum object vortex.
The part of the action $S_e^{\rm kin}$ explicitly involves the vortex dynamics, and thus can not be calculated by knowledge of the vortex path [*geometry*]{} alone, as this was possible for the part $S_e^{\rm inc}$. Treating the influence of the mass as a small perturbation on the vortex path, the ratio of the actions is of the same order. More exactly, $$\begin{aligned}
S_e^{\rm kin}(E) &
= & \oint\!\!\oint P^{\rm kin}_{\it a} {d}X^{\it a} {d}\sigma
=\oint\!\!\oint M_0\sqrt \gamma\, {\dot Q}_{\it a} {d}X^{\it a} {d}\sigma
\nonumber\\
& = & \frac{N_v h\rho_0}{4\pi}\,\frac{\Gamma_s}{c_s}
\oint\!\!\oint\ln (\cdots)\,({\dot Q}_{\it a}/{c_s})
\, \sqrt\gamma\, dX^{\it a}d\sigma\nonumber\\
& \simeq & h\rho_0\frac{\ln(\cdots)}{2\pi}\,\xi \oint\!\!\oint
({\dot Q}_{\it a}/{c_s})\sqrt\gamma\, dX^{\it a}d\sigma\;
\qquad (\mbox{$\textstyle N_v=1$, He II}).
\label{SEkin}\end{aligned}$$ The last line is valid for a unit circulation vortex in helium II, in which the approximate equality $$\label{kappacs}
\kappa\simeq c_s 2\xi \qquad (\mbox{in helium II})$$ holds.[^3] The logarithm is assumed to vary only slightly during the tunnelling process, so that it is written in front of the integral. In the length scale domain of interest, $\ln (\cdots)/2\pi = {O}(1)$. The dots, $\cdots$, indicate an average over the argument of the vortex energy logarithm.
Essentially, (\[SEkin\]) tells us that the kinetic part of the Euclidean action in units of $\hbar$ depends on an area (element) multiplied by the (local) velocity of the vortex in units of the speed of sound. The coherence length $\xi$ times this area gives a volume, which multiplied by the bulk number density finally yields a dimensionless action. The full Euclidean action (\[SEtotal\]) thus takes the schematic form (for simplicity again displayed in the unit circulation case of helium II) $$\label{SEgeo}
\frac{S_e(E)}\hbar =\rho_0\left( 2\pi \Omega^{(d)}+ \ln (\cdots)\, \xi\,
\Sigma^{(d)}\left[\partial {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}/(c_s \partial t) \right]
\right)\,.$$ The volume $\Omega^{(d)}=-i\int\!\!\int\!\!\int\! \sqrt g \,
{d}X^{\it 1}{d}X^{\it 2}{d}\sigma$. The effective surface $$\Sigma^{(d)}=\oint\!\!\oint
({\dot Q}_{\it a}/{c_s})\, \sqrt\gamma\, dX^{\it a}d\sigma$$ obtained by integrating over the surface enclosing $\Omega^{(d)}$ is a functional of the vortex velocity scaled by the speed of sound ($d$ indicates the spatial dimension).
To summarize, in a dense, strongly coupled superfluid, the first term dominates the second term in (\[SEgeo\]) for the following reasons:
- The large scale, collective co-ordinate limit requires that the scales to be considered are much larger than $\xi$. The corresponding volumina and areas have to be very much larger than $\xi^3$ and $\xi^2$, respectively, and hence $\Omega^{(d)}\gg\xi\, \Sigma^{(d)}$ .
- The area contribution of $S_e^{\rm kin}$ is additionally suppressed by the vortex velocity divided by the speed of sound, [*i.e.*]{} $\Sigma^{(d)}\ll \partial\Omega^{(d)}$, where $\partial\Omega^{(d)}$ is the proper surface area enclosing $\Omega^{(d)}$.
This dominance of $S_e^{\rm inc}$ over $S_e^{\rm kin}$ is in contrast to the case of relativistic (string) objects moving with speeds of order $c_s$ [@davis3; @kaolee]. Under this circumstance, $S_e^{\rm kin}$ is of the same order as $S_e^{\rm inc}$ and the action is of order $S_e/\hbar \approx \rho_0\ln(\cdots)\,\xi\, \partial\Omega^{(d)}$. If one neglects the dependence of the logarithm on the co-ordinates, this is essentially the Nambu action ([@nambustrings]), in units of $\hbar$, up to a factor of order unity. We assumed that the vortex path in phase space is closed. As a consequence, the number of particles in the effective volume on the right-hand side of (\[SEgeo\]) is quantized according to $$\label{N}
S_e(E) = (N^{(d)}+\alpha)h\,\quad
\Leftrightarrow \quad S_e(E)/\hbar = 2\pi (N^{(d)}+\alpha).$$ The number of particles in the effective volume (including the small kinetic contribution on the right-hand side of (\[SEgeo\])), plays the part of the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantum number in semiclassical quantization. The number $\alpha$ is of the order one and signifies the onset of the microscopic quantum regime. In the semiclassical approximation, $N^{(d)}\gg \alpha $ must hold, so that $N^{(d)}\gg 1$ gives, as usual, a direct measure of semiclassicality.
Geometry of Quantum Tunnelling
------------------------------
Galilean invariance violation
-----------------------------
At the absolute zero of temperature, a homogeneous nonrelativistic superfluid has Galilean invariance, that is, physical contents are invariant under co-ordinate transformations to any reference frame moving at constant velocity. If we approach absolute zero, which is what is actually realized in experiment, we expect the tunnelling rate to make no abrupt change as the temperature is lowered. Thus the result for the rate we obtain at $T=0$ should also be valid for temperatures slightly above zero (we will estimate the temperatures, for which this is no longer the case, later on).
Because we can always transform to the rest frame comoving with the superfluid, the tunnelling probability at $T=0$ equals zero if Galilean invariance remains unbroken: In the rest frame there is a tunnelling barrier of infinite height, the logarithmically diverging vortex self energy. Hence it is necessary to explicitly include the violation of Galilean invariance by a flow obstacle into any calculation of tunnelling rates for Galilei invariant superfluids at absolute zero. The necessity of invariance violation for tunnelling to be energetically allowed thus stems in the real superfluid from the fact that it is possible to invariantly transform to the rest frame of the superfluid, for any allowed velocity of flow. Having thus shown that it is strictly required that Galilean invariance be violated, we are in demand of constructing an explicit solution of the following problem. Given a vortex in the presence of an invariance breaking flow obstacle, we have to calculate the Hamilonian energy $H_V$ of the vortex in the Hamiltonian (\[HV\]) as a function of the co-ordinates, by solving one of the equations of motion corresponding to this Hamiltonian respectively the Euclidean action (\[SEQ\]). We then set $H_V$ equal to a constant $E$, to calculate the vortex trajectory of constant energy, which finally yields the action (\[SEKP\]) respectively (\[SEQ\]), in the form of (\[SEgeo\]). It is obvious that without a very high degree of symmetry, this is a task necessitating a quite formidable computational effort.
We have seen that the problem of determining the dominant contribution $S_e^{\rm inc}$ is a geometrical problem, because the phase space co-ordinates are functionally dependent on the configuration space co-ordinates. We will therefore restrict the discussion in what follows to cases which elucidate in particular the geometric nature of quantum tunnelling, that is, concentrate on the behaviour of $S_e^{\rm inc}$, which is a functional of geometrical quantities.
The vortex half-ring case {#introhalfring}
-------------------------
To flesh out the discussion which has been so far quite abstract, we now give some quantities relevant in the tunnelling problem for a vortex. Imagine, for concreteness, a singly quantized vortex half-ring of radius $R$ with its circulation axis ${{\mbox{\boldmath$e$}}}_\phi$ standing perpendicular on the plane $y=0$. Over the plane is flowing liquid with a velocity $u$ at infinity from right to left (in the negative $x$-direction). Consider, first, the case that the invariance-breaking asperities on the surface are small-scale (it will become clear in a moment what ‘small-scale’ means). Neglecting the elastic and kinetic terms in the Hamiltonian, as well as perturbations of the flow generated by the asperities, the conserved vortex energy is simply $$H_V = h\rho_0\int_0^\pi d\phi \left[
\frac{\kappa}{4\pi}\, R \, \ln \left(\frac{8R}{\xi e^C}\right)
- \frac12\, u R^2 \right]\,.$$ If we normalize the energy by $$\label{normE}
\tilde H_V \equiv \frac{4\pi m}{h^2\rho_0}\, H_V\,,$$ and solve for the path of constant total energy $\tilde E_0$, we get the relation $$R = \frac{\kappa}{2\pi u} \, \ln \left[ \frac{8R/\xi}{\exp( C+\tilde
E_0 /(\pi R))}\right]\,.$$ This equation has two solutions for the radius $R$. One of them is, in the case of $u\ll \kappa/2\pi \xi$ and small $\tilde E_0/\pi R \ll C$, located far away from the surface $x=0$, at $$\label{defR0}
R_0\simeq \frac\kappa{2\pi u}\,\ln \left( \frac{8\kappa /(2 \pi u \xi)}
{\exp(C)}\right)\,.$$ The other solution is a half-ring of radius in the order of the coherence length, $R_\xi= {O}(\xi )$ (which will not be of further interest here; it signifies the path of the (virtual) vortex trapped at the flat boundary).
The closed path in phase space, needed to evaluate (\[SEKP\]), can be obtained as follows. Assume that the small asperities are approximately of the shape of oblate rotation ellipsoids with half-axes $b$ perpendicular and $a$ parallel to the flow and define the [*sharpness*]{} $\beta = b/a > 1$. Then, the half-ring trajectory over such a small ellipsoid, collinear with the ring axis, were given by $$\label{RbK}
R^2 = b^2 + \beta^2 K^2\,,$$ using the complex co-ordinate $K=-iZ$, and provided that the vortex exactly follows the surface (up to a constant $O(\xi$)). This trajectory hits the one far away from the surface, given by $R_0=$const., at $K_0 \simeq R_0/\beta $ (provided that $b \ll R_0$). The closed phase space trajectory thus begins at the ellipsoid top ($K=0,R \simeq b$), then propagates along the line given by (\[RbK\]), meets the constant $R_0$ at $K_0$, then follows this constant to $-K_0$, and finally follows the branch of (\[RbK\]) for negative $K$ back to the ellipsoid top.
The tunnelling exponent, using the gauge $P_X= (1/2) h\rho_0 R^2$ for the momentum, is thereby $$\begin{aligned}
S_e^{\rm inc}(\tilde E_0)& = & 2h\rho_0 \int_0^\pi\! d\phi \int_0^{K_0}\!\! dK
\,\frac12\left(R_0^2-\beta^2 K^2\right)\nonumber\\
& = & h\rho_0\frac{2\pi}3 R_0^3 /\beta
= h\rho_0\Omega^{(3)}
\,. \label{SEusmall}\end{aligned}$$ The tunnelling volume and thus the exponent may consequently be reduced and the tunnelling probability enhanced if a surface with sufficiently sharp peaks perpendicular to the flow is present. In particular, if we were able to reduce the small half-axis to $a\gtrsim \xi$, and still have $b\gg a $, we could reduce the tunnelling volume to $\Omega^{(3)}\approx (2\pi /3)R_0^2\,\xi (R_0/b)$. It is worthwhile to point out that this reduction is not due to an enhancement of the flow velocity at the ellipsoid top: For any value of $\beta$, because of cylindrical symmetry, the velocity at the top is exactly $2u$, just as for the half-sphere.
The trajectory (\[RbK\]) is correct only in lowest order of $\beta -1$. In particular, for $\beta =1$ ($a=b$), the half-sphere, the result for the tunnelling exponent (\[SEusmall\]) is exact in the low velocity limit. This can be shown by solving the problem for the sphere exactly, which has been done in [@volovik]. The result for the stream function part of the potential in the Hamiltonian (\[HV\]), $a^0=- \rho_0 \psi$, corresponding to Stokes’ stream function $\psi$ [@milne-t], has been checked by the author, and is in Coulomb gauge $$\frac12\psi_C +\psi_u = R\, \frac{\kappa}{4\pi} Q_{1/2}(w)
- \frac12 u R^2 \left(1- \left(\frac
a{\sqrt{R^2+Z^2}}\right)^{3}\right) \,,\label{3dspherical}$$ with $w\equiv 1+ (1/2)[(Z^2+R^2-a^2)/(aR)]^2$. The function $Q_{1/2}$ is a Legendre function of the second kind ([@GR], No. 8.821), a solution of the Poisson equation $\Delta \psi = \kappa \delta^{(2)}({\mbox{\boldmath$x$}} -{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}})$ for the combined spherical-cylindrical symmetry of the problem at hand.
The problem of a undeformed, massless half-ring situated at a half-sphere, with their axes coinciding, is actually the only nontrivial problem in three spatial dimensions solvable with reasonable effort analytically. It has just the maximal symmetry in three dimensions. It does not, however, contain the crucial ingredient for a full geometrical analysis of quantum tunnelling: The curvature of the flow obstacle is constant. The result that, for the sphere, the vortex half-ring follows exactly the surface (up to a [*constant*]{} distance of order $\xi$), has led in [@volovik] to the assumption that it is admissible to continue this result to the ellipsoid case, in the manner of (\[RbK\]). We will show in the subsection to follow that this is incorrect: The analytic continuation of the sphere result to the ellipsoid case of arbitrary $\beta$ is incompatible with the geometric requirements imposed by a hydrodynamic, collective co-ordinate treatment.
Analytical solution in two dimensions
-------------------------------------
A treatment of our (boundary) problem in two spatial dimensions [@geo] is advantageous for the following reasons:
- The additional spacelike co-ordinate, namely the arc length parameter, complicates the analysis enormously because of the locality of any variable in $\sigma$ and the existence of elastic energy.
- Even if we treat an undeformed ring or half-ring, [*i.e.*]{} neglect elastic energy and locality altogether, any 3d problem which has not the maximal symmetry described above, requires a multitude of image vortices and gets quite intractable.
- In two dimensions, we have available the tools of conformal transformation, allowing for comparatively simple calculations of analytical solutions.
- The geometrical features, which are dominant in the hydrodynamic, collective co-ordinate limit, as expounded at length above, are most clearly seen in two dimensions.
### The solution for the circle
![\[circle\] The most simple nontrivial boundary problem solvable by the image technique: A unit circulation point vortex in the half space $Y>0$, which is filled with liquid, moving near a (half-)circle. The boundary conditions are satisfied by an image vortex at the plane and two image vortices of opposite strength inside the circle.](fig1.eps){width="65.00000%"}
The basic solution from which we start is that for a vortex in the presence of a half-circle of radius $d$ at an otherwise flat boundary (cf. Fig. \[circle\]). The complex plane of this original solution is called the $Z$-plane (the uppercase letter does here not imply that a vortex position is meant). The imaginary part of the complex potential [@milne-t] gives the stream function $\psi = \Im [w]$, whereas the real part is the usual velocity potential. It follows that a single vortex at $Z_1$ has complex potential $ w(Z)=-i(\kappa/2 \pi)\ln [Z-\bar Z_1]$.
The boundary condition to be fulfilled is obviously that there be no flow into the surface consisting of the line $Y=0$ and the half-circle. This amounts to the requirement that the line $Y=0$ (for $|Y|>d$), $Y=\sqrt
{d^2-X^2}$ (for $|Y|\le d$) is a streamline of constant $\psi\equiv
0$. Such a requirement can be met by using the technique of image charges quite familiar from electrostatics: Our vortex problem is completely equivalent to that for a ‘charge’ situated near a perfectly conducting surface, with no tangential ‘electric’ field.
The complex potential generated by the image vortices and acting on the vortex at $Z_1$ is then given by $$w_i(Z_1)=-i\,\frac\kappa{2\pi}\ln \left[
\frac{\left(Z_1-\bar Z_1\right)
\left(d^2/Z_1-\bar Z_1\right)}{{d^2}/Z_1-Z_1}
\right]\,.$$ The first factor in the numerator stems from the image vortex at the plane $Y=0$ with complex potential $w(Z)=-i(\kappa/2 \pi)
\ln [Z-\bar Z_1]$ (which has to be present even without the circle), the second one is obtained by the circle theorem [@milne-t] as the image of the original vortex at the circle. Finally, the potential of the remaining $+\kappa$-circulation vortex inside the circle, contributing in the denominator of the logarithm, completes the image vortex system, again by the circle theorem. The first term in the denominator of the logarithm is incorporated into the static self energy of the vortex, $E_{\rm self} = (m\rho_0\kappa^2/4\pi)\ln \left(|Z_1-\bar Z_1|/\xi\right)$, which is cut off by $\xi$ and equal to half the energy of a vortex pair separated by $|Z_1-\bar Z_1|$. The expression for the potential of (\[HV\]) is thus $$\psi_C
=-(\kappa /2\pi) \ln\left( \left|(d^2/Z_1-\bar Z_1)/({d^2}/Z_1-Z_1)
\right|\right)\,,$$ which is just the counterpart of $\psi_C$ in (\[3dspherical\]) in two dimensions. The complex counterpart of $\psi_u$, in turn, is $$w_u(Z)=u \left(Z+\frac{d^2}Z\right)\,,$$ giving the complex potential of flow from right to left (in the negative $X$-direction).
The full energy of the point vortex, neglecting compressibility effects, and using the normalisation (\[normE\]), is thence given by the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tildeEZ}
\tilde E(Z_1)= \ln\left| \frac{(Z_1-\bar Z_1)
\left(d^2/Z_1-\bar Z_1\right)}{\xi\left({d^2}/Z_1-Z_1\right)}\right|
-\frac{4\pi u}\kappa \Im\left(Z_1 + \frac{d^2}{Z_1}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$
### Conformal transformation
A conformal transformation is a co-ordinate transformation leaving angles invariant, that is, the metric is multiplied by a conformal factor which is the transformation’s Jacobian determinant. What we want to do is to map by a conformal transformation the region outside a boundary surface with varying curvature radius, lying in the (target) $z$-plane, to the domain outside the circle, which is in the (original) $Z$-plane. Any such transformation can be written as a holomorphic function of $Z$ (save for singular points, such as vortex centers), in the form $$\label{conformaltrans}
z= a_0 Z +\sum_{n=0}^\infty b_n Z^{-n}\,,$$ where $a_0, b_n$ are some coefficients and $Z=d\exp(i\chi)$ is on the circle (we omitted a constant, indicating a change of $z$-plane origin).
### The ellipse solution
We would like to invert relation (\[conformaltrans\]) to obtain the solution for the boundary surface directly from that for the circle, which we have already obtained above. Easiest to perform is this inversion if we let $b_0=0$, $b_n=0$ for $n>1$. Furthermore, if $a_0\equiv 1$ by proper normalizing choice of scale, we are led to the celebrated Joukowski transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Joukowski}
z=Z-l^2/4Z\,,\end{aligned}$$ which maps the outside of an ellipse with half-axes $a,b$ (where $a<b$) to the outside of a circle of radius $d=(a+b)/2$. The parameter $l$ is defined by $l^2=b^2-a^2$. The inversion of this transformation is cast into the form $$Z=\frac12\left( z + \sqrt{z^2+l^2}\right)\equiv \frac l2
\left(\sinh\zeta + \cosh\zeta\right)=\frac l2 \exp[\zeta]\,.$$ with the aid of elliptic co-ordinates, defined by ($\zeta=\chi+i\eta$) $$z=l\sinh\zeta=l\left( \sinh\chi \cos \eta +i \cosh\chi\sin \eta\right)
=x+iy\,.
$$ The lines of constant $\eta$ and $\chi$ are confocal ellipses and hyperbolae, as follows from $$\frac{y^2}{l^2\sin^2\eta}-\frac{x^2}{l^2\cos^2\eta}=1\,,
\qquad\frac{x^2}{l^2\sinh^2\chi}+\frac{y^2}{l^2\cos^2\chi}=1$$ The co-ordinate basis ${{\mbox{\boldmath$e$}}}_\chi \equiv \partial/\partial\chi$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath$e$}}}_\eta \equiv \partial/\partial\eta$ is an ortho-basis with the conformal metric $g_{ij}=l^2(\cosh^2\chi\cos^2\eta +
\sinh^2\chi\sin^2\eta)\delta_{ij}$.
The normalized energy (\[tildeEZ\]) as a function of the elliptic vortex co-ordinates $\chi_1,\eta_1$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tildeE}
\tilde{E} (\chi_1,\eta_1)
= \ln\left[\frac{a+b}{\xi}\,\frac{\exp(\chi_1-\chi_0)|\sin\eta_1| \sinh (\chi_1-\chi_0)}{(\sinh^2(\chi_1-\chi_0)+\sin^2\eta_1)^{1/2}}\right]
\nonumber\\
-\frac{4\pi u(a+b)}\kappa\sinh
(\chi_1-\chi_0)|\sin\eta_1|\,,$$ where $\chi_0 ={\rm artanh} (a/b)$ is the co-ordinate specifying the (half-)ellipse surface at the boundary, [*i.e.*]{} the half-axes of the ellipse are given by $a=l\sinh \chi_0$, $b=l\cosh\chi_0$.
For direct comparison with the half-ring case treated in subsection \[introhalfring\], which had a quite simple geometrical meaning, we will investigate the paths of constant energy $\tilde E (\chi_1,\eta_1)
\equiv \tilde E_0$ mainly in the case of small velocity $u$. The notion of ‘small’ requires some more care in two dimensions as compared to the cylindrically symmetric half-ellipsoid case in three dimensions. Whereas in the latter the velocity enhancement at the top is always $2u$, in the 2d case it is $2(b/a)u$. Hence it is required that we restrict the velocity at infinity to $$\label{uabvl}
u \ll \frac a {2b}\, v_L\,,$$ such that the velocity at the top is well below the critical velocity $$\label{defvL}
v_L\equiv \frac\kappa{2\pi\xi}\,,$$ which gives a measure of the onset of many-body quantum physics in the atomic superfluid helium II. For Fermi superfluids, the corresponding critical velocity is the pair-breaking velocity of Cooper pairs. We will henceforth refer to $v_L$ as ‘Landau velocity’ and generally scale velocities with it. Numerically, the actual Landau critical velocity of roton creation $\simeq$ 59 m/s at $p\simeq$ 1 bar equals $v_L$ if $\xi\simeq 2.7 $ Å is taken.[^4]
The approach of the vortex to the ellipse surface is closest at the top $(\eta=\pi/2)$. Let us calculate the distance at the top as a function of the constant energy $\tilde E_0$. In general, a small distance interval $\delta s $ is given by $\delta s = \sqrt{g_{\chi\chi}(\chi_0)} \,\delta\chi=
(a^2\sin^2\eta + b^2 \cos^2\eta)^{1/2}\delta \chi$. We define a quantity $s$ by $$\label{sdef}
s =a \delta\chi_c \equiv a\delta\chi(\eta = \pi/2)\,.$$ At the ellipse top, $s = \delta s (\eta=\pi/2)$, provided that $\delta\chi_c\equiv \chi_1(\eta=\pi/2)-\chi_0 \ll \chi_0$. The actual distance of the vortex to the top is somewhat different if this inequality does not hold. We do not further dwell on this difference here for the sake of simple argument and take (\[sdef\]) as a definition of the quantity of distance $s$. Evaluating (\[tildeE\]) at $\eta=\pi/2$ for small velocities, and assuming that $\tilde E_0$ is small enough for $\delta\chi_c\ll 1 $ to hold, we get $\delta\chi_c \simeq
\xi\exp[\tilde E_0]/(a+b)$ and therefore $$\label{deltasab}
s \simeq \frac a{a+b} \,\exp[\tilde E_0]\,\xi\simeq
\frac ab \,\exp[\tilde E_0]\,\xi\qquad (\eta=\pi/2,\,\mbox{$u$ small})\,.$$ On the other hand, far away from the half-ellipse, at the flat boundary, the distance is, in the low velocity limit, given by $\delta s \simeq (1/2) \xi \exp[\tilde E_0]$. We observe that the vortex comes closer to the ellipse by a ratio $2a/b$ (for $b\gg a$) than it was far away from the ellipse. If $a=b$, that is, in the case of the circle, the distance remains the same.
### Geometric restrictions
Now, if we are bound to remain in the realm of the hydrodynamic description of a collective co-ordinate vortex, we have to impose that the total distance $\Delta s$ of the vortex to the ellipse always exceeds a quantity ${O}(\xi)$: $$\label{scond}
\Delta s = \int^{\chi_1}_{\chi_0}\delta s\ge {O}(\xi)\,.$$ The quantity $O(\xi)$ means ‘a value in the order of $\xi$ by definition’, as there can obviously be no sharp distinction between the ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of a quantum vortex. Additionally, the choice for the lower limit value of the total distance $\int\delta s$ in units of $\xi$ depends on the value of the core constant $C_0=O$(1), parameterizing the many-body core structure in the vortex energy logarithm $\ln[R/(\xi\exp [C_0])]$. For the point vortex considered, which has $R = 2Y$,$\exp C_0 =1$; for a ring vortex we chose the parameterization $8\exp [C_0]=\exp[C]$, cf. [@robgrant].
It is apparent from (\[deltasab\]) that if the energy of the vortex is sufficiently small (in particular, if it is zero) and the ratio $b/a$ is sufficiently large, the condition (\[scond\]) will be violated and a hydrodynamic collective co-ordinate description invalid. Thus, there is a minimum vortex energy required for the whole formalism we employ here to retain its validity. Expressing this energy as a function of the parameters involved, we have, for general velocities ($\delta\chi_c\equiv \delta\chi(\eta=\pi/2)$): $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde E_0 & = &
\ln\left[\frac{a+b}{\xi}\,\exp\delta\chi_c\, \tanh \delta\chi_c\right]
-\frac{4\pi u(a+b)}\kappa\sinh
\delta\chi_c\,\label{E0}\\
& \simeq & \ln\left[\left(1+\frac{b}{a}\right)\frac {s} \xi \right]
-\frac{2u}{v_L}\left(1+\frac ba\right)\frac {s}\xi\,.
$$ the last line valid provided that we can approximate, with reasonable accuracy, [*e.g*]{}, $\tanh\delta\chi_c\simeq \delta\chi_c$. The energy $\tilde E_0$ is the energy needed by the vortex to remain completely describable in terms of a collective co-ordinate on its way along the ellipse. The quantity $s$ is defined in (\[sdef\]), and has a lower bound related to the prescription (\[scond\]).
We have depicted the normalised potentials corresponding to different velocities in units of $v_L$ and ratios $s/a$ in Figs. \[Escaled004050\] and \[Escaled008050\]. The potentials in these figures correspond to the real space ellipse shown in \[ellipse\] which has $b/a\simeq 5.7$ and where $s/a \approx 2$. For clarity, we have additionally displayed the shape of the barriers in the direction of the $y$-axis ([*i.e.*]{}the ${{\mbox{\boldmath$e$}}}_\chi$-axis at $\eta=\pi/2$) in Fig. \[Escaledpi2|050\]. Whereas for $u=0.04$ the semiclassical approximation is still applicable, for $u=0.08$ this is no longer the case. It is approximately for this velocity that the barrier tends to zero and the tunnelling distance approaches $\xi$. One can see here explicitly that $v_L$ indeed represents a sensible measure for a critical velocity, because the local velocity at the top is $\simeq v_L$, if the velocity at infinity takes the value $u\simeq 0.088$.
\
\
The situation we encounter in real space is shown in Figure \[ellipse\]. We visualize the quantum core size as the shaded area around the vortex center, having the $O(\xi)$-radius used in (\[scond\]). The vortex on path 1 is not able to pass the ellipse without some part of this shaded area covering the ellipse, but the vortex on path 2 with energy $\tilde E_0$ avoids the ellipse surface completely. That the validity of the hydrodynamic approach enforces that we introduce another geometrical quantity, $s$, the vortex distance of closest approach, which implies a lower bound of vortex energy, $\tilde E_0(s)$, is an observation of general character. It is of relevance for any attempt to describe tunnelling in a realistic, non-spherical geometry, [*i.e.*]{} when the boundary and thus the path of the tunnelling object near it is not of $S^n$ symmetry. A hydrodynamic collective co-ordinate description is valid only if the quantum core structure of the tunnelling object is not touched upon during its motion along the boundary. A pinning potential for the vortex moving in the superfluid stems in general from some flow obstacle, in our case the ellipse. Any phenomenological [ansatz]{} for a pinning potential usually employed in tunnelling calculations, which has curvature perpendicular to the applied flow larger than parallel to the flow will have to take into account that the object can approach the surface within its core size. We now come back to the determination of the two paths of constant energy we need to construct the closed path in Euclidean phase space. Assuming $\delta \chi \gg 1$, we get the path far away from the ellipse to which the vortex has to tunnel. It is, with decreasing magnitude of $u$, given by the relations (as a reminder, $b\gg a$): $$\begin{aligned}
l\exp[\chi_1]|\sin \eta_1| & = &
\frac\kappa{2\pi u }\ln \left[\frac{l}{\xi\exp[\tilde E_0]}
\exp[\chi_1]|\sin \eta_1|\right]\\
2Y_1/\xi & = & \frac{v_L}{u}\ln\left[\frac{2Y_1}{\xi\exp[\tilde E_0]}\right] \\
2Y_0/\xi & = & \frac{v_L}{u}\ln\left[\frac{v_L}{u\exp[\tilde E_0]}\right]
\,,\label{Y0}\end{aligned}$$ The relevant path is the solution which has $Y_1\gg b$ (the second solution of the equations above is just the vortex trapped at the boundary, far from the ellipse). The last relation is exactly analogous to (\[defR0\]), which is valid in the low velocity limit of three dimensions.
The path at the ellipse with energy $\tilde E_0$ does have approximately constant $\delta\chi\ll 1$ if $s\ll a$. The shape of this path can be obtained (to lowest order in $\delta \chi$) by solving the equation $$(a+b)|\sin\eta_1|=\frac\kappa{4\pi u\,\delta\chi}
\ln\left[\frac{(a+b)\delta \chi}{\xi\exp[\tilde E_0]}\right]$$ Around the ellipse top, within a large range of $\eta$-values, the solution is approximately given by $\delta\chi_c \simeq s/a$. This can also be inferred from Figure \[Escaled004050\].
[![\[ellipse\] Two vortex paths of constant energy near the ellipse. Whereas the vortex on path 1 with approximately zero energy, $\tilde E \simeq 0$, does not manage to pass by without coming closer than $O(\xi)$, the second one, having energy $\tilde E= \tilde E_0$, defined in (\[E0\]), is able to do so. The velocity $u$ is to be understood that of the flow ‘at infinity’.](fig5.eps "fig:"){width="65.00000%"}]{}
### The tunnelling area
To describe the motion of the vortex in momentum space, we choose a gauge for the momentum which is most appropriate to the symmetry of our problem. In Cartesian co-ordinates, this is $P_X=h\rho_0 Y$, [*i.e.*]{} the gauge momentum equals the physical momentum ([*i.e.*]{} Kelvin momentum) for an unconstrained vortex in the bulk superfluid. We will evaluate the action in the limit of small velocities. In this limit the path to which the vortex has to tunnel (named in what follows $Y_N$), is given by a constant, $Y_0$ in (\[Y0\]). We have also seen at the end of the preceding section that the vortex remains approximately on the same ellipse, having the elliptic co-ordinate $\chi_1=\chi_0+\delta\chi_c(\pi/2)\simeq \chi_0 + s/a$, while it is moving around the ellipse (path 2 in Figure \[ellipse\]). Calling this path $Y_E$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{\rm E}^2 & = & l^2\cosh^2(\chi_0+\delta\chi) +
\tanh^{-2}(\chi_0+\delta\chi)K^2\nonumber\\
& \simeq & l^2\cosh^2(\chi_0+\delta\chi_c) +
\tanh^{-2}(\chi_0+\delta\chi_c)K^2\,,
\label{YEK} \end{aligned}$$ using the imaginary co-ordinate $K=-iX$. Then, the integral in (\[SEKP\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{intYNYE}
\frac{S_e^{\rm inc}}{h}&=&2\rho_0 \int_0^{K_m}\!\!
(Y_{\rm N}-Y_{\rm E})dK\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $K_m$ is the point at which the trajectories $Y_N$ and $Y_E$ meet in complex phase space.
![\[area\] The closed vortex path giving the action (\[areabchiachi\]) in the low velocity limit. The first part $Y_E$ corresponds to the analytically continued path 2 of Fig. \[ellipse\] along the ellipse surface. The second part of the closed path, $Y_N\simeq Y_0 $, represents the border line to a free vortex. For higher velocities, this simple triangle shape is deformed. ](fig6.eps){width="65.00000%"}
This point, determined in the low velocity limit by the solution of $Y_E=Y_0$, can be shown to be $$\begin{aligned}
K_m & \simeq & \tanh(\chi_0+\delta\chi_c)\, Y_0\nonumber\\
& \simeq &\left(\frac ab + \frac sa\right)
\frac{v_L}{u}\,\ln\left[\frac{v_L}{u\exp[\tilde E_0]}\right]\,,\end{aligned}$$ neglecting the first term in (\[YEK\]), which is possible if $Y_0\gg l\cosh(\chi_0+\delta\chi)\equiv b_\chi$. The last line is valid provided that both $\chi_0, \delta\chi_c\ll 1$.
Now, the integral (\[intYNYE\]), with $a_\chi=a(\chi_0+\delta\chi)
=l\sinh(\chi_0+\delta\chi)$, takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{S_e^{\rm inc}}{h}
& \simeq & 2\rho_0\left( K_m Y_0 -
\frac{b_{\chi_c}}{2 a_{\chi_c}}\,K_m^2\right)
=\rho_0\tanh (\chi_0+\delta\chi_c)\, Y^2_0\,.\label{areabchiachi}\end{aligned}$$ The above integral corresponds to the shaded area in Figure \[area\]. Neglecting the small cusp at the bottom reducing slightly this area, as we did in the third line of (\[areabchiachi\]), leads to a [*volume law*]{}[^5] of the form $$\label{SEOmega}
\frac{S_e^{\rm inc} (E)}h=\rho_0\Omega^{(d)}= \rho_0\beta V_N^{(d)}\,.$$ Here, the effective sharpness $\beta = \tanh(\chi_0+\delta\chi_c)$ is a measure of the maximal eccentricity $\epsilon =\sqrt{1-\beta^2}\simeq 1-(1/2)\beta^2$ the vortex path is allowed to have, under the condition that the vortex should remain completely within the hydrodynamic, collective co-ordinate domain.
The area of Fig. \[area\] thus does have a lower limit. In general, $\beta$ characterizes the effective dimension of the vortex escape path, [*i.e.*]{}the relative degree to which this path is confined to $n$ dimensions by the presence of an asperity which is effectively $n$-dimensional. The tunneling volume $V^{(d)}_N$ is that for a vortex escape path of O$(d-1)$ symmetry, which is the highest possible symmetry if one preferred direction, namely that of the external current, is given. In the $d=2$ case treated here at length, we have $n\gtrsim 1$, $V^{(2)}_N = Y_0^2$ for a single vortex and correspondingly $V^{(2)}_N = 2Y_0^2$ for a vortex pair. In three dimensions ($d=3$) we have $V^{(3)}_N = (2\pi/3) R_0^3$ for a half-ring with radius $R_0$ and double this value for a full ring. The effective sharpness will be reduced ([*i.e.*]{} the value of $\beta$ larger) for the 3d case (cf. the equation (\[SEusmall\])), in analogy to our analytical findings for the vortex in the plane. In order of magnitude, the sharpness will in any dimension be given by the product of the ratios of the curvature radii parallel and perpendicular to the flow of the allowed vortex path.
We conclude with an estimation of the kinetic contribution in the action, using the last line in (\[SEkin\]). We will also use that in lowest order of perturbation theory the velocity of the vortex equals the local flow velocity ${{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_s$ in the incompressible superfluid (the Kelvin-Helmholtz theorem). The velocity maximum (at the ellipse top) we set $v_{\rm max}\, =\, {\rm max}\,(|{\vec
v}_s|)$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
S_e^{\rm kin}(E) & = & h\rho_0 \frac{\ln(\cdots)}{2\pi}\,\xi \oint
({\dot Q}_{\it a}/{c_s})dX^{\it a}\nonumber\\
& \ll & 2h\rho_0 \frac{\ln(\cdots)}{2\pi}\,\xi\,\frac {v_{\rm max}}{c_s}\, K_m
\nonumber\\
& = & \frac{\ln(\cdots)}{\pi}\,\frac\xi{Y_0}\,\frac{v_{\rm max}}{c_s}\,
S^{\rm inc}_e(E)\,.\label{SEkinOmega}\end{aligned}$$ The contribution of the vortex mass is thus at least suppressed by two small factors: $\xi/Y_0$ and $v_{\rm max}/c_s$, contributing both in equal measure to the fact that $S_e^{\rm kin}$ is negligible as compared to $S_e^{\rm inc}$.
### Summary
We now summarize this extended investigation of the analytically soluble 2d problem, emphasising in particular its crucial outcome.
Starting from the ‘electrostatic’ problem of a single point vortex situated near a half-circle at a boundary, we derived the vortex energy by conformally transforming [*via*]{} the (inverse) Joukowski transformation to the half-ellipse solution. We concluded from the general expression for the vortex energy (\[tildeE\]), that it is necessary to introduce the geometric constraint (\[scond\]), expressing the limits of the hydrodynamic collective co-ordinate formalism under consideration. Calculating the tunnelling volume (area), we have seen that it assumes the general form (\[SEOmega\]). The tunnelling volume (area) $\Omega^{(2)}$ cannot be reduced to a lower bound given by the sharpness of the ellipse, $\tanh \chi_0$, but has to be larger, $\beta=\tanh (\chi_0+\delta\chi_c)$, if we are bound to remain within the domain of the approach which has been employed.
It is to be noted that we expressed the energy of the vortex in units of the energy $h^2\rho_0/(4\pi m)=
m\rho_0\kappa^2/4\pi\simeq 0.82 $ K/Å (at $p\simeq
1$ bar and in three dimensions). For realistic values of the parameters in (\[E0\]), the values of $\tilde E_0$ cover the same range as the phonon-maxon-roton spectrum. Energywise, the trapped small scale vortex thus cannot be distinguished from an elementary excitation of the superfluid. It could have been excited thermally and remained trapped at a pinning center during the cool-down of the superfluid to very low temperatures.
From the above analysis it thus follows that it is semantically in general not quite appropriate to employ the widely used term ‘vortex nucleation’ for vortex tunnelling investigated within a hydrodynamic, collective co-ordinate theory. If we define ‘nucleation’ to mean creation from the zero of energy, we have seen that nucleation is not amenable to such a description under general circumstances. Experimentally, it will be impossible to distinguish the tunnelling of a small energy vortex at a rough boundary from the true nucleation event of a nascent vortex there, if no direct means to control the microscopic dynamics can be provided. It remains, of course, to be explained how a vortex of such small energy and size ([*i.e.*]{} one with small distance of $O(\xi)$ to the boundary), can be defined and described quantitatively. The present approach can only fix the tunnelling rates of a vortex if one presupposes that the vortex can be described by a collective co-ordinate along its whole path. This, however, will be true if the size of the vortex is sufficiently larger than $O(\xi)$. Then, the dissipation-free motion of the vortex with constant energy and the purely geometric nature of the problem lead to strict bounds for the possible values of the semiclassical tunnelling exponent, directly related to geometrical quantities.
The prefactor
-------------
Any discussion of quantum tunnelling is incomplete without at least an estimation of the prefactor $A(E)$ in (\[PASe\]). If the quantum fluctuations, or better, the indeterminacies of the vortex position and momentum vanish, the tunnelling probability does the same, because the very process of quantum tunnelling stems from this quantum uncertainty of the vortex in phase space. The crucial advantage of our WKB-like investigation lies in the fact that the behaviour of the exponent, the Euclidean action of the instanton, dominates any dependencies of the prefactor on observable quantities as long as $S_e(E)/\hbar\gg 1$, [*i.e.*]{} as long as we are in the semiclassical limit. We will write (\[PASe\]) in the form $$\label{PSelnA}
P(E)= \exp\left[- S_e(E)/\hbar+\ln A(E)\right]\,,$$ to compare $-S_e(E)/\hbar$ with the dimensionless quantity $\ln A(E)$ (the prefactor $A(E)$ is originally in units of Hz).
### Estimations
Apart from the considerable difficulties in evaluating prefactors in general, an accurate calculation of $A$ in a dense superfluid like helium II is in principle not possible at present, due to the lack of a microscopic theory. It is, however, feasible to get an idea about the value of this prefactor within about two orders of magnitude.
Let us begin with a physical picture for the origin of the prefactor in the semiclassical limit. The simplest possible idea about the prefactor is gained by considering the frequency $\omega_a$ of a particle oscillating in a metastable well. Then, within about one order of magnitude, $A\sim \omega_a$ [@schmid]. In the thermal activation limit, [*i.e.*]{}, in the Arrhenius law case we have more exactly $P=(\omega_a/2\pi)\exp [-U/k_B T]$, where $\omega_a$ is the frequency of oscillations at the metastable well bottom against a barrier of height $U$. The frequency $\nu_a=\omega_a/2\pi$ can generally be understood as a measure of the number of times per second the vortex bounces against the potential barrier, trying to get free.
We have no possibility to describe the vortex state (at the boundary) quantitatively, but we are able to conclude on the order of magnitude of $\omega_a$, if we take into account that there exists a surface layer of vorticity, of width $\xi$: Because the superfluid density goes to zero at the boundary and heals back within $\xi$, the energy needed for the activation of vortices vanishes within this distance [@sonin; @sonin3]. The frequency of motion of these vortices should then be of order $$\label{omega0}
\omega_0
= \frac\kappa{\pi \xi^2}= 4.87 \cdot 10^{11} {\rm sec}^{-1}
\xi^{-2}[\sigma^{-2}_{\rm LJ}]\qquad(\mbox{helium II}),$$ which is the cyclotron frequency of vortex motion [@donnelly1]. We scaled $\xi$ with the Lennard-Jones parameter $\sigma_{\rm LJ}
= 2.556$ Å of the $^4\!$He atomic interaction. The frequency $\omega_0$ is the natural vortex frequency associated with the scale $\xi$ alone.
If we wish to connect $\omega_a$ with the quantity relating the strength of interatomic forces and compressibility, namely the speed of sound $c_s$, which is involved in the vortex kinetic term, the following phenomenological treatment is of use. The expression for the vortex self energy is logarithmically divergent. If we consider $\xi$-scales, this may be cured in a heuristic manner by regularizing the logarithm under the condition that the vortex energy be zero at the boundary (that is, at $Y=0$) [@DissVIAA]. This leads to the following total energy of a point vortex in the laboratory frame, using the normalisation (\[normE\]), $$\label{EYdotX}
\tilde E (Y,\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}})=\frac12\left((\dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}/c_s)^2
+\ln \left(1+(Y/\xi)^2\right)-8\pi u Y/\kappa\right)\,.$$ The minima of the potential, existing for low enough velocity, are situated at $$Y_{\rm min}= \frac\kappa{8\pi u}\left(1- \sqrt{1-16\,(u/v_L)^2}\,\right)
\simeq \frac\kappa{\pi u} \left(\frac u{v_L}\right)^2
= 2\xi\, \frac u{v_L}\,,$$ where in the final result we used an approximation for $u\ll v_L$. The curvature of the potential is $\xi^{-2}(1-(Y/\xi)^2)/(1+(Y/\xi)^2)$ and hence at the minimum, for $u\ll v_L$, approximately $1/\xi^2$. We have thus found that the spring constant of an ‘elastic object’ vortex should scale with a quantity of order $1/\xi^2$. Because the mass is $1/c_s^2$ in the same units, the frequency of oscillation is therefore $$\label{omegas}
\omega_s=
\frac{c_s}{\xi}= 9.4\cdot 10^{11} {\rm Hz}\, \frac{c_s[ 240\, {\rm m/s}]}
{\xi[\sigma_{LJ}]}
$$ The ratio of the two estimates (\[omega0\]), (\[omegas\]) is given by $\omega_0/\omega_s=(\kappa/c_s)/(\pi\xi)$. They thus coincide in order of magnitude because the relation (\[kappacs\]), valid in helium II, holds. It is quite obvious that both estimates can only give a rough idea about the actual attempt frequency in the [*dense*]{} superfluid, whereas at least the estimate (\[omegas\]) should be quite accurate in dilute superfluids (for ‘nonrelativistic’ vortex velocities [@arovas]). However, by argument of continuity, we do not expect the analytical relation for the frequency $\omega_a$ as a function of the parameters $\xi,c_s$ to make abrupt changes, if we increase the density of the superfluid. We suspect that the density increase does not cause a change of more than, say, one order of magnitude in $\omega_a$, than that predicted by the above estimates.
Now, relying on the estimate (\[omegas\]) and scaling the frequency with $1.13\cdot 10^{12}$Hz (the roton frequency at $p\simeq 1$ bar), so that $P(E)\equiv P(E)[{\rm Hz}]$ and $(c_s/\xi)_n \equiv({c_s}/\xi)\,[1.13\cdot 10^{12}\,{\rm Hz}]$, by use of (\[SEgeo\]), we arrive at a tunnelling probability having the appearance of (\[PSelnA\]): $$\begin{aligned}
P(E)& = & \,\exp\left\{-\rho_0
\left( 2\pi \Omega^{(d)}+ \ln (\cdots)\, \xi\,\Sigma^{(d)}
\right)
+27.75+\ln[({c_s}/\xi)_n]\right\} \nonumber\\
& \simeq & \,\exp\left\{-\rho_0 \,\beta Y_0^2\left(2\pi+
2{\ln(\cdots)}\,\frac\xi{Y_0}\,\frac {v_{\rm max}}{c_s}\right)
+27.75+\ln[({c_s}/\xi)_n]\right\} \nonumber\\
& \simeq & \exp\left\{-2\pi N^{d)}\left(1+
\frac{\ln(\cdots)}\pi\,\frac\xi{Y_0}\,\frac {v_{\rm
max}}{c_s}\right)+27.75+\ln[({c_s}/\xi)_n]\right\}, \nonumber\\
\label{P(E)scaled}\end{aligned}$$ where in the second line we inserted the results of the 2d half-ellipse problem in equations (\[SEOmega\]) and (\[SEkinOmega\]), and the third line employs the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization of (\[N\]).
Comparison to experimental results
==================================
Having determined what we can expect for the magnitudes of tunnelling probabilities we now come to discuss how experimental arrangements to measure such tunnelling events are constructed, and what the findings of such experiments are. In most of the measurements (cf. [@BBAV]–[@amar]), the apparatus to measure phase-slip events is structured like that shown in Figure \[zavosz\]. We note in passing that such an apparatus with an effective torus geometry can be used to measure external rotation ([*e.g.*]{}, that of the Earth) quite sensitively (see Refs. [@AVearth]–[@AVrot]).
![\[zavosz\] The schematic arrangement of the ZAV (Zimmermann-Avenel-Varoquaux) oscillator [@AIV]. A membrane, generating a current $I_t$ by an (electrical) driving force $F$, has mechanical parameters mass $m_d$, stiffness $k$ and damping constant $\eta_d$. This current divides into a current $I_w=I_t(L_k/(L_w+L_k))$ through a micrometer-sized small hole and a current $I_k=I_t(L_w/(L_w+L_k))$ through a long channel. Here, $L_{w,k}=l_{w,k}/(m \rho_0 S_{w,k})$ are the hydrodynamic kinetic inductances, with $l_{w,k}$ the lengths and $S_{w,k}$ the cross-section areas of the micro-orifice and the long channel, respectively. The circulation threading the hole and channel, $I_q$, is quantized. The whole cavity is filled with He II.](fig7.eps){width="72.00000%"}
Essentially, it is observed in these experiments that at a well-defined value of the amplitude of the diaphragm, driving the current through the micro-orifice (the small hole on the left-hand side of Figure \[zavosz\]), there is an instantaneous (on the scale of the driving frequency) breakdown of the diaphragm amplitude, which is quantized. This quantized dissipation event is associated with a vortex generated at the orifice walls, subsequently crossing all the streamlines of the flow, thereby causing a [*phase slip*]{} event, which draws a quantized amount of energy from the flow. We will first discuss these [phase slips]{} [@anderson], which give the crucial physical argument for the interpretation of the experimental results.
Phase slips
-----------
The picture of phase slips is based on the fact that the phase and particle number are canonically conjugate,[^6] that is, $$[N,\theta]=i\,.$$ The quantum mechanical equation of motion of the phase is hence given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\!\dot \theta}=\frac1{i\hbar}[\theta,H]
=-\frac1\hbar\part{H}{N}\,. \label{dphidt}\end{aligned}$$ Taking the [*thermodynamic*]{} average of this equation, we see that the time rate of change of the phase equals the (negative) local chemical potential (defined by $\tilde \mu =\mu + (1/2) m v_s^2 $, where $\mu$ is the chemical potential in the superfluid rest frame), divided by $\hbar$, a relation which became popular under the name ‘Josephson-Anderson equation’ [@josephsonfluxflow; @anderson]. We now consider the [*time*]{} average of this thermodynamic average over a long time span $\tau$ and take the difference of the results for two points A,B in the superfluid: $$\begin{aligned}
-\left\langle\tilde\mu({{\mbox{\boldmath$r$}}}_A)-\tilde\mu({{\mbox{\boldmath$r$}}}_B)\right\rangle_t & =&
\left\langle \hbar \left(\pard {(\theta_A-\theta_B)}t\right)
\right\rangle_t \nonumber\\
& = &\lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty}\left[\frac\hbar\tau
\int_0^\tau\! dt \,\pard {}t\left(
\int_{{\cal C}_{\rm AB}}\nabla\theta\cdot d{{\mbox{\boldmath$s$}}}\right)
\right]\nonumber\\
& \equiv & h \left\langle \pard{n_w}t \right\rangle_t\,.\end{aligned}$$ The last relation tells us that the the negative chemical potential difference between the points A and B, divided by Planck’s quantum of action, is equal to the number of vortices crossing the line ${\cal C}_{\rm AB}$, joining A and B, per unit time, $dn_w/dt$. A single phase slip process, caused by one migrating vortex, may be visualized as shown in Figs. \[wirbelbewI\] and \[wirbelbewII\]. The Figs. \[wirbelbewI\], \[wirbelbewII\] represent a pronounced simplification of the actual vortex motion process. We visualize in these pictures a point vortex moving on a straight line across the superflow through the orifice, which gives a highly symmetric view of the process. The real process of vortex half-ring motion is investigated in Refs. [@schwarz2; @BBAV]. The principal global (topological) features of importance however remain untouched and independent of the actual vortex motion trajectory: The phase difference between two stationary states (times $t\ll
t_1$ and $t\gg t_3$ in Figs. \[wirbelbewI\] and \[wirbelbewII\]) is exactly $2\pi$ and the process always sucks the same amount of quantized energy from the flow, given by $\Delta E = m\rho_0 \kappa S_w
v_c = \kappa J_c $ [@huggins], with $v_c$ being the (mean) [*critical velocity of flow*]{} through the micro-orifice, at which the vortex migration process sets in, and $J_c$ the corresponding mass current (see for a derivation below).
psfwbdiss2
![\[wirbelbewI\] The early and intermediate stage of a phase slip process in the orifice [@anderson]. ](fig8a.eps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"} ![\[wirbelbewI\] The early and intermediate stage of a phase slip process in the orifice [@anderson]. ](fig8b.eps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}
psfwbdiss2
![\[wirbelbewII\] Final stage of the phase slip process. ](fig9.eps){width="60.00000%"}
In Figures \[wirbelbewI\] and \[wirbelbewII\], we represent a quantized vortex crossing the micro-orifice designated with quantities $S_w$, $l_w$ in Figure \[zavosz\]. The lines emanating from the vortex center (black dot) in Figures \[wirbelbewI\] and \[wirbelbewII\] are lines of constant phase, standing perpendicular on the orifice wall (which is a streamline). For ease of representation we have chosen the branch cut of the phase to be exactly parallel to the direction of motion of the vortex. The whole phase slip process is then maximally symmetric. The shaded areas represent the walls of the orifice $S_w,l_w$ on the left hand side of Figure \[zavosz\]. The points A, B are chosen to lie sufficiently far away from the orifice, as indicated by the dots. Initially, at $t=t_1$ (first drawing), when the vortex starts on the left side of the orifice, the phase difference between A and B, $\theta_A-\theta_B$, is zero. When the vortex reaches the line joining A and B, the phase difference is $\pi$ (second picture in Figure \[wirbelbewI\]). Finally, as shown above, the vortex has crossed all the streamlines through the orifice, flowing, as indicated in the first Figure, in the vertical direction, and disappears to the right. The drawings above give a representation of the effect of migration of the order parameter zero, the vortex, across the matter flow through the orifice, by means of the phase of the order parameter. The physical result of this migration is invariantly given by the energy change, expressed in terms of the critical mass current $J_c$ for triggering the generation of the vortex, $\Delta E = \kappa J_c$, and does not depend on a representation in terms of the phase (or, for that matter, on the choice of the branch cut), [*i.e.*]{} is gauge invariant; it is also invariant under changes of the location of the points A and B (as long as they are situated far away from the micro-orifice). Multiplying the thermodynamic Josephson relation with the critical number current through the orifice, results in a time rate of energy decrease of the external flow driven by the oscillating membrane in Figure \[zavosz\], $\dot E = (\kappa J_c/2 \pi) \dot \theta $, from which the energy change for one phase slip, necessarily causing $\theta$ to change by exactly $2\pi$, follows by time integration.[^7]
Principal findings
------------------
In the experiments, the critical velocity $v_c=v_c(T)$ as a function of temperature $T$ is measured. The critical amplitude of the diaphragm, corresponding to $v_c$, is that for which there is a diminished amplitude in the next half-cycle of oscillation. The Figure \[elps\] shows a typical experimental run of measured resonator amplitudes. An important feature of $v_c$ is that it has a statistical distribution, which has also been recorded. The results, obtained from the statistical analysis of the series of phase slips like those in Fig.\[elps\] are shown in Figs.\[adc\], \[dadc\], \[magadc\] (received from E. Varoquaux and reproduced here with kind permission). The salient results are that the mean critical velocity first rises linearly with temperature and then saturates at $T_0\simeq 150$ mK. Correspondingly, the statistical width decreases linearly and saturates at approximately the same temperature.
Interpretation
--------------
According to the phase slip picture we have developed above, a possible interpretation of the experimental data is as follows. A vortex half-ring, standing with its axis antiparallel to the flow [@sonin], is generated at the orifice wall and expands under the influence of the diverging flow field through the orifice. During this process, it crosses all the streamlines through the orifice, completing the phase slip, and is finally transported away from the orifice by the flow. The fact that there is a certain critical amplitude of the diaphragm for this procedure to happen, can be associated with the fact that there is a potential barrier opposing the process. Furthermore, the fact that the critical amplitude ([*viz.*]{} the critical velocity $v_c$), has a statistical distribution, supports the idea that the existence of a phase slip critical velocity has the statistical origin of barrier crossing events. Additional support is provided by the linearity of the amplitude respectively its distribution with temperature, a signature of thermal activation over barriers [@eckern]. It is also measured that the (average) flow velocity through the orifice as a function of temperature, needed to trigger the phase slips, as well as its statistical distribution, saturates at a temperature of $\simeq$ 150 mK. This can be ascribed to a non-thermal process of surmounting the existing barrier: The possible explanation of the observed behaviour is quantum tunnelling of half-ring vortices at boundaries.
Within a phenomenological approach [@AIV; @ihasAV], a model of half-rings with axis antiparallel to the applied flow, and standing perpendicular to the walls of the orifice, has been developed. The Hamiltonian is essentially that in (\[EYdotX\]), [*save for*]{} the kinetic term. It turns out that, to make this model conform with the available measurements, it is necessary to postulate, a) that the coherence length increases to $\xi\simeq 9\cdots 10$Å at boundaries and b) that the vortex half-ring be described by a collective co-ordinate on $O(\xi)$-scales. This approach must consequently be understood as the parameter-fitting of a simplified model to the available data. From a more fundamental point of view, it does not describe crucial, indeed salient features of the actual problem:
- The model does not incorporate Galilean invariance violation. We have seen that this is a necessary requisite for any (hydrodynamic) formalism making, in particular, use of the notion of velocity, to describe the quantum tunnelling of vortices at temperatures close to absolute zero.
- It cannot be reasonably expected from a description of the entity vortex on $\xi$-scales to make sense for the tunnelling exponent beyond crude order of magnitude estimates, like in the case of the prefactor (where these estimates are sufficient). For the semiclassical tunnelling exponent, all nontrivial dependence on coherence length (respectively microscopic) physics, in whichever form, should be excluded, such a dependence only being allowed in the form of an ultraviolet cutoff.
- It is certainly not permissible to neglect the dynamic influence of the kinetic energy of the vortex in the tunnelling exponent, if we approach scales of order the coherence length.
Let us now further analyse the experimental outcome. First of all, we rely on the hydrodynamic relation (\[defR0\]) to deduce the scale of materialisation of the nascent vortex half-ring. Scaling the velocity with 10 m/sec, the order of magnitude of the (local) flow velocity, we get $$\label{R0scaled}
R_0 = \frac{1.59 \,{\rm nm}}{u[10 {\rm m/sec}]}
\, \ln\left(\frac{9.89}{\xi[\sigma_{\rm LJ}]\,u[10 {\rm m/sec}]}
\right) \,,$$ where use was made of the Roberts-Grant result [@robgrant] for $C=1.615$, valid within Gross-Pitaevskiǐ theory [@pita]-[@gross4]. In the experiments, the measured velocity through the hole is 5-10 m/sec. This can only be measured as an average over the cross-section of the orifice, locally the velocity can of course be higher. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that the radius $R_0$ should be of the order of nanometers. This small mesoscopic scale makes it difficult to decide if a hydrodynamic formalism is applicable in a rigorous sense (one should also bear in mind that the formula above is strictly valid only in the low-velocity limit). In particular, the value of the coherence length is not exactly known under the circumstances considered. The neglect of any large density variations ($\delta\rho/\rho_0= {O}(1)$) in the formalism makes it necessary at least to assume that $R_0\gg\xi$, so that the knowledge of $\xi$ is crucial indeed.
Next we consider the value of the cross-over temperature $T_0\simeq
150$ mK. (Ref. [@jcdavis] reports a value $T_0\simeq 200 $ mK.) The crossover temperature between thermal and quantum behaviour gives in general a measure of the equality of quantum-mechanical and thermal energies of the ‘particle’, trying to surmount the barrier with the aid of these energies [@weiss]. For zero damping (dissipation) the crossover temperature is given by $\hbar\omega_b= 2\pi k_B T_0 $, where $\omega_b$ is the frequency of oscillation at the [*top*]{} of the barrier, connected to the trivial solution of the Euclidean equations of motion of the ‘particle’ sitting at the top (the bottom of the inverted potential) [@weiss; @affleck; @gorokhovquant]. This leads to $$\label{omegab}
\omega_b=8.2\cdot 10^{10}{\rm Hz}\cdot T_0 [{\rm 100 mK}]\,.$$ If we compare the value of $\omega_b$ in (\[omegab\]) with the frequencies (\[omega0\]), (\[omegas\]), we see that it is smaller by a relatively large factor, up to one order of magnitude, provided we assume the coherence length to have its bulk value, which is about $\sigma_{\rm LJ}$. However, a direct comparison of the experimental value and these estimates cannot give more than an order of magnitude agreement. This has several reasons. First of all, these estimates can give only a very approximate idea about the true dynamical behaviour of a quantum many-body vortex near the boundary. It is conceivable, for example, that the effective ‘spring constant’ of the vortex against deformations is lowered compared to the semiclassical estimate in (\[omega0\]), because of the many-body quantum uncertainty of its position. Then, the prefactor is in general a function of driving velocity $u$ and temperature $T$ [@gorokhovquant], and at the measured crossover temperature in terms of the critical velocity not necessarily equal to its value at zero temperature. Finally, as already mentioned, we do not know the (effective) value of the coherence length at the boundary. It is conceivable that the value of $\xi$ is enlarged as compared to the bulk, because of boundary conditions, [*i.e.*]{} the depleted superfluid density [@sobyanin]. What one can thus definitely claim to have observed from Fig.\[magadc\], is that there exists a crossover temperature from a temperature dependent to a temperature independent régime, whose energy equivalent $k_B T_0$ is in [*order of magnitude*]{} agreement with the estimates for the quantum oscillator energies $\hbar\omega_0$ and $\hbar\omega_s$. To conclude this section, we give an idea about the number of particles involved in the tunnelling procedure, therein following the statement of equation (\[N\]) and the scaled tunnelling probability in eq. (\[P(E)scaled\]). Assuming from the above discussion that the prefactor can vary in its order of magnitude between $A\approx 10^{10}\cdots 10^{12}$ Hz, its logarithm ln$\,A
\simeq 23\cdots 28$. Corresponding to these conceivable values of the prefactor, the total number of particles in the tunnelling volume should then be somewhere in the range $N^{(3)}=4\cdots 6 $, say, for tunnelling events to be observable within a reasonable span of experimental time. Again, like the value for the materialisation radius $R_0$ in (\[R0scaled\]), this number indicates a rather small scale of tunnelling.
Concluding evaluation of the experiment {#concludeeval}
---------------------------------------
We have seen that the available data on critical velocities of phase slips can be interpreted to be in phenomenological accordance with the picture of the quantum tunnelling of vortices at boundaries below some temperature $T_0$. But the very fact of tunnelling at boundaries certainly needs further proof, so that the predictions of tunnelling theory can be compared to that of classical instability mechanisms, which can be temperature independent as well. Theoretical investigations in this classical direction are found under Refs. [@kuznetsov]–[@srivastava] (vortex nucleation as a process of classical flow instability in experiments using $^3\!$He-B was discussed in Ref. [@parts]). Provided that the hydrodynamic, large scale picture we developed here is applicable with sufficient predictive power for the actual materialisation scales of the vortex, one such proof could consist in the comparison of critical velocities for chemically identical orifices of equal global sizes, having different (microscopic respectively mesoscopic) surface structures. If the result of such measurements is negative, [*i.e.*]{} there is no reproducible difference in critical velocities, there is no quantum process taking place describable by hydrodynamic means of semiclassical tunnelling at irregular boundaries.
Aspects of vortex tunnelling in Fermi superfluids {#chapFermi}
=================================================
The analysis so far has been concerned with dense superfluids which are uncharged, and in which the fundamental constituents, [*i.e.*]{} the particles carrying the superfluid current, bear no internal degrees of freedom like spin. The spinless elementary bosons, which are $^4\!$He atoms, form the only hitherto known example of such a superfluid. There exists, however, a large number of superfluids which are constituted by elementary fermionic particles. By far the most of these superfluids are charged: The charge carriers in superconductors represent a charged superfluid. Besides He II, the only other charge neutral dense superfluid known in laboratories on Earth is its isotope $^3\!$He. In the following, we give an overview of some general features of these Fermi superfluids, with particular emphasis on the vortex dynamical equations. The main intention of this section is to set the complications arising in the treatment of vortex motion in Fermi superfluids along the comparatively elementary hydrodynamic problem of unpaired bosons in He II.
Introduction
------------
For all Fermi superfluids, there has to exist a mechanism binding the fermions into Cooper pairs [@BCS], which constitute the bosons of the superfluid condensate. In distinction from the elementary $^4\!$He bosons, these effective particles, arising from paired fermions, have in general the internal degrees of freedom spin and angular momentum. According to the symmetry of the order parameter, these superfluids are classified to be $s$-, $p$- or $d$-wave superfluids. In the case of isotropic superfluids, the value of the internal angular momentum $L=0,1,2$ of the Cooper pairs corresponds to $s$-, $p$- or $d$-wave, respectively. A relatively weak effective interaction binding the fermions together leads to coherence lengths $\xi \gg k^{-1}_F$, where $k_F$ signifies the Fermi momentum. The corresponding Cooper-pairs are then objects bound together over distances by far exceeding the microscopic scales relevant for many-body quantum mechanics. One consequence is that, [*e.g.*]{}, the Ginzburg-Landau or mean-field levels of description, not sufficient to describe scales of order $\xi$ in He II, are indeed useful for such paired Fermi superfluids on these scales [@degennes]. The notable exception are high-$T_c$ superconductors, where $k_F\xi \gtrsim O(1)$. More properly, this is to be written as $\xi\gtrsim d_L$, where $d_L$ is the lattice spacing, because the Fermi surface is in general not a single continous surface for the high-$T_c$ materials. The fact that the Cooper pairs have internal angular momentum and/or spin leads to a richly structured order parameter, which can support symmetries much more complex than the global and local U(1) symmetries associated with particle conservation and the electromagnetic field. In particular, as one of the most important consequences of these enriched symmetries, there can occur nodes of the energy gap in momentum space for quasiparticle excitations above the superfluid ground state [@grishabook].
Vortex motion in Fermi superfluids {#secVMFermi}
----------------------------------
Around a vortex line, there exists a potential well for quasiparticles, [*i.e.*]{} the pair potential is position dependent, $\Delta = \Delta ({{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}})$ (we designate $\Delta_\infty$ to be the bulk value of the gap, infinitely far away from the vortex line). This leads to the existence of bound quasi-particle states in the vortex core, of extension $O(\xi)$. These bound states are obtained by solving the Bogoliubov-deGennes mean-field equations for the wave functions in particle-hole space, in which $\Delta ({{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}})$ plays the role of the potential [@degennes; @caroli]. They lead to a profound alteration of the low-energy dynamical behaviour of vortices because, among these bound states, there exist the so-called zero modes crossing the zero of energy as a function of a component of the quasiparticle wave vector (the other core bound states excitation branches have energies at least of $O(\Delta_\infty)$, [*i.e.*]{} of order the bulk energy gap). These zero modes lead to a exchange of quasiparticle momentum between the superfluid vortex vacuum, moving with velocity $\partial{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}/\partial t$, and the quasiparticle heat bath, moving with velocity ${{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_n$, if the relative velocity $\partial {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}/\partial t- {{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_n$ is non-vanishing: The quasiparticles are driven by the effective (electric-like) field, stemming from this relative velocity, from the occupied negative energy levels to those of positive energy (energies are counted from the Fermi energy $E_F$), thereby transferring momentum to the quasiparticle bath [@stone2]. The motion of the quasiparticles on the zero mode branch is a process for which the notion of [*spectral flow*]{} has been coined. A contribution to spectral flow is stemming only from chiral particles (cf. [@grishabook], chapter 6). Due to the momentum exchange between superfluid vacuum and quasiparticle bath, there results an additional transverse force on the vortex, to be added to the usual contributions which occur in superfluids without zero mode bound states [@grisha3; @kopningrisha].
The equation of motion for the vortex in the time domain is in general regions of the parameter space non-local. In frequency space, the equation of motion is local, because the convolutions of Green’s functions with the vortex co-ordinates in the time domain become products after Fourier transformation. The equation of motion may then be written in a form which satisfies Galilean invariance, which implies that only relative velocities of line and heat bath (the lattice) as well as line and superflow are to occur in the equation of motion. We thus assume isotropy and the existence of only one charge carrier, for simplicity of representation. The force balance equation between Magnus and dissipative as well as transverse forces on the vortex is then expressed by [@otterlo; @kopningrisha; @koljamutual] $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mbox{\boldmath$F$}}}_{M} & = &
\frac12 h\rho_s\left({{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_s (\omega)
-\dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (\omega)\right)
\times {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}' \nonumber\\
& = &
D(\omega) \left(\dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (\omega) -{{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_n(\omega)\right)
+ D'(\omega ){{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'\times\left(\dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (\omega)
-{{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_n(\omega)\right)\,.
\label{eqmotion1}\end{aligned}$$ It is assumed that the vortices are singly quantized, with a [constant]{} circulation vector, the factor of 1/2 in the Magnus force taking account of the paired nature of the superfluid. For the point vortex we will deal with, ${{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'=\partial {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}/\partial \sigma = \pm {{\mbox{\boldmath$e$}}}_z$, the upper/lower sign valid for a positive/negative circulation vortex. The first line contains the conventional Magnus force (where $\rho_s=\rho_s(T)$ is the superfluid density), and the second line the dissipative and reactive mutual friction forces from momentum exchange between vortex line and quasiparticle bath. We further assume in what follows for the sake of simplicity that the normal component is clamped, [*i.e.*]{} ${{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_n=0$ (this, of course, destroys the property of Galilean invariance afforded by (\[eqmotion1\])). Then, a convenient writing for the above equation of motion is $$\frac{h \rho_s}2 {{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_s (\omega)\times {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}' = D(\omega) \dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (\omega) +
\left(D'(\omega )-\frac12 h\rho_s\right)
{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'\times\dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (\omega)\,, \label{eqmotion2}$$ that is, there is a coefficient $D(\omega)$ of the force linear in the velocity of the vortex, the damping force, and a coefficient $D'(\omega )-h\rho_s/2 $ of a force perpendicular to the vortex velocity, which represents the Magnus force part proportional to vortex velocity (the Hall term). The driving term $(1/2) h\rho_s {{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_s\times {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'$ (the superfluid current part of the Magnus force) is proportional to the circulation vector and the superflow current density ${{\mbox{\boldmath$j$}}}_s = \rho_s {{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_s$. In the case of superconductors, the driving force is equal to a Lorentz force exerted by the flux line on the electrons, and is given as ${{\mbox{\boldmath$j$}}}_s\times{{\mbox{\boldmath$\Gamma$}}}_s
\equiv {{\mbox{\boldmath$J$}}}_{\rm el}\times {{\mbox{\boldmath$\Phi$}}}_0$, with $|{{\mbox{\boldmath$\Phi$}}}_0| = h/ 2e $ equal to the flux quantum. The electrical superfluid current of electrons ${{\mbox{\boldmath$J$}}}_{\rm el}=-e\rho_s {{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_s$. The mutual friction coefficients from equations (\[eqmotion1\]) respectively (\[eqmotion2\]) are determined by the momentum (and energy) exchange of the quasiparticle bath with the superfluid vacuum containing the topological defect structure vortex. In the quasiclassical limit, their value is governed by the quasiparticle kinetic equation [@stone2; @makhlin; @BGK].
### The $s$-wave case
We now consider the simple case of a singly quantized vortex in a two-dimensional isotropic superfluid, for which the quasiparticle momentum has components ${{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}=(k_r,k_\phi)$, and the zero mode branch $$\label{zeromode}
E(k_\phi) = - \omega_0 k_\phi \,.$$ The level spacing $\omega_0$ is of order $\hbar/(m\xi^2)\sim
\Delta^2_\infty/E_F$, where $m$ is the (effective) fermion mass. The energy levels correspond to those of electrons on anomalous Landau levels, which are linear in momentum [@stone2].
On the approximation level of a single relaxation-time in the quasiparticle kinetic equation, the coefficients are then given by [@otterlo; @stone2; @koljamutual][^8] $$\begin{aligned}
D(\omega) = \frac{i hC_0\omega_0}4
\left(\frac 1{\omega-\omega_0 + i\tau^{-1}}
+
\frac 1{\omega+\omega_0 + i\tau^{-1}} \right)\nonumber\\
= \frac{(hC_0/2) ( \tau^{-1} -i\omega )/\omega_0}
{1+\left((\omega_0\tau)^{-1}- i\omega/\omega_0\right)^2}\,,
\label{Domega}\end{aligned}$$ for the longitudinal coefficient in equation (\[eqmotion2\]) and, for the transverse coefficient, $$\begin{aligned}
D'(\omega ) - \frac12 h\rho_s = \frac{hC_0\omega_0}4
\left(\frac{1}{\omega-\omega_0 + i\tau^{-1}}
-
\frac{1}{\omega+\omega_0 + i\tau^{-1}}\right)\nonumber\\
= \frac{- hC_0/2}
{1+\left((\omega_0\tau)^{-1}- i\omega/\omega_0\right)^2}
\label{D'omega}\,.\end{aligned}$$ In these equations, the parameter density $C_0= k_F^2/2\pi$ (in three dimensions: $C_0=
k_F^3/3\pi^2$) is the normal state density.[^9] The parameter $\tau$ is a constant relaxation time in the collision term of the kinetic equation. The relations above hold provided that the conditions $\omega_0\ll (\hbar\beta)^{-1}=k_B T/\hbar$, $\tau\gg \hbar\beta$ and $\hbar \omega\ll k_B T_c$, $T\ll T_c$ are met. The first condition means the thermal population of the levels represented by (\[zeromode\]), such that the sums over the bound state levels in the general expressions for $D,D'$ [@koljamutual] can be converted into integrals. This condition is not very stringent, and allows for a use of the formulas above for actually quite low temperatures, because $\omega_0\sim T_c (\Delta_\infty(T)/\Delta_\infty(T=0))
(\Delta_\infty (T) /E_F)\ll T_c$. The second condition implies that the broadening of levels by scattering is much less than the temperature. Finally, the condition $\hbar \omega\ll k_B T_c$ restricts the energy equivalent of the vortex motion frequency, $\hbar\omega$, to be much less than the bulk gap $\Delta_\infty\sim k_B T_c$. It is important to point out that the validity of (\[Domega\]) and (\[D’omega\]) relies on the transverse and longitudinal coefficients in the low energy limit being determined by the core level spacing $\omega_0$ and the scattering frequency $\tau^{-1}$ alone. The relations for the Hall and longitudinal coefficients are then given irrespective of an electric charge of the particles carrying the superfluid current.
Two limits of the equations of motion are particularly well known. The first is provided by $\omega_0\tau\gg 1$, $\omega \ll \omega_0$ and corresponds to massive vortex motion under influence of the superfluid Magnus force ($ \dot X^ i(\omega) = -i \omega X^i (\omega)$): $$\label{taubig}
M_c \ddot{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} = \frac h 2 \rho_s \, {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'\times
\left(\dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}-{{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_s\right)\,.$$ At the low temperatures considered, we neglected the small contribution of $(h/ 2) (C_0-\rho_s) {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'\times \partial {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}
/\partial t \simeq (h/ 2)\rho_n {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'\times \partial {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}/\partial t$, where $\rho_n$ is the normal density in the superfluid state. This last expression represents the Iordanskiǐ force [@sonin2] (remember that we fixed ${{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_n=0$), which is also present in Bose superfluids and not related to spectral flow [@grisha3]. The Magnus force dominates in the above limit of ‘slow’ vortex motion with $\omega\ll\omega_0$ the massive term (the Hall term on the right-hand side is larger by a factor of $\omega_0/\omega$ than the inertial term). Still, the vortex core dynamical mass $M_c = h C_0/(2\omega_0) \sim m C_0\pi \xi^2$ is much larger than the mass arising from the compressible superflow outside the vortex core. Their ratio is of order $M_0/M_c \sim (d/\xi)^2$, where the quantity $d$ signifies the interparticle spacing $d\ll\xi$, so that $M_0$ may be neglected in the equation of motion (\[taubig\]). Dissipative motion prevails in the limit $\omega_0\tau\ll 1$, $\omega\tau\ll 1$: $$\label{tausmall}
\frac h2 \rho_s {{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_s \times {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'
= \frac h2 C_0(\omega_0\tau) \dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}
+ \frac h2
C_0(\omega_0 \tau)^2 \dot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}\times {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'\,.$$ The vortex motion is overdamped, with friction coefficient given by the expression $\eta= (1/2) h C_0\omega_0\tau $.[^10] It is observed that time inversion invariance is spoilt by the fact that the first term on the right-hand side of the equation above does not have the factor ${{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'$, which changes sign under time inversion. The dissipation is in the given limit of ohmic nature with a longitudinal conductivity independent of the driving frequency $\omega$. The Hall part of the Magnus force is suppressed by $\omega_0\tau$ relative to the friction term, which is the result of the spectral flow phenomenon discussed above. Spectral flow is made possible because the minigap $\omega_0$ between zero mode levels is broadened by a large quasiparticle collision frequency $\tau^{-1}\gg \omega_0$. On the other hand, in the case of (\[taubig\]), spectral flow is impeded by the presence of the minigap (save for tunnelling events between the levels [@grisha3]), and the Magnus force obtains. It is to be mentioned that in a superconductor the energy levels above the gap are also quantized into Landau levels with the interlevel distance $\hbar\omega_c$, where $\omega_c$ is the usual magnetic cyclotron frequency. For sufficiently small magnetic field, however, the spectrum is quasi-continous and no change of the above results applies [@kopningrisha].
### The $d$-wave case
For $p$- and $d$-wave superconductors, the gap has nodes not only at the location of the vortex itself, but also in the bulk superfluid. The $d$-wave case distinguishes itself by the fact that these nodes occur on [*lines*]{} in momentum space, whereas in the $p$-wave case they only occur at [*points*]{} [@grishabook]. The lines of gap nodes in $d$-wave superconductors lead to a profound alteration of the effective vortex dynamical equations [@fluxflow; @kolyaresonant; @makhlin].
To explain the essential features of these changes, we observe, first of all, that the minigap $\omega_0=\omega_0(\alpha)$ is a function of the angle $\alpha$, which indicates the position of the gap nodes in momentum space, where the gap modulus $\Delta = \Delta_0\sin (2\alpha)$. The average minigap $\Omega_0\equiv\,
<\!\omega_0(\alpha)\!>$ is of the same order $\Delta_\infty^2/E_F$ as the constant $\omega_0$ in the $s$-wave case, $\Omega_0=O(\omega_0)$. There exists, however, an additional energy scale, the true quantum-mechanical interlevel distance in the vortex core $E_0$, which is defined according to a Bohr-Sommerfeld type of quantization prescription for the canonically conjugate [*quantum*]{} variables $k_\phi(\alpha)$ and $\alpha$. In a $\alpha$-dependent version of (\[zeromode\]), $k_\phi(\alpha)= -E/\omega_0(\alpha)$, the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization reads $\oint k_\phi (\alpha) d\alpha = h(m+\gamma)$ (with $\gamma
=1/2$), so that the true interlevel distance is given by $E_0^{-1}=h^{-1}\int_0^{2\pi}\!d\alpha \,\omega^{-1}_0(\alpha)$ (the integral is rendered finite by the existence of a magnetic field [@kolyaresonant]). There are several different regimes of vortex motion corresponding to the ratio of the relaxation rate $\tau^{-1}$ and the frequency of vortex motion $\omega$, not only to the (average) minigap $\Omega_0$, as in the $s$-wave case discussed above, but also to $E_0=\hbar \sqrt{\Omega_0 \omega_c} \ll \hbar \Omega_0$.[^11]
There is a parameter region which yields a comparatively simple and unique result. This is the case of $\Omega_0\tau\ll 1$, which implies $E_0\tau\ll \hbar$. Assuming we have in addition $\omega\tau\ll 1$, we are led back to an equation of motion of the type (\[tausmall\]). On the other hand, if $\Omega_0\tau\gg 1$ (and $\omega\tau\ll 1$), there is a ‘universal region’ [@fluxflow; @kolyaresonant], which is realized if $E_0\tau\ll \hbar$: The dissipative and Hall coefficients are independent of the relaxation time for very low temperatures and small magnetic fields and have the same order of magnitude. Finally, if $\Omega_0\tau\gg 1$ and $E_0\tau\gg \hbar$, the equation of motion is of the type (\[taubig\]), with dominating Magnus force. This is a regime which will presumably not be realizable with respect to practially achieved sample purities, whereas the universal regime should be observable. It appears useful at this point to insert a short treatise on the terminology in the literature. Superconductors are classified as being ‘superclean’, ‘clean’, ‘moderately clean’ and ‘dirty’, according to the value of the ratio $l/\xi$, where $l=v_F\tau$ is the quasiparticle mean free path. The superclean limit $\omega_0\tau\gg 1$ (or $\Omega_0\tau\gg 1$) corresponds to $l\gg \xi (E_F/\Delta_\infty)$, representing a much stricter condition than its clean counterpart $l\gg \xi$. The moderately clean and dirty limits correspond to $l\gtrsim \xi$ and $l\ll \xi$, respectively. We will agree to call a superconductor ‘moderately clean’ if it has $\omega_0\tau\ll 1$ (but still simultaneously $l\gtrsim \xi$). Because of the above discussed $d$-wave pecularities, there is yet another notion of ‘extremely clean’, which ought to be introduced. This corresponds to the extreme limit $\Omega_0\tau\gg 1$ and $E_0\tau\gg \hbar$, or $l\ggg \xi (E_F/\Delta_\infty)$.
The discussion of $s$-wave vortex motion to follow is thus valid for the $d$-wave case in a straightforward sense only if we are in the moderately clean region $\Omega_0\tau\ll 1$, $E_0\tau\ll 1$, and have additionally $\omega\tau\ll 1$, with the local form of the equation of motion in (\[tausmall\]).
### Nonlocal motion in the time domain
In order to obtain the real time motion of the vortex, we rewrite the general equation of motion in its convoluted form. To this end, we use that $ \dot X^ i(\omega) = -i \omega X^i (\omega)$ and define $K^D (\omega) \equiv i\omega D(\omega)$, $K^H(\omega) \equiv i \omega (D'(\omega)-h\rho_s/2)$. Then, by multiplying (\[eqmotion2\]) with $(1/2\pi)\int d\omega \exp(-i\omega t) $, we have $$\label{eqmotiont}
\frac {h\rho_s}2 {{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_s \times {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'
= - \int dt' K^D(t-t') {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (t')
-{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'\times\int dt' K^H (t-t') {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}(t') \,,$$ where the kernels are, by use of (\[Domega\]) and (\[D’omega\]), the Fourier transforms $$K^D(t-t') = \frac{1}{2\pi}
\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}
d\omega\, \exp[ -i\omega (t-t') ]\,
\frac{i\omega \,(hC_0/2) ( \tau^{-1} -i\omega )/\omega_0}
{1+\left((\omega_0\tau)^{-1}- i\omega/\omega_0\right)^2}\,,
$$ $$K^H(t-t') = \frac{1}{2\pi}
\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}
d\omega\, \exp[-i\omega (t-t') ]\,
\frac{-i\omega\, hC_0/2}
{1+\left((\omega_0\tau)^{-1}- i\omega/\omega_0\right)^2}\,.\,\,\,\,\,
\nonumber $$ The integrals can be evaluated [*via*]{} complex contour integration. The poles $z_1=\omega_0-i\tau^{-1}$, $z_2= -\bar z_1$ are lying both in the lower half plane, so that the kernels are causal: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c} K^D(t-t')\\ K^H(t-t') \end{array}\right)
&=&
\left(\begin{array}{c} -1 \\ i \end{array}\right)
\frac{h C_0 \omega_0}4 \,\frac{1}{2\pi}
\oint dz \, e^{ -iz(t-t') }
\left(\frac z {z-z_1}\pm \frac z {z+\bar z_1} \right)
\nonumber\\
& = & \left(\begin{array}{c} i \\ 1 \end{array}\right)
\frac{hC_0\omega_0}4\,\theta (t-t')\,
\left[ {\rm Res}(z_1) + {\rm Res} (-\bar z_1) \right]\,.\nonumber$$ Calculating ${\rm Res}(z_1) + {\rm Res} (-\bar z_1)$ , they are given by ($\Delta t \equiv t-t'$): $$\begin{aligned}
K^D(\Delta t)&=&
\theta (\Delta t)\, \frac{hC_0}2\,\omega_0^2\,
\exp\left[-\frac{\Delta t} \tau\right]
\left(\sin(\omega_0\Delta t) + \frac 1{\omega_0\tau}\cos (\omega_0\Delta
t)\right)\,,\nonumber\\
K^H(\Delta t) & = &
\theta (\Delta t)\, \frac{hC_0}2\,\omega_0^2\,
\exp\left[-\frac{\Delta t}\tau\right]
\left(\cos(\omega_0\Delta t) - \frac 1{\omega_0\tau}
\sin(\omega_0\Delta t)\right)\,.\nonumber$$ The equations of motion (\[taubig\]) and (\[tausmall\]), which are local in time, result from the non-local equations (\[eqmotiont\]) only in case that the frequency of vortex motion is sufficiently smaller than the bigger of the two frequencies $\omega_0,\omega_\tau\equiv \tau^{-1}$, [*i.e.*]{} such that $\omega\ll (\omega_0^2 +\omega_\tau^2)^{1/2}$ and either $\omega_0\tau \gg 1$, like in (\[taubig\]), or $\omega_0\tau\ll 1$, like in (\[tausmall\]), holds.
The action corresponding to (\[eqmotiont\]) is obtained by integrating with respect to the vortex position ${{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}(t)$. We arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
S[{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}(t)] = \frac{h\rho_s}2 \int dt \,\psi [{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}(t)]
+\int dt \int^t dt' K^D(t-t') {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (t)
\cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (t') \nonumber\\
-{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'\cdot \int dt \int^t dt' K^H (t-t')\,
{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (t) \times {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (t') \,.\label{actiongeneral}\end{aligned}$$ The gradient of the stream function $\psi$ describes the superflow perpendicular to the vortex, $\nabla \psi = {{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}_s\times {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'$.
Making use of the phase angle $\Phi=\arctan [(\omega_0\tau)^{-1}]$ and standard addition theorems, we can cast the action into the suggestive form $$\begin{aligned}
S[{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}(t)]
= \frac{h\rho_s} 2 \int dt \,\psi [{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}(t)]+ \frac{hC_0}2\,\omega_0
\sqrt{\omega_0^2 +\omega_\tau^{2}}
\int dt \int^t dt'\exp[-\omega_\tau\Delta t ]\nonumber\\
\,\,\,\times \left\{
{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (t) \cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (t')
\sin (\omega_0\Delta t + \Phi)
- {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}' \cdot ({{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (t) \times {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (t'))\,
\cos (\omega_0 \Delta t + \Phi
)\right\}\,.\nonumber$$ The factors multiplying the dot- and cross-products of ${{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}(t)$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}(t')$ in this nonlocal Lagrangian are for any value of $\omega_0\tau$ and thus $\Phi$ just $3\pi/2$ out of phase. In case that $\omega_0\tau\ll 1$, $\Phi \simeq\pi /2$, the first term with the dot-product dominates, whereas if $\omega_0\tau\gg 1$, $\Phi \simeq 0$, the second one involving the cross-product does.
Euclidean vortex motion
-----------------------
For a description of tunnelling motion, we have to use the Euclidean action in the interval $[-\hbar\beta/2,\hbar\beta/2)$. Performing the Wick rotation in (\[actiongeneral\]) through the replacement $t\rightarrow -it_e$, gives the Euclidean action $S_e[{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}(t_e)]
\equiv -i S[{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}(t\rightarrow -it_e)]$: $$\begin{aligned}
S_e[{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}(t_e)] &=& -(h\rho_s/2)
\int^{\hbar\beta/2}_{-\hbar\beta/2} dt_e \,\psi [{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}(t_e)]\nonumber\\
& + & \int^{\hbar\beta/2}_{-\hbar\beta/2} dt_e
\int^{t_e}_{-\hbar\beta/2}dt_e' \left[-K^D(t_e-t_e')
{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (t_e)\cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (t_e')\right.\nonumber\\
&+& \left. K^H (t_e-t_e')\,
{{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}'\cdot\left\{ {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}} (t_e) \times {{\mbox{\boldmath$X$}}}
(t_e')\right\}\right]\,\label{Euclideanaction}
$$ where, under the condition that the real frequency $\omega\ll\omega_0,\omega_\tau$, the kernels are approximately given as $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c} K^D(t_e-t_e')\\ K^H(t_e-t_e') \end{array}\right)&=&
\frac{hC_0\omega_0}{2\pi}\int^{\infty}_{0}
d\omega\, e^{ -\omega |t_e-t_e'| }\frac{\omega}{\omega_0^2+\omega^2_\tau}
\left(\begin{array}{c}\omega_\tau \\ -\omega_0 \end{array}\right)
\nonumber\\
&= & \frac{hC_0}{2\pi}\,\frac{1}{(t_e-t_e')^2}\,\,
\frac{\omega_0}{\omega_0^2+\omega_\tau^2}
\left(\begin{array}{c}\omega_\tau \\ -\omega_0
\end{array}\right)\,,\label{kernelslowomega}\end{aligned}$$ and include nonlocality in lowest order. The dissipative kernel is of the Caldeira-Leggett-form ([@CLPRL]–[@shin]) for ohmic dissipation, $K^D=(\eta/\pi)(\Delta t_e)^{-2}$, with the friction coefficient $\eta = (1/2) h C_0
(\omega_0\omega_\tau)/(\omega_0^2+\omega_\tau^2)$. The dissipation due to bound states is at a maximum if $\omega_0\tau= O(1)$ and vanishes in the limits $\omega_0\tau\rightarrow \infty$ and $\omega_0\tau\rightarrow 0$. The nonlocality of the Hall term in the action is of the same importance as that of the friction term if $\omega_0\simeq \omega_\tau$.
Different regions of parameter space
------------------------------------
It is rather obvious that the motion of a vortex for arbitrary competing contributions in the action (\[Euclideanaction\]) can be quite complicated. In principle, the following contributions in the action are conceivable. In addition to the terms appearing in (\[Euclideanaction\]), there can be contributions arising from the self-interaction, like in (\[SEQ\]), that is, the hydrodynamic mass and elasticity terms (the self-energy is usually absorbed into the potential). The hydrodynamic mass was argued to be in general completely negligible as compared to the dynamic core mass in paired Fermi superfluids. The elasticity arises from the generalization of a 2d or rectilinear vortex to one of arbitrary shape and the additional self-energy this creates. Hence, in order to actually describe an imaginary time motion and thus evaluate the tunnelling process probability, only certain classes of metastability problems have been investigated.
[|p[1cm]{}|p[1cm]{}|p[1.5cm]{}|p[1.5cm]{}|p[2cm]{}|p[3.5cm]{}|]{}Ref. & Mass & Elasticity & Magnus & Dissipation & Potential\
[@gorokhovquant] & No & No & & No & $U_0(\sqrt{x^2+y^2})-Fx$\
[@chudnovsky] & No & & & No & $V_g(q)[\epsilon \ll 1]$\
[@morais] & No & & No & (ohmic) & $V_g(q)[\epsilon \ll 1]$\
[@feigelman] & No & No & & (ohmic) & $V_g(q)[\epsilon = 1]$\
[@shin] & No & No & & (ohmic) & $V_g(q)[{\rm any}\, \epsilon]$\
The (stream function) potential is, for reasons of (analytical) solvability, frequently represented as a quadratic plus cubic potential for a one-dimensional generalized co-ordinate $q$. This potential is conventionally parameterized with two or three quantities, a height $h$ and width $w$ of the potential, and possibly with the additional parameter of closeness to criticality $\epsilon$.[^12] The potential thus has the general representation $$\label{Vepsilon}
-\psi = V_g(q) = 3 V_0 \left[\epsilon \left(\frac q{q_0}\right)^2
- \frac 23 \left(\frac q{q_0}\right)^3\right]\,,$$ where $\epsilon =\sqrt{1-v_s/v_{cb}}$ measures the closeness to a critical external velocity $v_{cb}$, for which the barrier vanishes. A measure of the typical curvature radius of the potential is $q_0$. The zeros of the potential are at $q=0$ and $q=(3/2)\epsilon q_0$, so that the width of the potential may be defined to be $w= (3/2)\epsilon
q_0$. The maximum is at $q_{\rm max}=\epsilon q_0$ and its height equals $h=V_0\epsilon^3$. The different cases and approximations investigated in a selection of recently published papers on quantum tunnelling are brought together for comparison in Table \[qtoverview\]. For the detailed results and methods used, the reader is referred to the cited works. In relation to what we have found in the preceding section, we can make the following observations. The core level spacing is of order $\omega_0\sim \hbar/(m\xi^2)$, and the Magnus force dominates over the mass term in (\[taubig\]) if the vortex motion frequency $\omega\ll\omega_0$. The collective co-ordinate approach implies that the curvature radius of the potential $q_0\gg \xi$, because the motion of a massless vortex in the potential is of typical frequency $\omega\sim \hbar/(mq_0^2)$, the ‘cyclotron’ frequency associated with $q_0$. The condition for the collective co-ordinate approach, $q_0\gg \xi$, is thus equivalent to the dominance of the Magnus contribution over the core mass term in the superclean limit $\omega_0\tau\gg 1$. The fundamental hydrodynamic analysis of the last section, treating the Magnus force as dominant, therefore remains valid for tunnelling in the case of a superclean $s$-wave fermionic superfluid. The case of a $d$-wave superfluid is, as already argued, more intricate. The dominance of the Magnus force only obtains in the extremely clean limit, whereas in a superclean limit, which has $E_0\tau\ll \hbar$, the dissipative and Hall force components are of comparable magnitude. This necessitates a complete treatment of the tunnelling phenomenon in two dimensions for this ‘universal’ [@fluxflow] parameter regime, even for a point vortex, because, in the plane, one has to solve two coupled differential equations of motion. We will further discuss this case and its possible occurence in high-$T_c$ superconductors below. In the extremely clean limit respectively for large enough cyclotron level spacing, and if the temperature goes to zero, [*i.e.*]{} is less than any of the energy scales associated with the average and true minigap $\Omega_0=<\!\omega_0\!>$ and $E_0$, the superfluid Magnus force is the only remaining nondissipative force on the vortex, and the analysis of tunnelling in the last section is valid.
Quantum tunnelling in high-$T_c$ superconductors {#sechighTctunnel}
------------------------------------------------
In conventional superconductors, the dissipative component in the vortex equations of motion usually is very significant, so that quantum tunnelling is largely suppressed; the temperature region above zero, in which temperature independent quantum tunnelling is of importance, is exceedingly small [@RHF]. There is, however, the intensely investigated class of high-$T_c$ superconductors, which can very well be in a clean or even superclean limit. In this latter case the Hall angle can approach the value $\pi /2$ (the vortex then moving more with the local superflow, rather than perpendicular to it) [@harris]. In addition, and even more important, in contrast to conventional superconductors these materials can exhibit quite small coherence lengths in the order of the lattice spacing, and a ratio $T^*/T_c\sim O(1\cdots 10)$ (cf. the energy barrier considerations relevant for vortex tunnelling in the introductory considerations. These facts lead to the possibility that in some of these superconductors, quantum tunnelling of flux lines might be observable at low temperatures. The ratio of the crossover temperature $T_0$ from thermally activated to quantum behaviour for the flux line depinning to the critical temperature $T_c$ was measured in very different materials ([@zhang]–[@monier]). It is found, depending on the material, that $(T_0/T_c)_{\rm high-T_c}\sim 0.03\cdots 0.09$, where $T_0$ is defined in these measurements to be the temperature at which flux motion deviates from the one expected for purely thermal activation.[^13] We compare this with He II, where $T_0\sim 150$ mK and $T_c\sim 2.2$ K, so that $(T_0/T_c)_{\rm He II}\sim 0.07$. Considering the fact that the ratio of the critical temperatures for these high-$T_c$ superconductors and helium II can be up to a factor of 50, the values of $T_0/T_c$ are comparatively close, differing at most by a factor of two. This suggests a common physical origin of the deviation from thermal activation behaviour in helium II and high-$T_c$ superconductors, be it quantum tunnelling or some other, classical, flow instability mechanism. This is only natural from the point of view that both systems represent, on a fundamental level, strongly coupled superfluids. There are high-$T_c$ superconductors presumably belonging to the class of $d$-wave superconductors [@wollman; @tsuei], or some variety of this pairing symmetry with small deviations from pure $d$-wave. The considerations of section \[secVMFermi\] for the $d$-wave case then apply, provided we assume a quasiclassical, low energy treatment of vortex motion in linear response to be valid, at least qualitatively, in these superconductors and on the scales of tunnelling.
The $d$-wave superconductor, for practically achieved maximal sample purities and sufficiently small magnetic fields, will not be in an ‘extremely clean’ region (Magnus force dominating), but rather in the superclean ‘universal’ region (for the exact conditions on $H$ and $T$, see [@kolyaresonant]). This implies that there is a magnetic field region in which, as already explained, the vortex tunnelling motion is not dominated either by the dissipative or the Magnus force (the Hall term), even for very low temperatures, but is governed by both forces. There are indications that in clean high-$T_c$ materials an intermediate regime between purely dissipative and Hall tunnelling may indeed be realized [@dalen; @hoekstra]. The intermediate case thus clearly needs further investigation, because the (measurable) temperature dependence of the Euclidean action can be different from that expected for purely dissipative or Hall motion, and the transition from quantum to thermally activated depinning of the vortices be of first or second order [@gorokhov; @gorokhovd+n; @monier]. A first step in this direction has been made in [@shin], where the problem of quantum tunnelling was investigated with the static (low frequency) versions of the formulas for the $s$-wave case, (\[Domega\]) and (\[D’omega\]). It is found that the tunnelling rate displays a minimum for $\omega_0\tau\sim O(1)$. This is in accordance with the fact that dissipation due to spectral flow is at a maximum for values of the parameter $\omega_0\tau$ which are of order unity. Whereas the nonlocality of the ohmic dissipation was considered there [*à la*]{} Caldeira-Leggett, that of the Hall term, however, was not taken into account. It is apparent from (\[kernelslowomega\]) that this is not justifiable in the intermediate case of interest, in which $\omega_0\sim \omega_\tau=\tau^{-1}$. Within the formalism we presented, the Hall term can be treated locally in the action only in the limits $\omega_0\tau\rightarrow\infty$ and $\omega_0\tau\rightarrow 0$. Apart from this objection, the vortex dynamical behaviour in $d$-wave superconductors is in general more complicated than in conventional $s$-wave superconductors, as we have already pointed out. For example, under certain conditions there can be resonances in the vortex response, if vortex tunnelling frequencies are near $(2k+1)E_0/\hbar$, with $k$ an integer number [@kolyaresonant]. A complete treatment of the tunnelling problem for a $d$-wave system in the intermediate range then necessitates an incorporation of nonlocality in the longitudinal and transverse vortex response, as well as possible resonances with collective modes induced by the moving vortex.
Concluding remarks
==================
The present work has treated the consequences and limitations of a large scale description of the motion and tunnelling generation of quantized vortices in dense superfluids. We may summarize the salient assumptions, pertaining to this treatment, in a compact way as follows. The vortex object cannot be described in its [*genesis*]{}, because we do not know precisely in which way a vortex should be represented on curvature scales of order the coherence length. The intrinsic nucleation process, in all its quantum many-body subtleties, happens on these scales. Applying the formalism used in this treatise, we thus have to assert that the vortex somehow comes into a topologically ensured existence. We can, then, assign a collective co-ordinate to the singular center of topological stability. Furthermore, if we wish to describe the vortex as a string (in three dimensions), or point object (in two dimensions), which is tunnelling through a potential barrier, we have to adopt the point of view that we are allowed to quantize vortex position and momentum, in a canonical manner. These two assumptions and their validity lie at the heart of our treatment of the problem of vortex tunnelling in a superfluid at the absolute zero of temperature. There is, then, no theory of vortex [*nucleation*]{} in a dense, real life condensed matter system, because we drastically reduce the number of (quantum) degrees of freedom actually relevant for nucleation. There is, though, a consistent theory of vortex quantum tunnelling in the large scale domain, which we represented here in its formal requirements and geometric implications.
The necessity of employing the long wavelength limit affects the contributions of different origin in the tunnelling exponent. The volume contribution, associated with the incompressible superfluid, always dominates over the area contribution. This latter contribution is associated with the vortex effective mass, and is thus depending on the detailed dynamical behaviour of the vortex on the tunnelling path. The dominant volume contribution, in contrast, depends on the shape of the vortex path in configuration space only.
At absolute zero, the Galilean invariance of the bulk superfluid is required to be broken for tunnelling to be energetically possible. This breaking of invariance can be attained by considering vortex motion in the presence of obstacles. The geometrical implications imprinted by a specific obstacle chosen play an import part in our analysis and give a central result. Namely, if the vortex moves near the boundary, trapped by the pinning potential generated by the obstacle, only those paths are allowed in which the vortex center remains at least within a distance of order the coherence length from the obstacle surface. If the flow obstacle, then, has curvature perpendicular to the flow passing at infinite distance over the obstacle much larger than parallel to this flow, we have shown that the (constant) energy of the tunnelling vortex cannot be less than a given minimal energy. This minimal energy is needed by the vortex to be completely describable by the collective co-ordinate with which we have equipped it, because else it would come within a distance less than the coherence length to the obstacle boundary. This result is generalizable to the case of relativistic vortices in spacetime, where the necessary breaking of (local) Lorentz invariance for timelike currents will lead to the same kind of prediction.
The theory we have developed can claim to make exact predictions on observable tunnelling probabilities in the semiclassical limit, as long as the collective co-ordinate approach makes (geometrical) sense [*and*]{} the Magnus force contribution is dominating the tunnelling action. We have seen, by considering equation (\[R0scaled\]), that the tunnelling scales in He II, using the available data, will be of order nanometers. Correspondingly, the number of particles participating in the tunnelling event, [*i.e.*]{} those contained in the volume determining the tunnelling action, is comparatively small. It is of order $N^{(3)}= 4\cdots 6$, given physically realistic estimates of the prefactor and the tunnelling rates to be expected. Hence, the applicability of our theory, for the actual physical conditions encountered in He II, is restricted, in the sense that it can only give lower bounds for tunnelling rates, valid on large enough scales. It is, first of all, not entirely obvious that the dominance of the Magnus force still holds on the scales relevant for tunnelling. Second, we have no really direct means to compare the tunnelling rates observed by varying experimental conditions with the predictions of the theory. This, of course, stems from the very nature of the theory as a geometric theory. The predictions it actually makes concern primarily the variation of tunnelling rates with the geometrical parameters of flow obstacles. Thus the only conceivable possibility of checking the validity of the theory is the observation of a variation of tunnelling rates with micro-orifice surface roughness; such an experiment, in a reproducible fashion, has not been carried out yet. In order to make further progress in relating the experimental findings to a suitable theory, it appears from these arguments that one is required to go beyond the Magnus force dominance in the tunnelling action and consider the modifications of this dominance in the mesoscopic scale domain, in particular by the interaction of the vortex with the elementary excitation spectrum of the superfluid. This interaction should, on these scales, change the relevant effective forces acting on the vortex, leading to measurable effects on the tunnelling probability. The same considerations essentially apply to the possible observation of tunnelling of flux quanta ([*i.e.*]{}, of the magnetization) in high-$T_c$ superconductors, however with a considerable amount of complications, caused by different parameter domains, as mentioned in the third section. In addition, in the general case, the requirement that proper electromagnetic gauge invariance is to be satisfied should play an important role.
Future research, along the directions we have been alluding to above, is needed to shed further light on the intrinsic process of the genesis of quantized vortices in superfluids.
[1]{} L. Onsager, in the section [*Discussione et Osservazioni*]{} of Nuovo Cimento Suppl. [**6**]{} (1949) 249, also cf. a footnote in Ref. [@onsagerstathydro]. L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, [*Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Pergamon Press, Second Edition 1965 L. P. Pitaevskiǐ, [*Bose-Einstein condensation in magnetic traps. Introduction to the theory*]{}, Physics-Uspekhi [**41,6**]{} (1998) 569 \[Usp. Fiz. Nauk [**168**]{} (1998) 641\] P.-G. de Gennes, [*Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys*]{}, Translation from French, W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1966 A. L. Fetter, J. D. Walecka, [*Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems*]{}, McGraw-Hill, 1971 S. Coleman, [*Aspects of Symmetry*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1985 R. J. Donnelly, [*Experimental Superfluidity*]{}, University of Chicago Press, 1967 R. P. Feynman, [*Atomic Theory of the $\lambda$ Transition in Helium*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**91**]{} (1953) 1291 R. P. Feynman, [*Atomic Theory of the Two-Fluid Model of Liquid Helium*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**94**]{} (1954) 262 R. P. Feynman, [*Application of Quantum Mechanics to Liquid Helium*]{}, in Progress in Low Temperature Physics I, ed. C. Gorter, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1955, Chapter 2 Ü. Parts [*et al.*]{}, [*Single-Vortex Nucleation in Rotating Superfluid $^3\!$He-B*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**31**]{} (1995) 449 A. Schmid, [*Quasiclassical Wave Function in Multidimensional Quantum Decay Problems*]{}, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**170**]{} (1986) 333 U. Eckern, A. Schmid, [*The Decay of a Metastable State in a Multidimensional Configuration Space*]{}, in “Quantum Tunnelling in Condensed Media”, Yu. Kagan and A. J. Leggett (Eds.), Chapter 3, Elsevier 1992 S. Coleman, [*Fate of the false vacuum: Semiclassical Theory*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{} (1977) 2929 C. G. Callan, S. Coleman, [*Fate of the false vacuum. II. First quantum corrections*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**16**]{} (1977) 1762 H. Kleinert, [*Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, and Polymer Physics*]{}, World Scientific, 1990 U. R. Fischer, [*Motion of Quantized Vortices as Elementary Objects*]{}, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**278**]{} (1999) 62 L. Onsager, [*Statistical Hydrodynamics*]{}, Nuovo Cimento Suppl. [**6**]{} (1949) 279 M. V. Berry, [*Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes*]{}, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A [**392**]{} (1984) 45 Y. Nambu, [*Strings, monopoles, and gauge fields*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{} (1974) 4262 R. L. Davis, [*Quantum Turbulence*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{} (1990) 2519 H.-c. Kao, K. Lee, [*Quantum Nucleation of vortex string loops*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{} (1995) 6050 I. S. Gradshteyn, I. M. Ryzhik, [*Table of Integrals, Series, and Products*]{}, Fourth Edition, Academic Press, 1965; Corrected and Enlarged Edition, 1980 P. H. Roberts, J. Grant, [*Motions in a Bose condensate I. The structure of the large circular vortex*]{}, J. Phys. A: Gen. Phys. [**4**]{} (1971) 55 G. E. Volovik, [*Quantum-Mechanical Formation of Vortices in a superfluid liquid*]{}, JETP Lett. [**15**]{} (1972) 81 U. R. Fischer, [*Geometric Laws of Vortex Quantum Tunneling*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{} (1998) 105 L. M. Milne-Thomson, [*Theoretical Hydrodynamics*]{}, Fifth Edition, Macmillan, 1968 E. B. Sonin, [*Critical velocities at very low temperatures, and the vortices in a quantum bose fluid*]{}, JETP [**37**]{} (1973) 494 E. B. Sonin, [*Nucleation and creep of vortices in superfluids and clean superconductors*]{}, Physica B [**210**]{} (1995) 234 R. J. Donnelly, [*Quantized Vortices in Helium II*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991 D. P. Arovas, J. A. Freire, [*Dynamical Vortices in Superfluid Films*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{} (1997) 1068 V. Apaja, M. Saarela, [*Current patterns in the phonon-maxon-roton excitations in $^4\!$He*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{} (1998) 5358 G. Ortiz, D. M. Ceperley, [*Core structure of a Vortex in Superfluid $^4\!$He*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} (1995) 4642 S. A. Vitiello, L. Reatto, G. V. Chester, M. H. Kalos, [*Vortex line in superfluid $^4\!$He: A variational Monte Carlo calculation*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{} (1996) 1205 D. E. Galli, E. Cecchetti, L. Reatto, [*Rotons and Roton Wave Packets in Superfluid $^4\!$He*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{} (1996) 5401 M. Sadd, G.V. Chester, L. Reatto, [*Structure of a Vortex in Superfluid $^4\!$He*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{} (1997) 2490 F. Dalfovo, A. Lastri, L. Pricaupenko, S. Stringari, J. Treiner, [*Structural and dynamical properties of superfluid helium: A density-functional approach*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{} (1995) 1193 O. Avenel, E. Varoquaux, [*Observation of Singly Quantized Dissipation Events Obeying the Josephson Frequency Relation in the Critical Flow of Superfluid $^4\!$He through an Aperture*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**55**]{} (1985) 2704 O. Avenel, E. Varoquaux, [*Josephson Effect and Phase Slippage in Superfluids*]{}, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. [**26**]{}, Supplement 26-3 (1987) 1798 O. Avenel, E. Varoquaux, [*Josephson Effect and Quantum Phase Slippage in Superfluids*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{} (1988) 416 E. Varoquaux, G. G. Ihas, O. Avenel, R. Aarts, [ *Dissipative Flow of Superfluid $^4\!$He through a Small Orifice by Quantum and Thermal Nucleation of Vortices*]{}, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**89**]{} (1992) 207 G. G. Ihas [*et al.*]{}, [*Quantum Nucleation of Vortices in the Flow of Superfluid $^4\!$He through an Orifice*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{} (1992) 327 E. Varoquaux, G. G. Ihas, O. Avenel, R. Aarts, [*Vortex Nucleation in Superfluid $^4\!$He Probed by $^3\!$He Impurities*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{} (1993) 2114 O. Avenel, G. G. Ihas, E. Varoquaux, [*The Nucleation of Vortices in Superfluid $^4\!$He: Answers and Questions*]{}, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**93**]{} (1993) 1031 S. Burkhart, M. Bernhard, O. Avenel, E. Varoquaux, [*Scenario for a Quantum Phase Slip in Superfluid $^4\!$He*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{} (1994) 380 P. Hakonen, O. Avenel, E. Varoquaux, [ *Evidence for Single-vortex Pinning and Unpinning Events in Superfluid $^4\!$He*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{} (1998) 3451 K. W. Schwarz, [*Fluid Dynamics of a Quantized Vortex Filament in a Hole*]{}, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**93**]{} (1993) 1019 K. W. Schwarz, [*Phase Slip and Phase-Slip Cascades in $^4\!$He Superflow through a Small Orifice*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} (1993) 259 J. C. Davis [*et al.*]{}, [*Evidence for Quantum Tunneling of Phase-Slip Vortices in Superfluid $^4\!$He*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{} (1992) 323 A. Amar, Y. Sasaki, R. J. Lozes, J. C. Davis, R. E. Packard, [*Quantized Phase Slippage in Superfluid $^4\!$He*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{} (1992) 2624 O. Avenel, E. Varoquaux, [*Detection of the Earth Rotation with a Superfluid Double-hole Resonator*]{}, Czech. J. Phys. [**46**]{}, Suppl. S6 (1996) 3319 K. Schwab, N. Bruckner, R. E. Packard, [*Detection of the Earth’s rotation using superfluid phase coherence*]{}, Nature [**386**]{} (1997) 585 O. Avenel, P. Hakonen, E. Varoquaux, [*Detection of the Rotation of the Earth with a Superfluid Gyrometer*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{} (1997) 3602 B. D. Josephson, [*Potential Differences in the Mixed State of Type II Superconductors*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**16**]{} (1965) 242 P. W. Anderson, [*Considerations on The Flow of Superfluid Helium*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**38**]{} (1966) 298 E. R. Huggins, [*Energy-Dissipation Theorem and Detailed Josephson Equation for Ideal Incompressible Fluids*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**1**]{} (1970) 332 H. Fröhlich, [*A contradiction between quantum hydrodynamics and the existence of particles*]{}, Physica [**34**]{} (1967) 47 D. T. Pegg, S. M. Barnett, [*Unitary Phase Operator in Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**6**]{} (1988) 483 L. P. Pitaevskiǐ, [*Vortex lines in an imperfect Bose gas*]{}, JETP [**13**]{} (1961) 451 E. P. Gross, [*Classical Theory of Boson Wave Fields*]{}, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**4**]{} (1958) 57 E. P. Gross, [*Quantum Theory of Interacting Bosons*]{}, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**9**]{} (1960) 292 E. P. Gross, [*Structure of a Quantized Vortex in Boson Systems*]{}, Nuovo Cimento [**20**]{} (1961) 454 E. P. Gross, [*Hydrodynamics of a Superfluid Condensate*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**4**]{} (1963) 195 I. Affleck, [*Quantum-Statistical Metastability*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**46**]{} (1981) 388 D. A. Gorokhov, G. Blatter, [*Quantum depinning of a pancake vortex from a columnar defect*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{} (1998) 3586 A. A. Sobyanin, A. A. Stratonnikov, [*Surface tension of helium II and extrapolation length for the order parameter*]{}, JETP Lett. [**45**]{} (1987) 613 E. A. Kuznetsov, J. Juul Rasmussen, [*Self-focusing instability of two-dimensional solitons and vortices*]{}, JETP Lett. [**62**]{} (1995) 105 C. Josserand, Y. Pomeau, [*Generation of Vortices in a Model of Superfluid $^4\!$He by the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili Instability*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**30**]{} (1995) 43 P. I. Soininen, N. B. Kopnin, [*Stability of superflow*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{} (1994) 12087 M. Stone, A. Srivastava, [*Boundary Layer Separation and Vortex Creation in Superflow Through Small Orifices*]{}, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**102**]{} (1996) 445 J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, J. R. Schrieffer, [*Theory of Superconductivity*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**108**]{} (1957) 1175 G. E. Volovik, [*Exotic Properties of superfluid $^3\!$He*]{}, World Scientific, 1992
U. Weiss, [*Quantum Dissipative Systems*]{}, World Scientific, 1993
D. A. Wollman [*et al.*]{}, [*Experimental Determination of the Superconducting Pairing State in YBCO from the Phase Coherence of YBCO-Pb dc SQUIDs*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} (1993) 2134 C. C. Tsuei [*et al.*]{}, [*Pure $d_{x^2-y^2}$ order-parameter symmetry in the tetragonal superconductor Tl$_2$Ba$_2$CuO$_{6+\delta}$*]{}, Nature [**387**]{} (1997) 481
E. B. Sonin, [*The Magnus force in superfluids and superconductors*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{} (1997) 485 G. E. Volovik, [*Three nondissipative forces on a moving vortex line in superfluids and superconductors*]{}, JETP Lett. [**62**]{} (1995) 65 C. Caroli, P. G. de Gennes, J. Matricon, [*Bound States on a Vortex Line in a Type II Superconductor*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**9**]{} (1964) 307 A. van Otterlo, M. Feigel’man, V. Geshkenbein, G. Blatter, [*Vortex Dynamics and the Hall Anomaly: A Microscopic Analysis*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} (1995) 3736 M. Stone, [*Spectral flow, Magnus force, and mutual friction via the geometric optics limit of Andreev reflection*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{} (1996) 13222 N. B. Kopnin, G. E. Volovik, Ü. Parts, [*Spectral Flow in Vortex Dynamics of $^3\!$He-B and Superconductors*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**32**]{} (1995) 651 N. B. Kopnin, [*Theory of mutual friction in superfluid $^3$He at low temperatures*]{}, Physica B [**210**]{} (1995) 267-286 N. B. Kopnin, G. E. Volovik, [*Flux Flow in $d$-Wave Superconductors: Low Temperature Universality and Scaling*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{} (1997) 1377 N. B. Kopnin, [*Resonant absorption at the vortex core states in $d$-wave superconductors*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{} (1998) 11775 Yu. G. Makhlin, [*Spectral flow in vortex dynamics of $d$-wave superconductors*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{} (1997) 11872 G. Blatter, V. B. Geshkenbein, N. B. Kopnin, [*From microscopic theory to Boltzmann kinetic equation: Application to vortex dynamics*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{} (1999) 14663 J. M. Harris [*et al.*]{}, [*Hall Angle Evidence for the Superclean Regime in 60 K YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+y}$*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{} (1994) 1711 J.-M. Duan, [*Mass of a vortex line in superfluid $^4\!$He: Effects of gauge-symmetry breaking*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{} (1994) 12381 N. B. Kopnin, V. M. Vinokur, [*Dynamic Vortex Mass in Clean Fermi Superfluids and Superconductors*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{} (1998) 3952
D. A. Gorokhov, G. Blatter, [*Decay of Metastable States: Sharp Transition from Quantum to Classical Behavior*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{} (1997) 3130 D. A. Gorokhov, G. Blatter, [*Metastability of $(d+n)$-dimensional elastic manifolds*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{} (1998) 5486 E. M. Chudnovsky, A. Ferrera, A. Vilenkin, [*Quantum depinning of flux lines from columnar defects*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{} (1995) 1181 C. Morais Smith, [*Decay of metastable states close to the treshold*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**38**]{} (1997) 551 A. O. Caldeira, A. J. Leggett, [*Influence of Dissipation on Quantum Tunnelling in Macroscopic Systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**46**]{} (1981) 211 A. O. Caldeira, A. J. Leggett, [*Quantum Tunnelling in a Dissipative System*]{}, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**149**]{} (1983) 374 A. I. Larkin, Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, [*Quantum tunneling with dissipation*]{}, JETP Lett. [**37**]{} (1983) 383 A. Schmid, [*Diffusion and Localization in a Dissipative Quantum System*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**51**]{} (1983) 1506 H. Grabert, U. Weiss, P. Hänggi, [*Quantum Tunneling in Dissipative Systems at Finite Temperatures*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{} (1984) 2193 U. Weiss, P. Riseborough, P. Hänggi, H. Grabert, [*Energy Loss in Quantum Tunneling*]{}, Phys. Lett. A [**104**]{} (1984) 10-14; Erratum: [*ibid.*]{} [**104**]{} (1984) 492 P. S. Riseborough, P. Hänggi, E. Freidkin, [*Quantum tunneling in dissipative media: Intermediate-coupling-strength results*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**32**]{} (1985) 489 D. Waxman, G. Williams, N. Schopohl, [*Bosonic heat bath associated with a moving soliton in a fermionic system*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**33**]{} (1996) 503 K. Fujikawa, H. Terashima, [*Fluctuation-dissipation theorem and quantum tunneling with dissipation at finite temperature*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{} (1998) 7063 G.-H. Kim, M. Shin, [*Quantum vortex creep: Hall and dissipative tunneling*]{}, Physica C [**303**]{} (1998) 73 B. I. Ivlev, Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, R. S. Thompson, [ *Quantum flux creep in layered high-$T_c$ superconductors*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{} (1991) 7023 M. V. Feigel’man, V. B. Geshkenbein, A. I. Larkin, S. Levit, [*Hall tunneling of vortices in high-temperature superconductors*]{}, JETP Lett. [**57**]{} (1993) 711 X. X. Zhang [*et al.*]{}, [*Experimental evidence of quantum tunneling of 2D vortices up to 10 K in bulk [ Tl$_2$Ba$_2$Ca$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{10}$]{} superconductor*]{}, Physica C [**232**]{} (1994) 99 A. C. Mota [*et al.*]{}, [*Quantum Tunneling of Vortices in Cuprate and Heavy Fermion Superconductors*]{}, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**95**]{} (1994) 377 G. T. Seidler [*et al.*]{}, [*Low Temperature Action in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{} (1995) 1442 A. J. J. Dalen [*et al.*]{}, [*1. Dissipative and Hall quantum creep in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$ thin films*]{}; [*2. Quantum creep and pinning properties of oxygen-deficient YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{x_n}$ films*]{}, [*1.*]{} Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{} (1996) 896; [*2.*]{} [*ibid.*]{} [**54**]{} (1996) 1366 A. F. Th. Hoekstra [*et al.*]{}, [*General Features of Quantum Creep in High-$T_c$ Superconductors*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{} (1998) 4293 D. Monier, L. Fruchter, [*Thermal-to-quantum crossover of the flux-line dynamics in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8}$*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{} (1998) R8917 T. Stein [*et al.*]{}, [*Quantum Creep in Y$_{1-x}$Pr$_x$Ba$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$ Crystals: Magnetic Relaxation and Transport*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{} (1999) 2955
[^1]: ${\mbox{\boldmath$K$}}$ is not to be confused with a wave vector. We could have chosen as well to incorporate the $-i$ into the (imaginary) momentum ${{\mbox{\boldmath$P$}}}$. Crucial is only that $S_e$ is a real quantity.
[^2]: In pair-correlated Fermi superfluids, $q=N_v h/2$, where the number density in (\[rotaBX’\]) and (\[Efield\]) is understood to refer to the “elementary” particles constituting the superfluid, and not to the Cooper pairs.
[^3]: This relation assumes that $\sigma_{\rm LJ}< \xi < a$, with $\xi$ nearer to the lower bound ($a$ is the interparticle spacing, $\sigma_{\rm LJ}=2.556 \,$Å the Lennard-Jones parameter of the atomic helium interaction), which is consistent with quantum many-body and density-functional calculations [@ortiz; @vitiello; @sadd; @dalfovo2].
[^4]: It should, however, be pointed out that the very notion of (classical) velocity becomes questionable on $\xi$-scales. On these scales, it is more appropriate to refer to (mean) current densities.
[^5]: We refer to the contribution of $S_e^{\rm inc}$ as a volume contribution in general, according to (\[SEgeo\]). In two dimensions, of course, a volume is an area and an area is a length in conventional terms.
[^6]: This is true in the hydrodynamic limit, after averaging over a cell much larger than the atomic size. In the microscopic domain, we encounter consistency problems related to the general problem of the existence of quantum mechanical phase operators (see, in particular, [@froh]; also [@pegg]).
[^7]: The resulting expression for the energy change neglects a small correction due to the diminishment of the external current during the phase slip [@huggins].
[^8]: We remark that in the literature the setting $\hbar\equiv 1$ is frequently taken, which means that Planck’s quantum of action $h\equiv 2\pi$.
[^9]: The parameter $C_0$ is in general a measure of the density at the location of gap nodes; it is zero if no gap nodes are present. In our case, the gap nodes are at the position of the vortex line, other possible occurences of nodes are in the bulk of $p$- or $d$-wave superfluids.
[^10]: We do not show the hydrodynamic and transverse mass terms on the right-hand side of (\[tausmall\]), which are small compared to the friction term. The transverse mass [@kolyavinokur], relating vortex velocity and momentum in different directions, can be defined dynamically from the equations of motion (\[eqmotion2\]), like $M_c$.
[^11]: There is a further complication, which we do not take into account here because of the low temperatures $T\ll T_c$ considered. If $T\lesssim T_c$, the relevant energy scale approaches the cyclotron level spacing $\hbar\omega_c$. Furthermore, the results have in general to be written in a form taking into account both particle- and holelike Fermi surface parts, see [@kolyaresonant].
[^12]: The potential (\[Vepsilon\]) corresponds to the so-called ‘tilted washboard potential near criticality’ if $\epsilon \ll 1$, see, [*e.g.*]{}, [@ivlev].
[^13]: In Ref. [@stein], however, quite large ratios up to $(T_0/T_c)_{\rm high-T_c}\sim 0.22$ have been reported.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We give a well-motivated explanation for the origin of dark energy, claiming that it arises from a small residual negative scalar-curvature present even in empty spacetime. The vacuum has this residual curvature because spacetime is fundamentally discrete and there are more ways for a discrete geometry to have negative curvature than positive. We explicitly compute this effect in the well-known [*dynamical triangulations*]{} (DT) model for quantum gravity and the predicted cosmological constant $\Lambda$ agrees with observation.
We begin by almost completely characterizing the DT-model’s vacuum energies in dimension three. Remarkably, the energy gap between states comes in increments of $$\Delta\mathcal{A} =\frac{\ell}{8\mathcal{V}}$$ in natural units, where $\ell$ is the “Planck length” in the model and $\mathcal{V}$ is the volume of the universe. Then, using only vacua in the $N$ energy levels nearest zero, where $N$ is the universe’s radius in units of $\ell$, we apply our model to the current co-moving spatial volume to get $|\Lambda| \approx 10^{-123}$.
This result comes with a rigorous proof and does not depend on any holographic principle or carefully tuned parameters. Our only unknown is the relative entropy of the low-energy states, which sets the sign of $\Lambda$. Numerical evidence strongly suggests that spacetime entropy in the DT-model is a decreasing function of scalar-curvature, so the model also predicts the correct sign for $\Lambda$.
author:
- 'Aaron Trout\'
bibliography:
- 'dark\_energy.bib'
title: A Reasonable Ab Initio Cosmological Constant Without Holography
---
Introduction
============
General relativity can be written in the Lagrangian formalism using the Einstein-Hilbert action, which in natural units is $$\label{EH_action}
\mathcal{A_{E\!H}}(g) = \int_M \left[ \frac{1}{16\pi} \left( R - 2\Lambda \right) + \mathcal{L}_m \right]\! \mbox{dV}.$$
Here $M$ is a closed $n$-manifold, $g$ a Lorentzian metric, $R$ scalar-curvature, $\Lambda$ the cosmological constant, and $\mathcal{L}_m$ the Lagrangian for matter. Note, both $R$ and $\mathcal{L}_m$ depend on $g$ while $\Lambda$ does not.
The critical points of $\mathcal{A_{E\!H}}$ are solutions to the field equations for general relativity. For the vacuum with $\Lambda =0$ we have action $$\label{EH_vacuum_action}
\mathcal{A_{E\!H}^{\!\mbox{vac}}}(g) = \frac{1}{16\pi} \int_M \!R \,\mbox{dV}.$$ Critical points of $\mathcal{A_{E\!H}^{\!\mbox{vac}}}$ satisfy:
Any critical point $g$ of $\mathcal{A_{E\!H}^{\!\mbox{vac}}}$ is scalar-flat (R=0 everywhere) and $\mathcal{A_{E\!H}^{\!\mbox{vac}}}(g)=0$. \[classical\_crit\_value\]
In [@Regge1961] Regge gives a discrete version of $\mathcal{A_{E\!H}^{\!\mbox{vac}}}$ for piecewise-linear (PL) manifolds. We use the “fully discrete” version from the [*dynamical triangulations*]{} literature. Suppose $T$ is a combinatorial $n$-manifold homeomorphic to a fixed closed $n$-manifold $M$. We give $T$ a PL-metric by setting all edge-lengths to $\ell$, calling such a space a **triangulation** of $M$. In this model triangulations represent the possible **spacetime states**. Let $N_k(T)$ denote the number of $k$-simplices in $T$. Our action, which we call the **combinatorial Regge action** is $$\label{CR_action}
\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}(T, \ell) = \frac{V_{n-2}(\ell)}{16\pi} \sum_{\tau^{n\!-\!2}\in T} \left( 2\pi - \theta_n \mbox{deg}(\tau^{n-2}) \right)$$ where $V_k(\ell)$ is the volume of a regular $k$-simplex with side-length $\ell$, $\theta_n=\cos^{-1}(\frac{1}{n})$ is the [*dihedral angle*]{} in such a simplex, and $deg(\tau)$ is the number of $n$-simplices in $T$ with $\tau$ as a face. The success of the [*Regge calculus*]{} [@Rocek1981; @Hamber94; @Hamber95; @Beirl97; @Gentle02; @Gentle12] and [*(causal) dynamical triangulation*]{} [@Agishtein92; @Ambjorn92; @Catterall94; @Ambjorn04; @Ambjorn06; @Benedetti09; @Ambjorn10; @Ambjorn11] approaches to quantum gravity, both of which use Regge-type actions, gives us confidence that $\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}(T, \ell)$ corresponds to the classical notion of [*total scalar-curvature*]{}, at least at length-scales large compared with $\ell$.
Action Spectrum {#action_spectrum}
===============
Henceforth, we work in dimension three. Let $\mathcal{T}(M)$ be the set of all triangulations of a closed 3-manifold $M$, and let $\mathcal{T}_{\!K}(M)$ denote those with exactly $K$ 3-simplices. We will write $\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}(T, \ell)$ in terms of the **mean edge-degree** $$\mu(T)=\frac{1}{N_1(T)}\sum_{e\in T} \mbox{deg}(e).$$ Some double-counting and algebra gives: $$\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}(T,\ell) = \frac{3\ell}{4} N_3(T)\left( \frac{1}{\mu(T)} - \frac{1}{\mu^*}\right)
\label{NCR_mu_formula}$$ where $\mu^* = \frac{2\pi}{\theta_3}\approx 5.1$ is the **flat edge-degree**. This is the number of regular $3$-simplices needed around an edge to get a total dihedral angle of $2\pi$, the expected quantity in flat space. See Section \[spectrum\_calcs\] for complete details.
$\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}(T,\ell)$ is unbounded on $\mathcal{T}(M)$ so we define a volume-normalized version $$\mathcal{A^{\!V\!N}_{C\!R}}(T, \ell) = \frac{\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}(T)}{\mbox{Vol}(T)} \label{normalized_action}$$ where $\mbox{Vol}(T)=V_n(\ell)N_n(T)$ is the PL-volume of $T$. We will often write just $\mathcal{A^{\!V\!N}_{C\!R}}(T)$ or simply $\mathcal{A}_\mu$.
[Note:]{} Our normalization removes the dependence of $\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}$ on the [*number*]{} of 3-simplices at fixed $\mu$. The action still depends on $\ell$ as $$\label{NCR_scaling_equation}
\mathcal{A^{\!V\!N}_{C\!R}}(T, \ell) \propto \ell^{-2}.$$
Because we wish to investigate effects resulting from the discreteness of spacetime, this dependence on $\ell$ is crucial.
Using Euler-characteristic and double-counting arguments, for any $T\in\mathcal{T}_{\!K}(M)$ $$N_0(T) = K\!\left( \frac{6}{\mu(T)} - 1 \right)\ , \ N_1(T) = K\! \frac{6}{\mu(T)}. \label{f_vector_K_mu}$$ Details can be found in Section \[spectrum\_calcs\]. So, for fixed $K$, increasing $\mu$ decreases both $N_0$ and $N_1$. Thus, understanding the possible $\mathcal{A}_\mu$ means knowing which $N_0$ and $N_1$ occur in $\mathcal{T}(M)$.
In [@Walkup1970] Walkup defines ranges for $N_0$ and $N_1$ which must occur in $\mathcal{T}(M)$. These imply:
Suppose $\mathcal{A}_6 < x < \mathcal{A}_{4.5}$. For all large enough $K$ there are triangulations $T^+$ and $T^-$ in $\mathcal{T}_{\!K}(M)$ with $$\mu(T^+)=\frac{6K}{N_1(T^+)}$$ and $$\mu(T^-)=\frac{6K}{N_1(T^-)} = \frac{6K}{N_1(T^+)-1}$$ and for which $\mathcal{A}_{\mu(T^-)} \leq x \leq \mathcal{A}_{\mu(T^+)}$. \[adjacent\_action\_properties\]
See Section \[spectrum\_calcs\] for a detailed proof.
Let $\mathcal{N}^-_{\!K,x}$ and $\mathcal{N}^+_{\!K,x}$ denote the number of states in $\mathcal{T}_{\!K}(M)$ with the same action as $T^-$ and $T^+$ respectively. By equation (\[f\_vector\_K\_mu\]), $\mu(T)=\frac{6K}{N_1(T)}$ so $T^+$ and $T^-$ have actions as close as possible to $x$ at fixed $K$. Also, note that in natural units $\mathcal{A}_6\approx -0.19$ and $\mathcal{A}_{4.5}\approx 0.17$ so the endpoints represent [*enormous*]{} energy densities. The energy gap $\Delta\mathcal{A} = \mathcal{A}_{\mu(T^+)} - \mathcal{A}_{\mu(T^-)}$ is given by $$\Delta\mathcal{A} = \frac{3\ell}{4 V_3(\ell)} \left( \frac{1}{6K} \right) = \frac{3\sqrt{2}}{4}\frac{1}{\ell^2K}.
\label{delta_A_KL_eqn}$$ Since $V_3(\ell)K = \mbox{Vol}(T)$ this is also $$\Delta\mathcal{A} = \frac{1}{8}\frac{\ell}{\mbox{Vol}(T)}.
\label{delta_A_Lvol_eqn}$$
Degeneracy Data
===============
To compute the expected value of an observable over some set of energy states, we need to know the relative degeneracies of those states. Data from censuses of 3-manifold triangulations [@Burton2004; @Burton2011] lead us to conjecture:
For any $\mathcal{A}_6 < x < \mathcal{A}_{4.5}$ the limit $$\lim_{K\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\mathcal{N}^+_{K,x}}{\mathcal{N}^-_{K,x}} = C(x)$$ exits. Moreover, $C$ is a continuous function of $x$ with $C(x)<1$. \[degeneracy\_con\]
That is, we conjecture that the degeneracies decrease roughly exponentially near each action $x$. This effect can be seen in Figure \[entropy\_vs\_curvature\] which plots the (per-volume) spacetime entropy $$S = \frac{1}{V_3(\ell)K}\ln\left| \mathcal{T}_{\!K}(M)\right|$$ as a function of the (per-volume) scalar-curvature $\mathcal{A}_\mu$ for $M=S^3$ at various $K$ and $\ell=1$. Notice the downward slope of the curves.
The Nearly-Flat Model
=====================
Often in quantum gravity it is difficult to write down a well-behaved (or even well-defined) partition function. Here, there is no such problem. Inspired by Fact \[classical\_crit\_value\], we will create a system [*obviously*]{} dominated by states with $\mathcal{A}_\mu \approx \mathcal{A}_{\mu^*} = 0$, the “correct” classical value. We know the action values, so the only question is how many energy states $N$ to use on either side of zero. Our $N$ should be a large dimensionless number involving only Vol$(T)$ and $\ell$. A natural choice is $$\label{num_states} N=\frac{\mbox{Vol}(T)^{1/3}}{\ell}.$$ This is roughly the [*radius of the universe*]{} in units of $\ell$. If Conjecture \[degeneracy\_con\] holds and $N$ is large we have $$\label{expected_action} \langle \mathcal{A}_\mu \rangle \approx -N\Delta\mathcal{A}.$$ See Section \[NF\_calcs\] for the complete calculation. Note, unless $C(x)$ is [*very*]{} close to one near $x=0$, only the sign of $\langle \mathcal{A}_\mu \rangle$ comes from our conjecture. Also, in the current co-moving volume $N\gg 1$ and $\langle \mathcal{A}_\mu \rangle \approx 0$ so our model contains a large number of nearly “classical” states.
The Cosmological Constant
-------------------------
Let us discuss the physical meaning of $\langle \mathcal{A}_\mu\rangle$. If $\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}$ measures total scalar-curvature then $ \mathcal{A}_\mu$ is average scalar-curvature per volume. $\mathcal{A}_\mu$ contains no built-in $\Lambda$ and we force it near zero in an unbiased way. By Fact \[classical\_crit\_value\] one would expect $\langle \mathcal{A}_\mu\rangle=0$ for our model, but as we have seen this does not occur. Moreover, the failure results from the relative entropy of [*action values*]{} rather than the detailed dynamics of the “metric” $T$. Since everything in the classical action $\mathcal{A_{E\!H}}$ except $\Lambda$ depends on the metric $g$, the structure of $\mathcal{A_{E\!H}}$ practically [*demands*]{} we interpret $\langle \mathcal{A}_\mu\rangle$ as an emergent $\Lambda$ given by $$\langle \mathcal{A}_\mu\rangle = -2\Lambda.
\label{expected_action_lambda_relation}$$ Now, we take $\ell \approx 1.6 \times 10^{-35}\mbox{\,m}$ to be Planck’s length and $\mbox{Vol}(T) \approx 3.5 \times 10^{80} \mbox{\,m}^3$ to be the universe’s co-moving spatial volume. This gives, by equations (\[delta\_A\_Lvol\_eqn\]) and (\[num\_states\]) – (\[expected\_action\_lambda\_relation\]) $$\Lambda \approx 10^{-123}$$ in agreement with observation.
Discussion
==========
It is emphatically [*not*]{} the purpose of this paper to advocate “triangulations” as the ultimate structure of spacetime. Indeed, the effect we describe could well occur in other discrete-spacetime theories, such as [*loop quantum gravity*]{}, [*spin foam*]{} models, and [*causal dynamical triangulations*]{} to name a few.
Our calculation of $\Lambda$ has some interesting features which we now discuss. First, we cheated by using the [*current*]{} value of the universe’s co-moving [*spatial*]{} volume. Does this mean $\Lambda$ actually changes over time? The fundamental dimensionless parameter here is $$\alpha_G = \mbox{Vol}(T)^{2/3}\Lambda$$ which we dub the **geometric fine-structure constant** since it controls the scale of entropic perturbations from scalar-flattness caused by the discreteness of spacetime. If our use of the co-moving volume is acceptable, then our model predicts $$\Lambda(t)\propto \mathcal{V}(t)^{-2/3}$$ where $\mathcal{V}(t)$ is the co-moving volume at a co-moving observer’s proper time $t$. A time-varying $\Lambda$ seems strange, but that does not make it false. Indeed, perhaps discrete spacetime effects caused the rapid expansion of the early universe postulated in inflationary big-bang theories.
Second, like other recent work [@Cohen99; @Horvat04; @Li10; @Easson11; @Castorina12] on $\Lambda$, our model involves both [*global*]{} and [*local*]{} properties of the universe. Many of these models also suggest that $\Lambda$ varies over time. These other approaches are quite different in detail from ours, but the broad similarities are striking. Perhaps we are all somehow pointing at the same underlying issue.
Third, thinking of gravity as an emergent and/or entropic force is very popular at the moment [@Steinacker07; @Hu09; @Steinacker09; @RongGen10; @Gao10; @Nicolini10; @Verlinde11]. Our model provides a concrete example of treating general relativity as a [*mean-field approximation*]{} (in this case, to the underlying dynamic-triangulation style geometry). However, we emphasize that our approach is significantly less ambitious than Verlinde’s [*entropic gravity*]{} program [@Verlinde11] and does not rely on any assumed holographic principle.
Finally, there are many loose ends to our story. We would certainly prefer 4-dimensional results, and the sign of $\Lambda$ depends on Conjecture \[degeneracy\_con\] making its proof an important goal. There is also the issue of our choice for the number of nearly-flat states $N$. Taking this to be the radius of the universe in natural units seems similar to the IR cutoff imposed on quantum field theory in many explanations of $\Lambda$. What is the connection between these two techniques, and can our choice for $N$ be justified using appropriate detailed dynamics on $\mathcal{T}(M)$? There remains much work to be done.
Action Spectrum Proofs {#spectrum_calcs}
======================
In this section we give detailed proofs for our characterization of the energy spectrum for the dynamical-triangulations model in dimension three. We begin with a little double-couting result:
If $T\in \mathcal{T}(M)$ we have
$$\label{mu_formulas}
\mu(T) =\frac{6N_3(T)}{N_1(T)} = \frac{3N_2(T)}{N_1(T)}.$$
[Proof]{}: Suppose we examine each edge in $T$, placing a check-mark on the tetrahedra around it. Clearly, we have made $\sum_e \mbox{deg}(e)$ marks. However, since each tetrahedra has six edges, it is marked six times and we must also have $6N_3(T)$ marks. Dividing by $N_1(T)$ gives our first equation. Now, for each triangle imagine placing marks on the two tetrahedra meeting at that triangle. We have obviously placed $2N_2$ marks. Since each tetrahedra has four triangular faces we have also made $4N_3$ marks. So, $N_2=2N_3$ giving us the second equality. $\Box$
Using the first part of this equation we can express $\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}(T)$ as a function of our preferred variables: number of $3$-simplices and mean edge-degree.
\[CR\_mu\_relation\] The combinatorial Regge action is related to the mean edge-degree according to $$\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}(T,\ell) = \frac{3\ell}{4} N_3(T)\left( \frac{1}{\mu(T)} - \frac{1}{\mu^*}\right)
\label{NCR_mu_formula}$$ where $\mu^* = \frac{2\pi}{\theta_n}$.
[Proof]{}: We begin by writing down the combinatorial Regge action $\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}$ in dimension three.$$\label{CR_action}
\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}(T, \ell) = \frac{\ell}{16\pi} \sum_{e\in T} \left( 2\pi - \theta_3 \mbox{deg}(e) \right).$$ Distributing the sum into the summand we get $$\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}(T, \ell) = \frac{\ell}{16\pi} \left( 2\pi N_1(T) - \theta_3 \sum_{e\in T} \mbox{deg}(e) \right).$$ Now, by equation (\[mu\_formulas\]) we can replace $N_1(T)$ with $\frac{6N_3(T)}{\mu(T)}$ and the remaining summation by $6N_3(T)$. This gives $$\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}(T, \ell) = \frac{\ell}{16\pi} \left( 2\pi\frac{6N_3(T)}{\mu(T)} - \theta_3 6N_3(T) \right).$$ Pulling out a factor of $12\pi N_3(T)$ gives $$\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}(T, \ell) = \frac{3\ell}{4}N_3(T) \left( \frac{1}{\mu(T)} - \frac{\theta_3}{2\pi} \right)$$ which is just $$\mathcal{A_{C\!R}}(T, \ell) = \frac{3\ell}{4}N_3(T) \left( \frac{1}{\mu(T)} - \frac{1}{\mu^*} \right)$$ as desired. $\Box$
Next we write the number of vertices $N_0(T)$ and edges $N_1(T)$ as a functions of $N_3(T)$ and $\mu(T)$.
If $T\in \mathcal{T}(M)$ we have $$N_0(T) = N_3(T)\left( \frac{6}{\mu(T)} - 1 \right) \ \ \mbox{and}\ \ \ N_1(T) = N_3(T) \frac{6}{\mu(T)}.$$ \[f\_vector\_lem\]
[Proof]{}: Any 3-manifold has Euler-characteristic zero. This means $$\label{euler_char}
N_0(T) - N_1(T) + N_2(T) - N_3(T)=0.$$ Now, we use equation (\[mu\_formulas\]) to replace $N_2(T)$ by $2N_3(T)$ to get $$\label{N013_formula}
N_0(T) - N_1(T)+ N_3(T)=0.$$ Using equation (\[mu\_formulas\]) again to replace $N_1(T)$ by $\frac{6N_3(T)}{\mu(T)}$ gives $$N_0(T) - \frac{6N_3(T)}{\mu(T)} + N_3(T)=0$$ which can be rearranged to produce $$N_0(T) = N_3(T)\left( \frac{6}{\mu(T)} - 1 \right)$$ as desired. Next, we plug this formula for $N_0(T)$ into equation (\[N013\_formula\]) to get $$N_3(T)\left( \frac{6}{\mu(T)} - 1 \right) - N_1(T)+ N_3(T)=0$$ which simplifies to $$N_1(T) = N_3(T) \frac{6}{\mu(T)}$$ completing the proof. $\Box$
Now we are ready for the crucial step. If we wish to characterize the action values we need to know that triangulations [*actually exist*]{} in $\mathcal{T}(M)$ with particular $N_0$ and $N_1$. This task is handled by a famous 1970 result by Walkup.
For every closed 3-manifold $M$ there is a smallest integer $\gamma^*(M)$ so that any two positive integers $N_0$ and $N_1$ which satisfy $${N_0 \choose 2} \geq N_1 \geq 4N_0 + \gamma^*(M)$$ are given by $N_1 = N_1(T)$ and $N_2 = N_2(T)$ for some $T \in \mathcal{T}(M)$. The quantity $\gamma^*(M)$ is a topological invariant which satisfies $\gamma^*(M)\geq -10$ for all closed 3-manifolds $M$. \[walkup\_thm\]
Note that $\gamma^*(M)$ is known for many manifolds $M$, although we will not need this information. Using Walkup’s result we can prove:
Let $M$ be a closed 3-manifold and $K$ a fixed positive integer. For each integer $N_1$ which satisfies $$K+\frac{1}{2}\left( 3 + \sqrt{9+8K} \right) \leq N_1 \leq \frac{1}{3}\left( 4K - \gamma^*(M) \right)$$ there is some triangulation $T \in \mathcal{T}_{\!K}(M)$ with $N_1 = N_1(T)$. \[N1\_range\_lem\]
[Proof]{}: Suppose that $N_1 \leq \frac{1}{3}\left( 4K - \gamma^*(M) \right)$ and define $N_0 = N_1 - K$. A bit of simple algebra tells us $$\label{N1_lower_bound}
N_1\geq 4N_0 + \gamma^*(M).$$ Now, consider the upward opening parabola $$f(m) = {m \choose 2}-m-K$$ which has largest root $$m_0 = \frac{1}{2}\left( 3 + \sqrt{9 + 8K} \right).$$ Our hypothesis that $N_1 \geq K+\frac{1}{2}\left( 3 + \sqrt{9+8K} \right)$ implies $N_0 \geq \frac{1}{2}\left( 3 + \sqrt{9+8K} \right)$, so that $N_0 \geq m_0$. Since $m_0$ is the largest root of an upward opening parabola, we conclude $f(N_0)\geq 0$. By our definition of $f$ and $N_0$, this tells us $$\label{N1_upper_bound}
{N_0 \choose 2} \geq N_1.$$ By Walkup’s theorem, the inequalities (\[N1\_lower\_bound\]) and (\[N1\_upper\_bound\]) imply that some $T\in \mathcal{T}(M)$ has $N_0 = N_0(T)$ and $N_1 = N_1(T)$. Finally, by Lemma \[f\_vector\_lem\], we have $N_3(T) = N_1(T) - N_0(T) = K$ so that $T$ is in $\mathcal{T}_{\!K}(M)$ as desired. $\Box$
We can use Lemma \[N1\_range\_lem\] to show that for large enough $K$ there are triangulations in $\mathcal{T}_{\!K}(M)$ with mean edge-degree just on either side of any value in the interval $(4.5, 6)$.
Fix any real number $4.5 < m < 6$. For all sufficiently large $K$ there are triangulations $T_1$ and $T_2$ in $\mathcal{T}_{\!K}$ with $$\mu(T_1)=\frac{6K}{N_1(T_1)}$$ and $$\mu(T_2)=\frac{6K}{N_1(T_2)} = \frac{6K}{N_1(T_1)-1}$$ and which satisfy $\mu(T_1) \leq m \leq \mu(T_2)$.
[Proof]{}: We begin with the bound given in Lemma \[N1\_range\_lem\] $$K+\frac{1}{2}\left( 3 + \sqrt{9+8K} \right) \leq N_1 \leq \frac{1}{3}\left( 4K - \gamma^*(M) \right).$$ We know that any $N_1$ in this range is $N_1(T)$ for some $T\in \mathcal{T}_K(M)$. Now, dividing by $6K$ and taking reciprocals gives an equivalent set of inequalities $$\frac{6K}{\frac{1}{3}\left( 4K - \gamma^*(M) \right)} \leq \frac{6K}{N_1} \leq \frac{6K}{K+\frac{1}{2}\left( 3 + \sqrt{9+8K} \right)}.$$ By equation (\[mu\_formulas\]) the quantity in the middle is just the mean edge-degree $\mu(T)$. As $K\rightarrow\infty$, the LHS converges to $4.5$ and the RHS to $6$, so for sufficiently large $K$ we know triangulations exists with $\mu$ on either side of $m$. Finally, for fixed $K$, $\mu(T)$ is a decreasing function of $N_1(T)$ so the $\mu(T_1)$ and $\mu(T_2)$ values must be of the stated form. $\Box$
This tells us we can find triangulations with actions which “bracket”, as closely as possible, any number in the interval $\left( \mathcal{A}_6, \mathcal{A}_{4.5}\right)$.
Suppose $\mathcal{A}_6 < x < \mathcal{A}_{4.5}$. For all large enough $K$ there are $T_1$ and $T_2$ in $\mathcal{T}_{\!K}(M)$ with $$\mu(T_1)=\frac{6K}{N_1(T_1)}$$ and $$\mu(T_2)=\frac{6K}{N_1
(T_2)} = \frac{6K}{N_1(T_1)-1}$$ and which satisfy $\mathcal{A}_{\mu(T_2)} \leq x \leq \mathcal{A}_{\mu(T_1)}$. \[adjacent\_action\_properties\]
Calculations for the Nearly-Flat Model {#NF_calcs}
======================================
In this section we give detailed calculations for the nearly-flat model.
If $0<r<1$ and $N\gg 1$ then $$r^N \sum_{n=-N}^{N}nr^n \approx -N\frac{1}{1-r}$$
[Proof]{}: We calculate $$\begin{aligned}
r^N \sum_{n=-N}^{N}nr^n & = r^{N+1} \sum_{n=-N}^{N}nr^{n-1} \\
& = r^{N+1} \frac{d}{dr}\sum_{n=-N}^{N}r^n \\
& \approx r^{N+1} \frac{d}{dr} \left( \frac{r^{-N}}{1-r}\right) \\
& = r^{N+1} \left( \frac{-N(1-r)r^{-N-1} + r^{-N}}{1-r}\right) \\
& = \frac{-N(1-r) + r}{1-r} \\
& \approx -\frac{N}{1-r}.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof. $\Box$
Now we can calulate the expected action, assuming our conjecture, which we restate for the reader’s convenience.
For any $\mathcal{A}_6 < x < \mathcal{A}_{4.5}$ the limit $$\lim_{K\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\mathcal{N}^+_{K,x}}{\mathcal{N}^-_{K,x}} = C(x)$$ exits. Moreover, $C$ is continuous with $C(x)<1$. \[degeneracy\_con\]
Using this conjecture, we can show the following.
If our conjecture is true, the expected action in the $N$ state nearly-flat model when $N\Delta\mathcal{A}\approx 0$ and $N \gg 1$ is $$\langle \mathcal{A_\mu} \rangle \approx - N\Delta\mathcal{A}$$
[Proof]{}: We write the standard formula for the expected value $$\langle \mathcal{A}_\mu \rangle = \frac{\sum_{n=-N}^{N}\alpha_n\mathcal{N}_i e^{i \alpha_n}}{\sum_{n=-N}^{N}\mathcal{N}_i e^{i \alpha_i}}$$ where $\alpha_k = k \Delta\mathcal{A}$ are the action values and $\mathcal{N}_k$ their degeneracies. Since we assumed $N\Delta\mathcal{A} \approx 0$ each $\alpha_k\approx 0$ and we have $$\langle \mathcal{A}_\mu \rangle \approx \frac{\sum_{n=-N}^{N}\alpha_n\mathcal{N}_i }{\sum_{n=-N}^{N}\mathcal{N}_i }.$$ Using $N\Delta\mathcal{A} \approx 0$ and the assumed continuity of $C(x)$ gives $$\langle \mathcal{A}_\mu \rangle \approx \frac{\sum_{n=-N}^{N}\alpha_n C^n }{\sum_{n=-N}^{N}C^n }$$ where $C=C(0)<1$ and we have divided the top and bottom by $\mathcal{N}_0$. Since $N\gg 1$ we use the sum of a geometric series to get $$\langle \mathcal{A}_\mu \rangle \approx \frac{C^N}{1-C}\sum_{n=-N}^{N}\alpha_n C^n.$$ Finally, we apply the previous lemma to get the desired result: $$\langle \mathcal{A_\mu} \rangle \approx - N\Delta\mathcal{A}$$ completing the proof. $\Box$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'By applying a unitary transformation method, we have derived the leading-order corrections on the effective Hamiltonian of a dynamical model developed in Phys. Rev. C[**54**]{}, 2660 (1996) for electromagnetic pion production reactions. The resulting $energy$-$independent$ one-loop corrections on the baryon masses and the $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ vertex interaction are associated with the structure of the nucleon and $\Delta$ and have been calculated within a constituent quark model. We find that the one-loop corrections on the magnetic M1 transition of the $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ are very small, while their contributions to the electric E2 and Coulomb C2 transitions are found to be in opposite signs of that due to pion cloud effects associated with the scattering states. Our results further indicate that the determination of the nonspherical $L=2$ components of the constituent quark wavefunctions of $N$ and $\Delta$ from the extracted empirical E2 and C2 form factors requires a rigorous and complete calculation of meson cloud effects. We also find that the one-loop corrections on the non-resonant pion production operator can resolve the difficulty in describing the near threshold $\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^0 p$ reaction. Possible future developments are discussed.'
author:
- 'T. Sato$^a$, T.-S. H. Lee$^b$ and T. Nakamura$^a$'
title: 'Leading-order Corrections of a Dynamical Model for Electromagnetic Pion Production Reactions'
---
Introduction
============
In the past few years, extensive and precise data of electromagnetic meson production reactions have become available and some of these data have been used to extract the information about the nucleon resonances[@burkert]. On the other hand, theoretical models for analyzing these reactions are still far from complete. Even in the simplest and well-studied $\Delta$ excitation region, none of the most often applied models[@sl1; @sl2; @kamyan; @dmt; @maid] has been able to give $predictions$ which agree perfectly with the single pion production data accumulated recently, in particular the data on spin observables and longitudinal-transverse interference cross sections. While these models can give an overall good description of fairly extensive data, efforts must be made to remove the remaining discrepancies such that a complete understanding of the $\Delta$ resonance can be obtained. The experiences gained from these efforts will undoubtly be very useful for investigating the much more complex higher mass $N^*$ resonances. In this work, we report on the progress we have made in this direction, focusing on the dynamical model we have developed in Refs.[@sl1; @sl2] (called the Sato-Lee (SL) model in the literatures). In particular, we would like to explore how the bare $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ parameters extracted within the SL model can be better understood in terms of the structure of $N$ and $\Delta$. We would also like to see how the non-resonant pion production operator in the SL model can be improved.
We first recall one of the most interesting results from the SL model. It was found that the pion cloud effects give very large contributions to the $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ transition form factors and is the source of the differences between the values predicted by the conventional constituent quark model and that extracted from empirical amplitude analyses. The predicted very pronounced $Q^2-$dependence in electric $E2$ and Coulomb $C2$ transitions have motivated several recent experimental efforts. These pion cloud effects are calculated from the following expression $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\Gamma}_{\gamma N, \Delta}(W, q) =\Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}(q)
+\int dk k^2 v^{tree}_{\gamma\pi}(q,k)
\frac{1}{W - E_\pi(k) - E_N(k) + i\epsilon}
\bar{\Gamma}_{\pi N, \Delta}(W,k) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}$ is the bare vertex, $v^{tree}_{\gamma,\pi}$ is the non-resonant $\gamma N \rightarrow \pi N$ amplitude calculated from the standard Pseudo-Vector Born terms and the $\rho$ and $\omega$ exchanges, and $\bar{\Gamma}_{\pi N, \Delta}(W,k)$ is the dressed $\Delta \rightarrow \pi N$ vertex. One observes from the above equation that these pion cloud effects are due to pions in the $scattering$ states which can reach the on-shell momentum asymptotically.
We now examine how the above procedure is related to our current understanding of hadron structure. Because of the chiral symmetry of QCD is spontaneously broken, it is generally believed that in the region where the momentum transfer is not too large the structure of the nucleon and $\Delta$ can be considered as systems made of constituent quarks and virtual pions. We thus expect that their responses to the external electromagnetic field can be from the constituent quarks and also from the virtual pions. Obviously the pion-loop integration in the above equation do not account for all of the effects due to the virtual pions in hadrons. The leading term $\Gamma^0_{\gamma N, \Delta}$ must still contain some effects due to virtual pions which never go on-shell during the $N$-$\Delta$ transitions. In this work, we will show how the corrections due to these virtual pion cloud effects can be derived by applying the unitary transformation method. In a consistent derivation, the one-loop corrections on the non-resonant pion production operator of the SL model have also been derived. These one-loop corrections are also energy-independent and are different from those due to pions in $scattering$ states. These corrections are expected to have important effects in the region where the pion electromagnetic reactions are sensitive to the non-resonant amplitudes.
In section II, we recall a dynamical formulation within which the leading order one-loop corrections on the effective Hamiltonian of the SL model are derived. In section III, the consequences of these leading order corrections on the $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ transitions are calculated and interpreted within a constituent quark model. The one-loop corrections on the non-resonant pion production operator are then investigated in section IV, focusing on the s-wave amplitude of the near threshold $\pi^0$ photoproduction reaction. Possible future developments are discussed in section V.
Formulation
===========
As explained in Ref.[@sl1], the SL model is constructed by applying a unitary transformation method to deduce from relativistic quantum field theory an effective Hamiltonian for describing meson-baryon reactions. The details of the employed unitary transformation has been given in Refs.[@sl1; @ksh] and will not be repeated in this paper. Here we only emphasize that the starting point of the unitary transformation method is a field theoretical Lagrangian density. This is identical to other more familiar approaches for constructing dynamical models of meson-baryon interactions, such as those based on the ladder Bethe-Salpeter[@tjon; @afnan] or three-dimensional ladder Bethe-Salpeter equations[@pearce; @gross; @hung; @julich; @pasca]. In the lowest order, all approaches yield very similar, if not completely identical, scattering amplitudes. Their differences are in the resulting dynamical equations which are used to include nonperturbatively certain classes of higher order effects that are deemed to be important for the processes considered.
To illustrate the unitary transformation method, it is sufficient to consider a model Lagrangian density $L(\psi_N,\psi_\Delta,\phi_\pi)$ describing the pseudo-vector coupling between $\pi$, $N$ and $\Delta$ fields. By using the standard canonical quantization procedure, a Hamiltonian can be constructed. To simplify the presentation, the spin and isospin variables as well as the anti-particle components are suppressed here. The resulting Hamiltonian can then be schematically written as $$\begin{aligned}
H=H_0 + H_I +H_{em} \, , \label{eqh1}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
H_0= \sum_{B}\int d\vp b^\dagger_{B}(\vp)b_B(\vp) E_B(\vp)
+\int d\vk a^\dagger_\pi(\vk)a_\pi(\vk) E_\pi(\vk) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $b^\dagger_B(\vp)(b_B(\vp))$ is the creation(annihilation) operator for a baryon with momentum $\vp$, and $a^\dagger(\vk)(a(\vk))$ for a pion with momentum $\vk$. The energy is defined as $E_\alpha(\vp)=(m_\alpha+ \vp^2)^{1/2}$ with $m_\alpha$ denoting the mass of particle $\alpha$. Clearly, $H_0$ is the sum of free energy operators for baryons($B= N, \Delta$) and pion($\pi)$. The strong interaction Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[eqh1\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
H_I = \sum_{B,B'}[\Gamma^0_{\pi B', B}+ \mbox{h.c.}] \, , \label{eqh2}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^0_{\pi B', B}=\int d\vp d\vk
b^\dagger_{B'}(\vp - \vk)b_B(\vp)a^\dagger_\pi(\vk)
F_{\pi B',B}(\vp - \vk,\vk;\vp) , \label{eqh3}\end{aligned}$$ where $F_{\pi B',B}(\vpp\vk;\vp)$ is a vertex function describing the strength of the $\pi B \leftrightarrow B^\prime$ transition illustrated in Fig. \[fig1\]. The corresponding electromagnetic interaction deduced from applying the minimum substitution on the considered pseudo-vector coupling Lagrangian density $L(\psi_N,\psi_\Delta,\phi_\pi)$ can be written as $H_{em}= \int d\bm{x} A\cdot J$, where $J^\mu$ is the current density operator and $A$ is the photon field. The resulting electromagnetic current can be schematically written as $$\begin{aligned}
J^\mu = J^\mu_{\pi} + J^\mu_{B',B} + J^\mu_{B',B,\pi} , \label{eqh4}\end{aligned}$$ where $J^\mu_{\pi}$, $J^\mu_{B',B}$, and $J^\mu_{B',B,\pi}$ define $\gamma \pi\rightarrow \pi$, $\gamma B \rightarrow B'$, and the contact $\gamma B \rightarrow \pi B'$ transitions respectively, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig2\]. The details of these currents will be given in section III.
![The vertex interaction $\Gamma^0_{\pi B^\prime, B}$[]{data-label="fig1"}](f1.eps){width="2cm"}
![Electromagnetic interaction $H_{em}$ : (a) $J^\mu_\pi$, (b) $J^\mu_{B^\prime, B}$, and (c) $J^\mu_{B^\prime, B,\pi}$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](f2.eps){width="6cm"}
The first step of the derivation is to decompose the strong interaction Hamiltonian into two terms $$\begin{aligned}
H_I=H_1^P + H_1^Q \, , \label{eqh5}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H_1^P&=& \Gamma^0_{\pi N, \Delta} + \mbox{h.c.} \, ,\label{eqh6}\\
H_1^Q &=& [\Gamma^0_{\pi N ,N}
+\Gamma^0_{\pi \Delta,N}
+\Gamma^0_{\pi \Delta,\Delta}
] + \mbox{h.c.} \, . \label{eqh7}\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, $H_1^P$ describes the physical process, while the processes in $H_1^Q$ can not occur in free space because of the violation of energy conservation. The second step is to perform unitary transformations on $H$ to construct an effective Hamiltonian, which does not contain unphysical processes such as those due to $H_1^Q$. Keeping only the terms up the second order in $H_I$, the resulting effective Hamiltonian is of the following form $$\begin{aligned}
H_{eff}& =& U^{\dagger}_2 U^{\dagger}_1 H U_1 U_2 \nonumber \\
& = & H_0 + H_1^P + H_2^P +
[ U^{\dagger}_2 U^{\dagger}_1 H_{em} U_1 U_2]
+ \Delta^Q \, , \label{eqh8}\end{aligned}$$ where $U_n = \exp(i S_n)$ is the n-th unitary transformation with $S_n \propto (H_I)^n$, $H^P_1$ has been defined in Eq. (\[eqh6\]) and $$\begin{aligned}
H^P_2= ([H_1^P,iS_1] + \frac{1}{2}[H_1^Q,iS_1])^P \label{eqh9}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the commutators in Eq. (\[eqh9\]) can generate both physical and unphysical processes and only the terms for physical processes are kept in $H^P_2$. The unphysical processes in $H_{eff}$ is contained in the last term of Eq. (\[eqh8\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^Q = \{[H_0,iS_1] + H_1^Q \} + \{[H_0,iS_2] + H_2^Q \} \,, \label{eqh10}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
H_2^Q =([H_1^P,iS_1] + \frac{1}{2}[H_1^Q,iS_1])^Q \,. \label{eqh11}\end{aligned}$$ $H^Q_2$ is defined by the same commutators in $H^P_2$ except that only the unphysical processes are kept here.
The desired effective Hamiltonian is obtained by eliminating the unphysical processes $\Delta^Q$ Eq. (\[eqh8\]). Obviously, this can be achieved by imposing the following conditions $$\begin{aligned}
{}[H_0,iS_1] + H_1^Q & = 0 \, ,\label{eqh12}\\
{}[H_0,iS_2] + H_2^Q & =0 \, . \label{eqh13}\end{aligned}$$ To find $S_1$, consider the matrix elements of Eq. (\[eqh12\]) between any two eigenstates $\mid a>$ and $\mid b >$ of $H_0$; for example $H_0 \mid N> = E_N \mid N>$ and $H_0\mid \pi N >= (E_\pi + E_N) \mid \pi N>$. We then obtain a relation $(E_b - E_a) <a \mid i S_1 \mid b > = <a \mid H^Q_I \mid b >$, indicating that $S_1$ plays the same role as $H_I^Q$ in defining the interaction mechanisms. It is then easy to verify that the general solution of Eq. (\[eqh12\]) can be written as the following operator form $$\begin{aligned}
S_1 & = & -i \sum_{B',B} \int d\vp d\vk
\frac{F_{\pi B',B}(\vp-\vk,\vk;\vp)}
{E_B(\vp) - E_{B'}(\vp-\vk) - E_\pi(\vk)}
\theta(m_\pi +m_{B'} - m_B)
b^{\dagger}_{B'}(\vp-\vk) b_B(\vp) a^{\dagger}_\pi(\vk) \nonumber \\
& + & \mbox{h.c.} \label{eqh14}\end{aligned}$$ where the step function is defined as $\theta(x) =1(0)$, for $x >(<) 0$
For investigating $\pi N$ scattering and pion photo- and electro-production at energies below two-pion production threshold, it is sufficient to consider interactions defined within the Hilbert space $N\oplus\Delta\oplus
\pi N\oplus \gamma N$. By using Eq. (\[eqh3\]) and Eq. (\[eqh14\]), we can evaluate the matrix elements of $H^P_2$, defined by Eq. (\[eqh9\]), between two one-baryon states. This will generate the one-loop corrections, $\Sigma^0_N$ and $\Sigma^0_\Delta$, to the masses of $N$ and $\Delta$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig3\]. Explicitly, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_N^0 &=& \frac{i}{2}\sum_{ B^\prime= N,\Delta}
[< N\mid \Gamma^{0\dagger}_{\pi B',N}\mid \pi B^\prime>
<\pi B^\prime \mid S_1 \mid N> \nonumber \\
&-& < N\mid S_1 \mid \pi B^\prime>
<\pi B^\prime \mid\Gamma^0_{\pi B',B} \mid N>], \label{eqh15}\\
\Sigma_\Delta^0 &=& \frac{i}{2}
[< \Delta\mid \Gamma^{0\dagger}_{\pi \Delta,\Delta}\mid \pi \Delta>
<\pi \Delta \mid S_1 \mid \Delta> \nonumber \\
&-& < \Delta\mid S_1 \mid \pi \Delta>
<\pi\Delta \mid \Gamma^0_{\pi \Delta,\Delta} \mid \Delta>]. \label{eqh16}\end{aligned}$$ Using the solution Eq. (\[eqh14\]) for $S_1$ to evaluate the above two equations, we will get expressions involving one-loop integrations over $energy-independent$ propagators which are also specified in Eq. (\[eqh14\]). The detailed forms will be given in the next section where we will perform calculations using a model for the vertex interaction $\Gamma^0_{\pi B',B}$. Note that $\Sigma^0_\Delta$ does not include the loop over intermediate $\pi N$ state since the effects due to $\Delta \rightarrow \pi N$ is already accounted for by $H^P_1$ of Eq. (\[eqh6\]) and must be excluded in $Q$ interactions.
![One-loop corrections $\Sigma^0_N$ and $\Sigma^0_\Delta$ on the nucleon and $\Delta$[]{data-label="fig3"}](f3.eps){width="5cm"}
![$\pi N$ interactions.[]{data-label="fig4"}](f4.eps){width="5cm"}
Taking the expectation value of $H^P_2$ between two $\pi N$ states, we then generate the $\pi N$ potential $v_{\pi N}$, illustrated in in Fig. \[fig4\]. Extending the procedure described above to also include spin and isospin indices as well as the anti-particle components and $\rho$ meson, the matrix elements of $v_{\pi N}$ given explicitly in the SL model can then be obtained. On the other hand, the one-loop corrections $\Sigma^0_N$ and $\Sigma^0_\Delta$ are not treated explicitly in SL model.
![Unphysical processes due to $H_2^Q$.[]{data-label="fig5"}](f5.eps){width="2cm"}
To determine $S_2$ from Eq. (\[eqh13\]), we need to know the mechanisms contained in $H_2^Q$ defined by Eq. (\[eqh11\]). With the solution Eq. (\[eqh14\]) for $S_1$, one can easily see that $H_2^Q$ can generate the unphysical $B \rightarrow \pi\pi B$ processes illustrated in Fig. \[fig5\]. With the similar procedure employed in solving Eq. (\[eqh12\]) for $S_1$, we find that the solution of Eq. (\[eqh13\]) from eliminating the unphysical processes illustrated in Fig. \[fig5\] can be written explicitly as the following operator form $$\begin{aligned}
S_2 & = &-i \sum_{B',B,\bar{B}} \int d\vp d\vk d\vkp
\frac{F_{\pi B^\prime,\bar{B}}(\vp-\vk-\vkp,\vkp;\vp-\vk)
F_{\pi \bar{B},B}(\vp-\vk,\vk;\vp) }
{E_B(\vp) - E_{B'}(\vp-\vk-\vkp) - E_\pi(\vk)-E_\pi(\vkp)}
\theta(2 m_\pi + m_{B'} - m_B)
\nonumber \\
& & {} [
\frac{\theta(m_\pi + m_{B'} - m_{\bar{B}})}
{E_{B'}(\vp-\vk-\vkp) - E_{\bar{B}}(\vp-\vk) + E_\pi(\vkp)}
(\frac{\theta(m_\pi + m_{\bar{B}}-m_B)}{2} + \theta(-m_\pi - m_{\bar{B}} + m_B))
\nonumber \\
& &
+ \frac{\theta(m_\pi + m_{\bar{B}} - m_{B})}
{E_B(\vp) - E_{\bar{B}}(\vp-\vk) - E_\pi(\vk)}
(\frac{\theta(m_\pi + m_{B'} - m_{\bar{B}})}{2}
+ \theta(-m_\pi - m_{B'} + m_{\bar{B}}))
]
\nonumber \\
& &
b^{\dagger}_{B'}(\vp-\vk-\vkp) b_B(\vp)
a^{\dagger}_\pi(\vkp) a^{\dagger}_\pi(\vk) + \mbox{h.c.} \label{eqh17}\end{aligned}$$ We note that $S_2$ does not play any role in generating effective the Hamiltonian up to the second order in $\Gamma^0_{\pi B, B'}$. But it is needed to evaluate the effective electromagnetic interaction operator defined by the term $[ U^{\dagger}_2 U^{\dagger}_1 H_{em} U_1 U_2] $ in Eq. (\[eqh8\]).
![Leading order terms of pion photoproduction: $\Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}$=(a), $v^{tree}_{\gamma \pi} = (b)+(c)+(d)+(e)$ []{data-label="fig6"}](f6.eps){width="10cm"}
Keeping only the terms up to the same second order in $H_I$, we can write $[ U^{\dagger}_2 U^{\dagger}_1 H_{em} U_1 U_2] =
\int d\bm{x} A\cdot J_{eff}$ with the effective current defined by $$\begin{aligned}
J^\mu_{eff} & = &
J^\mu + [J^\mu,iS_1] + \frac{1}{2}[[J^\mu,iS_1],iS_1]
+ [J^\mu,iS_2] + [[J^\mu,iS_1],iS_2] \,.
\label{eqh18}\end{aligned}$$ By using the properties of $S_1$ and the electromagnetic coupling illustrated in Fig. \[fig2\], one can see that the first two terms of Eq. (\[eqh18\]) for $J^\mu_{eff}$ generate the tree mechanisms shown in Fig. \[fig6\]. Explicitly, we can see the following correspondences : $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Fig. 6a} &:& < \Delta \mid J^\mu_{\Delta,N}\mid \gamma N >,\label{eqh19}\\
(\mbox{Fig.6b + Fig.6c})&:&<\pi N \mid [J^\mu_{N,N}, iS_1]
+ J^\mu_{N,\Delta} iS_1 \mid \gamma N >,\label{eqh20}
\\
\mbox{Fig.6d} &:&<\pi N \mid [J^\mu_{\pi}, iS_1]\mid \gamma N>, \label{eqh21}\\
\mbox{Fig.6e} &:&<\pi N \mid J^\mu_{N,N,\pi} \mid \gamma N> .\label{eqh22}\end{aligned}$$ Extending the procedure described above to also include spin and isospin indices as well as the anti-particle components and $\rho$ and $\omega$ meson-exchange, the matrix elements for $v_{\gamma N}$ given explicitly in the SL model can then be obtained.
The one-loop corrections on the $\gamma B \rightarrow B^\prime$ vertex and non-resonant $\gamma N \rightarrow \pi N$ amplitude can be generated from the following operators in Eq. (\[eqh18\]), $$\begin{aligned}
J^{\mu,1-loop}=
[J^\mu,iS_1] + \frac{1}{2}[[J^\mu,iS_1],iS_1]
+ [J^\mu,iS_2] + [[J^\mu,iS_1],iS_2] \,.
\label{eqh23}\end{aligned}$$ For $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$, the possible intermediate states involved in evaluating the one-loop corrections are illustrated in Fig. \[fig7\] with the following correspondences: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Fig.7a} &:& <\Delta \mid [ J^\mu_{B',B, \pi}, iS_1]\mid \gamma N>,
\label{eqh24} \\
\mbox{Fig.7b} &:& <\Delta \mid - iS_1J^\mu_{B',B}iS_1\mid \gamma N>,
\label{eqh25}\\
\mbox{Fig.7c} &:& <\Delta \mid
\frac{1}{2}[[J^\mu_{\pi},iS_1],iS_1] + [J^\mu_\pi, iS_2] \mid \gamma N>,
\label{eqh26}\\
\mbox{Fig.7d} &:&<\Delta \mid \frac{1}{2}(J^\mu_{B',B} iS_1 iS_1
+ iS_1 iS_1 J^\mu_{B',B} ) \mid \gamma N >.
\label{eqh27}\end{aligned}$$ Similar expressions and diagrams are also for the one-loop corrections, $< N \mid J^{1-loop}_\mu \mid \gamma N >$, for the nucleon electromagnetic form factors.
The one-loop corrections on the non-resonant $\gamma N \rightarrow \pi N$ amplitudes can also be obtained by taking the matrix element of $J_\mu^{1-loop}$ between $\pi N$ and $\gamma N$ states. We will elaborate this more complex object in section IV.
![Loop Correction $\Gamma^{1-loop}_{\gamma N,\Delta}$ on $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ transition.[]{data-label="fig7"}](f7ab.eps){width="11cm"}
![Loop Correction $\Gamma^{1-loop}_{\gamma N,\Delta}$ on $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ transition.[]{data-label="fig7"}](f7cd.eps){width="13cm"}
With the above derivations, the effective Hamiltonian Eq. (\[eqh8\]) within the subspace $N\oplus\Delta\oplus \pi N \oplus \gamma N$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{eff} = [H_0 + \Sigma^0_N + \Sigma^0_\Delta]
+ [\Gamma_{\pi N, \Delta} + \Gamma_{\gamma N, \Delta}]
+[v_{\pi N}+ v_{\gamma \pi}]. \label{eqh28}\end{aligned}$$ The mass correction terms, $\Sigma^0_N$ and $\Sigma^0_\Delta$, are illustrated in Fig. \[fig3\]. The vertex interactions in Eq. (\[eqh28\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\pi N, \Delta} &=& \Gamma^0_{\pi N, \Delta},\label{eqh29} \\
\Gamma_{\gamma N, \Delta}
&=& \Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}
+ \Gamma^{1-loop}_{\gamma N,\Delta}. \label{eqh30}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^0_{\gamma N, \Delta} = \int d\bm{x} <\Delta \mid
A \cdot J^\mu_{\Delta, N} \mid \gamma N >. \label{eqh31}\end{aligned}$$ The one-loop corrections $\Gamma^{1-loop}_{\gamma N, \Delta}$ are defined by Eqs. (\[eqh24\])-(\[eqh27\]) and illustrated in Fig. \[fig7\]. Note that up to the second order in $H_I$, there is no one-loop correction to the $\pi N \rightarrow \Delta$ vertex in Eq. (\[eqh29\]).
The $\pi N$ potential $v_{\pi N}$ in Eq. (\[eqh28\]) is illustrated in Fig. \[fig4\]. The non-resonant $\gamma N \rightarrow \pi N$ transition interaction is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
v^{\gamma \pi} = v^{tree}_{\gamma \pi} + v^{1-loop}_{\gamma \pi} \label{eqh32}\end{aligned}$$ where $v^{tree}_{\gamma \pi}$ is defined by Eqs. (\[eqh19\])-(\[eqh22\]) and illustrated in Figs. (6b)-(6d), and $v^{1-loop}_{\gamma \pi}$ is the one-loop corrections which can be calculated by taking the matrix element of Eq. (\[eqh23\]) between $\gamma N$ and $\pi N$ states.
The SL model can be obtained from the effective Hamiltonian $H_{eff}$ of Eq. (\[eqh28\]) by making the following simplifications. First, the mass correction terms $\Sigma^0_N$ and $\Sigma^0_\Delta$ are not treated explicitly and are included in the physical nucleon mass $m_N$=938.5 MeV and $m_\Delta =1299$ MeV determined in Ref.[@sl1]. Second, the one-loop corrections $\Gamma^{1-loop}_{\gamma N, \Delta}$ are not calculated explicitly and $\Gamma_{\gamma N,\Delta}$, instead of $\Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}$, is adjusted to fit the data. Finally, the non-resonant $v^{1-loop}_{\gamma\pi}$ is neglected.
The above derivation indicates that the method of unitary transformation has provided a systematic way to improve the SL model. In the next two sections,we will explore the consequences of these leading-order corrections derived in this section.
One-loop corrections on the one-baryon processes
================================================
To evaluate the one-loop corrections Eqs. (\[eqh15\])-(\[eqh16\]) for the baryon masses and Eqs. (\[eqh24\])-(\[eqh27\]) for the $\gamma N \rightarrow N$ and $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ transitions, we need to define the vertex function $F_{\pi B',B}$ of Eq. (\[eqh3\]) and the matrix elements of currents of Eq. (\[eqh4\]). As an exploratory step, we assume that these can be calculated from a model within which the pion is coupled to constituent quarks by the usual pseudo-vector coupling and the electromagnetic interaction is introduced by the minimum substitution. We further assume that the constituent quarks in $N$ and $\Delta$ are nonrelativistic and only have $L=0$ s-wave configurations. Accordingly, the usual nonrelativistic limit is also taken to define the couplings of $\pi$ and $\gamma$ with constituent quarks. With these simplifications, we can cast the resulting $\pi B \rightarrow B'$ vertex into the following form $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\pi^i B,B'}(\vp, \vk;\vpp)
=\frac{i}{\sqrt{(2\pi)^3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_\pi (k)}}
\frac{f_{\pi BB'}}{m_\pi}
(\bm{S}_{B',B}\cdot \vk)
(\bm{T}_{B',B}\cdot \bm{I}^i_\pi ) F_{B',B}(\bm{k}) \label{eqh33}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\bm{I}^i_\pi$ is a vector associated with the pion isospin state $i$, and $F_{B',B}(\bm{k})$ is a form factor calculated from quark wave functions. The spin and isospin operators $\bm{S}_{B'B},\bm{T}_{B'B}$ are defined as follows. For diagonal spin operators they are twice of the spin angular momentum operator. $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{S}_{NN} & = & 2\bm{J} = \bm{\sigma}, \label{eqh34}\\
\bm{S}_{\Delta\Delta} & = & 2\bm{J} = \bm{S}_{\Delta}; \label{eqh35}\end{aligned}$$ while the transition spin operators are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{S}_{\Delta N} & = & \bm{S}, \label{eqh36}\\
\bm{S}_{N \Delta} & = & \bm{S}^{\dagger}. \label{eqh37}\end{aligned}$$ Within the considered SU(6) quark model, these operators are related to each other , as given explicitly in Table I.
$B'$ $B$ $\bm{S}_{B'B}$($\bm{T}_{B'B}$) $<B'||\bm{S}_{B'B}||B>$ $f_{\pi B'B}$ $\mu_B^S$ $\mu_{B'B}^V$
----------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ----------- -----------------------
$NN$ $\bm{\sigma}$ $\sqrt{6}$ $f_{\pi NN}$ $\mu_N^S$ $\mu_N^V$
$\Delta N$ $\bm{S}$ $2$ $\sqrt{72/25}f_{\pi NN}$ $0$ $\sqrt{72/25}\mu_N^V$
$N \Delta $ $\bm{S}^{\dagger}$ $-2$ $\sqrt{72/25}f_{\pi NN}$ $0$ $\sqrt{72/25}\mu_N^V$
$\Delta \Delta$ $\bm{S}_{\Delta}$ $2\sqrt{15}$ $f_{\pi NN}/5$ $\mu_N^S$ $\mu_N^V/5$
: Coupling constants. Here $\mu_N^S = \mu_P/6,\mu_N^V=5\mu_P/6$ with $\mu_P=e/2m_q$. $m_q= 360$ MeV is the quark mass which is determined here by including the one-loop corrections to fit the proton magnetic moment (see Table II).
The same table also define the reduced matrix elements for isospin operators $\bm{\tau}$ for $NN$, $\bm{T}$ for $\Delta N$, $\bm{T}^\dagger$ for $N\Delta$, and $\bm{T}_\Delta$ for $\Delta\Delta$.
Let us first calculate the mass correction terms $\Sigma^0_N$ and $\Sigma^0_\Delta$ that are given in Eqs. (\[eqh15\])-(\[eqh16\]). By using Eqs. (\[eqh3\]), (\[eqh14\]) and (\[eqh33\]), we obtain in the rest frame of $N$ and $\Delta$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^0_N & = &
\int \frac{d\bm{k}}{(2\pi)^3} <m_{s_N} m_{\tau_N}\mid[
(\frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_\pi})^2 \frac{1}{2\wpik}
\frac{\bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{k}\bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{k}
\bm{\tau} \cdot\bm{\tau} \mid F_{N,N}(k)\mid^2} {m_N - \wpik - \enk}
\nonumber \\
& + & (\frac{f_{\pi N\Delta}}{m_\pi})^2\frac{1}{2\wpik}
\frac{\bm{S}\cdot\bm{k}\bm{S}^{\dagger}\cdot\bm{k}
\bm{T}\cdot\bm{T}^{\dagger} \mid F_{N,\Delta}(k)\mid^2}
{m_N - \wpik - \edk}]
\mid m_{s_N} m_{\tau_N} >, \label{eqh38}\\
\Sigma^0_\Delta & = &
\int \frac{d\bm{k}}{(2\pi)^3}
<m_{s_\Delta} m_{\tau_\Delta}\mid
(\frac{f_{\pi \Delta\Delta}}{m_\pi})^2 \frac{1}{2\wpik}
\frac{\bm{S}_{\Delta}\cdot\bm{k}\bm{S}_{\Delta}\cdot\bm{k}
\bm{T}_{\Delta}\cdot\bm{T}_{\Delta}
\mid F_{\Delta,\Delta}(k)\mid ^2}
{m_\Delta - \wpik - \edk}
\mid m_{s_\Delta} m_{\tau_\Delta} >. \nonumber \\
& & \label{eqh39}\end{aligned}$$
To perform the calculations, we need to define the form factor $F_{B,B^\prime}(\bm{k})$ in Eq. (\[eqh33\]). To be consistent with the SL model, we here depart from the usual oscillator form and set $F_{B,B'}(\bm{k}) = (\Lambda^2/(\Lambda^2+\vk^2))^2$ with $\Lambda=650$ (MeV/c)$^2$ for all $\pi BB^\prime$ vertices. Eqs. (\[eqh38\])-(\[eqh39\]) then lead to the following results $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^0_N &=& \Sigma^0_N(\pi N) + \Sigma^0_N(\pi\Delta) \nonumber \\
&=& -73.5 MeV -65.4MeV = -139. MeV \nonumber \\
\Sigma^0_\Delta&=& \Sigma^0_\Delta(\pi\Delta) \nonumber \\
&=&-76.6 MeV \label{eqh40}\end{aligned}$$ Here we indicate the intermediate state in each pion loop term. Note that $\pi N$ intermediate state is excluded in the correction to the bare $\Delta$ mass, since its effect is already included in the rescattering term induced by the vertex interaction $\Gamma_{\pi N,\Delta}$ of Eq. (\[eqh29\]). The contribution of this rescattering to the mass shift is $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^{res}_\Delta & = &
P \int \frac{d\bm{k}}{(2\pi)^3}
<m_{s_\Delta} m_{\tau_\Delta}\mid
(\frac{f_{\pi N\Delta}}{m_\pi})^2 \frac{1}{2\wpik}
\frac{\bm{S}^\dagger\cdot\bm{k}\bm{S}\cdot\bm{k}
\bm{T}^\dagger\cdot\bm{T}
\mid F_{N,\Delta}(k)\mid ^2}
{m_\Delta - \wpik - \enk}
\mid m_{s_\Delta} m_{\tau_\Delta} > \nonumber \\
&=& -46.2 MeV \label{eqh41}\end{aligned}$$ where $P$ denotes taking the principal-value part of the integration.
We now note that $(H_0 + \Sigma^0_N + \Sigma^0_\Delta)$ of the effective Hamiltonian Eq. (\[eqh28\]) defines the physical nucleon mass and the pole position $W_\Delta = m_\Delta =1232$ MeV of the K-matrix of $\pi N$ scattering in $P_{33}$ channel. Thus, we have the following relations $$\begin{aligned}
m_N = m_N^0 + \Sigma_N^0 \,, \label{eqh42}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
W_\Delta = m_\Delta^0 + \Sigma_\Delta^0
+ \Sigma_\Delta^{res} \,. \label{eqh43}\end{aligned}$$
With the above results, the mass parameters $m_N^0$ and $m_\Delta^0$ associated with $H_0$ of the effective Hamiltonian Eq. (\[eqh28\]) can then be determined $$\begin{aligned}
m_N^0 & = & m_N - \Sigma_N^0 = 1077MeV \nonumber \\
m_\Delta^0 & = & W_\Delta - \Sigma_\Delta^0 - \Sigma_\Delta^{Res}=1355MeV
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The difference of the two bare masses are $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^0 = m_\Delta^0 - m_N^0 = 278MeV \label{eqh44}\end{aligned}$$ The mass parameters $m^0_N$ and $m^0_\Delta$ obtained above can be considered as data for determining the parameters of a hadron structure model which ‘exclude’ the pion degree of freedom. Accordingly, one can assume that $H_0$ of Eq. (\[eqh28\]), which is defined by these two bare masses, can be identified with a model Hamiltonian defining the structure of the constituent quarks within the nucleon and $\Delta$.
Most of the existing constituent quark model calculations[@isgu; @caps; @iach; @gloz], determine their parameters by fitting the mass difference $\delta m = m_\Delta(=1232) - m_N(=938.5) = 294$ MeV, not by reproducing the absolute values of the masses of $N$ and $\Delta$. We note that this mass difference is not so different from that given in Eq. (\[eqh44\]). Thus we can identify $H_0$ of Eq. (\[eqh28\]) as the constituent quark model Hamiltonian with its eigenfunctions $\mid N >$ and $\mid \Delta >$ consisting of three quarks. Accordingly, the current matrix element $\Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}$ defined by Eq. (\[eqh31\]) can be identified with the prediction from the constituent quark models.
We now turn to calculating the electromagnetic form factors. The constituent quark contribution is described by the current operator $J_{B,B^\prime}$ of Eq. (\[eqh4\]). Within the considered SU(6) constituent quark model and in the second quantization notation of Eq. (\[eqh3\]), we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{J}_{B',B} & = & \int \frac{d\vp d\vpp d\vq}{(2\pi)^3} [
\delta(\vp - \vq - \vpp) e^{i\vq\cdot \bm{x}}
b^\dagger_{B^\prime}(\vpp) b_B(\vp)
\nonumber \\
&\times& (e [\frac{1}{2} + \frac{T_{B',B}^z}{2}]
\frac{\bm{p} + \bm{p}'}{2m_{B}}\delta_{B',B}
+ [\mu_{B}^S \delta_{B',B}
+ \mu_{B',B}^V T_{B',B}^Z] i \bm{S}_{B',B} \times \bm{q})
F^{em}_{B^\prime,B}(q^2)
\nonumber \\
& & + (\mbox{h.c.})] \label{eqh45}\end{aligned}$$ where $F^{em}_{B,B^\prime}(q^2)$ is an electromagnetic form factor, and the parameters $\mu^S_B$ and $\mu^V_{B^\prime B}$ are defined in Table I in terms of $\mu_P = {e}/(2m_q)$ with $m_q$ denoting the quark mass. In consistent with the SL model, the other two current operators in Eq. (\[eqh4\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{J}_{\pi} & = &
\sum_{i,j} \int \frac{d\vk d\vkp d\vq}{(2\pi)^3} [
\delta(\vk - \vq - \vkp) e^{i\vq\cdot \bm{x}}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_\pi(\vk)}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_\pi(\vkp)}}
a^\dagger_{\pi^i}(\vkp) a_{\pi^j}(\vk)
\nonumber \\
&\times&
( -i e \epsilon_{ij3}(\vk+\vkp)) F^{em}_{\pi}(q^2) + (\mbox{h.c.})] \label{eqh46}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{J}_{B',B,\pi} & = &
\sum_{i,j} \int \frac{d\vp d\vpp d\vk d\vq} {(2\pi)^{9/2}}
\delta(\vp - \vq - \vpp - \vk) e^{i\vq\cdot \bm{x}}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_\pi(\vk)}}
b^\dagger_{B^\prime}(\vpp)a^\dagger_{\pi^i}(\vk) b_B(\vp)
\nonumber \\
&\times &
( e \frac{f_{\pi B',B}}{m_\pi} \epsilon_{ij3}T_{B',B}^j
\bm{S}_{B',B})F^{em}_{B^\prime,B\pi}(q^2)
+ (\mbox{h.c}) ]. \label{eqh47}
\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding charge density operators are $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\pi} & = &
\sum_{i,j} \int \frac{d\vk d\vkp d\vq} {(2\pi)^3}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_\pi(\vk)}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_\pi(\vkp)}}F^{em}_{\pi}(q^2)
e^{i\vq\cdot \bm{x}}
\nonumber \\
& & {}[
\delta(\vk - \vq - \vkp)
a^\dagger_{\pi^i}(\vkp) a_{\pi^j}(\vk)
(-ie \epsilon_{ij3}(E_\pi(\bm{k})+E_\pi(\bm{k}^\prime))) \nonumber \\
& + &
\delta(\vk - \vq + \vkp)
a_{\pi^i}(\vkp) a_{\pi^j}(\vk)
(-ie \epsilon_{ij3}(E_\pi(\bm{k})-E_\pi(\bm{k}^\prime)))
+(\mbox{h.c.})], \label{eqh48}\\
\rho_{B^\prime,B} & = &
\delta_{B^\prime,B} \int \frac{d\vp d\vpp d\vq}{(2\pi)^3} [
\delta(\vp - \vq - \vpp) e^{i\vq\cdot \bm{x}}
b^\dagger_{B^\prime}(\vpp) b_{B}(\vp)
e\frac{1+T^z_{B',B}}{2}F^{em}_{B^\prime,B}(q^2)+(\mbox{h.c.})] \label{eqh49}\end{aligned}$$ In the above equations, the form factors $F^{em}_{B^\prime,B}(q^2)$, $F^{em}_{\pi}(q^2)$ and $F^{em}_{B^\prime,B\pi}(q^2)$ should in principle be calculated from the associated hadron structure. This is a nontrivial task, as well recognized. For this exploratory study, we simply set all of these form factors equal to $F_V(q^2) = 1/(1-q^2/M_V^2)^2$ with $M_V = 0.76$ GeV being the mass of vector meson. Obviously, this is the simplest prescription to maintain the gauge invariance.
With the above definitions, we can evaluate loop corrections defined by Eqs. (\[eqh24\])-(\[eqh27\]) by inserting appropriate intermediate states(illustrated in Fig. 7) and using Eq. (\[eqh14\]) for $S_1$ and Eq. (\[eqh17\]) for $S_2$.
To proceed, we need to first fix the quark mass $m_q$ which determine the current $J_{B^\prime B}$. This is done by fitting the nucleon magnetic moments. The one-loop corrections (similar to what are shown in Fig. \[fig7\]) are included in the fit. We find that the nucleon magnetic moments can be reproduced very well if we set the quark mass as $m_q=360$ MeV. The results for the magnetic moments are shown in Table II. We see that the loop corrections are about 5$\%$ for proton and 10 $\%$ for neutron.
’tree’ Total with loop corrections
--------- -------- -----------------------------
proton 2.61 2.75
neutron -1.74 -1.95
: Magnetic moment of nucleon in unit $\mu_N$
It is important to note that the size of one-loop corrections depend heavily on the range $\Lambda$ of the form factor $F_{B^\prime,B}$ of Eq. (\[eqh33\]).
We now turn to investigating the loop corrections on the $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ transition. Following the formulation presented in SL model, the $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ vertex function calculated in the $\Delta$ rest frame can be written in the following form $$\begin{aligned}
<\Delta\mid \Gamma_{\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta} \mid q>
&=& -\frac{e}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\sqrt{\frac{E_N(\bm{q})+m_N
}{2E_N(\bm{q})}}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega}}
\frac{3 (m_\Delta+m_N) }{ 4m_N( E_N(\bm{q})+m_N)}T_3
\nonumber \\
&\times&
{} [i G_M(q^2)\bm{S}\times\bm{q}\cdot \bm{\epsilon}
+G_E(q^2)
(\bm{S}\cdot\bm{\epsilon} \bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{q}
+\bm{S}\cdot\bm{q}\bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{\epsilon}) \nonumber \\
& & +
\frac{G_C(q^2)}{m_\Delta}
\bm{S}\cdot\bm{q} \bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{q} \epsilon_0], \label{eqh50}\end{aligned}$$ where $e=\sqrt{4\pi/137}$, $q=(\omega,\bm{q})$ is the photon four-momentum, and $\epsilon=(\epsilon_0,\bm{\epsilon})$ is the photon polarization vector. The above definition allows us to calculate the multipole amplitudes of the $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ in terms of $G_M(q^2)$, $G_E(q^2)$ and $G_C(q^2)$. Explicitly, we have[@sl2] $$\begin{aligned}
A_M(q^2) & =& [\Gamma_{\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta}]_{M1}=
N G_M(q^2) \label{eqh51}\\
A_E & = & [\Gamma_{\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta}]_{E2}=
-NG_E(q^2) \label{eqh52}\\
A_C & = & [\Gamma_{\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta}]_{C2}=
N\frac{\mid \bm{q}\mid}{2 m_\Delta}G_C(q^2), \label{eqh53}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
N=\frac{e}{2m_N}\sqrt{\frac{m_\Delta \mid \bm{q}\mid}{m_N}}
\frac{1}{[1-q^2/(m_N+m_\Delta)^2]^{1/2}} \label{eqh54}\end{aligned}$$
We first discuss the results at $q^2=0$ photon point. The values of $A_M$, $A_E$, and $A_C$ determined in Refs.[@sl1; @sl2] are listed in Table III. These are the quantities we would like to interpret within the considered constituent quark model. Assuming that $\Gamma_{\gamma N,\Delta}$ of Eq. (\[eqh30\]) is what has been determined in the SL model, the values listed in Table III thus include the contribution not only from the quark-excitation term $\Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}$ of Eq. (\[eqh31\]), which can be calculated from Eqs. (\[eqh45\]) and (\[eqh49\]), but also include the pion-loop contributions illustrated in Fig. \[fig7\]. These loop contributions can be calculated by inserting appropriate intermediate states in the commutators of Eqs. (\[eqh24\])-(\[eqh25\]). As an example, we write down the expression for the mechanism Fig. 7b in the rest frame of $\Delta$ ($\bm{p}_\Delta=0$, $\bm{p}_N = -\bm{q}$) $$\begin{aligned}
<\Delta|- iS_1 J^\mu_{B',B} iS_1|N>
& & =
\int d\bm{k} \sum_{B=N,\Delta} \nonumber \\
& &
\frac{
<\Delta|\Gamma^{0 \dagger}_{\pi\Delta,\Delta}|
\pi(\bm{k}),\Delta>
<\Delta|J^\mu_{\Delta,B}| B>
<\pi(\bm{k}),B|\Gamma^{0}_{\pi B,N}|N>}
{(m_\Delta -E_\Delta(\bm{k})-E_\pi(\bm{k}))
(E_N(\bm{q}) - E_B(\bm{q}+\bm{k})-E_\pi(\bm{k}))} \nonumber \\
& & =
\int d\bm{k} \sum_{B=N,\Delta} \nonumber \\
& &
\frac{F_{\pi\Delta,\Delta}^\dagger(0,-\bm{k},\bm{k})
<\Delta|J^\mu_{\Delta,B}| B>F_{\pi B,N}(-\bm{k}-\bm{q},-\bm{q},\bm{k})}
{(m_\Delta -E_\Delta(\bm{k})-E_\pi(\bm{k}))
(E_N(\bm{q}) - E_B(\bm{q}+\bm{k})-E_\pi(\bm{k}))} \label{eqh55}\end{aligned}$$ An important point to note here is that the integrand in the loop-integration is independent of the collision energy $W$ and has no singularity in the integration region $0 \le k \le \infty$. Thus the included pion cloud effects are different from what were calculated from the SL model : $[v_{\gamma \pi}G_{\pi N}(W)\bar{\Gamma}_{\pi N, \Delta}(W)]$ which depends on the collision energy $W$ in the $\pi N$ propagator $G_{\pi N}(W)$. Qualitatively speaking, the one-loop contributions of Fig. \[fig7\] are due to virtual pions which are part of the internal structure of N or $\Delta$, while the SL model only accounts for the effects due to pions in scattering states which can reach the on-shell momentum asymptotically.
The $Q^2=0$ ($Q^2= - q^2 >0)$ results from our complete calculations for all one-loop terms in Fig. \[fig7\] are presented in Table IV. In the first row, we list the values from $\Gamma_{\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta}^0 $, which is due to photon interactions with constituent quarks. As expected, the assumed spherical s-wave quark configurations do not have $E2$ and $C2$ transitions. In the same table we also list the contribution from each loop contribution illustrated in Fig. \[fig7\]. The terms under ’pion’ and ’Seagull’ are from Fig. 7a and 7c respectively. Fig. 7d gives the contribution ’Normalization’ which is the consequence of the appearance of the mass shifts $\Sigma^0_N$ and $\Sigma^0_\Delta$ in the effective Hamiltonian Eq. (\[eqh30\]) and is naturally derived here by using the unitary transformation method. Fig. 7b contains the contributions due to spin transition and convection current. Their separate contributions are listed under ’Spin’ and ’Convection’ respectively. We note that $A_C$ only has contribution from pion term because of the angular moment selection rule.
We should emphasize here that the present calculations are based on a non-relativistic quark model and can only be compared qualitatively with the empirical values (table III) determined in the SL model. Thus we should not worry about their differences in absolute magnitudes. Rather, we focus on the relative importance between $A_M$, $A_E$ and $A_C$ listed in Tables III and IV.
The first interesting result in Table IV is that the total one-loop correction (Total - $\Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}$) for the magnetic form factor $G_M$ is only about 4 $\%$ of the ’bare’ value $\Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}$, mainly due to the large cancellations between different contributions. In particular, the very large contribution from ’Normalization’ of Fig. 7d plays a crucial role. We also see that the calculated $A_E$ and $A_C$ in Table IV are in opposite signs of the values listed in Table III. These results have the following implications. First, the $\Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}$ values of $A_E$ and $A_M$ in Table IV could be nonzero and negative such that the total values become the SL values listed in Table III. This can be the case if we assume that the quark wavefunctions of $\Delta$ and/or $N$ could have a $L=2$ d-state component. The other possibilities are that there could have multi-pion loop corrections and exchange current contribution of the quark electromagnetic current[@buchmann]. Within our formulation, some of these mechanisms can be derived from applying the third-order unitary transformation $U_3$. A more detailed study along this line is clearly needed to make progress.
------- ------- -- -- -- -- -- --
$A_M$ 173.3
$A_E$ -2.3
$A_C$ -2.2
------- ------- -- -- -- -- -- --
: ’bare’ helicity amplitudes of the SL model\[1,2\]. Unit is $10^{-3}GeV^{-1/2}$.
$\Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}$ Pion Spin Convection Seagull Normalization Total
------- ------------------------------ -- ------ -- ------ -- ------------ -- --------- -- --------------- -- -------
$A_M$ 204.9 23.7 24.2 0 -3.3 -35.6 213.8
$A_E$ 0 2.8 -0.1 0.1 0.9 0 3.6
$A_C$ 0 1.1 0 0.0 0 0 1.1
: ’bare’ helicity amplitudes in quark model with loop correction. Unit is $10^{-3}GeV^{-1/2}$. SL is the result from Ref.\[1,2\]
The calculated $Q^2-$ dependence of the $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta $ form factors are displayed in Figs. \[fig8\] and \[fig9\]. The dominant M1 transition is shown in Fig. \[fig8\]. The difference between the solid and dashed curves is due to the one-loop corrections. It is very weak and only visible at very low $Q^2$. On the other hand, the pion cloud effects due to scattering states (dashed curve) is very large, As discussed in detail in Ref. [@sl2], this finding explains why the conventional constituent quark model predictions disagree with the empirical value of the magnetic M1 transition of $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$. The present result for one-loop corrections do not change that conclusion.
The situation for $A_E(Q^2)$ and $A_C(Q^2)$ is quit different. Here we do not have contribution from quark excitation term $\Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}$ because of the assumed L=0 wavefunctions. We see that the calculated one-loop corrections (solid curves) are comparable in magnitudes to the pion cloud effects due to scattering state (dashed curves) calculated in SL model. More importantly, they have very different $Q^2$-dependence and are opposite in signs. As seen in Eq. (\[eqh30\]), the solid curves must be interpreted as part of the bare form factors determined phenomenologically in SL model. Namely, the form factors obtained from subtracting the solid curves from SL model’s bare form factors are the contribution from quark excitation. This will be an important information for testing various hadron structure calculations. However, such information can not be realistically extracted here because of the simplicity of the model employed.
![ $A_M(Q^2)$. Dot-dashed is from quark excitation $\Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}$, the solid curve is the sum of $\Gamma^0_{\gamma N,\Delta}$ and $\Gamma^{1-loop}_{\gamma N,\Delta}$. The dashed curve is from pion scattering calculated in SL model.[]{data-label="fig8"}](f8.ps){width="8cm"}
![ Left:$A_E(Q^2)$, Right:$A_C(Q^2)$. Solid curves are from one-loop corrections, while the dashed curves are from pion scattering calculated in SL model.[]{data-label="fig9"}](f9e.ps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![ Left:$A_E(Q^2)$, Right:$A_C(Q^2)$. Solid curves are from one-loop corrections, while the dashed curves are from pion scattering calculated in SL model.[]{data-label="fig9"}](f9c.ps "fig:"){width="5cm"}
One-loop corrections on non-resonant $\gamma N \rightarrow \pi N$
=================================================================
One of the difficulties the SL model has in describing the data is from the non-resonant amplitude. In this section, we would like to explore whether this can be improved by including the one-loop corrections $v^{1-loop}_{\gamma\pi}$ of Eq. (\[eqh32\]). As a start, we will focus on the near threshold region and consider only the the $E_{0+}$ amplitude. A complete calculation of $v^{1-loop}_{\gamma\pi}$ for all partial waves up to $\Delta$ resonance energy is much more involved and will be explored elsewhere.
First, we point out that the SL model failed to describe the near threshold $\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^0 p$ data. For example, at $E_\gamma =145$ MeV the SL model gives (after taking into account the effects due to the mass difference between $\pi^0$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ ) $$\begin{aligned}
E_{0+}(145 {\it MeV})
= -2.47(Born) + 2.31(Rescattering) = -0.15 [10^{-3}/m_{\pi^+}]
\label{eqh56}\end{aligned}$$ where $Born$ is from the non-resonant production operator $v^{tree}_{\gamma\pi}$ constructed in SL model, $Rescattering$ include the effects due to final $\pi N$ interaction. The empirical value is $E_{0+}^{exp}$ (145 MeV) $\sim $ -1.50. In getting the above result, we find that the main contributions to the Born term are from the nucleon-direct and nucleon-exchange diagrams, while the rescattering term is mainly from pion-pole and contact interaction through $\gamma + p \rightarrow \pi^+ + n \rightarrow \pi^0 + p$ charge-exchange process. We also find that the s-wave charge exchange pion rescattering is dominated by the $\rho$-exchange $\pi-N$ potential and the Born approximation $t_{\pi N} \sim v_{\pi N}$ is accurate. Furthermore the short range approximation of $\rho$-exchange potential ($1/(m_\rho^2 + (\bm{p}_N-\bm{p}^\prime_N)^2) \sim 1/m_\rho^2$) is accurate within 10% in determining the rescattering effects in the considered near threshold energy region. With these considerations, the one-loop corrections near threshold can be calculated with the following much simplified Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H_I & = & \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_\pi}\bar{\psi}_N\gamma_5\gamma_\mu
\partial^\mu \vec{\phi}_\pi\cdot\vec{\tau}\psi_N +
\lambda \bar{\psi}_N\gamma^\mu \vec{\tau}\psi_N \cdot \vec{\phi}_\pi\times
\partial_\mu \vec{\phi}_\pi \,.
\label{eqh57}\end{aligned}$$ Here the second term is a contact interaction with the strength determined from the $\rho$-exchange coupling constants : $\lambda=g_{\rho\pi\pi}g_{\rho NN}/(2m_\rho^2)$. By minimum substitution, the second term of Eq. (\[eqh57\]) will generate a interaction current $$\begin{aligned}
j^{\mu}_{N,N\pi\pi} & = & e\lambda [\bar{\psi}_N\gamma^\mu \vec{\tau}\psi_N
\times \vec{\phi}_\pi ]\times \vec{\phi}_\pi \,.
\label{eqh58}\end{aligned}$$ It induces an electromagnetic contact interaction involving two pions. To maintain the gauge invariance within the model defined by the simplified interaction Hamiltonian Eq. (\[eqh57\]), this current is included in the calculation along with the currents $J_\pi$, $J_{B^\prime, B}$ and $J_{B^\prime, B\pi}$ given in Eqs. (\[eqh46\])-(\[eqh48\]) and illustrated in Fig. \[fig2\]. All coupling constants and vertex form factors are taken from SL model.
With the above simplified model, we first re-calculate the rescattering contributions, $ \sim v^{tree}_{\gamma,\pi}G_{\pi N}(W) v_{\pi N}$ to the $E_{0^+}$ amplitude for $\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^0 p$. The results at $E_\gamma =145$ MeV are listed in Table V. It is instructive to note here that the calculated rescattering contribution involves cancellation between the terms (d) and (e). The total rescattering value 2.36 is very close to the value 2.31 of the rescattering term in Eq. (\[eqh56\]) of the SL model. This justifies the use of the simplified model defined by Eqs. (\[eqh57\]) and (\[eqh58\]).
Diagram (b) (c) (d) (e) sum
--------- -- -- -------- -- -- -------- -- -- -------- -- -- ------- -- -- ------
-0.074 -0.685 -1.966 5.087 2.36
: Rescattering contributions to the $E_{0^+}$ amplitude of $\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^0 p$ at 145 MeV, calculated from mechanisms (b)-(e) illustrated in Fig. \[fig6\] using the model defined by Eqs. (\[eqh57\])-(\[eqh58\]).
![Subset of loop corrections on the $\gamma N \rightarrow \pi N$ transition amplitude. []{data-label="fig10"}](f10.eps){width="10cm"}
![Subset of Loop corrections on the $\gamma N \rightarrow \pi N$ transition amplitude. []{data-label="fig11"}](f11.eps){width="10cm"}
The one-loop corrections can be calculated from Eq. (\[eqh23\]) by inserting appropriate intermediate states. The resulting amplitudes are illustrated in Figs. \[fig10\] and \[fig11\]. Note that diagrams in Figs. \[fig10\] and \[fig11\] are not time-ordered diagrams. Rather they just illustrate the structure of the matrix element of each term in $v^{1-loop}_{\gamma\pi}$. As seen from Eq. (\[eqh14\]) and Eq. (\[eqh17\]), the loop integrations for all processes in Figs. \[fig10\] and \[fig11\] will involve $energy-independent$ propagators associated with these two operators. Thus, although the diagrams in Fig. \[fig10\] look similar to the rescattering terms, but they are $energy-independent$ matrix elements. The calculations for these loops are tedious but straightforward, and will not be elaborated here.
[ccccccccccccccccc]{} & Diagram & & & $E_{0+}$ & & & Diagram & & & $E_{0+}$ & & & & & &\
Fig. 10 & (a) & & & -0.079 & & & (c) & & & -0.024 & & & & & &\
& (b) & & & -0.090 & & & (d) & & & 0.475 & & & & & &\
Fig. 11 & (a) & & & 0.157 & & & (f) & & & -0.418 & & & & & &\
& (b) & & & -1.192 & & & (g) & & & 0.00 & & & & & &\
& (c) & & & 0.875 & & & (h) & & & 0.00 & & & & & &\
& (d) & & & -0.085 & & & (i) & & & -0.696 & & & & & &\
& (e) & & & -1.011 & & & (j) & & & 0.699 & & & & & &\
\
& & & & & & & Sum = -1.39 & & & & & & & & &
Our results at $E_\gamma =145$ MeV for each of the one-loop corrections shown in Figs. 10 and 11 are listed in Table VI. The results listed in Tables V and VI lead to $$\begin{aligned}
E_{0+}(145 MeV)= -2.47(Born) + 2.32(Rescattering) - 1.39(Loop) = -1.54
\label{eqh59}\end{aligned}$$ This reproduces the empirical value $E_{0+}^{exp}$ (145 MeV) $ \sim$ -1.50. The calculated effect of the one-loop corrections for $E_{0+}$ in the near threshold energy region is shown in in Fig. \[fig12\]. Clearly, the one-loop corrections drastically reduce the magnitudes and bring the results to agree with the empirical values. The kinks due to the cups effect are reproduce well in our calculations.
![ $E_{0+}$ amplitude of $\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^0 p$. The dotted curve is from $v^{tree}_{\gamma \pi}$. The solid curves are obtained when the one-loop corrections $v^{1-loop}_{\gamma\pi}$ are included. The data are from Refs [@e0exp1; @e0exp2; @e0exp3][]{data-label="fig12"}](f12a.ps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![ $E_{0+}$ amplitude of $\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^0 p$. The dotted curve is from $v^{tree}_{\gamma \pi}$. The solid curves are obtained when the one-loop corrections $v^{1-loop}_{\gamma\pi}$ are included. The data are from Refs [@e0exp1; @e0exp2; @e0exp3][]{data-label="fig12"}](f12b.ps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
In Fig. \[fig13\], we show that the one-loop corrections on the $E_{0^+}$ amplitude can change significantly the calculated angular distributions to better agree with the data. To see the full one-loop correction effects, we need to also calculate other multipole amplitudes. This along with the results for the $\Delta$ region will be explored elsewhere.
![$\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^0 p$ at 146, 150, 160, and 170 MeV. Solid curves are obtained when the one-loop corrections $v^{1-loop}_{\gamma\pi}$ are included. Data are from Ref.[@e0exp1; @e0exp2].[]{data-label="fig13"}](f13a.ps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![$\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^0 p$ at 146, 150, 160, and 170 MeV. Solid curves are obtained when the one-loop corrections $v^{1-loop}_{\gamma\pi}$ are included. Data are from Ref.[@e0exp1; @e0exp2].[]{data-label="fig13"}](f13b.ps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![$\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^0 p$ at 146, 150, 160, and 170 MeV. Solid curves are obtained when the one-loop corrections $v^{1-loop}_{\gamma\pi}$ are included. Data are from Ref.[@e0exp1; @e0exp2].[]{data-label="fig13"}](f13c.ps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![$\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^0 p$ at 146, 150, 160, and 170 MeV. Solid curves are obtained when the one-loop corrections $v^{1-loop}_{\gamma\pi}$ are included. Data are from Ref.[@e0exp1; @e0exp2].[]{data-label="fig13"}](f13d.ps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
Summary and Outlook
===================
In this paper, we have applied the unitary transformation to derive the leading-order corrections on the effective Hamiltonian of the SL model for electromagnetic pion production reactions. We have investigated the one-loop corrections on the masses of $N$ and $\Delta$, the $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ vertex, and the non-resonant pion production operators. Qualitatively speaking, the derived one-loop corrections are due to the virtual pions which are part of the internal structure of $N$ or $\Delta$, while the pion cloud effects generated within the SL model or the other dynamical models, such as the Dubna-Mainz-Taipei (DMT) model [@dmt], only account for the effects due to pions in the scattering states which can reach the on-shell momentum asymptotically.
With the one-loop corrections included in determining the mass parameters, we find that the free Hamiltonian of the model can be identified with the conventional constituent quark model. We then proceed to apply such a constituent quark model to calculate the one-loop corrections on the $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ transition form factors. It is found that the one-loop corrections on the magnetic M1 transition is very small. Our results further establish the conclusion reached by the SL model that the large discrepancy between the conventional constituent quark model predictions and the empirical values are due to the pion cloud effects associated with the pions in scattering states.
The calculated one-loop contributions to the electric E2 ($A_E$) and Coulomb C2 ($A_C$) form factors of the $\gamma N \rightarrow \Delta$ transition are found to be in opposite signs of that due to pion cloud associated with the scattering states. One possible implications of this result is that the extracted empirical values of SL model could be largely due to the nonspherical $L=2$ intrinsic quark excitations which could lead to nonzero and negative contributions to $A_E$ and $A_C$. On the other hand, there could have higher-order exchange current contributions which are not included in this work, but must be also calculated for a complete understanding of the empirical values of SL model. Clearly more works are highly desirable.
We have also found that the one-loop corrections on the non-resonant pion production operator can resolve the difficulty the SL model encountered in reproducing the empirical $E_{0+}$ amplitude of near threshold $\pi^0$ photoproduction. It will be worthwhile to further extend this work to calculate these one-loop corrections for higher partial waves. Some of the discrepancies between the SL model and the data in the $\Delta$ excitation could be removed by including these corrections. Our effort in this direction will be reported elsewhere.
To end, we emphasize that the SL model is obtained from keeping only the lowest order terms of a formulation within which the higher order terms can be rigorously derived. Attempts to fit the data by adjusting the current SL model are not justified theoretically. The most important task to improve the SL model is to include these corrections order by order until the convergence of the predictions has achieved. In this work we have taken a very first step in this direction. Undoubtly, much more works are needed to complete a consistent dynamical model of electromagnetic pion production reactions.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics Division, under contract no. W-31-109-ENG-38, and by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 15540275.
[99]{} See a review by V. Burkert and T.-S. H. Lee, to appear in Jour. of Modern Physics E (2004).
T. Sato and T.-S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C [**54**]{}, 2660 (1996).
T. Sato and T.-S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C [**63**]{}, 055201 (2001).
Kamalov and S.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4494 (1999).
S.S. Kamalov, S. N. Yang, D. Drechsel, O. Hanstein, and L. Tiator, Phys, Rev, [**C64**]{}, 032201(R) (2001).
D. Drechsel, O. Hanstein, S.S. Kamalov, and L. Tiator, Nucl. Phys. [**A645**]{}, 145 (1999).
M. Kobayashi, T. Sato and H. Ohtsubo, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**98**]{}, 927 (1997).
H. M. Nieland and J.A. Tjon, Phys. Lett. [**27B**]{},309 (1968).
A.D. Lahiff and I.R. Afnan, Phys. Rev. [**C60**]{}, 024608 (1999).
B.C. Pearce and B.K. Jennings, Nucl. Phys. [**A528**]{}, 655 (1991).
F. Gross and Y. Surya, Phys. Rev. [**C47**]{}, 703 (1993); Y. Surya and F. Gross, [*ibid.*]{}, [**C53**]{}, 2422 (1996).
C. Schutz, J. W. Durso, K. Holinde, and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. C [**49**]{}, 2671 (1994).
C. T. Hung, S. N. Yang, and T.-S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C [**64**]{}, 034309 (2001); J. Phys. G [**20**]{}, 1531 (1994).
V. Pascalutsa and J.A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. [**C61**]{}, 054003 (2000).
N. Isgur and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D [**18**]{}, 4187 (1978); Phys. Rev. D [**19**]{}, 2653 (1979).
S. Capstick, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 1965 (1992); Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 2864 (1992).
R. Bijker, F. Iachello, and A. Leviatan, Amm. Phys.(N.Y.) [**236**]{}, 69 (1994).
L. Ya. Glozman and D. O. Riska, Phys. Rep. [**268**]{}, 263 (1996); L. Ya. Glozman, Z. Rapp, W. Plessas, K. Varga, and R. F. Wagenbrunn, Nucl. Phys. [**A623**]{}, 90c (1997).
A. J. Buchmann, E. Hernandez and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. [**C55**]{}, 448 (1997).
M. Fuchs et al., Phys. Lett. B[**368**]{}, 20 (1996).
J. C. Bergstrom et al., Phys. Rev. C[**55**]{}, 2016 (1997).
A. Schmidt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 232501 (2001).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We model large-scale ($\approx\unit{2000}{\kilo\meter}$) impacts on a Mars-like planet using a Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics code. The effects of material strength and of using different Equations of State on the post-impact material and temperature distributions are investigated. The properties of the ejected material in terms of escaping and disc mass are analysed as well. We also study potential numerical effects in the context of density discontinuities and rigid body rotation. We find that in the large-scale collision regime considered here (with impact velocities of $\unit{4}{\kilo\meter\per\second}$), the effect of material strength is substantial for the post-impact distribution of the temperature and the impactor material, while the influence of the Equation of State is more subtle and present only at very high temperatures.'
address: 'Physikalisches Institut & Center for Space and Habitability, Universität Bern, Gesellschaftsstrasse 6, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland'
author:
- Alexandre Emsenhuber
- Martin Jutzi
- Willy Benz
bibliography:
- 'mars\_bib.bib'
title: 'SPH calculations of Mars-scale collisions: the role of the Equation of State, material rheologies, and numerical effects'
---
Terrestrial planets ,impact processes ,interiors
Introduction
============
Giant impacts occurring at the end stages of planet formation define the properties of the final planets and moons. Examples include Mercury’s anomalously thin silicate mantle [@1988IcarusBenzSlatteryCameron; @2007SSRvBenzAnicHornerWhitby; @2014AGUFMAsphaugReufer], the origin of the Earth’s Moon [@1975IcarusHartmannDavis; @1976LPICameronWard; @2001NatureCanupAsphaug; @2004IcarusCanup; @2012ScienceCanup; @2012ScienceCukStewart; @2012IcarusReufer] or the formation of the Pluto-Charon system [@2005ScienceCanup; @2011AJCanup]. Smaller, but still planet-scale collisions were proposed for the formation of the martian dichotomy [@1984NatureWilhelmsSquyres; @1988GeoRLFreySchultz; @2008NatureAndrewsHanna; @2008NatureNimmo; @2008NatureMarinova; @2011IcarusMarinova]. Numerical simulations of such giant impact scenarios are performed using shock physics codes, which are often based on the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method. In such simulations of planet-scale collisions it is typically assumed that material strength is negligible due to large overburden pressures caused by self-gravitation. However, it was found in previous studies [e.g. @2015PSSJutzi] that for collisions at $\unit{100}{\kilo\meter}$ to $\unit{1000}{\kilo\meter}$ scale, the effect of material strength can still be very important. The impactor size range for which the assumption of purely hydrodynamic behaviour is justified has not yet been studied systematically. Other uncertainties in giant impact simulations are related to the Equation of State (EoS) models. Often used EoS are the simple Tillotson [@Tillotson] EoS [e.g. @2008NatureMarinova; @2011IcarusMarinova] or the more sophisticated (M-)ANEOS . Last but not least, there are potential numerical issues that have to be added to the uncertainties. Concerning the SPH method, known numerical issues are related to surface and contact discontinuities [e.g. @2013PASJHosonoSaitohMakino; @2017MNRASReinhardt] or rotational instabilities in rigid body rotations [e.g. @Habil2006Speith].
In this study, we focus on large-scale ($\approx\unit{2000}{\kilo\meter}$) impacts on a Mars-like planet. The conditions studied here are chosen to be quite general, but at the same time they also cover a range of possible dichotomy forming events [@2008NatureMarinova]. We want to assess the relative importance of the effects mentioned above (i.e., material strength; choice of EoS; numerical issues) in collision simulations of such scale. This knowledge is important in order be able to make an educated choice of the material models and numerical methods, and to know their limitations.
Collisions are modelled using an updated SPH code [@2012IcarusReufer], which includes self-gravity, a newly implemented strength model [following @2015PSSJutzi] and various EoS (Tilloston and M-ANEOS). We investigate the effects of the above mentioned material properties (namely material strength and the EoS models) on the outcome of the collisions for different impact geometries. We focus on the material and temperature distributions in the final planet but also analyse the properties of the ejected material (orbiting and unbound). Finally, potential numerical effects are studied as well. We investigate the known SPH issue in the case of rigid body rotation. We also consider different schemes to compute the density, in order to investigate potential numerical issues at discontinuities (such as the free surface and the core-mantle boundary).
A subset of the SPH calculations presented here is coupled with thermochemical simulations of planetary interiors in a companion paper [@Companion]. The effects of the different models on the long-term evolution (over a time period of about $\unit{0.5}{\mega yr}$) and the crust formation will be discussed there.
In section 2 we describe our modeling approach and discuss in detail the implemented strength model and its coupling with the EoS models. The initial conditions (target and projectile properties and impact geometry) are detailed in section 3. In section 4, we present the results of our simulations using different material models and numerical schemes, followed by a discussion and conclusions in section 5.
Modelling approach {#sec:modeling}
==================
We use a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) code [e.g. @1994IcarusBenzAsphaug; @2012IcarusReufer; @2015PSSJutzi] to model the impact event. The code used here is based on the SPHLATCH code developed by @2012IcarusReufer. It includes a newly implemented pressure and temperature dependent shear strength model, as described below, which is appropriate for the large scale collisions considered here. To study smaller scale collisions in geological materials, we use a different code, which also includes a tensile fracture and a porosity model [see @2015PSSJutzi for details].
SPH uses a Lagrangian representation where material is divided into particles. Quantities are interpolated (‘smoothed’) by summing over surrounding particles (called neighbours) according to $$B(\vec{x})=\sum_iB_iW(\vec{x}-\vec{x_i},h_i)V_i
\label{eq:sphsum}$$ where $B_i$ represents the quantity (field variable) to be interpolated, and $\vec{x}_i$, $h_i$ and $V_i$ are the position, smoothing length, and volume of particle i, respectively. $W(\vec{x},h)$ is a smoothing kernel, which has the propriety to vanish if $\|\vec{x}\| > 2h$, so that the hydrodynamic variables (pressure, density, stress tensor) are integrated over a local group of neighbouring particles. In our simulations, we use a 3D cubic spline kernel .
This interpolation scheme is used in SPH to solve the relevant differential equations. In standard SPH, the density is computed by direct summation (equation \[eq:sphsum\]). We refer to this method as *density summation* through this article. Alternatively, it can be computed by using the changing rate of density, which is given by the continuity equation: $$\frac{D\rho}{Dt}+\rho\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial x}+\rho\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial y}+\rho\frac{\partial v_z}{\partial z}=0
\label{eq:model:densint}$$ where $D/Dt$ stands for the substantive time derivative. We call it *density integration*. A similar equation gives the time derivative of the smoothing length: $$\frac{Dh}{Dt}+h\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial x}+h\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial y}+h\frac{\partial v_z}{\partial z}=0$$ Thus the smoothing length grows in sparse regions and shrinks in dense regions, so that the number of neighbours within $2h$ is $\approx 50$.
-------------------- ------ ---------- ---------------- ----------------
iron silicate iron olivine
G \[GPa\] 76 44.4 76 72
$\sigma_M$ \[GPa\] 0.68 3.5 0.68 3.5
$u_m$ \[J/kg\] - - $9.2\cdot10^5$ $3.4\cdot10^6$
$T_m$ \[K\] - - 920 3400
-------------------- ------ ---------- ---------------- ----------------
: Material parameters for the solid rheology model. G is the shear modulus. $\sigma_M$ is the von Mises plastic limit. Melting temperature $T_m$ is computed from $u_m$ using equation (\[eq:model:tillotsontemp\]).[]{data-label="tab:solid"}
Body accelerations are the result of the pressure gradient, and for this we use the pressure as computed from an equation of state (EoS) (see below), which is a function $P(\rho,u)$ of density $\rho$ (see equation \[eq:model:densint\]) and internal energy $u$. For solid materials the pressure gradient is generalised into a stress tensor [@1994IcarusBenzAsphaug] with the resulting equation of motion given by: $$\frac{Dv_a}{Dt}=\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial \tau_{ab}}{\partial x_b}
\label{eq:model:velmat}$$ The stress tensor is defined as $$\tau_{ab}=-P\delta_{ab}+\sigma_{ab}
\label{eq:model:tau}$$ where $P$ is the pressure, $\delta_{ab}$ is the Kronecker symbol and $\sigma_{ab}$ is the traceless deviatoric stress tensor. The time evolution of $\sigma_{ab}$ is computed adopting Hooke’s law as in @1994IcarusBenzAsphaug [@1995IcarusBenzAsphaug]. In the limit of zero deviatoric stress this reduces to the familiar pressure-gradient acceleration. Energy conservation now reads $$\frac{Du}{Dt}=\frac{1}{\rho}\tau_{\alpha\beta}\dot{\varepsilon}_{\alpha\beta}
\label{eq:model:specenergy}$$ with $\dot{\varepsilon}_{\alpha\beta}$ being the strain rate tensor.
In standard SPH, the computation of the strain and rotation rate tensors fails to conserve angular momentum in rigid body rotations. Following the approach by @Habil2006Speith, we use a correction tensor in the computation of the velocity derivatives, which allows conservation of angular momentum at the cost of an additional computation step.
Equations (\[eq:model:velmat\]) and (\[eq:model:tau\]) describe an entirely elastic material. To model plastic behaviour we use a Drucker-Prager-like yield criterion . The model has one yield strength $\sigma_i$, corresponding to intact material, and another $\sigma_d$ corresponding to completely fragmented material: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_i&=&C+\frac{\mu_iP}{1+\mu_iP/(\sigma_M-C)} \\
\sigma_d&=&\mu_dP\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is the cohesion (yield strength as zero pressure), $\sigma_M$ is the von Mises plastic limit, and $\mu_i$ and $\mu_d$ are the coefficients of friction for intact and completely damaged material, respectively. We set them as $\mu_i=2$ and $\mu_d=0.8$ as in . Note that $\sigma_d$ is limited to $\sigma_d<\sigma_i$ at high pressures. For the large-scale collisions considered here cohesion and tensile strength are negligible due to the large gravity-induced lithostatic stress (see e.g. Jutzi et al., 2015). We therefore set $C=0$. However, shear strength (limited by $\sigma_M$) is still important and cannot be neglected, as we shall see below.
The yield strength of intact material is a function of temperature. To take this into account, we adopt the same relation as in : $$\sigma \to \sigma\tanh{\left(\xi\left(\frac{T_m}{T}-1\right)\right)}
\label{eq:model:tanh}$$ where $\xi$ is a material constant which we set to $\xi=1.2$, $T$ is the temperature and $T_m$ is the corresponding liquidus temperature (see below). If $T>T_m$ the material is molten and we set $\sigma=0$. Finally, if the measure of the stress state, the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor $$\sigma_{ll}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{ab}\sigma_{ab}}$$ exceeds $\sigma$, the components of the deviatoric stress tensor are reduced by a factor $\sigma/\sigma_{ll}$. The parameters for the solid rheology model are provided in table \[tab:solid\].
To complete the set of equations, an equation of state providing a relation between pressure, temperature and density is needed. We use either Tillotson [@Tillotson] or (M-)ANEOS . The Tillotson equation of state provides both the pressure $P$ and the speed of sound as output, but it does not give the temperature directly, so as an approximation we use the internal energy as a proxy for temperature by dividing by the heat capacity $$T=u/c_p
\label{eq:model:tillotsontemp}$$ In this case equation (\[eq:model:tanh\]) is modified to use $u$ and $u_m$ instead of $T$ and $T_m$ respectively, and $u_m$ is treated as a material constant independent of pressure. Iron parameters are from @Tillotson [also in @1989BookMelosh] and the ones for olivine from @2008NatureMarinova.
Name Description Value
----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------
$\rho_0$ Reference density $\unit{7850}{\kilo\gram\per\meter\cubic{}}$
$T_0$ Reference temperature $0$
$p_0$ Pressure at the reference point $0$
$B_0$ Bulk modulus at the reference point $\unit{1.45\cdot10^{11}}{\pascal}$
$T_\mathrm{Debye}$ Reference Debye temperature $\unit{464}{\kelvin}$
$\gamma_\mathrm{max}$ Limiting value of the Gruneisen coefficient $2/3$
$E_\mathrm{sep}$ Zero temperature separation energy $\unit{2\cdot10^{8}}{\joule\per\kilo\gram}$
$T_\mathrm{melt}$ Melting temperature $\unit{1809}{\kelvin}$
$H_f$ Heat of fusion $\unit{2.471\cdot10^{5}}{\joule\per\kilo\gram}$
$\rho_\mathrm{liq}/\rho_\mathrm{solid}$ Ratio of liquid to solid density at melt point $0.955$
: Material parameters for iron with ANEOS equation of state. Other parameters are set to zero.[]{data-label="tab:aneos-iron"}
For a more physical computation of temperature, and to handle phase transitions in a more thermodynamically consistent way than is done with Tillotson EoS, we use ANEOS [@ANEOS] for iron with the parameters provided in table \[tab:aneos-iron\], and M-ANEOS for silicates. These equations of state provide numerous output variables including the temperature and phase information (e.g. melt and vapor fraction). Depending on the parameters used in the equation of state, this phase information can be given in different ways. For iron, it can be used to infer the melting temperature at a given pressure. However, this is not the case for silicates, for which we apply the same procedure as used in to obtain the melting temperature at a given pressure.
It is important to point out that neither the Tillotson nor the ANEOS equation of state include the latent heat of melting and therefore, temperatures above the melt temperature are overestimated.
Shocks occur when the impact speed (or particle velocity) exceeds the sound speed in the medium. If not treated properly, this can lead to particle interpenetration and other non-physical effects. We use a standard artificial viscosity term that deposits internal energy and momentum behind the shock in a manner that is consistent with the Hugoniot shock relations [c.f. @1989BookMelosh] but spread out over several smoothing lengths.
In addition to the body force accelerations given by equation (\[eq:model:velmat\]), we also compute the accelerations due to self-gravity, using a tree-code method [@1986NatureBarnesHut].
The set of equations described above provides the time dependence of the physical quantities, which are then integrated using a prediction-correction scheme [@NumRecCPP]. For a more detailed description of the method see e.g. @2015BookJutzi.
Initial conditions {#sec:initialconds}
==================
Setup
-----
We perform a series of SPH collision models, where we use a Mars-mass target body ($r=\unit{3400}{\kilo\meter}$) and an impactor with $\unit{1000}{\kilo\meter}$ radius. We use different EoS (ANEOS or Tillotson), material rheologies (solid or fluid) and numerical schemes (density summation or integration), in order to study the effects on the collision outcome and to asses their relative importance. For each combination, we use two impact angles: 0 (head-on) or 45 (oblique), which gives a total of 16 simulations. The mutual escape velocity [@2010ChEGAsphaug] defines the impact speed. As a nominal case, we define the simulation with ANEOS, solid rheology, integrated density and oblique impact angle.
The target and impactor both start with a Mars-like internal structure with an iron core radius half of the body radius, while SiO2 comprises the bodies’ mantles. The use of SiO2 to represent Mars’ basaltic mantle is a simplified but reasonable assumption, given available equation of state information. Note also that the crust of the target is not resolved at these large scales and is not explicitly included in the model. For simulations using Tillotson EoS, each layer is initially isothermal; iron core temperature is fixed to $T_\mathrm{Fe} = \unit{1800}{\kelvin}$ and mantle to $T_\mathrm{Si} = \unit{1500}{\kelvin}$. For the simulations with ANEOS, an isentropic profile is used for which core’s central temperature is $\unit{1800}{\kelvin}$ and for the silicate at the core-mantle boundary it is $\unit{1500}{\kelvin}$. The choice of these values is explained in @Companion.
We begin by setting up self-gravitating, hydrostatically-equilibrated planets, starting with one-dimensional (1D) spherically symmetric bodies modelled using a Lagrangian hydrocode [@1989BookBenz] with the same EoS as in the SPH model. This structure is divided in cells (100 for the impactor) of equal mass. Cell boundaries according to the force balance between self-gravity and pressure (including a damping term). This profile is evolved until hydrostatic equilibrium is reached so that radial velocities are small (less than 1% of the escape velocity). Afterwards we transfer the 1D radial profile onto SPH particles that are placed onto a 3D lattice. Parameters of each particle are copied from the profile according to the radius. As particles are equally spaced on the lattice, variation of density is taken into account by adjusting the particle mass. The spherical SPH bodies are then also evolved in an initialising step to reach a hydrostatic equilibrium and negligible radial velocities. Thus the SPH simulations start with two relaxed differentiated spherical planets approaching from several radii away; they get tidally deformed prior to the impact.
The SPH simulations are performed with a resolution of about one million particles for the target. The number of particles for the impactor is scaled according to the mass ratio between the two objects, so that particle spacing $h$ is approximately constant, for the greatest numerical accuracy during the collision. The corresponding smoothing length is then approximately $\unit{60}{\kilo\meter}$ for both bodies.
Initial radial profiles
-----------------------
Initial radial profiles of density, pressure and temperature are shown in figures \[fig:profile:impactor\] and \[fig:profile:target\] for the impactor and target respectively. For the cases with the Tillotson EoS, the internal energy is being evolved during the equilibration phase, hence the spread in temperature. The comparison with a case where this value is kept fixed is discussed later in section \[sec:tillotson-profile\]. The 1D profiles for the two different approaches to compute the density (density sum and density integration) are identical as the distinction only happens during the SPH phase itself.
There is a noticeable difference in the density between the cases with a different EoS: iron has higher density with ANEOS and the opposite happens for silicate. The density contrast at the core-mantle boundary is thus higher when using ANEOS. Since the objects have the same mass in the two cases, their radius is affected by this density variation and we obtain about $\unit{3440}{\kilo\meter}$ using ANEOS and $\unit{3290}{\kilo\meter}$ using Tillotson, which makes a relative difference of the radii around $\unit{4}{\%}$. It is known that standard SPH has problems handling sharp density changes, at boundaries between materials and at the surface. We see artificial numerical effects at these locations. With density summation, particles beyond the boundary enter in the SPH sum (equation \[eq:sphsum\]) and thus smooth the discontinuity. Particles in this region then have a slightly different density. At the surface, the effect is due to the lack of close-by particles (see [@2017MNRASReinhardt] for an improved scheme). The density variation is reflected in pressure and temperature. Although in the case of density integration there is no such summation involved to compute the density, there are still some artificial effects (oscillations) at the boundaries. More sophisticated ways to deal with discontinuous boundaries in SPH have been developed recently [e.g. @2013PASJHosonoSaitohMakino] and shall be implemented in our code for future studies.
However, as we shall see below, the amplitude of the unphysical ’noise’ in the initial profiles is small enough not to affect significantly the outcome of the collision simulations.
Results
=======
Nominal case {#sec:results-nomcase}
------------
We show a time series of the nominal case along with the corresponding fluid case in figure \[fig:nomcase:timeseries\]. Shown are the post-impact material and temperature distributions. The simulations start roughly two hours before the first snapshot. Due to the angular momentum transferred to the target by the impact, the target begins to rotate after a few hours, hence the impact location is shifted by $\unit{\sim180}{\degree}$ between the two last snapshots. One can note the impactor’s tidal deformation before the impact mainly in the fluid case. The effect of the material rheology leads to significant differences in terms of the post-impact material and temperature distribution. Another notable difference is the degree of the impact induced target oscillation, which is much stronger in the fluid case (see snapshots at 3 and $\unit{4}{\hour}$).
The heat generated by the impact is spread out over a broader region with solid rheology compared to the fluid one. Already at $t=\unit{0.25}{\hour}$ the higher temperature zone extend to several hundreds of kilometres away from the contact zone and expands until covering a wide region at the end of our simulations. With fluid rheology only the contact zone has high temperature material at the beginning and towards the end only impactor material retains these high temperatures. Note that the annulus of warm material ($\unit{\sim3000}{\kelvin}$) that forms at the target’s core-mantle boundary with solid rheology is not due to the impact but is an artificial feature caused by the set up routine. The small remaining velocities (on the order of $\unit{10}{\meter\per\second}$) at the beginning of the impact simulation, when forces are enabled and the damping term removed are sufficient to create instabilities that lead to internal energy increase due to the artificial viscosity.
At early times, the impactor does not penetrate as deep inside the target with solid rheology as in the fluid case (see snapshots at $\unit{0.50}{\hour}$ and $\unit{0.92}{\hour}$).
![Cumulative mass distribution at the end of the simulation as function of radius. Colour represents material type and origin: red is target’s core, yellow impactor’s core, blue target’s mantle and purple impactor’s mantle, as for material plots in figure \[fig:nomcase:timeseries\]. Solid lines depict the run with solid rheology and dashed lines are for fluid rheology.[]{data-label="fig:cumulmass:canonical"}](cumul_mass)
To get a better overview of the location where impactor material is deposited inside the target at the end of the simulation, we show a cumulative mass plot against radius in figure \[fig:cumulmass:canonical\]. The curves are normalised by the total mass of each material.
Note that some of the impactor’s silicate material is still orbiting around the body or has been ejected. This accounts for $\unit{13}{wt\%}$ and $\unit{18}{wt\%}$ for the fluid and solid rheologies respectively. In both cases, about one sixth of this material is still bound whereas the remaining is on an escaping orbit.
There are significant differences for impactor’s material distribution between the two rheologies. $\unit{27}{wt\%}$ of impactor’s core remains inside the mantle with solid rheology whereas this value falls to $\unit{3}{wt\%}$ for fluid rheology. The remaining lies at the target’s core-mantle boundary. The impactor’s silicate shows a different behaviour. For fluid rheology, there is a small part close to the core-mantle boundary, some inside the target’s mantle and the majority close to the surface. For solid rheology, there is one half distributed inside the mantle and the other half close to the surface.
Comparison of EoS and material rheologies
-----------------------------------------
![Cumulative mass fraction of the mantle with temperature (left panel) or specific internal energy (right panel) greater than a given value. Black lines denote ANEOS whereas red is for Tillotson. Solid lines are for solid rheology, dashed lines for fluid rheology and the dotted lines show the initial target profile. Only density integration with oblique geometry is considered. The dashed grey line on the temperature plot shows the upper bound of the colour scale on figures \[fig:nomcase:timeseries\], \[fig:comparison:oblique\] and \[fig:comparison:head-on\].[]{data-label="fig:temperature:rheo-eos"}](temp_eos-rheo_temp "fig:") ![Cumulative mass fraction of the mantle with temperature (left panel) or specific internal energy (right panel) greater than a given value. Black lines denote ANEOS whereas red is for Tillotson. Solid lines are for solid rheology, dashed lines for fluid rheology and the dotted lines show the initial target profile. Only density integration with oblique geometry is considered. The dashed grey line on the temperature plot shows the upper bound of the colour scale on figures \[fig:nomcase:timeseries\], \[fig:comparison:oblique\] and \[fig:comparison:head-on\].[]{data-label="fig:temperature:rheo-eos"}](temp_eos-rheo_energy "fig:")
The results from our series of 16 simulations, using different material rheologies, EoS and numerical schemes are shown in figure \[fig:comparison:oblique\] for oblique cases and in figure \[fig:comparison:head-on\] for head-on ones. The differences between density integration and summation will be discussed in section \[sec:results-density\]. Temperature and energy distributions for four of these cases (oblique impacts; density integration) are provided in figure \[fig:temperature:rheo-eos\]. Note that our nominal case and its fluid counterpart that were discussed in the previous section are shown again in the first row of figure \[fig:comparison:oblique\] (ANEOS; integrated density) and with the black lines on figure \[fig:temperature:rheo-eos\].
At first look, we note that the differences (concerning material and temperature distribution) discussed in the previous section between the runs with rheologies are also present in the simulations using different EoS and numerical techniques (density computation). The more pronounced temperature increase around the impact zone with solid rheology is noticeable on figure \[fig:temperature:rheo-eos\] between 2000 and $\unit{3000}{\kelvin}$; it is about $\unit{10-20}{wt\%}$ for ANEOS and a bit less for Tillotson.
The differences between the runs with different EoS are more subtle. For instance, using the Tillotson EoS, the impactor’s particles close to the surface have higher temperatures. This effect appears both in figures \[fig:comparison:oblique\] and \[fig:comparison:head-on\] as well as in \[fig:temperature:rheo-eos\]. In figure \[fig:temperature:rheo-eos\], the curves for the two EoS diverge above about $\unit{4000}{\kelvin}$, whereas the energy distribution remains similar. ANEOS includes the latent heat of vaporisation which our simple conversion formula (eq. \[eq:model:tillotsontemp\]) for Tillotson neglects. Hence the high temperatures are overestimated with Tillotson. It should be noted that for silicate, neither EoS take*s* the latent heat of melting into account. One can also see in figure \[fig:temperature:rheo-eos\] that the behaviour at low temperature depends on the initial profile, and that almost all mantle gets a small temperature increase (of the order of hundred kelvins).
When looking at head-on cases, again the same general features appear. Hot surface material is now located directly above the impact location. The fluid cases however show some specific results. The impact itself produces surface waves that propagate and are focused at the antipode. At this location, these waves lead to some spallation of mantle material, which gets heated when falling back. We thus see an increase in temperature at the antipode; here there are some notable differences between the Tillotson and the ANEOS cases.
Comparing the influence of both effect, we find that rheology plays an important role for both material and heat distribution, even at this scale. The EoS, despite changing the radius of the bodies by $\unit{\sim4}{\%}$, has little influence on these effects. Compared to Tillotson, the more sophisticated temperature computation by ANEOS, which includes the latent heat of vaporisation, leads to differences only at relatively high temperatures (above $\unit{4000-5000}{\kelvin}$).
Numerical effects
-----------------
### Rotational instability
![Angular momentum as function of time for the two cases shown above ($\unit{45}{\degree}$, ANEOS, solid, integrated density), with/without correction tensor and the corresponding fluid case for comparison.[]{data-label="fig:rot:angmom-time"}](angmom-time)
In figure \[fig:rot:mat\] we show the effect of applying the correction tensor in the computation of the stress tensor to avoid rotational instability effects in the case of a solid rheology [e.g. @Habil2006Speith]. As it can be seen, the post-impact material and temperature distributions are very similar in the cases with and without correction tensor, except for the temperature artefact due to the set up routine at the core-mantle boundary. We note that the amplitude of the artificial temperature increase at the boundary is much smaller in the simulation with the correction tensor (about $\sim\unit{1000}{\kelvin}$ increase) than in the one without (about $\sim\unit{5000}{\kelvin}$ increase). Furthermore, the longer term target rotation is slower in the case without correction tensor, because the angular momentum is not conserved.
The angular momentum is plotted as a function of time in figure \[fig:rot:angmom-time\] for the two cases. We also include the corresponding fluid case for comparison. For the solid rheology with correction and the fluid rheology, the variation of angular momentum over the whole simulations (about $\unit{20}{\hour}$) is lower than $\unit{1}{\%}$ whereas for the solid rheology without correction, angular momentum is reduced by almost $\unit{25}{\%}$. The decrease starting a few hours after time impact reflects the slow down of the rigid body rotation which is not treated correctly without the correction tensor. Ejected material is not subject to this problem as it does not encounter solid forces. The rotation rate decrease implies that target’s position is not the same during late stages of simulations. At 18 hours after impact, the target rotated around 20 degrees less than in the case where angular momentum is conserved (figure \[fig:rot:mat\]). Here, the target rotates about $\unit{100}{\degree}$ between the merging of both cores at two hours after the impact and the end at 18 hours.
These results confirm that standard SPH does not handle well problems which involve rigid body rotation [@Habil2006Speith] and point out the importance of applying the correction tensor to deal with such cases, in particular for situations where the rotation timescale is comparable to the simulated time.
### Density computation (summation vs. integration) {#sec:results-density}
![Cumulative mass fraction of mantle with temperature greater than a given value. Same as left panel of figure \[fig:temperature:rheo-eos\], but comparing density computation instead. Left panel is for ANEOS, where blue lines are now density summation. Right panel is Tillotson with green lines for density summation.[]{data-label="fig:temperature:dens"}](temp_aneos "fig:") ![Cumulative mass fraction of mantle with temperature greater than a given value. Same as left panel of figure \[fig:temperature:rheo-eos\], but comparing density computation instead. Left panel is for ANEOS, where blue lines are now density summation. Right panel is Tillotson with green lines for density summation.[]{data-label="fig:temperature:dens"}](temp_tillotson "fig:")
As discussed in section \[sec:modeling\], we test two different methods to compute the densities of the SPH particles. We use *density integration* for our nominal cases.
Major differences arise at the boundaries between materials or at the surface where steep density gradients are located. For density summation, a group of particles separates in all quantities shown in radial profiles (figures \[fig:profile:impactor\] and \[fig:profile:target\]). These groups contain particles closer than $2h$ from the boundary and where the adjacent material enters in the SPH sum (or where there is a lack of neighbouring particles when close to the surface). Their density is shifted towards the one beyond the boundary. For integrated density, as no such sum is involved, particles close to the boundary do not separate from the remaining. However, there are still some oscillations close to the discontinuity.
Despite the issues mentioned above, which result in different initial density profiles (at the boundaries), the results at end of the simulations do not show any major differences between the two schemes (figures \[fig:comparison:oblique\] and \[fig:comparison:head-on\]). However, there are some subtle effects. For instance, we observe a different behaviour of hot surface particles which were ejected during the early stage of impact and reaccreted later on. With ANEOS and density summation, they form a layer separated from the planet’s surface. In the other cases, this feature is less pronounced and not present at all in the cases with density integration. In the ANEOS case, the different densities of the surface particles also affect the temperature (figure \[fig:temperature:dens\], left panel) although the energy distribution remains essentially identical. As surface particle density is lower in the density summation case than for density integration, ANEOS does not find them in the same phase: mixed liquid-vapour for the former and liquid in the latter. Density summation simulations exhibit lower temperature since part of the internal energy is used for the phase transition rather than temperature increase. This explains the absence of material with temperature above $\unit{6000}{\kelvin}$ with ANEOS density summation on the figure. The second small bump located between $\numprint{2000}$ and $\unit{3000}{\kelvin}$ in the case with solid rheology and density summation (solid blue line on figure \[fig:temperature:dens\]) is due to the core-mantle boundary. As phase transition does not influence the temperature in the case with Tillotson EoS, we don’t see this feature on the right panel of figure \[fig:temperature:dens\].
We note that the differences between the numerical schemes discussed above result from differences at small scales, representing only a small fraction of the total mass involved in the simulation. Even at the relatively high resolution (one million SPH particles) used in the simulations performed here, some of these small-scale features are under-resolved. This is certainly the case for the layer of reaccreted material discussed above. Also the peak pressures and temperatures produced in the initial stages of the collision may not be fully resolved.
With the resolution used in the simulations presented here, the numerical scheme with density integration appears to be the better choice as it leads to a better defined surface. It is clear, however, that a more consistent treatment of the boundaries, as well as very high resolution simulations, are required to obtain more accurate physical properties at such small scales.
### Effect of the initial energy profile (constant energy vs. integrated energy) {#sec:tillotson-profile}
Bodies computed using the Tillotson EoS were evolved during set up phase with the internal energy allowed to vary. This leads to a spread in temperature for those bodies shown in figures \[fig:profile:impactor\] and \[fig:profile:target\] as well as the density decrease close to the centre for the impactor computed using density summation.
For test purposes, a second series of bodies was generated with internal energy kept constant. For the latter case we don’t observe a density decrease close to body centres.
We don’t observe any notable difference between the results from the two different setup schemes. A comparison is shown in figure \[fig:tillotson-energy:mat\]. The main differences are located at the core-mantle boundary where the effect of the set up method discussed here and the instability with solid rheology explained in section \[sec:results-nomcase\] overlap. This effect is small compared with all the previously discussed parameters.
Rotation period
---------------
EoS Rheology Density Period \[Sidereal day\]
----- ---------- ------------ -------------------------
Solid Integrated 1.22
Solid Summed 1.19
Fluid Integrated 1.11
Fluid Summed 1.14
Solid Integrated 1.18
Solid Summed 0.95
Fluid Integrated 1.13
Fluid Summed 1.13
: Impact-induced rotation periods for oblique geometry runs[]{data-label="tab:rotperiod"}
The rotation periods resulting from the oblique impacts considered in this study, calculated by applying a correction tensor to the angular momentum, are presented in table \[tab:rotperiod\]. They are comparable to Mars’ present rotation period. All fluid rheology runs have a very similar rotation periods ($\unit{1.11-1.14}{Martian~sideral~days}$). The solid rheology usually leads to a slightly slower rotation, except for the case with Tillotson EoS and density summation which does not follow this trend and is rotating faster.
Ejecta, disc mass and escaping material
---------------------------------------
----- ---------- ------------ ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
Ejecta Disc Escaping
EoS Rheology Density \[$\mathrm{M_{Mars}}$\] \[$\mathrm{M_{Mars}}$\] \[$\mathrm{M_{Mars}}$\]
Solid Integrated $1.4\cdot10^{-3}$ $2.2\cdot10^{-5}$ $2.7\cdot10^{-3}$
Solid Summed $1.3\cdot10^{-3}$ $2.2\cdot10^{-4}$ $2.5\cdot10^{-3}$
Fluid Integrated $1.3\cdot10^{-3}$ 0 $2.0\cdot10^{-3}$
Fluid Summed $1.4\cdot10^{-3}$ $2.1\cdot10^{-4}$ $1.9\cdot10^{-3}$
Solid Integrated $1.6\cdot10^{-3}$ $5.6\cdot10^{-5}$ $2.8\cdot10^{-3}$
Solid Summed $1.5\cdot10^{-3}$ $1.8\cdot10^{-4}$ $2.6\cdot10^{-3}$
Fluid Integrated $1.2\cdot10^{-3}$ 0 $2.0\cdot10^{-3}$
Fluid Summed $1.3\cdot10^{-3}$ $1.0\cdot10^{-4}$ $1.8\cdot10^{-3}$
----- ---------- ------------ ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
: Non accreted masses for oblique geometry runs. *Ejecta* column gives the amount of bound ejecta, computed at 6 hours after impact. *Disc* is the amount of material that remains orbiting around the simulations’ end (18 hours after impact) and *Escaping* represents the unbound material, also at simulations’ end.[]{data-label="tab:ejecta"}
We provide in table \[tab:ejecta\] components of non-accreted material. The amount of unbound material (“Escaping” column) remains almost constant from several hours after impact onward. At the end of the simulations, it represents the biggest component of the ejecta. We find that runs with fluid rheology lead to roughly 30% less escaping mass than the runs with solid rheology. This is visible in figure \[fig:cumulmass:canonical\] as the impactor’s mantle (purple lines) is less present in the planet with solid rheology. The impactor penetrate less deeply inside the target during the initial phase for the latter case. As consequence, there is a slight increase in the amount of material not directly accreted by the planet, which is reflected in the escaping mass.
The amount of material which is still bound but not (yet) reaccreted is lower than the amount of escaping material by 6 hours after impact. It decreases as material fall back onto the planet and eventually reaches a value about three times lower at the end. For a further analysis of that part, the reader is referred to @Companion.
Also shown in table \[tab:ejecta\] are the disc’s masses. These values fluctuate and tend to increase with time. Particles composing the disc come from a small subset of the bound ejecta. We find large variations of the disc mass, depending mostly on the numerical scheme. However, the discs masses are very small (a few 10$^{-4}$ $M_{Mars}$ at most) and are under-resolved (they contain between 138 and 332 SPH particles for density summation and up to 74 for density integration). Much higher resolution would be required to obtain meaningful results in terms of the properties of such small discs. We note that recent studies of the impact-formation of the Martian moons [@2015IcarusCitron; @2016LPICanupSalmon], which considered comparable disc masses, used similar or lower resolution and did not include material strength.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
In this paper, we model large-scale ($\approx\unit{2000}{\kilo\meter}$) impacts on a Mars-like planet using an updated SPH code [@2012IcarusReufer], which includes self-gravity, a newly implemented strength model [@2015PSSJutzi] and various EoS (Tilloston and M-ANEOS). A subset of these simulations is used as initial conditions in a thermochemical code to study the long-term interior evolution of Mars [@Companion]. Here, we investigate the effects of material strength and of using different EoS. Some potential numerical effects (in the context of discontinuities) which may result from the different ways to compute the density in SPH are studied as well. Finally, an advanced SPH scheme to avoid rotational instability in rigid body rotation [@Habil2006Speith] is applied and tested in the regime of large-scale collisions.
We find that in the collision regime considered here (with impact velocities of $\unit{4}{\kilo\meter\per\second}$), the Tillotson and ANEOS equations of state lead to post-impact temperature distributions which are quite similar in the temperature range below $\unit{\sim4000}{\kelvin}$ with only subtle differences. This indicates that the Tillotson EoS works reasonably well in this regime (where vaporisation is not significant) and the simple estimation of the temperature from the specific energy by using a constant heat capacity $T=u/c_p$ is justified.
On the other hand, our results strongly suggest that the effect of material strength is substantial even for the large-scale collisions considered here. When strength is taken into account, the post-impact distributions of the impactor material and temperature are very different. For instance, in this case, the heat generated by the impact is spread out over a much broader region of mantle material localised around the impact point. We expect this finding to be generally important for collisions in this regime. We note that previous SPH simulations at this scale [e.g. @2008NatureMarinova; @2005ScienceCanup; @2015IcarusCitron; @2016LPICanupSalmon] did not include material strength. Our results also suggested that Pluto-Charon type collisions [e.g. @2005ScienceCanup] might well be in a regime where material strength is not negligible.
The different density computation schemes used here do not show large differences in the final global outcome of the simulations. However, we observe some differences at small scales, and a more consistent treatment of density discontinuities [e.g. @2013PASJHosonoSaitohMakino] is needed. Our study confirms that the known issue of standard SPH in the case of rigid body rotation is solved by using an appropriate correction tensor which increases the SPH consistency [@Habil2006Speith].
In conclusion, our results show that in the modelling of collisions at scales of $\approx\unit{2000}{\kilo\meter}$, it is essential to use a material strength model. The details of the EOS are less important in this regime. Finally, an improved treatment of boundaries as well as a very high resolution are required to obtain accurate physical properties at small scales.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Gregor J. Golabek and Taras V. Gerya for helpful discussion in the study’s design, and anonymous referee for suggestions that improved this paper. A.E. acknowledges the financial support of the Swiss National Science Foundation under grant 200020\_17246. This work has been carried out within the frame of the National Centre for Competence in Research PlanetS supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The authors acknowledge the financial support of the SNSF.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Ultrasound computed tomography (USCT) holds great promise for improving the detection and management of breast cancer. Because they are based on the acoustic wave equation, waveform inversion-based reconstruction methods can produce images that possess improved spatial resolution properties over those produced by ray-based methods. However, waveform inversion methods are computationally demanding and have not been applied widely in USCT breast imaging. In this work, source encoding concepts are employed to develop an accelerated USCT reconstruction method that circumvents the large computational burden of conventional waveform inversion methods. This method, referred to as the waveform inversion with source encoding (WISE) method, encodes the measurement data using a random encoding vector and determines an estimate of the sound speed distribution by solving a stochastic optimization problem by use of a stochastic gradient descent algorithm. Both computer-simulation and experimental phantom studies are conducted to demonstrate the use of the WISE method. The results suggest that the WISE method maintains the high spatial resolution of waveform inversion methods while significantly reducing the computational burden.'
author:
- |
Kun Wang, Thomas Matthews, Fatima Anis, Cuiping Li, Neb Duric,\
and Mark A. Anastasio, [^1][^2] [^3]
bibliography:
- 'reflect.bib'
title: Waveform Inversion with Source Encoding for Breast Sound Speed Reconstruction in Ultrasound Computed Tomography
---
Ultrasound computed tomography, Breast imaging, Waveform inversion, Source encoding, Sound speed imaging
Introduction
============
After decades of research [@glover1979characterization; @Carson81:ClinUSCT; @Schreiman84:USCT; @Andre97:ClinDiffr], advancements in hardware and computing technologies are now facilitating the clinical translation of ultrasound computed tomography (USCT) for breast imaging applications [@Carson81:ClinUSCT; @Johnson99:Patent; @Duric2007:MedPhys; @Ruiter11:3D; @Neb12:BookChapter]. USCT holds great potential for improving the detection and management of breast cancer since it provides novel acoustic tissue contrasts, is radiation- and breast-compression-free, and is relatively inexpensive. [@Ruiter12:NewEra; @Duric13:ClinReflect]. Several studies have reported the feasibility of USCT for characterizing breast tissues [@Carson81:ClinUSCT; @Andre97:ClinDiffr; @Johnson99:Patent; @Duric2007:MedPhys; @Li09:ClinSOS; @Duric13:ClinReflect]. Although some USCT systems are capable of generating three images that depict the breast’s acoustic reflectivity, acoustic attenuation, and sound speed distributions, this study will focus on the reconstruction of the sound speed distribution.
A variety of USCT imaging systems have been developed for breast sound speed imaging [@Johnson99:Patent; @Wiskin12:WaveRecon; @Duric13:ClinReflect; @Ruiter11:3D; @manohar; @AAO12:LUS; @Jun13:USCT]. In a typical USCT experiment, acoustic pulses that are generated by different transducers are employed, in turn, to insonify the breast. The resulting wavefield data are measured by an array of ultrasonic transducers that are located outside of the breast. Here and throughout the manuscript, a transducer that produces an acoustic pulse will be referred to as an emitter; the transducers that receive the resulting wavefield data will be referred to as receivers. From the collection of recorded wavefield data, an image reconstruction method is utilized to estimate the sound speed distribution within the breast [@Johnson99:Patent; @Duric13:ClinReflect; @Ruiter11:3D].
The majority of USCT image reconstruction methods for breast imaging investigated to date have been based on approximations to the acoustic wave equation [@KakBook; @Oelze09:DBIM; @Oelze10:DBIM; @Chew10; @Huthwaite12:Combine; @Simonetti06:SubWavelength; @Los12:SOSPE; @Duric2007:SOSWave; @Wiskin12:WaveRecon; @Huthwaite12:Validate]. A relatively popular class of methods is based on geometrical acoustics, and are commonly referred to as ‘ray-based’ methods. These methods involve two steps. First, time-of-flight (TOF) data corresponding to each emitter-receiver pair are estimated [@Duric09:TOFPicker]. Under a geometrical acoustics approximation, the TOF data are related to the sound speed distribution via an integral geometry, or ray-based, imaging model [@KakBook; @Roy10:BentRay]. Second, by use of the measured TOF data and the ray-based imaging model, a reconstruction algorithm is employed to estimate the sound speed distribution. Although ray-based methods can be computationally efficient, the spatial resolution of the images they produce is limited due to the fact that diffraction effects are not modeled [@Bates1991185; @Duric2007:SOSWave]. This is undesirable for breast imaging applications, in which the ability to resolve fine features, e.g., tumor spiculations, is important for distinguishing healthy from diseased tissues.
USCT reconstruction methods based on the acoustic wave equation, also known as full-wave inverse scattering or waveform inversion methods, have also been explored for a variety of applications including medical imaging [@Duric2007:SOSWave; @Roy2010:SOSWave; @Los12:SOSPE; @Wiskin12:WaveRecon] and geophysics [@Krebs:SE; @Herrmann2012:SE; @Herrmann13:GaussCode]. Because they account for higher-order diffraction effects, waveform inversion methods can produce images that possess higher spatial resolution than those produced by ray-based methods [@Duric2007:SOSWave; @Roy2010:SOSWave]. However, conventional waveform inversion methods are iterative in nature and require the wave equation to be solved numerically a large number of times at each iteration. Consequently, such methods can be extremely computationally burdensome. For special geometries [@Wiskin12:WaveRecon; @Wiskin13:3D], efficient numerical wave equation solvers have been reported. However, apart from special cases, the large computational burden of waveform inversion methods has hindered their widespread application.
A natural way to reduce the computational complexity of the reconstruction problem is to reformulate it in a way that permits a reduction in the number of times the wave equation needs to be solved. In the geophysics literature, source encoding methods have been proposed to achieve this [@Krebs:SE; @Herrmann2012:SE; @Herrmann13:GaussCode]. When source encoding is employed, at each iteration of a prescribed reconstruction algorithm, all of the acoustic pulses produced by the emitters are combined (or ‘encoded’) by use of a random encoding vector. The measured wavefield data are combined in the same way. As a result, the wave equation may need to be solved as few as twice at each algorithm iteration. In conventional waveform inversion methods, this number would be equal to twice the number of emitters employed. Although conventional waveform inversion methods may require fewer algorithm iterations to obtain a specified image accuracy compared to source encoded methods, as demonstrated later, the latter can greatly reduce the overall number of times the wave equation needs to be solved.
To determine a [sound speed]{} estimate from the encoded sources and measurement data, the reconstruction problem is formulated as a stochastic optimization problem. Inspired by these studies, a phase-encoded waveform inversion method has been reported with noise-free computer-simulation studies for a linear detection geometry [@Los12:SOSPE]. However, a systematic investigation of source encoding methods for breast [sound speed]{} reconstruction that employs realistic computer-simulated data and experimental data remains largely unexplored.
0 The source encoding technique requires a fixed measurement geometry for all emitters. This condition can be easily satisfied by a system with a linear detection geometry. A phase-encoded waveform inversion method has been reported in the literature with noise-free computer-simulation studies for a linear detection geometry [@Los12:SOSPE]. However, when a circular measurement geometry is employed, the acoustic source will contaminate its neighboring receivers due to electrical/acoustical crosstalk, resulting in unreliable measurements near the emitter [@Duric2007:SOSWave]. Because of these challenges, source-encoding accelerated waveform inversion remains largely unexplored for medical imaging applications.
In this study, a waveform inversion with source encoding (WISE) method for USCT sound speed reconstruction is developed and investigated for breast imaging with a circular transducer array. The WISE method determines an estimate of the sound speed distribution by solving a stochastic optimization problem by use of a stochastic gradient descent algorithm [@Herrmann2012:SE; @ArXiv:Haber14]. Unlike previously studied waveform inversion methods that were based on the Helmholtz equation [@Duric2007:SOSWave; @Los12:SOSPE], the WISE method is formulated by use of the time-domain acoustic wave equation [@MortonBook:2005; @Mast01:2ndKSpace; @Tabei02:1stKSpace] and utilizes broad-band measurements. The wave equation is solved by use of a computationally efficient k-space method that is accelerated by use of graphics processing units (GPUs). In order to mitigate the interference of the emitter on its neighboring receivers, a heuristic data replacement strategy is proposed. The method is validated in computer-simulation studies that include modeling errors and other physical factors. The practical applicability of the method is further demonstrated in studies involving experimental breast phantom data.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II, USCT imaging models in their continuous and discrete forms are reviewed. A conventional waveform inversion method and the WISE method for sound speed reconstruction are formulated in Section III. The computer-simulation studies and corresponding numerical results are presented in Sections IV and V, respectively. In Section VI, the WISE method is further validated in experimental breast phantom studies. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion in Section VII.
Background: USCT imaging models {#Sect:BckGround}
===============================
In this section, imaging models that provide the basis for image reconstruction in waveform inversion-based USCT are reviewed.
USCT imaging model in its continuous form
-----------------------------------------
Although a digital imaging system is properly described as a continuous-to-discrete (C-D) mapping (See Chapter 7 in [@BarrettBook]), for simplicity, a USCT imaging system is initially described in its continuous form below.
In USCT breast imaging, a sequence of acoustic pulses is transmitted through the breast. We denote each acoustic pulse by $s_m(\mathbf r, t)\in\mathbb L^2(\mathbb R^3\times[0,\infty))$, where each pulse is indexed by an integer $m$ for $m=0,1,\cdots,M-1$ with $M$ denoting the total number of acoustic pulses. Although it is spatially localized at the emitter location, each acoustic pulse can be expressed as a function of space and time. When the $m$-th pulse propagates through the breast, it generates a pressure wavefield distribution denoted by $p_m(\mathbf r, t)\in\mathbb L^2(\mathbb R^3\times[0,\infty))$. If acoustic absorption and mass density variations are negligible, $p_m(\mathbf r, t)$ in an unbounded medium satisfies the acoustic wave equation [@KinslerBook]: $$\label{eqn:WaveEqn}
\nabla^2 p_m(\mathbf r, t)
- \frac{1}{c^2(\mathbf r)} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}p_m(\mathbf r, t)
= -4\pi s_m(\mathbf r, t), $$ where $c(\mathbf r)$ is the sought-after sound speed distribution. Equation can be expressed in operator form as $$\label{eqn:CImagingModel1}
p_m(\mathbf r, t) = \mathcal H^{\rm c} s_m(\mathbf r, t),$$ where the linear operator $\mathcal H^{\rm c}:\mathbb L^2(\mathbb R^3\times[0,\infty))\mapsto \mathbb L^2(\mathbb R^3\times[0,\infty))$ denotes the action of the wave equation and is independent of the index of $m$. The superscript ‘c’ indicates the dependence of $\mathcal H^{\rm c}$ on $c(\mathbf r)$.
Consider that $p_m(\mathbf r, t)$ is recorded outside of the object for $\mathbf r\in\Omega_m$ and $t\in[0,T]$, where $\Omega_m\subset\mathbb R^3$ denotes a continuous measurement aperture. In this case, when discrete sampling effects are neglected, the imaging model can be described as a continuous-to-continuous (C-C) mapping as: $$\label{eqn:CImagingModel2}
g_m(\mathbf r, t) = \mathcal M_m \mathcal H^{\rm c} s_m(\mathbf r, t),
\quad\text{for}\quad m=0,1,\cdots,M-1,$$ where $g_m(\mathbf r,t)\in\mathbb L^2(\Omega_m\times[0,T])$ denotes the measured data function and the operator $\mathcal M_m$ is the restriction of $\mathcal H^{\rm c}$ to $\Omega_m \times [0,T]$. The $m$-dependent operator $\mathcal M_m$ allows Eqn. to describe USCT imaging systems in which the measurement aperture varies with emitter location. Here and throughout the manuscript, we will refer to the process of firing one acoustic pulse and acquiring the corresponding wavefield data as one data acquisition indexed by $m$. The USCT reconstruction problem in its continuous form is to estimate the sound speed distribution $c(\mathbf r)$ by use of Eqn. (\[eqn:CImagingModel2\]) and the data functions $\{g_m(\mathbf r, t)\}_{m=0}^{M-1}$.
USCT imaging model in its discrete forms
----------------------------------------
A digital imaging system is accurately described by a continuous-to-discrete (C-D) imaging model, which is typically approximated in practice by a discrete-to-discrete (D-D) imaging model to facilitate the application of iterative image reconstruction algorithms. A C-D description of the USCT imaging system is provided in Appendix \[Sect:C-DModel\]. Below, a D-D imaging model for waveform-based USCT is presented. This imaging model will be employed subsequently in the development of the WISE method in Section \[Sect:WISE\].
Construction of a D-D imaging model requires the introduction of a finite-dimensional approximate representations of the functions $c(\mathbf r)$ and $s_m(\mathbf r,t)$, which will be denoted by the vectors $\mathbf c \in\mathbb R^{N}$ and $\mathbf s_m \in\mathbb R^{NL}$. Here, $N$ and $L$ denote the number of spatial and temporal samples, respectively, employed by the numerical wave equation solver. In waveform-based USCT, the way in which $c(\mathbf r)$ and $s_m(\mathbf r, t)$ are discretized to form $\mathbf c$ and $\mathbf s_m$ is dictated by the numerical method employed to solve the acoustic wave equation. In this study, we employ a pseudospectral k-space method [@MortonBook:2005; @Mast01:2ndKSpace; @Tabei02:1stKSpace]. Accordingly, $c(\mathbf r)$ and $s_m(\mathbf r, t)$ are sampled on Cartesian grid points as $$[\mathbf c]_n = c(\mathbf r_n), \quad\text{and}\quad
[\mathbf s_m]_{nL+l} = s_m(\mathbf r_n, l\Delta^t),
\quad {\rm for}\quad
\substack{ n=0,1,\cdots,N-1\\
l=0,1,\cdots,L-1
},$$ where $\Delta^t$ denotes the temporal sampling interval and $\mathbf r_n$ denotes the location of the $n$-th point. For a given $\mathbf c$ and $\mathbf s_m$, the pseudospectral k-space method can be described in operator form as $$\label{eqn:WaveDis}
\mathbf p^{\rm a}_m = \mathbf H^{\rm c} \mathbf s_m,$$ where the matrix $\mathbf H^{\rm c}$ is of dimension $NL\times NL$ and represents a discrete approximation of the wave operator $\mathcal H^{\rm c}$ defined in Eqn. , and the vector $\mathbf p^{\rm a}_m$ represents the estimated pressure data at the grid point locations and has the same dimension as $\mathbf s_m$. The superscript ‘a’ indicates that these values are approximate, i.e., $[\mathbf p^{\rm a}_m]_{nL+l} \approx p_m(\mathbf r_n, l\Delta^t)$. We refer the readers to [@MortonBook:2005; @Mast01:2ndKSpace; @Tabei02:1stKSpace] for additional details regarding the pseudospectral k-space method.
Because the pseudospectral k-space method yields sampled values of the pressure data on a Cartesian grid, a sampling matrix $\mathbf M_m$ is introduced to model the USCT data acquisition process as $$\label{eqn:DDFwd}
\mathbf g^{\rm a}_m = \mathbf M_m \mathbf p^{\rm a}_m
\equiv \mathbf M_m \mathbf H^{\rm c} \mathbf s_m.$$ Here, the $N^{\rm rec}L\times NL$ sampling matrix $\mathbf M_m$ extracts the pressure data corresponding to the receiver locations on the measurement aperture $\Omega_m$, with $N^{\rm rec}$ denoting the number of receivers. The vector $\mathbf g^{\rm a}_m$ denotes the predicted data that approximates the true measurements. In principle, $\mathbf M_m$ can be constructed to incorporate transducer characteristics, such as finite aperture size and temporal delays. For simplicity, we assume that the transducers are point-like in this study. When the receiver and grid point locations do not coincide, an interpolation method is required. As an example, when a nearest-neighbor interpolation method is employed, the elements of $\mathbf M_m$ are defined as $$\label{eqn:Mm}
[\mathbf M_m]_{n^{\rm rec}L+l,nL+l} =
\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1, &
{\rm for}\quad n=\mathcal I_m (n^{\rm rec}),\\
0, & \text{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $[\mathbf M_m]_{n^{\rm rec}L+l,nL+l}$ denotes the element of $\mathbf M_m$ at the $(n^{\rm rec}L+l)$-th row and the $(nL+l)$-th column, and $\mathcal I_m(n^{\rm rec})$ denotes the index of the grid point that is closest to $\mathbf r(m, n^{\rm rec})$. Here, $\mathbf r(m, n^{\rm rec})$ denotes the location of the $n^{\rm rec}$-th receiver in the $m$-th data acquisition. Equation represents the D-D imaging model that will be employed in the remainder of this study.
Waveform inversion with source encoding for USCT {#Sect:WISE}
================================================
Sequential waveform inversion in its discrete form {#SubSect:SeqWaveInv}
--------------------------------------------------
A conventional waveform inversion method that does not utilize source encoding will be employed as a reference for the developed WISE method and is briefly described below. Like other conventional approaches, this method sequentially processes the data acquisitions $\mathbf g_m$ for $m=0, 1,\cdots, M-1$ at each iteration of the associated algorithm. As such, we will refer to the conventional method as a sequential waveform inversion method.
A sequential waveform inversion method can be formulated as a non-linear numerical optimization problem: $$\label{eqn:DCostFunc}
\hat{\mathbf c} = \arg\min_{\mathbf c} \{\mathcal F(\mathbf c) + \beta \mathcal R(\mathbf c)\},$$ where $\mathcal F(\mathbf c)$, $\mathcal R(\mathbf c)$, and $\beta$ denote the data fidelity term, the penalty term, and the regularization parameter, respectively. The data fidelity term $\mathcal F(\mathbf c)$ is defined as a sum of squared $\ell^2$-norms of the data residuals corresponding to all data acquisitions as: $$\label{eqn:DDataMisfit}
\mathcal F(\mathbf c) = \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{m=0}^{M-1} \Vert \underline{\mathbf g_m} -
\mathbf M_m \mathbf H^{\rm c} \mathbf s_m \Vert^2,$$ where $\underline{\mathbf g_m}\in\mathbb R^{N^{\rm rec}L}$ denotes the measured data vector at the $m$-th data acquisition. The choice of the penalty term will be addressed in Section \[Sect:SimuDesc\].
As stated in Section \[Sect:BckGround\], in order to solve the optimization problem defined in Eqn. , it is crucial to calculate the gradient of $\mathcal F(\mathbf c)$ with respect to $\mathbf c$, which will be denoted by $\mathbf J$. To our knowledge, approximating $\mathbf J$ by a discretized version of $\nabla_{\rm c}\mathcal F^{\rm CC}$ serves as the most computational efficient strategy. This strategy will be employed in this study as
The gradient of $\mathcal F(\mathbf c)$ with respect to $\mathbf c$, denoted by $\mathbf J$, will be computed by discretizing an expression for the Fréchet derivative that is derived assuming a continuous form of Eqn. (\[eqn:DDataMisfit\]). The Fréchet derivative is described in Appendix \[Sect:Frechet\]. Namely, the gradient is approximated as $$\label{eqn:DGradient}
[\mathbf J]_n \equiv \sum_{m=0}^{M-1} [\mathbf J_m]_n
\approx
\frac{1}{ [\mathbf c]_n^3}
\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}
\sum_{l=1}^{L-2}
[\mathbf q^{\rm a}_m]_{nL+(L-l)}
\frac{ [\mathbf p^{\rm a}_m]_{nL+l-1}
-2[\mathbf p^{\rm a}_m]_{nL+l}
+[\mathbf p^{\rm a}_m]_{nL+l+1} }
{\Delta^{\rm t}} ,$$ where $\mathbf J_m$ denotes the gradient of $\frac{1}{2}\Vert\underline{\mathbf g_m}-\mathbf M_m\mathbf H^{\rm c}\mathbf s_m\Vert^2$ with respect to $\mathbf c$ and the vector $\mathbf q^{\rm a}_m$ contains samples that approximate adjoint wavefield $q_m(\mathbf r, t)$ that satisfies Eqn. in Appendix \[Sect:Frechet\]. By use of the pseudospectral k-space method, $\mathbf q^{\rm a}_m$ can be calculated as $$\label{eqn:DAdj}
\mathbf q^{\rm a}_m = \frac{1}{4\pi}\mathbf H^{\rm c} \boldsymbol \tau_m,$$ where $$\label{eqn:AdjointSource}
[\boldsymbol\tau_m]_{nL+l} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
[\mathbf g^{\rm a}_m - \underline{\mathbf g_m}]_{\mathcal I_m^{\rm -1}(n)L+(L-l)},& {\rm if}\,\,
n\in\mathbb N_m, \\
0, & {\rm otherwise} \end{array}
\right. .$$ Here, $\mathbb N_m = \{n: \mathcal I_m(n^{\rm rec}), n^{\rm rec}=0,1,\cdots,N^{\rm rec}-1\}$, and $\mathcal I_m^{-1}$ denotes the inverse mapping of $\mathcal I_m$.
Given the explicit form of $\mathbf J$ in Eqn. , a variety of optimization algorithms can be employed to solve Eqn. [@Nash96Book]. Algorithm 1 describes a gradient descent-based sequential waveform inversion method. Note that at every algorithmic iteration, the sequential waveform inversion method updates the sound speed estimate only once using the gradient $\mathbf J$ accumulated over all $\mathbf J_m$ for $m=0, 1, \cdots, M-1$. This is unlike the Kaczmarz method—also known as the algebraic reconstruction technique [@Chew10; @KakBook; @Hesse2013:USCT]—that updates the sound speed estimate multiple times in one algorithmic iteration. In Line-10 of Algorithm 1, $\mathbf J^{\rm R}$ denotes the gradient of $\mathcal R(\mathbf c)$ with respect to $\mathbf c$.
$\{\underline{\mathbf g_m}\}$, $\{\mathbf s_m\}$, $\mathbf c ^{(0)}$ $\hat{\mathbf c}$
In Algorithm \[Alg:DGradDesc\], $\mathbf H^{\rm c}$ is the most computationally burdensome operator, representing one run of the wave equation solver. Note that it appears in Lines-6, -7, and -11. Because Lines-6 and -7 have to be executed $M$ times to process all of the data acquisitions, the wave equation solver has to be executed at least $(2M+1)$ times at each algorithm iteration. The line search in Line-11 searches for a step size along the direction of $-\mathbf J$ so that the cost function is reduced by use of a classic trial-and-error approach [@Nash96Book]. Note that, in general, the line search will require more than one application of $\mathbf H^{\rm c}$, so $(2M+1)$ represents a lower bound on the total number of wave equation solver runs per iteration.
Stochastic optimization-based waveform inversion with source encoding (WISE) {#SubSect:WISE}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to alleviate the large computational burden presented by sequential waveform inversion methods (e.g., Algorithm 1), a source encoding method, originated in the geophysics literature [@Krebs:SE; @Romero00:PE], has been investigated through breast USCT computer-simulation studies [@Los12:SOSPE]. In order to alleviate the large computational burden presented by sequential waveform inversion methods (e.g., Algorithm 1), a source encoding method has been proposed [@Krebs:SE; @Romero00:PE; @Los12:SOSPE]. This method has been formulated as a stochastic optimization problem and solved by various stochastic gradient-based algorithms [@Herrmann2012:SE; @Herrmann13:GaussCode]. In this section, we adapt the stochastic optimization-based formulation in [@Herrmann2012:SE] to find the solution of Eqn. .
$\{\underline{\mathbf g_m}\}$, $\{\mathbf s_m\}$, $\mathbf c ^{(0)}$ $\hat{\mathbf c}$
The WISE method seeks to minimize the same cost function as the sequential waveform inversion method, namely, Eqn. . However, to accomplish this, the data fidelity term in Eqn. is reformulated as the expectation of a random quantity as [@Krebs:SE; @Romero00:PE; @Herrmann13:GaussCode; @Herrmann2012:SE; @ArXiv:Haber14; @ArXiv:Ascher14] $$\label{eqn:StoCost}
\mathcal F_s(\mathbf c) = \mathbf E_{\mathbf w} \big\{ \frac{1}{2}\Vert
\underline{\mathbf g}^{\rm w}
- \mathbf M
\mathbf H^{\rm c} \mathbf s^{\rm w}
\Vert^2 \big\},$$ where $\mathbf E_{\mathbf w}$ denotes the expectation operator with respect to the random source encoding vector $\mathbf w\in\mathbb R^{M}$, $\mathbf M \equiv \mathbf M_m$ is the sampling matrix that is assumed to be identical for $m=0, 1, \cdots, M-1$, and $\underline{\mathbf g}^{\rm w}$ and $\mathbf s^{\rm w}$ denote the $\mathbf w$-encoded data and source vectors, defined as $$\label{eqn:Coding}
\underline{\mathbf g}^{\rm w} =
\sum_{m=0}^{M-1} [{\mathbf w}]_m \underline {\mathbf g_m},
\quad \rm {and} \quad
{\mathbf s}^{\rm w} =
\sum_{m=0}^{M-1} [{\mathbf w}]_m {\mathbf s}_m,$$ respectively. It has been demonstrated that Eqns. and are mathematically equivalent when $\mathbf w$ possesses a zero mean and an identity covariance matrix [@Herrmann2012:SE; @ArXiv:Haber14; @ArXiv:Ascher14]. In this case, the optimization problem whose solution specifies the sound speed estimate can be re-expressed in a stochastic framework as $$\label{eqn:WISE}
\hat {\mathbf c} = \arg\min_{\mathbf c}
\mathbf E_{\mathbf w} \big\{ \frac{1}{2}\Vert
\underline{\mathbf g}^{\rm w}
- \mathbf M
\mathbf H^{\rm c} \mathbf s^{\rm w}
\Vert^2 \big\}
+ \beta \mathcal R(\mathbf c),$$ which we refer to as the waveform inversion with source encoding (WISE) method. An implementation of the WISE method that utilizes the stochastic gradient descent algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \[Alg:WISE\].
In Algorithm \[Alg:WISE\], the wave equation solver needs to be run one time in each of Lines-5 and 6. In the line search to determine the step size in Line 8, the wave equation solver needs to be run at least one time, but in general will require a small number of additional runs, just as in Algorithm \[Alg:DGradDesc\]. Accordingly, the lower bound on the number of required wave equation solver runs per iteration is 3, as opposed to $(2M+1)$ for the conventional sequential waveform inversion method described by Algorithm 1. As demonstrated in geophysics applications [@Krebs:SE; @Romero00:PE; @Herrmann13:GaussCode] and the breast imaging studies below, the WISE method provides a substantial reduction in reconstruction times over use of the standard sequential waveform inversion method. In Line-7, $\mathbf J^{\rm w}$ can be calculated analogously to Eqn. as $$\label{eqn:CalJ}
[\mathbf J^{\rm w}]_n \approx
\frac{1}{ [\mathbf c]_n^3}
\sum_{l=1}^{L-2}
[\mathbf q^{\rm w}]_{nL+(L-l)}
\frac{ [\mathbf p^{\rm w}]_{nL+l-1}
-2[\mathbf p^{\rm w}]_{nL+l}
+[\mathbf p^{\rm w}]_{nL+l+1} }
{\Delta^{\rm t}} ,$$ where $\mathbf p^{\rm w}=\mathbf H^{\rm c}\mathbf s^{\rm w}$ and $\mathbf q^{\rm w}=\mathbf H^{\rm c}\boldsymbol \tau^{\rm w}$ with $\boldsymbol \tau^{\rm w} \in \mathbb R^{NL}$ calculated by $$\label{eqn:tauw}
[\boldsymbol\tau^{\rm w}]_{nL+l} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
[\mathbf M\mathbf p^{\rm w} - \underline{\mathbf g}^{\rm w}]_{\mathcal I^{\rm -1}(n)L+(L-l)},& {\rm if}\,\,
n\in\mathbb N, \\
0, & {\rm otherwise} \end{array}
\right. .$$ Here, we drop the subscript $m$ of both $\mathcal I^{\rm -1}(n)$ and $\mathbb N$ because we assume $\mathbf M$ to be identical for all data acquisitions. Various probability density functions have been proposed to describe the source encoding vector $\mathbf w$ [@Krebs:SE; @Romero00:PE; @Herrmann13:GaussCode]. In this study, we employed a Rademacher distribution as suggested by [@Krebs:SE], in which case each element of $\mathbf w$ had a $50\%$ chance of being either $+1$ or $-1$.
Heuristic data replacement for breast imaging
---------------------------------------------
These cases can be readily described by the D-D imaging model introduced in Section III-A. Consider a circular transducer array containing uniformly distributed $M$ elements as depicted in Fig. \[fig:Geo\]. Each element is indexed by $m$ for $m=0,1,\cdots, M-1$, and is sequentially driven to emit a short acoustic pulse. When the $m$-th element emits the acoustic pulse, only the opposite $N^{\rm rec}$ transducers reliably measure acoustic signals while other transducers are contaminated with the emitter’s interference. Collecting the reliable measurements results in a data vector denoted by $\underline{\mathbf g_m}$ with dimensions of $N^{\rm rec}L$, which can be approximated by use of the D-D imaging model in Eqn. . It is obvious that $\mathbf M_m$ will be different for all $m$’s since $\mathcal I_m(n^{\rm rec})\neq\mathcal I_{m'}(n^{\rm rec})$ when $m\neq m'$ in Eqn. .
Description of computer-simulation studies {#Sect:SimuDesc}
==========================================
Two-dimensional computer-simulation studies were conducted to validate the WISE method for breast sound speed imaging and demonstrate its computational advantage over the standard sequential waveform inversion method.
Measurement geometry
--------------------
A circular measurement geometry was chosen to emulate a previously reported USCT breast imaging system [@Duric2007:SOSWave; @Duric13:ClinReflect; @Duric13:SoftVue]. As depicted in Fig. \[fig:Geo\], $256$ ultrasonic transducers were uniformly distributed on a ring of radius $110$ mm. The generation of one USCT data set consisted of $M=256$ sequential data acquisitions. In each data acquisition, one emitter produced an acoustic pulse. The acoustic pulse was numerically propagated through the breast phantom and the resulting wavefield data were recorded by all transducers in the array as described below. Note that the location of the emitter in every data acquisition was different from those in other acquisitions, while the locations of receivers were identical for all acquisitions.
Numerical breast phantom {#Subsect:Phantom}
------------------------
A numerical breast phantom of diameter $98$ mm was employed. The phantom was composed of $8$ structures representing adipose tissues, parenchymal breast tissues, cysts, benign tumors, and malignant tumors, as shown in Fig. \[fig:NumPhantom\]. For simplicity, the acoustic attenuation of all tissues was described by a power law with a fixed exponent $y = 1.5$ [@Szabo04Book]. The corresponding sound speed and the attenuation slope values are listed in TABLE \[tab:NumPhantom\] [@Szabo04Book; @Glide07:MedPhy; @Li08:SPIE]. Both the sound speed and the attenuation slope distributions in Fig. \[fig:NumPhantom\] were sampled on a uniform Cartesian grid with spacing $\Delta^{\rm s} = 0.25$ mm. The finest structure (indexed by $7$ in Fig. \[fig:NumPhantom\]-(a)) was of diameter $3.75$ mm.
Simulation of the measurement data {#Subsect:GenData}
----------------------------------
### First-order numerical wave equation solver
Acoustic wave propagation in acoustically absorbing media was modeled by three coupled first-order partial differential equations [@CoxIP10:Attenuation]:
\[eqn:AttWaveEqn\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \mathbf u(\mathbf r, t) = - \nabla p(\mathbf r, t) \\
&\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \mathbf \rho(\mathbf r, t) = - \nabla \cdot \mathbf u(\mathbf r, t)
+ 4\pi\int_0^t d t' s(\mathbf r, t')\\
&p(\mathbf r, t) = c^2(\mathbf r)
\big[ 1 + \tau (\mathbf r) \frac{\partial}{\partial t} (-\nabla^2)^{y/2-1}
+ \eta (\mathbf r) (-\nabla^2)^{(y+1)/2-1} \big]
\rho(\mathbf r, t),\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf u(\mathbf r, t)$, $p(\mathbf r, t)$, and $\rho(\mathbf r)$ denote the acoustic particle velocity, the acoustic pressure, and the acoustic density, respectively. The functions $\tau(\mathbf r)$ and $\eta(\mathbf r)$ describe acoustic absorption and dispersion during the wave propagation [@CoxIP10:Attenuation]: $$\tau(\mathbf r) = -2\alpha_0(\mathbf r) c_0(\mathbf r)^{y-1},\quad
\eta(\mathbf r) = 2\alpha_0(\mathbf r) c_0(\mathbf r)^y \tan(\pi y/2),$$ where $\alpha_0(\mathbf r)$ and $y$ are the attenuation slope and the power law exponent, respectively. When the medium is assumed to be lossless, i.e., $\alpha_0(\mathbf r) = 0$, it can be shown that Eqn. is equivalent to Eqn. .
Based on Eqn. , a pseudospectral k-space method was employed to simulate acoustic pressure data [@Tabei02:1stKSpace; @CoxIP10:Attenuation]. This method was implemented by use of a first-order numerical scheme on GPU hardware. The calculation domain was of size $512\times 512$ mm$^2$, sampled on a $2048\times 2048$ uniform Cartesian grid of spacing $\Delta^{\rm s} = 0.25$ mm. A nearest-neighbor interpolation was employed to place all transducers on the grid points. On a platform consisting of dual quad-core CPUs with a $3.30$ GHz clock speed, $64$ gigabytes (GB) of random-accessing memory (RAM), and a single NVIDIA Tesla K20 GPU, the first-order pseudospectral k-space method required approximately $108$ seconds to complete one forward simulation.
### Acoustic excitation pulse
The excitation pulse employed in this study was assumed to be spatially localized at the emitter location while temporally it was a $f_{\rm c}=0.8$ MHz sinusoidal function tapered by a Gaussian kernel with standard deviation $\sigma=0.5$ $\mu s$, i.e., $$s_m(\mathbf r, t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\exp\big(-\frac{(t-t_c)^2}{2\sigma^2}\big)\sin(2\pi f_c t), &\text{at the $m$-th emitter location} \\
0, &\text{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where the constant time shift $t_{\rm c} = 3.2$ $\mu$s. The temporal profile and the amplitude frequency spectrum of the excitation pulse are plotted in Fig. \[fig:SimExctPulse\]-(a) and -(b), respectively. The excitation pulse contained approximately $3$ cycles.
### Generation of non-attenuated and attenuated noise-free data
For every data acquisition (indexed by $m$), the first-order pseudospectral k-space method was run for $3600$ time steps with a time interval $\Delta^{\rm t} = 0.05$ $\mu$s (corresponding to a $20$ MHz sampling rate). Downsampling the recorded data by taking every other time sample resulted in a data vector $\underline{\mathbf g_m}$ (see Eqn. ) that was effectively sampled at $10$ MHz and was of dimensions $ML$ with $M=256$ and $L=1800$. The data vector at the $0$-th data acquisition, $\underline{\mathbf g_0}$, is displayed as a 2D image in Fig. \[fig:PreNoise\]-(a). This undersampling procedure was introduced to avoid [*inverse crime*]{} [@colton12:inversecrime] so that the data generation and the image reconstruction employed different numerical discretization schemes. Repeating the calculation for $m=0,1,\cdots, 255$, we obtained a collection $\{\underline{\mathbf g_m}\}$ of data vectors that together represented one complete data set. Utilizing the absorption phantom described in Section \[Subsect:Phantom\], a complete attenuated data set was computed. An idealized, non-attenuated, data set was also computed by setting $\alpha_0(\mathbf r) = 0$.
### Generation of incomplete data {#Sect:incomplete}
An incomplete data set in this study corresponds to one in which only $N^{\rm rec}$ receivers located on the opposite side of the emitter record the pressure wavefield, with $N^{\rm rec}<M$. Taking the $0$-th data acquisition as an example (see Fig. \[fig:Geo\]), only $N^{\rm rec}=100$ receivers, indexed from $78$ to $177$, record the wavefield, while other receivers record either unreliable or no measurements. Incomplete data sets formed in this way can emulate two practical scenarios: (1) Signals recorded by receivers near the emitter are unreliable and therefore discarded [@Duric2007:SOSWave]; and (2) An arc-shaped transducer array is employed that rotates with the emitter [@manohar; @AAO12:LUS; @TomoOUI:2014]. Specifically, incomplete data sets were generated as $$\big[\underline{\mathbf g^{\rm incpl}_m}\big]_{n^{\rm rec}L+l} =
\big[\underline{\mathbf g_m}\big]_{\mathcal J_m(n^{\rm rec})L+l},
\quad{\rm for}\quad
\substack{m=0,1,\cdots,M-1\\
n^{\rm rec} = 0, 1, \cdots, N^{\rm rec}-1
},$$ where $\underline{\mathbf g^{\rm incpl}_m} $ is the incomplete $m$-th data acquisition, which is of dimensions $N^{\rm rec}L$, with $N^{\rm rec}<M$. The index map $\mathcal J_m:\{0,1,\cdots,N^{\rm rec}-1\}\mapsto\mathbb M_m^{\rm good}$ is defined as $$\mathcal J_m(n^{\rm rec}) = \Big( m + n^{\rm rec} + \frac{M-N^{\rm rec}}{2}\Big)
\mod M,$$ where $(m'\mod M)$ calculates the remainder of $m'$ divided by $M$, and the index set $\mathbb M_m^{\rm good}$ collects indices of transducers that reliably record data at the $m$-th data acquisition and is defined as $$\mathbb M_m^{\rm good} = \Big\{ k\!\!\!\!\mod M \big| k\in \big [m+(M-N^{\rm rec})/2,m+(M+N^{\rm rec})/2 \big)
\Big\}.$$ Here, for simplicity, we assume that $M$ and $N^{\rm rec}$ are even numbers. In this study, we empirically set $N^{\rm rec}=100$ so that the object can be fully covered by the fan region as shown in Fig. \[fig:Geo\].
### Generation of noisy data
An additive Gaussian white noise model was employed to simulate electronic measurement noise as $$\underline{\tilde{\mathbf g}_m} = \underline{\mathbf g_m} + \tilde{\mathbf n},$$ where $\underline{\tilde{\mathbf g}_m}$ and $\tilde{\mathbf n}$ are the noisy data vector and the Gaussian white noise vector, respectively. In this study, the maximum value of the pressure received by the $128$-th transducer at the $0$-th data acquisition with a homogeneous medium (water tank) was chosen as a reference signal amplitude. The noise standard deviation was set to be $5\%$ of this value. An example of a simulated noiseless and noisy data acquisition is shown Fig. \[fig:PreNoise\].
### Generation of sparsely-sampled data
In addition, we produced a half-data set to investigate the robustness of the WISE method to sparsely sampled data. The combined data set was downsampled by taking every other transducer, resulting a sequence of $\underline{\mathbf g^{\rm half}_m} = \underline{\mathbf g^{\rm comb}_{2m}}$ for $m=0,1,\cdots, 127$.
Image reconstruction {#Subsect:Recon}
--------------------
### Straight-ray model-based filtered backprojection
Based on a straight-ray TOF imaging model, a filtered backprojection (FBP) algorithm was developed. Though bent-ray based imaging models have been widely employed in the USCT literature and shown improved accuracy, the straight-ray based FBP algorithm serves as an suboptimal reference to evaluate the performance of the WISE method. In addition, the FBP algorithm can be computed far more efficiently than any iterative algorithms. When the acoustic heterogeneities vary slowly over space, the images reconstructed by use of the FBP algorithm can serve as an initial guess for iterative image reconstruction algorithms.
In order to apply the FBP algorithm, TOF data were first extracted from the measured pressure by use of a thresholding method [@Duric09:TOFPicker]. Subsequently, a medium filter was applied to remove abnormal outliers in the TOF data. We heuristically adjusted the thresholding value and the window width of the medium filter so that the resultant images approach the numerical phantom in the least-squares sense. From the extracted TOF data, an equal-angular fan-beam FBP formula was employed [@KakBook]. In its continuous form, the FBP algorithm is formulated as [@KakBook] $$\hat c^{\rm FBP}(\mathbf r) =
\int_{0}^{2\pi} d \theta
\frac{R_s}{|\mathbf r_s-\mathbf r|^2}
[\psi(\theta,\gamma) \cos\gamma] *_\gamma
h(\gamma),$$ where $\hat c^{\rm FBP}(\mathbf r)$ denotes the estimated [sound speed]{} distribution, $\psi(\theta,\gamma)$ denotes the TOF data (in its continuous form), $h(\gamma)$ is the filter, and $*_\gamma$ denotes a one-dimensional convolution with respect to $\gamma$. Here, $\mathbf r$ denotes the location within $c(\mathbf r)$ . The location of the emitter is denoted by $\mathbf r^s$ or equivalently $(R_s,\theta)$ in a polar coordinate system. The angle $\gamma\in[0,\gamma_{\rm max}]$ denotes the incident angle from $\mathbf r$ to $\mathbf r^s$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:Geo\]. In the computer-simulation studies, we assume the ROI is fully covered by the fan region as shown in Fig. \[fig:Geo\]. The filter $h(\gamma)$ is defined as the inverse Fourier transform of a ramp filter $$h(\gamma) = \frac{1}{2}
\frac{\gamma^2}{\sin^2\gamma}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\omega |\omega| e^{\hat\jmath\omega\gamma}.$$ The detailed numerical implementations can be found in [@KakBook].
The following steps were involved in bent-ray image reconstruction:
1. For a given initial [sound speed]{} distribution, we numerically solved the Eikonal equation by finite difference methods [@fdtimes:1991] to generate the tof map.
2. Ray-paths are calculated for emitter-receiver pair. We used the fast marching tool box for ray-tracing [@Sethian20021996].
3. Using these ray paths, system matrix was formulated for the discretized slowness map. Weights were assigned to each pixel from intersected length segment of the ray path.
4. We minimized the L2 norm between the measured TOF and the current estimate of the TOF for a given [sound speed]{} distribution. LBFGS-B method was used to perform minimization [@lbfgsb:1995].
### Second-order pseudospectral k-space method
In the reconstruction methods described below, the action of the operator $\mathbf H^c$ (Eqn. (\[eqn:WaveDis\])) was computed by solving Eqn. by use of a second-order pseudospectral k-space method. This was implemented using GPUs. The calculation domain was of size $512\times 512$ mm$^2$, sampled on a $1024\times1024$ uniform Cartesian grid of spacing $\Delta^{\rm s} = 0.5$ mm for reconstruction. On a platform consisting of dual octa-core CPUs with a $2.00$ GHz clock speed, $125$ GB RAM, and a single NVIDIA Tesla K20C GPU, the second-order k-space method required approximately $7$ seconds to complete one forward simulation.
### Sequential waveform inversion
To serve as a reference for the WISE method, we implemented the sequential waveform inversion method described in Algorithm 1. Specifically, the method seeks the solution of Eqn. $$\label{eqn:SWI}
\hat {\mathbf c} = \arg\min_{\mathbf c} \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{m=0}^{M-1} \Vert \underline{\mathbf g_m} -
\mathbf M_m \mathbf H^{\rm c} \mathbf s_m \Vert^2,$$ No penalty term was included ($\beta=0$) because, due to its extreme computational burden, we only investigated this method in preliminary studies involving noise-free non-attenuated data. A uniform sound speed distribution was employed as the initial guess, which corresponded to the known background value of $1.5$ mm/$\mu$s. The object was contained in a square region-of-interest (ROI) of dimension $128\times128$ mm$^2$ (See Fig. \[fig:Geo\]), which was covered by $256\times 256$ pixels.
### WISE method
We implemented the WISE method by use of Algorithm 2. Two types of penalties were employed in this study: a quadratic penalty expressed as $$\mathcal R^{\rm Q}(\mathbf c) = \sum_j \sum_i
( [\mathbf c]_{jN_x+i} -[\mathbf c]_{jN_x+i-1}
)^2
+ ( [\mathbf c]_{jN_x+i} -[\mathbf c]_{(j-1)N_x+i}
)^2
,$$ where $N_x$ and $N_y$ denote the number of grid points along the ‘x’ and ‘y’ directions respectively, and a total variation (TV) penalty, defined as [@pmb08:tv; @KunSPIETV:2011] $$\mathcal R^{\rm TV}(\mathbf c) = \sum_j \sum_i \sqrt{
\epsilon +
( [\mathbf c]_{jN_x+i} -[\mathbf c]_{jN_x+i-1}
)^2
+ ( [\mathbf c]_{jN_x+i} -[\mathbf c]_{(j-1)N_x+i}
)^2}
,$$ where $\epsilon$ is a small number introduced to avoid dividing by $0$ in the gradient calculation. In this study, we empirically selected $\epsilon=10^{-8}$. This value was fixed because we observed that it had a minor impact on the reconstructed images compared to the impact of $\beta$. The use of this parameter can be avoided when advanced optimization algorithms are employed [@Kun:PMB; @Chao13:FullWave]. As in the sequential waveform inversion case, it was assumed that the background sound speed was known and the object was contained in a square ROI of dimension $128\times128$ mm$^2$ (See Fig. \[fig:Geo\]), which corresponded to $256\times 256$ pixels. The regularization parameters corresponding to the quadratic penalty and the TV penalty will be denoted by $\beta^{\rm Q}$ and $\beta^{\rm TV}$, respectively. Optimal regularization parameter values should ultimately be identified by use of task-based measures of image quality [@BarrettBook]. In this preliminary study, we investigated the impact of $\beta^{\rm Q}$ and $\beta^{\rm TV}$ on the reconstructed images by sweeping their values over a wide range.
### Reconstruction from incomplete data
Because the WISE method requires $\mathbf M_m$ to be identical for all $m$’s, image reconstruction from incomplete data remains challenging [@Herrmann2012:SE; @ArXiv:Haber14; @ArXiv:Ascher14]. In this study, two data completion strategies were investigated [@Herrmann2012:SE; @ArXiv:Haber14; @ArXiv:Ascher14] to synthesize a complete data set, from which the WISE method could be effectively applied. More specifically, the data fidelity term in Eqn. was approximated by $$\label{eqn:CombDataMisfit}
\mathcal F (\mathbf c) \approx
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{m=0}^{M-1}
\Vert
\underline{\mathbf g_m^{\rm comb}}
-\mathbf M \mathbf H^{\rm c} \mathbf s_m
\Vert^2,$$
One strategy was to fill the missing data with pressure corresponding to a homogeneous medium as $$\label{eqn:NewData}
\lbrack \underline{\mathbf g^{\rm combH}_m} \rbrack_{m^{\rm rec}L+l} =
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
[\underline{\mathbf g^{\rm incpl}_m}]_{\mathcal J^{-1}_m(m^{\rm rec})L+l}, &
{\rm if}\quad m^{\rm rec}\in \mathbb M^{\rm good}_m\\
\lbrack\mathbf g^{\rm h}_m\rbrack_{m^{\rm rec}L+l}, & \text{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.$$ for $m^{\rm rec}=0,1,\cdots,M-1$, where $\mathbf g_m^{\rm h}\in \mathbb R^{ML}$, $\underline{\mathbf g^{\rm incpl}_m} \in \mathbb R^{N^{\rm rec}L}$, and $\underline{\mathbf g^{\rm combH}_m}\in\mathbb R^{ML}$, denote the computer-simulated (with a homogeneous medium), the measured incomplete, and the combined complete data vectors at the $m$-th data acquisition, respectively. The mapping $\mathcal J^{-1}_m:\mathbb M_m^{\rm good} \mapsto \{0,1,\cdots,N^{\rm rec}-1\}$ denotes the inverse operator of $\mathcal J_m$ as $$\mathcal J^{-1}_m (m^{\rm rec}) =
\left \{\begin{array}{ll}
m^{\rm rec}-m -\frac{M-N^{\rm rec}}{2}, \quad {\rm if}\quad \frac{M-N^{\rm rec}}{2} \leq m^{\rm rec}-m < \frac{M+N^{\rm rec}}{2}\\
m^{\rm rec}-m + \frac{M+N^{\rm rec}}{2}, \quad {\rm if}\quad \frac{-M-N^{\rm rec}}{2} \leq m^{\rm rec} -m < \frac{-M+N^{\rm rec}}{2} .
\end{array}\right.$$ This data completion strategy is based on the assumption that the back-scatter from breast tissue in an appropriately sound speed-matched water bath is weak. This assumption suggests that the missing measurements can be replaced by the corresponding pressure data that would have been produced in the absence of the object.
The second, more crude, data completion strategy was to simply fill the missing data with zeros, i.e., $$\label{eqn:NewData0}
\lbrack \underline{\mathbf g^{\rm comb0}_m} \rbrack_{m^{\rm rec}L+l} =
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
[\underline{\mathbf g^{\rm incpl}_m}]_{\mathcal J^{-1}_m(m^{\rm rec})L+l}, &
{\rm if}\quad m^{\rm rec}\in \mathbb M^{\rm good}_m\\
0, & \text{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\underline{\mathbf g^{\rm comb0}_m}$ denotes the data completed with the second strategy.
### Bent-ray image reconstruction
A bent-ray method was also employed to reconstruct images. Details regarding the time-of-flight estimation and algorithm implementation are provided in Appendix \[Sect:BentRay\].
Computer-simulation results {#Sect:SimuResults}
===========================
Images reconstructed from idealized data
----------------------------------------
The images reconstructed from the noise-free, non-attenuated, data by use of the WISE method with $199$ iterations and the sequential waveform inversion method with 43 iterations are shown in Fig. \[fig:WISE\]-(a) and (b). As expected [@Duric2007:SOSWave; @Neb14:Wave], both images are more accurate and possess higher spatial resolution than the one reconstructed by use of the bent-ray reconstruction algorithm displayed in Fig. \[fig:WISE\]-(c). Profiles through the reconstructed images are displayed in Fig. \[fig:Prof\_Ideal\]. The images shown in Fig. \[fig:WISE\]-(a) and -(b) possess similar accuracies as measured by their root-mean-square errors (RMSEs), namely, $1.08\times 10^{-3}$ for the former and $1.19\times 10^{-3}$ for the latter. The RMSE was computed as the Euclidean distance between the reconstructed image and the sound speed phantom vector $\mathbf c$, averaged by the $256\times 256$ pixels of the ROI sketched in Fig. \[fig:Geo\]. However, the reconstruction of Fig. \[fig:WISE\]-(a) required only about $1.7\%$ of the computational time required to reconstruct Fig. \[fig:WISE\]-(b), namely, $1.4$ hours for the former and $81.4$ hours for the latter respectively. This is because the WISE method required only $1018$ wave equation solver runs which is significantly less than the $57088$ wave equation solver runs required by the sequential waveform inversion method. With a similar number of wave equation solver runs, (e.g., $1024$), one can complete only a single algorithm iteration by use of the sequential waveform inversion method. The corresponding image, shown in Fig. \[fig:WISE\]-(d), lacks quantitative accuracy as well as qualitative value for identifying features. The results suggest that the WISE method maintains the advantages of the sequential waveform inversion method while significantly reducing the computational time.
Convergence of the WISE method
------------------------------
Images reconstructed from noise-free, non-attenuated, data by use of the WISE method contain radial streak artifacts when the algorithm iteration number is less than $100$, as shown in Figs. \[fig:WISEConverge\]-(a-c). Profiles through these images are displayed in \[fig:Prof\_Conv\]. The streaks artifacts are likely caused by crosstalk introduced during the source encoding procedure [@Romero00:PE; @Herrmann13:GaussCode]. However, these artifacts are effectively mitigated after more iterations as demonstrated by the image reconstructed after the $199$-th iteration in Fig. \[fig:WISE\]-(a) and its profile in Fig. \[fig:Prof\_Ideal\]. The quantitative accuracy of the reconstructed images is improved with more iterations as shown in Fig. \[fig:Prof\_Conv\].
Figure \[fig:Convergence\]-(a) reveals that the WISE method requires a larger number of algorithm iterations than does the sequential waveform inversion method to achieve the same RMSE. The RMSE of the images reconstructed by use of the WISE method appears to oscillate around $1.0\times 10^{-3}$ after the first $100$ iterations while the sequential waveform inversion method can achieve a lower RMSE. However, as shown previously in Fig. \[fig:WISE\]-(a) and the corresponding profile in Fig. \[fig:Prof\_Ideal\], after additional iterations the image reconstructed by use of the WISE method achieves a high accuracy. Moreover, to achieve the same accuracy as the sequential waveform inversion method, the WISE method requires a computation time that is reduced by approximately two-orders of magnitude, as suggested by Fig. \[fig:Convergence\]-(b). We also plotted the cost function value against the number of iterations in Fig. \[fig:Convergence\]-(c). Note that for the WISE method, the cost function value was approximated by the current realization of $\frac{1}{2}\Vert \underline{\mathbf g}^{\rm w} - \mathbf M \mathbf H^{\rm c} \mathbf s^{\rm w}\Vert^2$. It is interesting to observe the oscillations in the curve of the relative Euclidean distance in Fig. \[fig:Convergence\], where the relative Euclidean distance is defined as $\Vert \mathbf c^{(k)} - \mathbf c^{(k-1)}\Vert$, with $k$ indexing the number of iterations. The oscillations are likely due to the random source encoding technique. However, the magnitude of these oscillations are below the absolute Euclidean distance of the reconstructed images, suggesting a subtle impact on the reconstructed images. These plots suggest that, in this particular case, the WISE method appears to approximately converge after $200$ iterations. For example, the images reconstructed after 199 (Fig. \[fig:WISE\]-(a)) and 250 (Fig. \[fig:WISEConverge\]-(d)) iterations are nearly identical.
Images reconstructed from non-attenuated data containing noise
--------------------------------------------------------------
Images reconstructed by use of the WISE method with a quadratic penalty and the WISE method with a TV penalty from noisy, non-attenuated, data are presented in Fig. \[fig:SimNoisy\]. All images were obtained after $1024$ algorithm iterations. The WISE method with a quadratic penalty effectively mitigates image noise as shown in Figs. \[fig:SimNoisy\]-(a-c), at the expense of image resolution, as expected. Figure \[fig:SimNoisy\]-(d) shows an image reconstructed by use of the WISE method with a TV penalty. The image appears to possess a similar resolution but a lower noise level than the image in Fig. \[fig:SimNoisy\]-(b) that was reconstructed by use of the WISE method with a quadratic penalty. We also compared the convergence rates of the WISE method and the sequential waveform inversion methods when both utlize a TV penalty and the same regularization parameter. As shown in Fig. \[fig:ConvergenceNoisy\], the convergence properties of the penalized methods follow similar trends as the un-penalized methods, which were discussed above and shown in Fig. \[fig:Convergence\]. Even though it required a larger number of algorithm iterations, the WISE method reduced the computation time by approximately two-orders of magnitude as compared to the sequential waveform inversion method.
Images reconstructed from acoustically attenuated data
------------------------------------------------------
Our current implementation of the WISE method assumes an absorption-free acoustic medium. This assumption can be strongly violated in practice. In order to investigate the robustness of the the WISE method to model errors associated with ignoring medium acoustic absorption, we applied the algorithm to the acoustically attenuated data that were produced as described in Section \[Subsect:GenData\]. As shown in Fig. \[fig:AttPre\], when acoustic absorption is considered, the amplitude of the measured pressure is attenuated by approximately a factor of $2$. The wavefront (See Fig. \[fig:AttPre\]-(a)) remains very similar to that when medium absorption is ignored (See Fig. \[fig:PreNoise\]-(a)). Medium absorption has the largest impact on the pressure data received by transducers located opposite the emitter as shown in Fig. \[fig:AttPre\]-(b). The shape of the pulse profile remains very similar as shown in Fig. \[fig:AttPre\]-(c) and -(d), suggesting that waveform dispersion may be less critical than amplitude attenuation in image reconstruction for this phantom.
Images reconstructed by use of the WISE method with a TV penalty from noise-free and noisy attenuated data are shown in Figs. \[fig:AttRecon\]-(a) and (b). Image profiles are shown in Fig. \[fig:AttRecon\]-(c). Although these images contain certain artifacts that were not produced in the idealized data studies, most object structures remain readily identified. These results suggest that the WISE method with a TV penalty can tolerate data inconsistencies associated with neglecting acoustic attenuation in the imaging model, at least to a certain level with regards to feature detection tasks.
Images reconstructed from idealized incomplete data
---------------------------------------------------
The wavefront of the noise- and attenuation-free pressure wavefield when the object is absent (Fig. \[fig:DataCompletionPre\]-(a)) appears to be very similar to that when the object is present (Fig. \[fig:PreNoise\]-(a)). As expected, the largest differences are seen in the signals received by the transducers located opposite of the emitter, as shown in Fig. \[fig:DataCompletionPre\]-(b). As seen in Fig. \[fig:DataCompletionPre\]-(c), the time traces received by the $40$-th transducer are nearly identical when object is present and absent. This is because the back-scattered wavefield is weak for breast imaging applications. These results establish the potential efficacy of the data completion strategy of filling the missing data with the pressure data corresponding to a water bath.
The image reconstructed from the measurements completed with pressure data corresponding to a water bath is shown in Fig.\[fig:DataCompletionRecon\]-(a). As revealed by the profile in Fig.\[fig:DataCompletionRecon\]-(c), this image is highly accurate. Alternatively, the image reconstructed from the the data completed with zeros contains strong artifacts as shown in Fig. \[fig:DataCompletionRecon\]-(b). These results suggest that the WISE method can be adapted to reconstruct images from incomplete data, which is particularly useful for emerging laser-induced USCT imaging systems [@manohar; @AAO12:LUS; @Jun13:USCT].
Images reconstructed from noisy reduced data
--------------------------------------------
As expected, the FBP algorithm is more sensitive to the reduced data as shown in Fig. \[fig:SimNoisyV128\]-(a). Meanwhile, the WISE method produces a significantly more accurate image. Except for the smallest structure, all other structures are accurate as shown in Fig. \[fig:SimNV128Profile\]. These results suggest that the WISE method will produce more accurate images when the transducer array only contains a limited number of elements. In order to improve the quantitative accuracy of the smallest structure, we employed the TV penalty. The image shown in Fig. \[fig:SimNoisyV128\]-(c) shows a significant improvement of the spatial resolution with little increase in noise level. The profiles in Fig. \[fig:SimNV128Profile\] also confirm the quantitative value of the smallest structure was estimated more accurately.
Experimental validation
=======================
Data acquisition
----------------
Experimental data recorded by use of the SoftVue USCT scanner [@SoftVue:14] was utilized to further validate the WISE method. The scanner contained a ring-shaped array of radius $110$ mm that was populated with 2048 transducer elements. Each element had a center frequency of $2.75$ MHz, a pitch of $0.34$ mm, and was elevationally focused to isolate a $3$ mm thick slice of the to-be-imaged object. The transducer array was mounted in a water tank and could be translated with a motorized gantry in the vertical direction. Readers are referred to [@SoftVue:14] for additional details regarding the system.
The breast phantom was built by Dr. Ernie Madsen from the University of Wisconsin and provides tissue-equivalent scanning characteristics of highly scattering, predominantly parenchymal breast tissue. The phantom mimics the presence of benign and cancerous masses embedded in glandular tissue, including a subcutaneous fat layer. Figure \[fig:SchExpPhantom\] displays a schematic of one slice through the phantom. The diameter of the inclusions is approximately $12$ mm. Table \[tab:ExpPhantom\] presents the known acoustic properties of the phantom.
During data acquisition, the breast phantom was placed near the center of the ring-shaped transducer array so that the distance between the phantom and each transducer was approximately the same. While scanning each slice, every other transducer element sequentially emits fan beam ultrasound signals towards the opposite side of the ring. The forward scattered and backscattered ultrasound signals are subsequently recorded by the same transducer elements. The received waveform was sampled at a rate of 12 MHz. The 1024 data acquisitions required approximately 20 seconds in total. A calibration data set was also acquired in which the phantom object was absent.
Data pre-processing
-------------------
48 bad channels were manually identified by visual inspection. After discarding these, the data set contained $M=976$ acquisitions. Each acquisition contained $N^{\rm rec}=976$ time traces. Each time trace contained $L=2112$ time samples. The $976$ good channels were indexed from $0$ to $975$. The corresponding data acquisitions were indexed in the same way. A Hann-window low-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of $4$ MHz was applied to every time trace in both the calibration and the measurement data. This data filtering was implemented to mitigate numerical errors that could be introduced by our second-order wave equation solver.
Estimation of excitation pulse {#SubSect:EstExct}
------------------------------
The shape of the excitation pulse was estimated as the time trace of the calibration data (after pre-processing) received by the $488$-th receiver at the $0$-th data acquisition. Note that the $488$-th receiver was approximated located on the axis of the $0$-th emitter, thus the received pulse was minimally affected by the finite aperture size effect of the transducers. Because our calibration data and measurement data were acquired using different electronic amplifier gains, the amplitude of the excitation pulse was estimated from the measurement data. More specifically, we simulated the $0$-th data acquisition using the second-order pseudospectral k-space method and compared the simulated time trace received by the $300$-th receiver with the corresponding measured time trace (after pre-processing). The ratio between the maximum values of these two traces was used to scale the excitation pulse shape. We selected the $300$-th receiver because it resided out of the fan-region indicated in Fig. \[fig:Geo\]; its received signals were unlikely to be strongly affected by the presence of the object. The estimated excitation pulse and its amplitude spectrum are displayed in Fig. \[fig:ExpExctPulse\]. Note that the experimental excitation pulse contained higher frequency components than did the computer-simulated excitation pulse shown in Fig. \[fig:SimExctPulse\].
Synthesis of combined data
--------------------------
As discussed in Section \[Sect:incomplete\], signals received by receivers located near the emitter can be unreliable [@Duric2007:SOSWave]. Our experimental data, as shown in Fig. \[fig:ExpPre\]-(a), contained noise-like measurements for the receivers indexed from $0$ to $200$, and from $955$ to $975$, in the case where the $0$-th transducer functioned as the emitter. Also, our point-like transducer assumption introduces larger model mismatches for the receivers located near the emitter. As shown in Figs. \[fig:ExpPre\]-(c) and -(d), even though the simulated time trace received by the $300$-th receiver matches accurately with the experimentally measured one, the simulated time trace received by the $200$-th receiver is substantially different compared with the experimentally measured one. In order to minimize the effects of model mismatch, we replaced these unreliable measurements with computer-simulated water bath data, as described in Section \[Subsect:GenData\]. We designated the time traces received by the $512$ receivers located on the opposite side of the emitter as the reliable measurements for each data acquisition. The $0$-th data acquisition of the combined data is displayed in Fig. \[fig:ExpPre\]-(b).
Estimation of initial guess
---------------------------
The initial guess for the WISE method was obtained by use of the bent-ray reconstruction method described in Appendix \[Sect:BentRay\]. We first filtered each time trace of the raw data by a band-pass Butterworth filter ($0.5$MHz - $2.5$MHz). Subsequently, we extracted the TOF by use of the thresholding method with a thresholding value of $20\%$ of the peak value of each time trace. The bent-ray reconstruction algorithm was applied for image reconstruction with a measured background sound speed $1.513$ mm/$\mu$s. The resulting image is shown in Fig. \[fig:WISEExp\]-(a) and has a pixel size of $1$ mm. Finally, the image was smoothed by convolving it with a $2$D Gaussian kernel with a standard deviation of $2$ mm.
Image reconstruction {#image-reconstruction}
--------------------
We applied the WISE method with a TV penalty to the combined data set. The second-order wave equation solver was employed with a calculation domain of dimensions $512.0\times512.0$ mm$^2$. The calculation domain was sampled on a $2560\times 2560$ Cartesian grid with a grid spacing of $0.2$ mm. On a platform consisting of dual quad-core CPUs with a $3.30$ GHz clock speed, $64$ GB RAM, and a single NVIDIA Tesla K20 GPU, each numerical solver run, took $40$ seconds to calculate the pressure data for $2112$ time samples. Knowing the size of the phantom, we set the reconstruction region to be within a circle of diameter $128$ mm, i.e., only the sound speed values of pixels within the circle were updated during the iterative image reconstruction. We swept the value of $\beta^{\rm TV}$ over a wide range to investigate its impact on the reconstructed images.
Images reconstructed from experimental data
-------------------------------------------
As shown in Fig. \[fig:WISEExp\], the spatial resolution of the image reconstructed by use of the WISE method with a TV penalty is significantly higher than that reconstructed by use of the bent-ray model-based method. In particular, the structures labeled ‘A’ and ‘B’ possess clearly-defined boundaries. This observation is further confirmed by the profiles of the two images shown in Fig. \[fig:ExpProfile\]. In addition, the structure labeled ‘C’ in Fig. \[fig:WISEExp\]-(b) is almost indistinguishable in the image reconstructed by use of the bent-ray model-based method (see Fig. \[fig:WISEExp\]-(a)). The improved spatial resolution is expected because the WISE method takes into account high-order acoustic diffraction, which is ignored by the bent-ray method [@Duric2007:SOSWave]. Though not shown here, for the bent-ray method, we investigated multiple time-of-flight pickers [@Duric09:TOFPicker] and systematically tuned the regularization parameter. As such, it is likely that Fig. \[fig:WISEExp\]-(a) represents a nearly optimal bent-ray image in terms of the resolution. This resolution also appears to be similar to previous experimental results reported in the literature [@Roy10:BentRay]. The convergence properties of the WISE method with a TV penalty with experimental data were consistent with those observed in the computer-simulation studies. Images reconstructed by use of 10, 50, and 300 algorithm iterations are displayed in Fig. \[fig:ExpConvergence\]. The image reconstructed by use of 10 iterations contains radial streak artifacts that are similar in nature to those observed in the computer-simulation studies. These artifacts were mitigated after more iterations. The image reconstructed after $300$ iterations (Fig. \[fig:ExpConvergence\]-(d)) appears to be similar to that after $200$ iterations (Fig. \[fig:WISEExp\]-(b)), suggesting that the WISE method with a TV penalty is close to convergence after about $200$ iterations. The time required to complete $200$ iterations was approximately $14$ hours. The estimated time it would take for the sequential waveform inversion method to produce a comparable image is approximately one month, assuming the same number of iterations is required as in the computer-simulation studies (i.e., $40$).
Despite the nonlinearity of the WISE method, the impact of the TV penalty appears to be similar to that observed in other imaging applications [@Kun:PMB; @Kun14TMI:Blob] (see Fig. \[fig:ExpReg\]). Though not shown here, the impact of the quadratic penalty is also similar. As expected, a larger value of $\beta$ reduced the noise level at the expense of spatial image resolution. These results suggest a predictable impact of the penalties on the images reconstructed by use of the WISE method.
Summary {#Sect:Conclusions}
=======
It is known that waveform inversion-based reconstruction methods can produce sound speed images that possess improved spatial resolution properties over those produced by ray-based methods. However, waveform inversion methods are computationally demanding and have not been applied widely in USCT breast imaging. In this work, based on the time-domain wave equation and motivated by recent mathematical results in the geophysics literature, the WISE method was developed that circumvents the large computational burden of conventional waveform inversion methods. This method encodes the measurement data using a random encoding vector and determines an estimate of the sound speed distribution by solving a stochastic optimization problem by use of a stochastic gradient descent algorithm. With our current GPU-based implementation, the computation time was reduced from weeks to hours. The WISE method was systematically investigated in computer-simulation and experimental studies involving a breast phantom. The results suggest that the method holds value for USCT breast imaging applications in a practical setting. Many opportunities remain to further improve the performance of the WISE method. As shown in Fig. \[fig:WISEExp\], images reconstructed by use of the WISE method can contain certain artifacts that are not present in the image reconstructed by use of the bent-ray method. An example of such an artifact is the dark horizontal streak below the structure C. Because of the nonlinearity of the image reconstruction problem, it is challenging to determine whether these artifacts are caused by imaging model errors or by the optimization algorithm, which might have arrived at a local minimum of the cost function. A more accurate imaging model can be developed to account for out-of-plane scattering, the transducer finite aperture size effect, acoustic absorption, as well as other physical factors. Also, the stochastic gradient descent algorithm is one of the most basic stochastic optimization algorithms. Numerous emerging optimization algorithms can be employed [@ArXiv:Haber14; @ArXiv:Ascher14] to improve the convergence rate. In addition, there remains a great need to compare the WISE method with other existing sound speed reconstruction algorithms [@Chew10; @Hesse2013:USCT].
There remains a need to conduct additional investigations of the numerical properties of the WISE method. Currently, a systematic comparison of the statistical properties of the WISE and the sequential waveform inversion method is prohibited by the excessively long computation times required by the latter method. This comparison will be interesting when a more efficient wave equation solver is available. Given the fact that waveform inversion is nonlinear and sensitive to its initial guess, it becomes important to investigate how to obtain an accurate initial guess. We also observed that the performance of the WISE method is sensitive to how strong the medium heterogeneities are and the profile of the excitation pulse. An investigation of the impact of the excitation pulse the numerical properties of the image reconstruction may help optimize hardware design. In addition, quantifying the statistics of the reconstructed images will allow application of task-based measures of image quality to be applied to guide system optimization studies.
Continuous-to-Discrete USCT Imaging Model {#Sect:C-DModel}
=========================================
In practice, each data function $g_m(\mathbf r, t)$ is spatially and temporally sampled to form a data vector $\mathbf g_m \in\mathbb R^{N^{\rm rec}L}$, where $N^{\rm rec}$ and $L$ denote the number of receivers and the number of time samples, respectively. We will assume that $N^{\rm rec}$ and $L$ do not vary with excitation pulse. Let $[\mathbf g_m]_{n^{\rm rec}L+l}$ denotes the $(n^{\rm rec}L+l)$-th element of $\mathbf g_m$. When the receivers are point-like, $\mathbf g_m$ is defined as $$[\mathbf g_m]_{n^{\rm rec}L+l} = g_m(\mathbf r(m,n^{\rm rec}), l\Delta^{\rm t}),$$ where the indices $n^{\rm rec}$ and $l$ specify the receiver location and temporal sample, respectively, and $\Delta^{\rm t}$ is the temporal sampling interval. The vector $\mathbf r(m,n^{\rm rec})\in\Omega_m$ denotes the location of the $n^{\rm rec}$-th receiver at the $m$-th data acquisition.
A C-D imaging model for USCT describes the mapping of $c(\mathbf r)$ to the data vector $\mathbf g_m$ and can be expressed as $$\label{eqn:CDModel}
[\mathbf g_m]_{n^{\rm rec}L+l}
= \mathcal M_m \mathcal H^{\rm c} s_m {(\mathbf r,t)}
\big\vert_{\mathbf r=\mathbf r(m,n^{\rm rec}), t = l\Delta^{\rm t}}
\quad{\rm for}\quad
\substack { n^{\rm rec}=0,1,\cdots,N^{\rm rec}-1\\
l=0,1,\cdots,L-1}.$$ Note that the acousto-electrical impulse response [@TMI:transmodel] of the receivers can be incorporated into the C-D imaging model by temporally convolving $s_m(\mathbf r, t)$ in Eqn. with the receivers’ acousto-electrical impulse response if we assume all receiving transducers share an identical acousto-electrical impulse response.
Fréchet derivative of data fidelity term {#Sect:Frechet}
========================================
Consider the integrated squared-error data misfit function, [@Duric2007:SOSWave; @Los12:SOSPE] $$\label{eqn:CDataMisfit}
\mathcal F^{\rm CC}(c) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m=0}^{M-1}
\int_{\Omega_m} d\mathbf r
\int_0^T dt
\big[\underline{g_m}(\mathbf r,t) - g_m(\mathbf r, t) \big]^2 ,$$ where $\underline{g_m}(\mathbf r, t)$ and $g_m(\mathbf r,t)$ denote the measured data function and the predicted data function computed by use of Eqn. (\[eqn:CImagingModel2\]) with the current estimate of $c(\mathbf r)$.
Both the sequential and WISE reconstruction method described in Section \[Sect:WISE\] require knowledge of the Fréchet derivatives of $\mathcal F^{\rm CC}(c)$ and $\mathcal R^{\rm CC}(c)$ with respect to $c$, denoted by $\nabla_{\rm c} \mathcal F^{\rm CC}$ and $\nabla_{\rm c}\mathcal R^{\rm CC}$, respectively. The calculation of $\nabla_{\rm c}\mathcal R^{\rm CC}$ can be readily accomplished for quadratic smoothness penalties [@Fessler:94; @Kun:PMB]. For the integrated squared error data misfit function given in Eqn. , $\nabla_{\rm c} \mathcal F^{\rm CC}$ can be computed via an adjoint state method as [@Norton:Adjoint; @AdjStaRev:06; @Roy2010:SOSWave] $$\label{eqn:Frecht}
\nabla_{\rm c} \mathcal F^{\rm CC} =
\frac{1}{c^3(\mathbf r)}
\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}
\int_{0}^T\!\! dt\, q_m(\mathbf r, T-t)
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial^2 t} p_m(\mathbf r, t),$$ where $q_m(\mathbf r, t) \in \mathbb L^2(\mathbb R^3\times[0,\infty))$ is the solution to the adjoint wave equation. The adjoint wave equation is defined as $$\label{eqn:AdjWaveEqn}
\nabla^2 q_m(\mathbf r, t) - \frac{1}{c^2(\mathbf r)} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial^2 t}q_m(\mathbf r, t) = - \tau_m(\mathbf r, t),$$ where $\tau_m(\mathbf r, t) = g_m(\mathbf r, T-t) - \underline{g_m}(\mathbf r, T-t)$. The adjoint wave equation is nearly identical in form to the wave equation in Eqn. except for the different source term on the right-hand side, suggesting the same numerical approach can be employed to solve both equations. Since one needs to solve Eqns. and $M$ times in order to calculate $\nabla_{\rm c}\mathcal F^{\rm CC}$, it is generally true that the sequential waveform inversion is computationally demanding even for a 2D geometry [@Operto09:FWIReview].
Bent-ray model-based sound speed reconstruction {#Sect:BentRay}
===============================================
We developed an iterative image reconstruction algorithm based on a bent-ray imaging model. The bent-ray imaging model assumes that an acoustic pulse travels along a ray path that connects the emitter and the receiver and accounts for the refraction of rays, also known as ray-bending, through an acoustically inhomogeneous medium. For each pair of receiver and emitter, the travel time, as well as the ray path, is determined by the medium’s sound speed distribution. Given the travel times for a collection of emitter-and-receiver pairs distributed around the object, the medium sound speed distribution can be iteratively reconstructed. This bent-ray model-based sound speed reconstruction (BRSR) method has been employed in the USCT literature [@Cuiping:SPIE:2009; @Roy10:BentRay; @jose:7262].
In order to perform the BRSR, we extracted a TOF data vector from the measured pressure data. Denoting the TOF data vector by $\underline{\mathbf T}\in\mathbb R^{MN^{\rm rec}}$, each element of $\underline{\mathbf T}$ represented the TOF from each emitter-and-receiver pair. The extraction of the TOF was conducted in two steps. First, we estimated the difference between the TOF when the object was present and the TOF when the object was absent by use of a thresholding method [@Duric09:TOFPicker; @Fatima:SPIE14]. In particular, $20\%$ of the peak value of each time trace was employed as the thresholding value. Second, a TOF offset was added to the estimated difference TOF for each emitter-and-receiver pair to obtain the absolute TOF, where the TOF offset was calculated according to the scanning geometry and the known background SOS.
Having the TOF vector $\underline{\mathbf T}$, we reconstructed the sound speed by solving the following optimization problem: $$\label{objectiveeq}
\hat{\bf s}=\arg \min\limits_{{\bf s}} \parallel {\underline{\bf T}}
- \mathbf K^{\rm s} \mathbf s \parallel^{2} + \beta \mathcal R({\bf s}),$$ where $\bf s$ denotes the slowness (the reciprocal of the SOS) vector, and $\mathbf K^{\rm s}$ denotes the system matrix that maps the slowness distribution to the TOF data. The superscript ‘s’ indicates the dependence of $\mathbf K^{\rm s}$ on the slowness map. At each iteration, using the current estimate of the SOS, a ray-tracing method [@Sethian20021996] was employed to construct the system matrix $\mathbf K^{\rm s}$. Explicitly storing the system matrix in the sparse representation, we utilized the limited BFGS method [@lbfgsb:1995] to solve the optimization problem given in Eqn. . The estimated slowness was then converted to the sound speed by taking the reciprocal of $\hat{\mathbf s}$ element-wisely. We refer the readers to [@born1999principles; @Cuiping:SPIE:2009; @Roy10:BentRay; @jose:7262; @Fatima:SPIE14] for more details about the BRSR method.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported in part by NIH awards EB010049, CA1744601, EB01696301 and DOD Award US ARMY W81XWH-13-1-0233.
Tables {#tables .unnumbered}
======
--------------- ----------------- -------------------------- -----------------------------------------
[Structure]{} [Tissue type]{} [Sound speed]{} [Slope of attenuation]{}
index \[mm$\cdot\mu$s$^{-1}$\] \[dB$\cdot($MHz$)^{-y}\cdot$cm$^{-1}$\]
\[0.5ex\] $0$ Adipose $1.47$ $0.60$
$1$ Parenchyma $1.51$ $0.75$
$2$ Benign tumor $1.47$ $0.60$
$3$ Benign tumor $1.47$ $0.60$
$4$ Cyst $1.53$ $0.00217$
$5$ Malignant tumor $1.565$ $0.57$
$6$ Malignant tumor $1.565$ $0.57$
$7$ Malignant tumor $1.57$ $0.57$
--------------- ----------------- -------------------------- -----------------------------------------
: \[tab:NumPhantom\] Parameters of the numerical breast phantom [@Szabo04Book; @Glide07:MedPhy; @Li08:SPIE]
-------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------
[Material]{} [Sound speed]{} [Attenuation coefficient ]{}
\[mm$\cdot\mu$s$^{-1}$\] at $2.5$ MHz \[dB/cm\]
Fat $1.467$ $0.48$
Parenchymal tissue $1.552$ $0.89$
Cancer $1.563$ $1.20$
Fibroadenoma $1.552$ $0.52$
Gelatin cyst $1.585$ $0.16$
-------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------
: \[tab:ExpPhantom\] Parameters of the experimental breast phantom
Figures {#figures .unnumbered}
=======
0.5cm
\
\
\
![\[fig:Convergence\] Plots of the absolute (dark) and relative (gray) Euclidean distances versus the number of iterations. ](Convergence){width="9cm"}
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
![\[fig:SchExpPhantom\] Schematic of the breast phantom employed in the experimental study. ](SchExpPhantom){height="5.6cm"}
0.2cm
\
\
0.5 cm
\
[^1]: K. Wang, T.P. Matthews, F. Anis, and M.A. Anastasio are with the Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130, e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: C. Li and N. Duric are with Delphinus Medical Technologies, Plymouth, MI 48170
[^3]: N. Duric is also with Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, 4100 John R. Street, 5 HWCRC, Detroit, MI 48201
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Assuming an inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$, there is a generic extension in which $MA + 2^{\aleph_0} = \kappa$ holds and the reals have a $\Delta^2_1$ well-ordering.\
author:
- |
Uri Abraham\
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science\
Ben Gurion University, Beér-Sheva, Israel;\
Saharon Shelah[^1]\
Institute of Mathematics\
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
title: 'Martin’s Axiom and $\Delta^2_1$ well-ordering of the reals'
---
Introduction
============
The aim of this paper is to describe a technique that allows the encoding of an arbitrary set of ordinals by a $\Delta^2_1$ formula in a generic extension which is cofinality preserving. This encoding is robust enough to coexist with MA (Martin’s Axiom). Specifically, we will show, for any model of ZFC set theory with an inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$, the existence of a cardinal preserving generic extension in which $2^{\aleph_0} = \kappa + MA +$ [*there is a $\;\Delta^2_1$ well-ordering of*]{} ${\Bbb R}$.
Let us explain what is meant by a $\;\Delta^2_1$ well-order. We refer here to the structure $\langle H,\in \rangle$ where $H = H(\aleph_1)$ is the collection of all hereditarily countable sets. A $\Sigma^2_k$ formula is a second-order formula of the form $\exists X_1 \subseteq H \ \forall X_2
\subseteq H \ldots \; \varphi(X_1,\ldots,X_k,\;a_1\ldots,a_n)$ with $k$ alternations of set quantifiers (unary predicates, $X_i$), and where $\varphi$ is a first-order formula (in which quantification is over $H$) with predicate names $X_1,\ldots,X_k$, and variables $a_1,\ldots,a_n$ (which vary over $H$). A $\;\Delta^2_k$ formula is one that is equivalent to a $\Sigma^2_k$ and to a $\Pi^2_k$ formula. A $\;\Delta^2_1$ well-ordering is one that is given by a $\;\Delta^2_1$ formula $\psi(x,y)$ that defines a well-ordering of ${\Bbb R}$. Obviously, a $\Sigma^2_1$ linear ordering of ${\Bbb R}$ is also a $\Pi^2_1$ ordering.
An alternative definition of $\Sigma^2_k$ formulas, which connects to the usual definition of $\Sigma^1_n$ (projective) sets, is to look at third-order formulas over $\langle {\Bbb N},+,\ldots\rangle$, that is, second order formulas over ${\Bbb R}$.
Our result cannot be improved to give a projective well-ordering of ${\Bbb R}$ because of a theorem of Shelah and Woodin [@ShWo] which proves that there is no well-ordering of ${\Bbb R}$ in $L({\Bbb R})$, assuming some large cardinal. Since any projective order is in $L[{\Bbb R}]$, and as a small extension, such as the one described here, will not destroy any large cardinal above $\kappa$, the $\Delta^2_1$ well-order cannot be improved to a projective well-order.
Though this paper can be read independently, it is a continuation of our [@AbSh] work where another coding technique is described which does not add any new reals. Both that work and the present are motivated by a theorem of Woodin [@Wo] which shows that if CH holds and there is a measurable cardinal which is Woodin, then there is no $\Sigma^2_1$ well-order of the reals. In view of this result, a natural question is what happens if the CH is removed? Woodin has obtained the following result: Assuming an inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$, there is a c.c.c. forcing extension in which $\kappa = 2^{\aleph_0}$ and
1. there is a $\Delta^2_1$ well-ordering of ${\Bbb R}$.
2. Martin’s axiom holds for $\sigma$-centered posets.
Since the poset used to get this extension has cardinality $\kappa$, it does not destroy whatever large cardinal properties the ground model has above $\kappa$, and hence the assumption of CH is necessary for Woodin’s theorem.
The theorem proved in this paper is a slight improvement of this theorem in that MA replaces the restricted version for $\sigma$-centered posets, but our main point is to describe a different encoding technique.
We were also motivated by the following related result of Solovay:\
There is a forcing poset of size $2^{2^{\aleph_0}}$ such that the following holds in the extension
1. $2^{\aleph_0} = 2^{\aleph_1} = \aleph_2$.
2. $MA$ for $\sigma$-centered posets,
3. there is a $\Delta^2_1$ well-ordering of the reals.
Let us emphasize that no inaccessible cardinal is needed for Solovay’s result. Let us also mention here the main result of Abraham and Shelah [@AbSh]
> There is a generic extension [*that adds no new countable sets*]{} in which there exists a $\Sigma^2_2$ well-order of ${\Bbb R}$.\
The theorem proved in this paper will now be formally stated.\
[**Theorem**]{}. Let $\kappa$ be an inaccessible cardinal, and assume $GCH$ holds below $\kappa$. Then there is a forcing extension that changes no cofinalities and in which
1. $2^{\aleph_0} = \kappa +$ Martin’s Axiom, and
2. there is a $\Delta^2_1$ well-ordering of ${\Bbb R}$.
In a forthcoming work [@AbSh2] we will show that the inaccessible is dispensable (but the continuum is $\aleph_2$ in this work).
Overview
========
The idea of the proof is quite simple, and we first give a general description. The generic extension is a length $\kappa$ mixed–support iteration consisting of two components: The first component iterates c.c.c. posets with the aim of finally obtaining Martin’s Axiom. The second component is doing the coding. Quite arbitrarily, we have chosen the set (called lim) of limit ordinals below $\kappa$ to be the support of the c.c.c. component, and the set of successor ordinals (succ) to support the coding component. The iteration is a finite/Easton iteration. This means that the domain of each condition is finite on the limit ordinals, and has cardinality $< \rho$ below every inaccessible cardinal $\rho \leq \kappa$.
For a regular cardinal $\lambda$, $F_\lambda$ denotes the club filter on $\lambda$. We say that a family $H\subseteq F_\lambda$ [*generates*]{} $F_\lambda$ iff $\forall C \in F_\lambda \;
\exists D \in H(D \subseteq C)$. The least cardinality of a generating family for $F_\lambda$ is called here “the generating number for $\lambda$”. A crucial question (in this paper) to ask about a regular cardinal $\lambda$ is whether its generating number is $\lambda^{+}$ or higher: it is through answers to these questions that the encoding works.
If $2^\lambda = \lambda^+$, then the generating number for $\lambda$ is $\lambda^+$ of course, but it is easy to increase it by forcing, say, $\lambda^{++}$ new subsets of $\lambda$ with conditions of size $<\lambda$. We denote with $C(\lambda,\mu)$ the poset that introduces $\mu$ subsets to $\lambda$ with conditions of size $<\lambda$. $$C(\lambda,\mu) =
\{f| \mbox{dom}(f) \subseteq \lambda \times \mu,\; \mbox{ range}(f) = 2, \mid
f\mid < \lambda \}$$ where $\mid f \mid$ is the cardinality of the function $f$. Equivalently, one can demand dom$(f) \subseteq \mu$ in the definition. Clearly $C(\lambda,\mu)$ is $\lambda$-closed, and if $\lambda^{<\lambda} =
\lambda$, then it satisfies the $\lambda^+ - $c.c.
The closure in $\lambda$ of each generic subset of $\lambda$ is a closed unbounded set that contains no old club set. We will iterate such posets, varying $\lambda$, and taking care of MA as well.
In the final generic extension, $2^{\aleph_0} = \kappa$, Martin’s Axiom holds, and the sequence of answers to the questions about the generating numbers for $\lambda < \kappa$ encodes a well-ordering of ${\Bbb R}$ which is $\Delta^2_1$. As will be explained below, these questions are asked only for even (infinite) successors below $\kappa$, that is, cardinals of the form $\aleph_{\delta+2n}$ where $\delta
> 0$ is a limit ordinal and $1 \leq n < \omega$ (call this set of even successor cardinals [[es]{}]{}). It is convenient to use an enumeration of [[es]{}]{} that uses all the successor ordinals as indices: ${{\sf es}}=
\{ \lambda_j \mid j < \kappa$ [*is a successor ordinal*]{}$\}$. So $\lambda_1 = \aleph_2$ is the first infinite even successor, $\lambda_2 =
\aleph_4,\ldots,\lambda_{\omega+1} = \aleph_{\omega +2}, \lambda_{\omega+2} =
\aleph_{\omega+4}$ etc. In general, $$\label{1}
\mbox{if } \alpha = \delta + n+1 \ \mbox{where }\delta
\in \lim \ \mbox{and }n < \omega, \ \mbox{then }\lambda_\alpha
= \aleph_{\delta + 2(n+1)}.$$ In the final model, the well-ordering of ${\Bbb R}$ is the sequence of reals $\langle r_\xi | \xi < \kappa\rangle$ where $r_\xi \subseteq \omega$ is encoded by setting $\alpha = \omega\xi$ and $$n \in r_\xi \;\mbox{iff the generating number for}\;\lambda =
\lambda_{\alpha+n+1}\;\mbox{is}\;\lambda^{++} .$$
Why is it necessary to skip cardinals and to space the $\lambda_\alpha$’s two cardinals apart? Suppose that $r \subseteq \omega$ is the first real we want to encode. If $0 \in r$, then the first coding poset is $C(\aleph_2,\aleph_4)$. Recall that $GCH$ is assumed, and hence cardinals are not collapsed, and $2^{\aleph_2} = \aleph_4$ after this forcing. Now if $1 \in r$, we may want to continue forcing with $c(\aleph_3,\aleph_5)$, but this will collapse $\aleph_4$ since $2^{\aleph_2} = \aleph_4$. Thus we must start the next iteration at least two cardinals apart, and forcing with $C(\aleph_4,\aleph_6)$ is fine. In general, $\lambda_{\alpha+1} = \lambda^{++}_\alpha$, enables the proof that cardinals are not collapsed in the extension.
The coding component of our forcing will be an iteration of posets of type $C(\lambda_\alpha,\lambda_\alpha^{++})$ for well chosen $\alpha$’s. This choice will be made to obtain the desired coding by determining the generating number for $\lambda \in {{\sf es}}$.
Let us take a closer, but still informal, view of the forcing poset. If we denote with $P_\alpha$ the $\alpha$th stage of the iteration, then our final poset is $P_\kappa$. For limit $\delta$’s, $P_\delta$ is the mixed support limit of $\langle P_i | i <
\delta\rangle$ with finite/Easton support. This means that $f \in P_\delta$ iff $f$ is a partial function defined on $\delta$ such that $f\upharpoonright
i \in P_i$ for every $i < \delta$, and dom($f$) contains only finitely many limit ordinals (this is the c.c.c. component), and $|\mbox{dom}(f) \cap \mu |
< \mu$ for any inaccessible cardinal $\mu$ (this is the Easton support requirement of the coding component). At successor stages $P_{j+1} \cong P_j
* Q_j$ is a two-step iteration, where $Q_j$ is a poset in $V^{P_j}$ characterized by the following. For limit $j < \kappa,\; Q_j$ is in $V^{P_j}$ a c.c.c. forcing. And for successor $j < \kappa$ of the form $\delta + i$, where $i \in \omega$ and $\delta \in \lim,\; Q_j$ is either the trivial poset, or $C(\lambda_j,\lambda^{++}_j)$ which is the poset for adding $\lambda^{++}_j$ many subsets to $\lambda_j = \aleph_{\delta +2i}$. The decision as to the character of $Q_j$ will be described later; the role of $Q_j$ is to encode one bit of information about some real. This decision is made generically, in $V^{P_j}$, and it depends on the real in $V^{P_j}$ that is being encoded.
So $P_1$ is some c.c.c. poset, and $P_2$ is $P_1$ followed by either the trivial poset or by $C(\aleph_2,\aleph^{++}_2)$. In the latter case, forcing with $P_2$ makes $2^{\aleph_2} = \aleph_4$.
The iteration continues in a similar fashion. To illustrate one of the main points, let us see (only intuitively now) why $\aleph_1$ is not collapsed. We will show that every $f : \omega_1 \to On$ in $V^{P_\kappa}$ (where $On$ is the class of ordinals) has a countable approximation in $V$, that is, a function $f'$ such that, for every $\alpha \in \omega_1$, $f(\alpha) \in f'(\alpha)$ where $f'(\alpha)$ is a countable set of ordinals.
Observe first that the Easton component of $P_\kappa$ is $<\aleph_2$ closed. This means that if an increasing sequence $\langle p_i | i <
\omega_1\rangle$ of conditions in $P_\kappa$ have the same c.c.c. component $(p_i \upharpoonright \lim = p_j \upharpoonright \lim$, then there is an upper bound in $P_\kappa$ to the sequence. We say that $p$ is a [*pure*]{} extension of $q$ if $p$ extends $q$ and both have the same restriction to lim (same c.c.c. component). Now, if $f : \omega_1 \to On$ is a function in $V^{P_\kappa}$, we define an increasing sequence $\langle p_i | i < \omega_1\rangle$ of conditions in $P_\kappa$ such that $i < j \Rightarrow p_j$ is a pure extension of $p_i$: To obtain $p_{i+1}$ extend $p_i$ in countably many steps; at each step find first an extension $q'$ of the previous step $q$ that forces a new value for $f(i)$ (if there is one) and then take only the pure extension of $q$ imposed by $q'$. It turns out that this process will never take more than countably many steps, or else we get a contradiction to the assumption that at limit stages c.c.c. posets are iterated. The upper bound $p \in P_\kappa$ of this pure increasing sequence “knows”, for each $i < \omega_1$, all the countable many possible values for $f(i)$.
We arrange the iteration in such a way that for every real $r \in
V^{P_\kappa}\;$ there is a unique limit ordinal $\delta = \delta(r)$ so that, for every $k \in \omega$, $k \in
r$ iff the generating number for $\lambda=\lambda_{\delta+(k+1)}$ is $\lambda^{++}$ (by \[1\]) $\lambda =
\aleph_{\delta + 2(k+1)})$.
Now the well-ordering on ${\Bbb R}$ is defined by $$r_1 \prec r_2\ \mbox{iff}\
\delta(r_1) < \delta(r_2).$$ This formula is certainly first-order expressible in $H(\kappa)$ (the collection of sets o cardinality hereditarily $< \kappa$ in the extension), but why is it $\Sigma^2_1$? Why can we reduce it to second–order quantification over $H9\aleph_1)$? The point is that $2^{\aleph_0}=\kappa \; + \; MA$, and we can speak correctly within $H(\aleph_1)$ about $H(\kappa)$, and it takes a single second-order quantification to do that (this trick was used by Solovay in his theorem cited above; we will outline it now, and it will be explained in more detail later.) To express $r_1 \prec r_2$, just say:
> There is a relation $R$ over $H =
> H(\aleph_1)$, such that $(H,R)$ satisfies enough of set theory (when $R$ interprets the membership relation $\in$), such that $R$ is well-founded and such that every real is “found” in $(H,R)$; moreover, $(H,R)$ satisfies the following statement: “[*every limit ordinal has the form $\delta(r)$ for some real $r$, and $\delta( \hat r_1) < \delta(\hat r_2)$”,*]{} where $\hat r$ is the construction of $r \subseteq \omega$ in the model $(H,R)$.
Since $R$ is well-founded, $(H,R)$ is collapsed to some $\in$ structure, $M$, which turns out to be $H(\kappa)$ as we want. The main points to notice in order to prove this are that (1) $M$ cannot contain less than $\kappa$ ordinals because it contains all the reals, and a definable well-ordering of ${\Bbb R}$. (2) What $M$ considers to be a cardinal is really a cardinal, because any possible collapsing function in $H(\kappa)$ can be encoded by a real (with the almost disjoint set technique which is applicable because of Martin’s Axiom). Since this encoding real is in $M, H(\kappa)$ is included in $M$. (3) $M$ does not contain more ordinals than $\kappa$. This is so since every limit ordinal $\delta$ is connected to a single real which is encoded along the segment $[\aleph_{\delta+2},\aleph_{\delta+\omega})$ by the characteristic of the club filters. Thus $M$ is $H(\kappa)$.
The details of this proof are written in the sequel.\
Mixed support iteration
=======================
In this section we describe how to iterate, with mixed support (Mitchell’s type support), c.c.c. posets and $\lambda$-complete posets, where the support of the c.c.c. component is finite, and the support of the complete component is of Easton type—bounded below inaccessibles.
Let $\kappa$ be an inaccessible cardinal, and $\lambda < \kappa$ a regular cardinal $> \aleph_1$. The non c.c.c posets in the iteration are all assumed to be $\lambda$ closed. For definiteness we have chosen the support of the c.c.c. posets to be the limit ordinals below $\kappa$, denoted here lim (0 is in lim), and the $\lambda$-complete forcings are supported by the successors below $\kappa$, denoted “succ”.
For an ordinal $\mu \leq \kappa$, a [*mixed support*]{} iteration of length $\mu$ is defined here to be a sequence of posets $\langle P_i | i \leq
\mu\rangle$ such that
1. The members of each $P_i$ are partial functions defined on $i$.
2. For limit $\delta \leq \mu,\;P_\delta$ is the mixed support [*limit*]{} of $\langle P_i | i < \delta \rangle$. This means the following. $P_\delta$ consists of all the partial functions $f$ defined on $\delta$ such that
1. $f\upharpoonright i \in P_i$ for every $i < \delta$.
2. Dom$(f) \cap \lim$ is finite.
3. In case $\delta$ is inaccessible, $|\mbox{Dom}(f) \cap \mbox{succ}|<
\delta$.
The partial order on $P_\delta$ is defined by $f \leq g$ iff for all $i < \delta\;f\upharpoonright i \leq g \upharpoonright i$ in $P_i$.
3. For successors $\eta + 1 \leq \mu,\;P_{\eta+1} \simeq P_\eta *
Q_{\eta}$ where $Q_\eta$ is a name of a poset in the universe of terms $V^{P_\eta}$. So $f \in P_{\eta +1}$ iff $f\upharpoonright \eta \in P = P_\eta$ and $f\upharpoonright \eta \Vdash_P f(\eta) \in Q_{\eta}$. The partial order on $P_{\eta+1}$ is defined as usual.
4. For any limit ordinal $\delta < \mu,\;Q_\delta$ is in $V^{P_\delta}$ a c.c.c. forcing (i.e., the empty condition in $P_\delta$ forces that). For successors $\alpha < \mu,\;Q_\alpha$ is $\lambda$-closed in $V^{P_\alpha}$ (closed under sequences of length $< \lambda$).
The notation $\Vdash_\eta$ can be used for $\Vdash_{P_\eta}$. It is convenient to define two conditions $p$ and $q$ in $P$ to be [*equivalent*]{} iff they are compatible with the same conditions in $P$. However, it is customary not to deal with equivalence classes, and to write $p = q$ instead of $[p] = [q]$, and we shall accept this convention.
For $i < \mu$ ($\mu$ is the length of the iteration) the restriction map $f
\mapsto f\upharpoonright i$ is a projection of $P_\mu$ onto $P_i$. But for an arbitrary set $A\subseteq i,\;f \upharpoonright A$ is not necessarily a condition, and, even when it is a condition, it is possible that $[f] = [g]$ and $f \upharpoonright A \neq g \upharpoonright A$. Therefore, the notation $f \upharpoonright A$ refers to the function $f$ itself and not to its equivalence class.
The set of functions $f \upharpoonright$ lim, for $f \in P_\mu$, is called the “c.c.c. component” of $P_\mu$. And the functions of the form $f \upharpoonright $ succ form the “complete component” of $P_\mu$. Let us say that $f_2$ is a [*pure*]{} extension of $f_1$ in $P_\mu$ iff $f_1 \leq
f_2$ and $f_1 \upharpoonright \lim = f_2 \upharpoonright \lim$. Thus, a pure extension of $f_1$ does not touch the c.c.c. component. (This definition refers to the functions $f_1$ and $f_2$ and not to their equivalence classes in $P_\mu$.)
The following lemma is an obvious consequence of the assumed $\lambda$-completeness of the posets in the complete component.\
$P_\mu$ is $< \lambda$ pure closed. That is, any purely increasing sequence $\langle
q_i | i < \tau\rangle$ of length $\tau < \lambda$ ($q_j$ is a pure extension of $q_i$ for $i < j$) has a least upper bound in $P_\mu$, which is a pure extension of each $q_i$.
Suppose now that $q \in P_\mu$, and $r$ is in the c.c.c. component of $P_\mu$. Then the sum $h = q + r$ is the function defined by
$$h(i) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
r(i)&\;\mbox{if}\;& i \in \mbox{dom}(r) \\
q(i)&\;\mbox{if}\;& i \in \mbox{dom}(q)\setminus\mbox{dom}(r) \end{array}
\right. .$$ Whenever the notation $h=q + r$ is used, it is tacitly assumed that for every $i,\;h \upharpoonright i \Vdash_i\; h(i) \in Q_i$ [*and* ]{} $r(i)$ [*extends*]{} $q(i)$. Hence $q + r \in P_\mu$ extends $q$. We have the following two easy lemmas on pure extensions given with no proof.
If $p_1 \leq p_2$ in $P_\mu$, then there is a pure extension $q$ of $p_1$ such that, setting $r = p_2 \upharpoonright \lim$, we have
$$p_2 = q+r.$$
Thus any extension is a combination of a pure extension with a finitely supported c.c.c. component.\
If $p_0 + r$ is a condition and $p_1$ is a pure extension of $p_0$, then $p_1 + r$ is a condition that extends $p_0 + r$.
The c.c.c. component of $P_\mu$ is certainly not a c.c.c. iteration, but the following quasi c.c.c. property still carries over from the usual argument that iteration with finite support of c.c.c. posets is again c.c.c.\
Assume that $\omega_1$ is preserved by $P_{\mu'}$ for every $\mu' < \mu$. Let $\{r_\xi | \xi < \omega_1\}$ be an uncountable subset of the c.c.c. component of $P_\mu$. If $q \in P_\mu$ is such that $q + r_\xi \in
P_\mu$ can be formed for every $\xi < \omega_1$, then
1. For some $\xi_1 \neq \xi_2,\;q + r_{\xi_1}$ and $q + r_{\xi_2}$ are compatible in $P_\mu$.
2. There is some $r$ in the c.c.c. component of $P_\mu$ such that $q+r \in P_\mu$ and $$\begin{array}{cl} q+r \Vdash_\mu & \mbox{there are unboundedly many}\;
\xi < \omega_1 \\ & \mbox{with}\; q + r_\xi\in G\;\mbox{(the generic filter)}.
\end{array}$$
[**Proof**]{}. Obviously, [*(2)*]{} implies [*(1)*]{} (because the posets are separative, and $p \Vdash ``q + r_\xi \in G \, \mbox{''} $ implies $p_\xi \leq p$). So we will only prove (2), by induction on $\mu$.
Recall first that for any c.c.c. poset $Q$ and uncountable subset $A \subseteq Q$ there is a condition $a \in A$ such that $a
\Vdash_Q\;A \cap G$ [*is uncountable*]{}. (Obvious warning: This does not mean there are uncountably many $a' \in A$ with $a' \leq a$.)
If $\mu$ is limit, there is no problem in using the familiar $\Delta$-argument in the case $cf(\mu) = \omega_1$, and the obvious application of the inductive assumption when $cf(\mu) \neq
\omega_1$. For example, in case $cf(\mu) = \omega_1$, form a $\Delta$-system out of dom$(r_\xi), \xi < \omega_1$, and let $d\subseteq i_0 <
\mu$ be the fixed finite core of the system. Then apply the inductive assumption to $q\upharpoonright i_0$ and to $r'_\xi = r_\xi \upharpoonright
d$, for $\xi$ in the $\Delta$ system. This gives some $r_0$ in the c.c.c. component of $P_{i_0}$ which satisfies [*2*]{} above for $q \upharpoonright i_0$ and the conditions $r'_\xi$. It is not too difficult to see that $q+r_0$ is as required (use the fact that the c.c.c component of every condition has a finite support).
In case $\mu = j+1$ and $j$ is a limit ordinal (for this is the interesting cse), then $P_\mu \simeq P_j * Q(j)$, where $Q(j)$ is a c.c.c. poset in $V^{P_j}$. Set $q' = q\upharpoonright j$, and $r'_\xi = r_\xi \upharpoonright j$. Apply induction to find $r'$ such that $$\begin{array}{cl}
q' + r' \Vdash_j & \mbox{\it for unboundedly many }\;
\xi < \omega_1,\\ & q' + r'_\xi \in G_j\; \mbox{\it (the generic filter
over }\; P_j).
\end{array}$$ Then define a name $\sigma$ in $V^{P_j}$ of a subset of $\omega_1$ such that
$$[q' \Vdash_j \xi \in \sigma]\ \mbox{iff}\ q'+r'_\xi \in G_j .$$ Since\
(1) $q' + r'$ forces that $\sigma$ is unbounded in $\omega_1$,\
(2) $\omega_1$ is not collapsed in $V^{P_j}$ by our assumption,\
(3) $Q(j)$ is c.c.c.,\
there is, by the remark made at the beginning of the proof, a name $a \in V^{P_j}$ such that $q'+r' \Vdash_j `` a$ [*is some*]{} $r_\xi(j) $ [*for*]{} $r'_\xi$ [*in*]{} $G_j$ [*such that*]{} $a \Vdash_{Q(j)}$ (for unboundedly many $ \zeta \in \sigma,\;r_\zeta(j) \in H$) ”. ($H$ is the $Q(j)$ generic filter.
Now it is immediate to combine $r'$ and $a$ to a function $r$ which is as required.
The main property of the mixed support iteration is the following.
Assume $P_\mu$ is a mixed support iteration as described above of c.c.c. and $\lambda$-complete posets. For every cardinal $\lambda' < \lambda$, every $f : \lambda'\to On$ in $V^{P_\mu}$ has a countable approximation in $V$ (that is, a function $g$ defined on $\lambda'$ such that for every $\alpha < \lambda',\;g(\alpha)$ is countable and $f(\alpha) \in
g(\alpha)$.)
[**Proof**]{}. By induction on $\mu$. Observe first that the lemma implies that any set of infinite cardinality $\lambda' < \lambda$ in the extension is covered by a ground model set of the same cardinality. Hence cardinals $\leq \lambda$ are not collapsed in $V^{P_\mu}$. The lemma also implies that, for regular uncountable $\lambda' < \lambda$, any club subset of $\lambda'$ in $V^{P_\mu}$ contains an old club set in $V$.
It is obvious that any c.c.c. extension or $\lambda$-complete extension has the property described in the theorem, namely that functions on $\lambda'$ have countable approximations. Hence, in case $\mu = \mu_0 + 1$, the theorem is obvious: First get the approximation in $V^{P_{\mu_0}}$ (assume without loss of generality that the first approximation has the form $g : \lambda' \times
\aleph_0 \rightarrow On$, and then use induction to get a second approximation in $V$.
So assume that $\mu$ is a limit ordinal, and $f \in V^{P_\mu}$ is a function defined on $\lambda' < \lambda$. We are going to define a pure increasing sequence $\langle q_\xi | \xi < \lambda' \rangle$ in $P_\mu$ such that for every $\alpha < \lambda'$ there is a countable set $g(\alpha)$ and
$$q_{\alpha+1} \Vdash f(\alpha) \in g(\alpha) .$$ If this construction can be carried on, then use the $< \lambda$ pure completeness of $P_\mu$ to find an upper bound $q$ to this sequence. Then $q \Vdash g$ [*is a countable approximation to*]{} $f$.
The definition of $q_{\xi +1}$ is done by defining a pure increasing sequence $\langle q(\alpha) | \alpha < \alpha_0\rangle$ where $q(0) = q_\xi$, and for each $\alpha$, a finite function $r_\alpha$ in the c.c.c. component of $P_\mu$ so that, for $\alpha \neq \alpha',\;q(\alpha) + r_\alpha$ and $q(\alpha') + r_{\alpha'}$ force different values for $f(\xi)$. The definition of this sequence is continued as long as possible, and the following argument shows that it must stop for some $\alpha_0 < \omega_1$, and then $q_{\xi+1}$ is the pure supremum of this countable sequence, and $g(\xi)$ is the set of all values forced there to be $f(\xi)$. Indeed, otherwise, $q(\alpha)$ can be defined for every $\alpha < \omega_1$ and we let $q$ be the upper bound of this pure increasing sequence (recall that $\aleph_1
< \lambda$). Then $q + r_\alpha$ is in $P_\mu$ for every $\alpha < \omega_1$ and it forces different values for $f(\xi)$. This contradicts the quasi c.c.c. lemma 3.4.
Definition of the forcing extension
===================================
The description of the poset $P_\kappa$, used for the coding proof, is given in this section by defining a mixed-support iteration $\langle P_\mu |
\mu \leq \kappa\rangle$ as outlined in Section 2.
At successor stages: $P_{\mu+1} \cong P_\mu * Q_\mu$ where $Q_\mu$ is a poset in $V^{P_\mu}$ defined thus. If $\mu=\delta \in \lim$, then $Q_\delta$ is in $V^{P_\delta}$ a c.c.c. poset of cardinality, say, $\leq \aleph_\delta$. ($P_1$ is a c.c.c. poset, say the countable Cohen poset.) The choice of $Q_\delta$ is determined by some bookkeeping function, aimed to ensure that Martin’s Axiom holds in $V^{P_\kappa}$. (The cardinality limitation is to ensure the right cardinalities to show that cardinals are not collapsed.)
For successor ordinals of the form $j = \delta + i$ where $\delta$ is limit and $0 < i < \omega,\;Q_j$ is defined to be in $V^{P_j}$ either the trivial poset (containing a single condition) or the poset $C(\lambda_j,\lambda_j^{++})$, where $\lambda_j = \aleph_{\delta+2i}$. To determine which alternative to take, define a function $g$ that gives, for every limit $\delta < \kappa$, a name $g(\delta) \in
V^{P_\delta}$ such that, for every $\alpha < \kappa$, every real in $V^{P_\alpha}$ is some $g(\delta)$ for $\delta \geq \alpha$. Suppose that $g(\delta)$ is interpreted as $r \subseteq \omega$ in $V[G_\delta]$ (the generic extension via $P_\delta$); then this determines $Q_j$, for every $j$ in the interval $(\delta , \delta + \omega)$, which has the form $j = \delta + i_0 + 1$, by $$Q_j\;\mbox{is non-trivial iff}\ i_0 \in r .$$
In order to prove that $P_\kappa$ possesses the required properties (such as not collapsing cardinals), we decompose $P_\kappa$ at any stage $\alpha < \kappa$, and write $P_\kappa \cong P_\alpha * P^\alpha_
\kappa$, where $P_\alpha$ is the iteration up to $\alpha$, and $P^\alpha_\kappa$ is the remainder of the iteration. It is not hard to realize that $P^\alpha_\kappa$ is just like $P_\kappa$ except that $\lambda_1 = \aleph_2$ is replaced with $\lambda_{\alpha
+1} = \aleph_{\alpha +2}$. For this reason, we must first describe $P^\alpha_\kappa$ and analyze its properties.
For each ordinal $\alpha < \kappa$ a mixed support iteration $\langle P^\alpha_\mu | \alpha \leq \mu \leq \kappa\rangle$ will be defined by induction on $\mu$. The poset used to obtain the theorem is $P^0_\kappa$, but the $P^\alpha_\kappa$ are necessary as well since the decomposition $P^0_\kappa \simeq P^0_\alpha * (P^\alpha_\kappa)^{V^{P^0_\alpha}}$ is used to show the desirable properties of the iteration. This may also explain why we choose the index $\mu$ of $P^\alpha_\mu$ to start from $\alpha$ and not from 0. The conditions in $P^\alpha_\mu$ are functions defined on the ordinal interval $[\alpha,\mu)$.
To begin with, $P^\alpha_\alpha$ is the trivial poset $\{\emptyset\}$ containing only one condition (the empty function). The definition of $P^\alpha_{j+1} \simeq
P^\alpha_j * Q^\alpha(j)$ depends on whether $j \in \lim$ or $j \in$ succ. If $j \in \lim$ then $Q^\alpha(j)$ is in $V^{P^\alpha_j}$ a c.c.c. poset of cardinality $\leq \aleph_j$ (for definiteness). The choice of $Q^\alpha(j)$ for $j \in $ lim is determined by some bookkeeping function which we do not specify now, the aim of which is to obtain Martin’s Axiom in $V^{P^0_\kappa}$.
If $j$ is a successor ordinal of the form $j =
\delta + i$ where $\delta$ is limit and $0 < i < \omega$, we require that $Q^\alpha(j)$ is in $V^{P^\alpha_j}$ either the trivial poset, or $C(\lambda_j, \lambda^{++}_j)$ where $\lambda_j = \aleph_{\delta+2i}$ (all in the sense of $V^{P^\alpha_j}$). The exact description of $Q^\alpha(j)$ (i.e., the decision as to whether it is the trivial poset or the one that introduces $\lambda^{++}_j$ club subsets to $\lambda_j$) is not needed to prove that cardinals are not collapsed.
For every successor $\alpha$, $P^\alpha_\mu$ is $\lambda_{\alpha}$ pure closed.
[**Proof**]{}. The complete component of $P^\alpha_\mu$ consists of posets of the form $C(\lambda_j,\lambda_j^{++})$ which are $\lambda_j$ closed. Since $\lambda_\alpha \leq \lambda_j$ for all these $j$’s, the lemma follows.\
For every $\mu$ such that $\alpha \leq \mu \leq \kappa$, $P^\alpha_\mu$ changes no cofinalities and hence preserves cardinals. In fact, this is deduced from the following properties of the mixed support iteration $P_\mu^\alpha$.
1. For limit $\mu \leq \kappa$, the cardinality of $P^\alpha_\mu$ is $\leq
\aleph^+_\mu$, and if $\mu > \alpha$ is inaccessible, then $|P^\alpha_\mu| =
\aleph_\mu$.
2. If $\mu$ is successor, $\mu = j+1$, then $P^\alpha_\mu$ satisfies the $\lambda^+_j$-c.c. and its cardinality is $\leq \lambda^{++}_j$ (where $\lambda_j = \aleph_{\delta+2i}$ if $j = \delta + i$ for $\delta$ limit and $0
\leq i < \omega$). Thus the GCH continues to hold in $V^{P^\alpha_\mu}$ for $\lambda_j^+$ and higher cardinals.
3. For each $i$ such that $\alpha < i < \mu\;P^\alpha_\mu \cong P^\alpha_i * (P^i_\mu)^{V'}$ where $V'$ is $V^{P^\alpha_i}$.
[**Proof**]{}. Let us see first how 1,2,3 are used to show by induction that $P_\mu^\alpha$ preserves cofinalities. So let $g : \eta \to \sigma$ be a cofinal function in $V^{P^\alpha_\mu}$ where $\eta$ is a regular cardinal. We have to show that $cf(\sigma) \leq \eta$ in $V$ as well. Assume first $\mu=j+1$ is a successor ordinal, and then $P^\alpha_\mu \cong P^\alpha_j * Q^\alpha(j)$. The case $j \in $ lim is obvious since $Q^\alpha(j)$ is then a c.c.c. poset. So assume that $j$ is a successor ordinal now, and $\lambda_j'$ is thus defined. The case $\lambda_j \leq \eta$ follows from the $\lambda_j^+$-c.c of $P_\mu^\alpha$. In case $\lambda_j > \eta$ use the $\lambda_j$ completeness of $Q^\alpha(j)$ and induction.
Now assume that $\mu$ is limit. The proof divides into two cases. Suppose, for some successor $j$ with $\alpha \leq j < \mu,\;\eta < \lambda_j$. Then $P^\alpha_\mu \cong P^\alpha_j *
(P^j_\mu)^{V'}$ where $V'$ is $V^{P^\alpha_j}$. Lemma 3.5 was formulated for quite a general mixed support iteration, and it can be applied in $V'$ to $P^j_\mu$ to yield that the function $g$ has a countable approximation in $V'$. We may apply the inductive hypothesis and find an approximation of $g$ in $V$.
In case $\eta \geq \lambda_j$ for all such $j$’s, $\eta \geq \aleph_\mu$. Apply cardinality or chain condition arguments: It follows in this case that $P^\alpha_\mu$ satisfies the $\eta^+$-c.c. and hence the cofinality of $\sigma$ in $V$ is $\leq \eta$.
So now we prove the three properties by induction on $\mu$. The proof of [*1*]{} and [*2*]{} are fairly standard, and uses, besides the definition of the Easton support, the inductive assumptions and the restrictions on the cardinalities of the posets.
To prove [*3*]{}, we shall define a map $f \mapsto \langle f\upharpoonright
i,\;f/i\,\rangle$ of $P^\alpha_\mu$ into $P^\alpha_i * (P^i_\mu)^{V'}$ as follows. Clearly, $f\upharpoonright i \in P^\alpha_i$. To define the name $f/i$ in $V^{P^\alpha_i}$, we assume a $V$ generic filter, $G$, over $P^\alpha_i$, place ourselves in $V[G]$, and define the function $(f/i)[G]$ which interprets $f/i$ (for every $\xi \in
\mbox{dom}(f),\;f/i[G](\xi)$ is a name in $(P^i_\xi)^{V[G]}$ naturally defined). Let us check that this map is onto a dense subset of the two-step iteration. So let $\langle h,\tau\rangle \in P^\alpha_i * (P^i_\mu)^{V'}$. By extending $h$ we may assume that $h$ ‘knows’ the finite domain of the c.c.c. component of $\tau$. That is, for some finite set $E_0 \subseteq
\mu,\; h \Vdash_i$ dom $(\tau)
\cap\;\lim = E_0$. Let $E_1 = \{ \eta \in \mbox{succ}\;|\;$ some extension of $h$ in $P^\alpha_i$ forces $\eta \in $ dom$(\tau)\}$. Because the cardinality of $P^\alpha_i$ is $< \aleph_{i+\omega},\;\;E_1$ is bounded below inaccessible cardinals, and can serve as Easton support of a condition. Now $f \in P_\mu^\alpha$ can be defined on $E_0 \cup E_1$, so that $\langle
h, f/i \, \rangle$ extends $\langle h, \tau \rangle$.
The proof of the theorem
========================
All the technical machinery is assembled, and we only have to apply it. The iteration has the form $P^0_\kappa$ and the definition of the function $h$ that decides the value of $Q(j)$ is made so that Martin’s Axiom holds in $V^{P^0_\kappa}$, and for every real $r$ in $V^{P^0_\kappa}$ there is a unique limit ordinal $\delta(r)$ such that $$i \in r\; \mbox{iff for}\
j = \delta(r) + i + 1,\; Q(j)\; \mbox{is}\; C(\lambda_j,\lambda^{++}_j).$$
For every successor $j < \kappa,\;Q(j)$ is $C(\lambda_j,\lambda^{++}_j)$ iff the club filter on $\lambda_j$ in $V^{P^0_\kappa}$ has generating number $\lambda^{++}_j$ .\
To prove the lemma, observe that any function $f : \lambda_j \to On$ has a countable approximation in $P^0_{j+1}$. This is so by Lemmas 4.1 and 3.5, because $P^0_\kappa =
P^0_{j+1} * (P^{j+1}_\kappa)^{V'}$, and $P_\kappa^{j+1}$ is in $V'$ a mixed uspport iteration of c.c.c. and $\lambda_{j+1}$-closed posets. So every club subset of $\lambda_j$ in $V^{P^0_\kappa}$ contains a club in $P^0_j * Q(j)$, and then the generating number of $\lambda_j$ in $V^{P^0_\kappa}$ and $V^{P^0_{j+1}}$ are the same. But in $V^{P^0_j},\;2^{\lambda_j} = \lambda^+_j$ (by Lemma 4.2(2)), and hence the generating number in $V^{P^0_\kappa}$ is determined in $P^0_{j} * Q(j)$ as follows. If $Q(j)$ is trivial, then the generating number remains $\lambda_j^+$, and if $Q(j)$ is $C(\lambda_j,\lambda_j^{++})$, then the generating number is $\lambda_j^{++}$ of course.
The definition of the well-ordering of ${\Bbb R}$ in $V^{P^0_\kappa}$ is now clear: $r_1 \prec r_2$ iff $\delta(r_1) < \delta(r_2)$. Why is $\prec$ a $\Sigma^2_1$ relation? The answer was outlined in Section 2, and now more details are given.
The “almost disjoint sets encoding technique” was introduced by Solovay in [@So], and the reader can find there a detailed exposition; we only give an outline. Assume $\mu$ is a cardinal, and $s = \langle s_\xi |\xi <
\mu\rangle$ a collection of pairwise almost disjoint subsets of $\omega$. Let $X \subseteq \mu$ be any subset. Then the following c.c.c. poset $P$ introduces a real $a \subseteq \omega$ such that, together with $s$, $a$ encodes $X$. In fact, $\xi \in X$ iff $s_\xi \cap a$ is finite.
A condition $(e,c) \in P$ is a pair such that $e$ is a finite partial function from $\omega$ to 2, and $c \subseteq X$ is finite. The order relation expresses the intuition that $e$ gives finite information on $a$, and $c$ is a promise that for $\xi \in c$ the generic subset will not add any more members of $a \cap s_\xi$. So $(e_1,c_1)$ extends $(e_2,c_2)$ iff $e_2 \subseteq e_1,\;c_2 \subseteq c_1$, and for $\xi
\in c_2,\;s_\xi \cap E_1 \subseteq E_2$ (where $E_i = \{k|e_i(k) = 1\})$.
The intuitive meaning of this order relation becomes clear by the following definition. Let $G \subseteq P$ be generic; then set $$a = \{k | e(k) = 1\;\mbox{for some}\;(e,c) \in G\} .$$
It can be seen that, $a \cap s_\xi$ is finite for $\xi
\in X$, and is infinite for $\xi \not\in X$.
This almost disjoint set encoding is used to prove that the $\Sigma^2_1$ definition given in Section 2 is really equivalent to the well ordering $\prec$. The main point is this. Suppose Martin’s Axiom $+\, 2^{\aleph_0} = \kappa$, and $M$ is a transitive model of some part of ZFC containing all the reals and a well-order of them (which is a class in $M$). Then $M$ contains all the bounded subsets of $\kappa$ as well. Why? Well, let $X \subseteq \mu < \kappa$ be any bounded set. Since $M$ contains a set of $\mu$ reals, it also contains a sequence of $\mu$ pairwise almost disjoint subsets of $\omega$ (taken, for example, as branches of $2^{\stackrel{\omega}{\smile}}$). By Martin’s Axiom, there is a set $a
\subseteq \omega$ that encodes $X$. As $a \in M,\;X \in M$ as well.
A weakening of the GCH assumption
=================================
The theorem required GCH (below $\kappa$) to ensure that cardinal are not collapsed. In this section this assumption is weakened somewhat in demanding that $2^\mu=\mu^+$ only on some closed unbounded set of cardinals $\mu < \kappa$.
To see this, let $\langle \mu_i \mid i < \kappa \rangle$ be an enumeration of a club set of limit cardinals, such that $2^{\mu_i}=\mu_i^+$, and cf$(\mu_{i+1}) > \mu_i^+$, and $(\mu_{i+1}) ^{\leq \mu_i}= \mu_{i+1}$.
The construction is basically the same as before, but $\mu_i$ replaces $\lambda_i$ and the main point is this: For a successor $j=\delta+i$, where $\delta < \kappa$ is limit and $0< i < \omega$, $P_{i+1}=P_i * Q(j)$ where $Q(j)$ is now a poset that adds either $\mu_{j}$ or $\mu_{j+1}$ subsets to $\mu_j^+$. Now if $M$ is as before a transitive model that contains all the reals, then the club sequence can be reconstructed by asking the questions about the generating numbers. If one starts with $\mu_0$, then the original sequence is reconstructed; starting with another cardinal may result in another club. However, this club intersects the original sequence of the $\mu_i$’s, and hence both sequences have an equal end-section. Hence we must demand that the well-ordering of $\Bbb R$ is determined by any end section of the club.
[30]{} U. Abraham and S. Shelah, [*A $\Delta_2^2$ well-order of the reals and incompactness of $L(Q^{MM})$*]{}, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic [**59**]{} (1993) 1-32. U. Abraham and S. Shelah, [*Coding with ladders a well ordering of the reals*]{}. To appear. R. B. Jensen and R. M. Solovay, Some applications of almost disjoint sets, in: Y. Bar-Hillel, ed., [*Mathematical Logic and Foundation of Set Theory*]{} (North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam, 1970) 84-104. S. Shelah and H. Woodin, [*Large cardinal imply every reasonably definable set is measurable*]{}, Israel J. Math. [**70**]{} (1990) 381-394. H. Woodin, [*Large Cardinals and Determinacy*]{}, in preparation.
[^1]: Partially sponsored by the Edmund Landau Center for research in Mathematical Analysis, supported by the Minerva Foundation (Germany), p.n. 458
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We demonstrate and characterize a high-flux beam source for cold, slow atoms or molecules. The desired species is vaporized using laser ablation, then cooled by thermalization in a cryogenic cell of buffer gas. The beam is formed by particles exiting a hole in the buffer gas cell. We characterize the properties of the beam (flux, forward velocity, temperature) for both an atom (Na) and a molecule (PbO) under varying buffer gas density, and discuss conditions for optimizing these beam parameters. Our source compares favorably to existing techniques of beam formation, for a variety of applications.'
author:
- 'S. E. Maxwell'
- 'N. Brahms'
- 'R. deCarvalho'
- 'S. V. Nguyen'
- 'D. Patterson'
- 'J. M. Doyle'
- 'J. Helton'
- 'D. R. Glenn'
- 'J. Petricka'
- 'D. DeMille'
title: 'High-flux beam source for cold, slow atoms or molecules'
---
Cold, slow beams of atoms or molecules are of wide utility. A common use of such beams is as a source for loading into traps, where the particles can be further cooled and manipulated, e.g. to create Bose condensates or Fermi degenerate gases. Because the number of trapped particles is typically limited by the characteristics of the initial beam (flux, forward velocity, temperature, etc.), significant effort has been put into developing improved atomic beam sources [@lvis; @haubeam; @schoser:023410; @dieckmann:3891; @mm-mot; @prentisssource; @abrahamMagfilter]. Work on developing cold molecular sources has recently been a particularly active field of research [@rotating-source; @stark1; @hfs-stark; @chandler; @elecfilter; @fulton:243004]. As with atoms, one of the aims is to produce quantum degenerate gases, including those comprising strongly interacting electric dipoles [@dipolarBEC; @dipolarFermi; @bdg02].
For the purposes of loading traps, an ideal source would produce a large flux of any atom or molecule at temperatures less than the depth of the trap, T$_t$. For most currently used trap technologies, T$_t$ $\lesssim 1$ K. For species amenable to laser cooling, this temperature is within the capture range of a MOT [@OriginalMOT]. For paramagnetic atoms and molecules, strong magnetic traps can have depths exceeding 1K [@HMN04trap]. For polar molecules, electric field-based traps can reach similar depths [@microwavetrap; @bbc00].
We describe here a simple, robust source that can operate with nearly any atomic or molecular species, and which produces a beam at high flux with translational and rotational temperatures near 1 K. We demonstrate this source for both an atom (Na) and a polar molecule (PbO), and discuss the different regimes of beam formation. Our analysis makes it possible to estimate and optimize various characteristics of the beam source for general use. We believe this provides an attractive alternative to many beam techniques now in use.
A simple outline of the operation of our source is as follows. Atoms or molecules of the desired species, **A**, are first vaporized by laser ablation. This produces $N$ particles of **A** per pulse, at a high temperature $T_i$. The ablation takes place inside a cryogenic cell filled with He buffer gas at low temperature $T_b$ and density $n_{He}$. After a characteristic number of collisions ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}$, the translational temperature $T$ of **A** comes arbitrarily close to equilibrium with the buffer gas, such that $T \approx
(1+\epsilon)T_b$ when ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}= -\kappa ln(\epsilon T_b/T_i)$ [@primer]. \[Here $\kappa \equiv (m_A + m_{He})^2/(2m_A m_{He})$, and $m_{He}$ $(m_A)$ is the mass of He (**A**)\]. Rotational degrees of freedom are also cooled during these collisions. By allowing both He and **A** particles to exit the cell via a small hole, a beam of **A** is formed. The beam persists for a duration given by the diffusion lifetime of **A** in the cell, which is limited by sticking of **A** particles upon contact with the cell walls.
The number of cold particles of **A** in the beam is determined by both $n_{He}$ and the cell geometry. During thermalization, a particle of **A** typically travels a distance $R \approx {\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}/(n_{He} \sigma_t)$, where $\sigma_t$ is a thermally-averaged cross section for elastic collisions. Hence, for a cell with distance $R_{h}$ from the ablation point to the hole, the particles of **A** will be efficiently thermalized before exiting the hole only if $R < R_h$. In addition, the purely geometric probability for a particle of **A** to escape in the beam is governed by the ratio $d/R_h$, where $d$ is the diameter of the exit hole.
The forward velocity, $v_f$, of the thermalized beam of **A** particles also depends on both $n_{He}$ and $d$. Specifically, $v_f$ is determined by the ratio $d/\lambda$, where $\lambda =
1/(n_{He} \sigma_c)$ is the mean free path of **A** particles in the cell; here $\sigma_c$ is the elastic cross-section for cold **A**-He collisions. In the effusive limit $(\lambda \gg
d)$, $v_f$ will be given approximately by the thermal velocity of cold **A** particles, i.e. $v_f \approx v_{A} \equiv
\sqrt{2k_BT_b/m_A}$. By contrast, when $\lambda \ll d$ the **A** particles will become entrained in the outward flow of He, so that $v_f \approx v_{He} \equiv \sqrt{2 k_B T_b/m_{He}}$. Since $m_A \gg m_{He}$ for most species of interest, $v_f$ is much smaller in the effusive limit than for an entrained beam.
Note that the conditions for efficient thermalization and for a slow beam are in conflict. Thermalization is most efficient for $n_{He}$ above a threshold value, but effusive flow demands that $n_{He}$ be less than a typically different threshold. The highest flux of cold, slow **A** particles is obtained when $R_h$ and $d$ are chosen so that these thresholds in buffer-gas density coincide (namely, when $R_h/d \approx
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}\sigma_c/\sigma_t$), and $n_{He}$ is set at this common threshold value ($n_{He}^{-1} = d\sigma_c = R_h\sigma_t$).
![A schematic of the beam apparatus. When detecting fluorescence, a lens (not shown) collimates a fraction of the fluorescence light and directs it out a window to a PMT.[]{data-label="completebeam"}](fig1p.eps "fig:")\
A schematic of the beam setup is given in Fig. \[completebeam\]. The buffer gas cell is a brass box $\sim \!\! 10$ cm on edge. The cell is mounted in vacuum, with the top face attached to the cold plate of a liquid He cryostat. An $0.8$ mm long exit hole with $d=3$ mm is centered on one side face. The bottom and other side faces are covered with windows for optical access. Several ablation targets are mounted on the top face at $R_h\approx6$ cm. The ablation light consists of laser pulses of $\sim \! 5$ ns duration, with energy $\sim \! 15$ mJ, focused to a spot size $\lesssim1$ mm, at a wavelength of 532 nm. The ablation laser is typically fired at 10 Hz repetition rate. We produce Na atoms with sodium metal or NaCl targets, and PbO molecules with a vacuum hot-pressed PbO target. With our ablation conditions, typically $T_i \approx 1000$ K for both species.
Buffer gas continuously flows into the cell through a narrow tube which is thermally anchored to the cold plate. This ensures that the buffer gas is at the temperature of the cold plate upon entry to the cell. The cell walls, and thus the He gas, are typically at $T_b = 5$ K. Helium in the cell must be replenished as it flows continuously through the exit hole. A calibrated metering valve at room temperature is used to control the flow into the cell, and hence the density, of the buffer gas. We determine $n_{He}$ to within a factor of 2. Good vacuum is maintained in the beam region by means of a coconut charcoal sorption pump with a pumping speed of $\sim \!\! 1000$ l s$^{-1}$.
For a typical elastic cross-section $\sigma_c \approx 3 \times
10^{15}$ cm$^{-3}$, the crossover between effusive and entrained flow of **A**i.e., the condition $d =
\lambda$occurs for $n_{He} = n_c \approx 10^{15}$ cm$^{-3}$. This should be compared to the density $n_{He} = n_t$ required for full thermalization of **A** particlesi.e., such that $R \approx {\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}/(n_{He}
\sigma_t) = R_h$. Assuming $\sigma_t \approx \sigma_c$, we find that for Na in our cell, $n_t \approx n_c$. Thus it should be anticipated that our cell is near the optimal geometry for producing a maximal flux of slow, cold Na. By contrast, the larger mass of PbO makes ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}$ much larger than for Na, implying that our cell geometry is not optimal for PbO. We characterize the the beam source for both species within a range of densities around the anticipated optimal condition for Na, namely $n_{He} \approx
0.2-5 \times 10^{15}$ cm$^{-3}$.
The beam source is monitored using laser spectroscopy. Doppler shifts and widths of the spectra are used to determine beam velocity profiles. Signal size and timing yield the column density and particle dynamics. To measure the longitudinal (transverse) velocity profile, a probe laser beam is sent collinear with (perpendicular to) the molecular beam. For Na, a third probe beam monitors atoms inside the cell.
We monitor Na atoms via absorption of a probe laser tuned to the $3s_{1/2} \rightarrow 3p_{3/2}$ transition at wavelength $\lambda_{Na} = 589$ nm. The probe laser frequency is continuously scanned over the entire absorption profile (a range of $\sim 1$ GHz), at a rate of 1 kHz, resulting in several complete spectral profiles of the Na atomic beam for each ablation pulse. The relatively slow scan of the laser ensures that we are sensitive only to nearly-thermalized Na atoms; hot atoms traverse the detection region before a scan is complete.
PbO is monitored via laser-induced fluorescence. This probe laser is tuned to the X$(v''=0) \rightarrow $B$(v'=5)$ transition at $\lambda_{PbO,e} = 406$ nm. Fluorescence is detected using a photomultiplier tube (PMT), with interference and colored glass filters to selectively observe the B$(v'=5) \rightarrow$ X$(v''=4)$ transition at $\lambda_{PbO,f} = 460$ nm. A shutter with an opening time of $\sim7$ ms is used to shield the PMT from the initial glow following each ablation pulse. Again, this technique ensures that only slow-moving molecules are detected. The signal is averaged over several (typically 10) shots of the ablation laser with the probe laser frequency fixed. A single spectral scan consists of frequency points separated by 10-30 MHz across a span of up to several GHz. Our quantitative determination of molecule number from fluorescence counts includes estimates of the detection efficiency and branching fraction for the detected transition [@FCF]. We estimate the error in our absolute number measurement of PbO to be less than a factor of 2.
![The number of cold **A** particles, $N_h$, that emerge in the beam as a function of $n_{He}$. Curves with specific functional forms have been inserted to show the different scaling regimes. The intersection of the curves corresponds to the condition $R = R_h$, where a typical **A** particle is thermalized just as it reaches the hole.[]{data-label="number"}](fig2p.eps)
For Na, the in-cell probe beam was used to determine both $N$ and $\sigma_c$. We find $N_{Na} \approx 10^{14}$/pulse for both the Na and NaCl targets. We measure diffusion lifetimes of $\tau \left[\mathrm{ms}\right]\approx 4\times 10^{-15}\times n_{He}\left[\mathrm{cm}^{-3}\right]$. From this we infer $\sigma_c\approx 3\times10^{-15}$ cm$^2$. For PbO, previous work has measured an ablation yield of $\approx 10^{12}$/pulse [@DimaPbO], and our measurements with an in-cell probe indicate a comparable yield.
In Fig. \[number\] we plot the number, $N_h$, of thermalized particles of species **A** exiting the hole as a function of $n_{He}$. We also show the results of a Monte Carlo simulation of the beam formation process. The condition for full thermalization is apparent in both the experimental and simulated data for Na, while as expected we do not appear to reach the condition of full thermalization for PbO.
In the Na data and simulations, we find that $N_h$ increases rapidly (approximately $\propto n_{He}^3$) up to a critical value of $n_{He}$, above which $N_h$ is roughly constant at its maximum value $N_{h,max}$. The low-density scaling is consistent with a simple picture in which **A** particles are distributed uniformly over a volume of characteristic length $L_t \approx {\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}\lambda$, when they have thermalized to near $T_b$. (This broad distribution arises, in our simulations of the thermalization process, from the spreads both in the number of collisions required to thermalize and in the free path between collisions.) At high density, the condition $N_h \simeq N_{h,max}$ arises in our simulations when $R < R_h$ for essentially all **A** particles. In this regime, the fraction of **A** particles escaping, $f_{max} = N_{h,max}/N$, is given roughly by the area of the hole to the area of a hemisphere at radius $R_h$, i.e., $f_{max}
\approx d_h^2/(8 R_{h}^2)$. In our geometry, $f_{max} \approx 3
\times 10^{-4}$.
The simulated beam data in Fig. \[number\] is scaled to match the experimental Na data by adjusting the values of $N_{Na}$ and $\sigma_t$. The resulting value, $N_{Na} \approx 5\times10^{13}$, is in reasonable agreement with the determination from the in-cell probe. The fitted thermalization cross-section, $\sigma_t \sim
1\times 10^{-15}$ cm$^2$, is somewhat smaller than $\sigma_c$. This is reasonable, since elastic cross sections are typically smaller at higher collision energies[@landau].
![PbO and Na beam mean forward velocities, $v_f$, as a function of $n_{He}$. Extrapolation of the data to zero buffer gas density is illustrated by best-fit lines (dashed).[]{data-label="velocities"}](fig3p.eps)
Fig. \[velocities\] shows the average forward velocity, $v_f$, of the beams of **A** particles as $n_{He}$ is varied. For both Na and PbO, the data show a nearly linear increase of $v_f$ with $n_{He}$, with the velocity of the lighter species always larger. This behavior is consistent with the following simple picture. A slowly-moving particle of **A** takes a time $T_e$ to exit the hole, where $T_e \sim d/v_A$. During this time, it undergoes $N_e$ collisions with fast, primarily forward-moving He atoms, where $N_e \sim n_{He} \sigma_c v_{He} T_e$. Each collision imparts a momentum transfer $\Delta p_A \sim m_{He} v_{He}$. This results in a net velocity boost $\Delta v_A$, given by $\Delta v_A
\sim v_A d/\lambda \propto n_{He}$. This picture should be roughly valid for densities below the regime of full entrainment, where $v_f \sim v_{He}$. The velocities we measure for Na are approximately reproduced by modeling of the beam formation process with our measured value of $\sigma_c$.
This picture also predicts that the behavior of $v_f$, when extrapolated to $n_{He} = 0$, should yield the velocity of an effusive beam of **A** particles at temperature $T_b$. To make this comparison, it is critical to note that our detection technique is sensitive to molecules within a roughly cylindrical volume, of diameter $D_d$ and with length $L$ extending from the exit hole. Under our conditions, where $D_d \sim d < L$, it can be shown that an effusive beam will exhibit a velocity distribution close to $f(v) \propto v^2 e^{-m_Av^2/(2k_BT_b)}$ and a mean velocity $\bar{v}_{eff} \approx 1.13 v_A$. Our extrapolated data is within $\sim \! 25 \%$ of this prediction for both species.
![PbO and Na temperatures as a function of $n_{He}$ as determined by fits to spectral profiles. “Transverse”, “longitudinal”, and “in cell” refer to the location of the probe laser (see Fig. \[completebeam\]). Typical errors for the transverse and in cell Na temperatures are comparable to the marker size.[]{data-label="temps"}](fig4p.eps)
Fig. \[temps\] shows the temperature of the beams vs. $n_{He}$, as measured by the velocity spreads in the longitudinal and transverse directions, as well as the rotational population distribution (for PbO). For transverse temperature we fit to a distribution of the form $f_t(v)\propto e^{-m_A v^2/(2 k_B T)}$. For longitudinal temperature we use $f_l(v)\propto e^{-m_A
(v-v_l)^2/(2 k_B T)}$. Fits of the longitudinal data to the effusive distribution $f_{l,eff}(v) \propto v^2 e^{-m_s v^2/(2 k_B
T)}$ were poor, consistent with the partial entrainment of **A** in the helium flow. For the rotational temperature, we use Clebsch-Gordan and Hönl-London factors to determine the relationship between fluorescence intensity and initial state population for various rotational lines. The ratio of initial state populations for 2-3 rotational lines determine the temperature corresponding to a Boltzmann distribution. Our data indicates complete thermalization of all detected particles. Note that we observe no additional cooling below $T_b$, as would be expected for entrainment in a fully supersonic He flow. The beam source described here can be readily adapted to the needs of a wide range of experiments. For example, it can be used for a wide variety of species with performance similar to that described here. The total flux depends linearly on the ablation yield $N$, which for any given target is difficult to predict *a priori*. However, for nearly every species we have tried (here and in many related experiments), it has been possible to achieve large values of $N$ by a suitable choice of precursor material. For example, under operating conditions similar to those used here, we have obtained $N = 10^{12}\! -\! 10^{14}$ for a variety of metal atoms and $N = 10^{11}\! -\! 10^{13}$ for many species of diatomic molecules (including radicals) [@Eupaper; @bretislavcah; @bretislavCaF; @rareEarth]. In addition–subject to limitations of cooling power or gas load–the source could be run at lower temperatures, higher repetition rates, or with higher extraction efficiency (e.g., by using several separated exit holes). Our discussion of the beam formation mechanism makes it straightforward to determine the effects of such changes.
A key possible improvement to the source would be the addition of a guide, either magnetic (for paramagnetic species) or electric (for polar molecules). In both cases, He is unaffected by the guide potential and will exit through the sides of the guide, allowing extraction of the **A** beam into a region of ultra-high vacuum. Under the conditions described here, this beam source could be used to load a peak flux of up to $2\times10^{11}$ s$^{-1}$ Na atoms into a simple permanent magnet guide such as the type described in Ref. [@abrahamMagfilter]. An electrostatic guide such as that described in Ref. [@elecfilter] could be loaded with a peak flux of $\sim
10^9$ s$^{-1}$ PbO molecules in the J=1 rotational state, adequate for loading into a microwave [@microwavetrap] or electrostatic [@ammoniatrap] trap. The high fluxes from our source could result in substantial improvements in atomic and molecular trapping experiments that depend on large initial numbers.
We acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. DMR-0325580 and PHY-0071311, the Army Research Office, the W.M. Keck Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
[28]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, , (), .
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, **** ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, **, vol. of ** (, ), ed.
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss a possibility to probe right-handed weak hadronic currents in rare semileptonic $b\to s$ transitions. It is shown that within models involving right-handed as well as left-handed quark currents (LR models) one can expect a strong enhancement of the right-handed $K^*$ production in $B \to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays compared with models including only left-handed quark currents (SM, MSSM). Hence an experimental study of the transverse asymmetry of the produced $K^*$ mesons provides a clear test of the presence of the right-handed quark currents and a possibiltity to discriminate between the MSSM and LR extentions of the SM. At the same time, MSSM and LR models are found to yield qualitatively the same type of deviations from the SM in the forward-backward and the longitudinal lepton polarization asymmetries.'
---
-0.3in -0.50cm 6.75in 8.75in 1.2cm
\
\
The interest in rare FCNC $B$ decays is motivated to a large extent by the fact that these decays provide a possibility to probe the new physics effects at comparatively low energies. However, for the experimental study of new physics effects it is important to have clear signatures for some particular extentions of the SM. Among possible extentions the most popular ones are the MSSM and LR models [@mssmcmw; @mssmhw; @lrcm; @lrrizzo]. Recently, it has been observed [@mns2] that e.g. the MSSM extention of the SM can be probed by the analysis of the forward-backward ($A_{FB}$) and lepton polarization ($P_L$) asymmetries: namely, there are regions in the MSSM parameter space which yield qualitatively different behaviors of $A_{FB}$ and $P_L$ compared with the SM predictions. Moreover, a possibilty to probe the RH currents in $B\to K^*\nu\bar\nu$ decays has been recently pointed out in [@mns3]. In this letter we discuss a possibility to discriminate between the MSSM and LR models by a study of the $q^2$-distributions of the transversely polarized $K^*$ mesons produced in the $B \to K^* \ell^+
\ell^-$ decays.
As it is known [@lrrizzo], the parameter space of the LR models is rather wide and although the CLEO results on rare radiative decays provide some restrictions on the values of the LR model parameters, much freedom is still left. We report that there are regions in the LR model parameter space still allowed by the CLEO data, which yield a strong enhancement of the right-handed $K^*$ produced in rare semileptonic (SL) $B\to K^*$ transitions. This contrasts to the predictions of other models where the RH quark currents are absent (SM, MSSM) and a strong dominance of the LH $K^*$ mesons at low $q^2$ is predicted. This property prompts that a study of the transverse asymmetry of $K^*$ produced in the $B \to
K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays can discriminate between the LR models on the one hand, and the SM and MSSM on the other. To be more rigorous, a difference of the $K^*$ transverse asymmetry from unity would be a clear and specific signal of the presence of the RH currents in the Effective Hamiltonian.
We show also that, as fas as other observables, like $A_{FB}$ and $P_L$, are concerned, the presence of the RH quark currents in the effective Hamiltonian yields generally the same type of deviations from the SM predictions as one might expect within the MSSM.
Effective Hamiltonians and differential distributions
=====================================================
The effective Hamiltonian for the $b \to s$ transition has the structure [@gws]: $$\label{heff}
{\cal H}_{eff} = \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} V_{tb} V_{ts}^\ast\, \sum_i
C_i(\mu) \, O_i(\mu).$$ The operator bases in the SM and MSSM coincide. The operators which give the main contributions are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lbasis}
O_1 &=& \left( \bar{s}_\alpha \gamma^\mu (1-\gamma_5) b_\alpha \right)
\left( \bar{c}_\beta \gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5) c_\beta \right),
\nonumber \\
O_2 &=& \left( \bar{s}_\alpha \gamma^\mu (1-\gamma_5) b_\beta \right)
\left( \bar{c}_\beta \gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5) c_\alpha \right),
\nonumber \\
O_{7\gamma} &=& \frac{e}{8\pi^2}\bar{s}_\alpha \sigma_{\mu \nu}
m_b(\mu)(1+\gamma_5)b_\alpha\ F^{\mu \nu}, \nonumber \\
O_{9V} &=& \frac{e^2}{8\pi^2}(\bar{s}_\alpha \gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5) b_\alpha)
\bar{l} \gamma_\mu l, \nonumber \\
O_{10A} &=& \frac{e^2}{8\pi^2}(\bar{s}_\alpha \gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5) b_\alpha)
\bar{l} \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 l \end{aligned}$$ and the whole difference of the models at large mass scales shows itself in the $B$-decays as the difference in the values of the Wilson coefficients at the low mass scales.
The equations for the Wilson coefficients in the SM can be found e.g. in [@gws]. At the scale $\mu\simeq m_b$ they take the values $C_1(m_b) =
0.241$, $C_2(m_b) = -1.1$, $C_{7\gamma}(m_b) = 0.312$, $C_{9V}(m_b) = -4.21$, $C_{10A}(m_b) = 4.64$. In the MSSM, if SUSY particles have masses above 200 GeV, the $C^{MSSM}_{9V}$ and $C^{MSSM}_{10A}$ differ from the corresponding coefficients in the SM by no more than 10%. So in all further estimates we can safely set $C^{MSSM}_{9V}=C^{SM}_{9V}$ and $C^{MSSM}_{10A} =
C^{SM}_{10A}$. Fortunately, the difference in the coefficient $C_{7\gamma}$ in SM and MSSM might be much more pronounced since the $C^{MSSM}_{7\gamma}$ can take values from a broad interval for different regions of the MSSM parameter space. The experimental results on $B \to K^* \gamma$ and $B \to X_s\gamma$ restrict the value $R_{7\gamma}(M_W) =
C^{MSSM}_{7\gamma}(M_W) / C^{SM}_{7\gamma}(M_W)$ to be in the following regions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mssmbounds}
-4.2 < R_{7\gamma} < -2.4, ~~~~ 0.4 < R_{7\gamma} < 1.2. \end{aligned}$$
In the LR models [@lrcm; @lrrizzo] the set of the basis operators is wider and includes also operators with right-handed quark currents, the most important of which are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rbasis}
O^{R}_{1} &=& \left( \bar{s}_\alpha \gamma^\mu (1+\gamma_5) b_\alpha \right)
\left( \bar{c}_\beta \gamma_\mu (1+\gamma_5) c_\beta \right),
\nonumber \\
O^{R}_{2} &=& \left( \bar{s}_\alpha \gamma^\mu (1+\gamma_5) b_\beta \right)
\left( \bar{c}_\beta \gamma_\mu (1+\gamma_5) c_\alpha \right),
\nonumber \\
O^{R}_{7\gamma} &=& \frac{e}{8\pi^2}\bar{s}_\alpha \sigma_{\mu \nu}
m_b(\mu)(1-\gamma_5)b_\alpha\ F^{\mu \nu}, \nonumber \\
O^{R}_{9V} &=& \frac{e^2}{8\pi^2}(\bar{s}_\alpha \gamma^\mu(1+\gamma_5)
b_\alpha) \bar{l} \gamma_\mu l, \nonumber \\
O^{R}_{10A} &=& \frac{e^2}{8\pi^2}(\bar{s}_\alpha \gamma^\mu(1+\gamma_5)
b_\alpha) \bar{l} \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 l.\end{aligned}$$
The result of the analysis of the Wilson coefficients in the LR models [@lrcm; @lrrizzo] shows that in all possible LR model variants the values of the Wilson coefficients $C^{R}_{9V}$ and $C^{R}_{10A}$ can be neglected compared to the $C^{L}_{9V}$ and $C^{L}_{10A}$ which in turn do not deviate considerably from the corresponding SM values. So in the LR case as well as in the MSSM, only the difference in $C_{7\gamma}$ is to be taken into account.
The LR model parameter space can be described by the values of the right-handed gauge boson mass $M_{W_R}$, the coupling constants of the left- and right-handed currents $g_{2L}$ and $g_{2R}$, respectively, the mixing angle $\zeta$ and the phase $\beta$ of the gauge boson mass matrix [@lrrizzo]. The phase $\beta$ is small [@lrcm] and can be neglected since we are not interested in the small $CP$ violation effects. The Wilson coefficients in fact depend only on the combination $\zeta_g =
(g_{2R}/g_{2L}) \, \zeta$ [@lrcm]. Thus the low-energy effective Hamiltonian in the LR model actually depends on the values $M_{W_R}$ and $\zeta_g$ and the $CKM_R$ matrix elements. To illustrate the possible impact of the right-handed currents on the observables in rare SL decays, we use one set of the $CKM_R$ parameters from [@lrrizzo] denoted as $V_R =
V_L$ with $M_{W_R} = 1.6 \; TeV$ and the range of $\zeta_g$ determined from the CLEO data on $B \to K^* \gamma$.
For the effective Hamilatonian (\[heff\]) with the operator set given by eq. (\[lbasis\]) and applying the method of Ref. [@hag] in the case of massless leptons and in the limit $m_s\to0$, one finds for the differential distribution $d^4\Gamma / dq^2 d\cos\theta_l d\cos \theta_V
d\chi$ in a cascade $B \to K^*(\to K \pi) \ell^+ \ell^-$ decay the following general expression: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rate}
\frac{d^4\Gamma(B\to K^*(\to K\pi) \ell^+ \ell^-)}{dq^2 d\cos\theta_l
d\cos\theta_V d\chi}&=&
\frac{3G_F^2}{8(4\pi)^4}\left(\frac{e^2}{8\pi^2}|V^*_{ts}V_{tb}|\right)^2
\frac{\phi^{1/2}M_B}{2}\frac{q^2}{M_B^2}Br(K^*\to K\pi)\\
&&\times \left[ (1-\cos\theta_l)^2\sin^2\theta_V
\left ( |H^l_{-}|^2+|H^r_{+}|^2 \right )\right . \nonumber \\
&&+(1+\cos\theta_l)^2\sin^2\theta_V
\left (|H^l_{+}|^2+|H^r_{-}|^2 \right ) \nonumber \\
&&+4\sin^2\theta_l\cos^2\theta_V \left (
|H^l_{0}|^2+|H^r_{0}|^2 \right )\nonumber \\
&&-2\sin^2\theta_l\sin^2\theta_V\cos(2\chi)
\left ( {\rm Re}\left (H^l_{+} H^{l*}_{-} \right )+
{\rm Re}\left (H^{r}_{+} H^{r*}_{-} \right )\right )\nonumber \\
&&+2\sin^2\theta_l\sin^2\theta_V\sin(2\chi)
\left ( {\rm Im}\left (H^l_{+} H^{l*}_{-} \right )+
{\rm Im}\left (H^r_{+} H^{r*}_{-} \right )\right )\nonumber \\
&&-2(1-\cos\theta_l)\sin\theta_l\sin (2\theta_V)\cos\chi
\left ( {\rm Re}\left (H^l_{-} H^{l*}_{0} \right )+
{\rm Re}\left (H^r_{+} H^{r*}_{0}\right )\right )\nonumber \\
&&-2(1-\cos\theta_l)\sin\theta_l\sin(2\theta_V)\sin\chi
\left ( {\rm Im}\left (H^l_{-} H^{l*}_{0} \right )-
{\rm Im}\left (H^r_{+} H^{r*}_{0}\right )\right )\nonumber \\
&&+2(1+\cos\theta_l)\sin\theta_l\sin(2\theta_V)\cos\chi
\left ( {\rm Re}\left (H^l_{+} H^{l*}_{0}\right )+
{\rm Re}\left (H^r_{-} H^{r*}_{0}\right )\right )\nonumber \\
&&-2(1+\cos\theta_l)\sin\theta_l\sin(2\theta_V)\sin\chi
\left ( {\rm Im}\left (H^l_{+} H^{l*}_{0}\right )-
{\rm Im}\left (H^r_{-} H^{r*}_{0}\right )\left.\right )\nonumber
\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $q = p_B - p_{K^*}$, $\phi = \lambda(1, \hat s, \hat r) = 1 + \hat s^2
+ \hat r^2 - 2\hat s - 2\hat r - 2\hat s \hat r$, $\hat s = q^2 / M_B^2$ and $\hat r = (M_{K^*} / M_B)^2$. The notation of the kinematical variables follows the conventional notation of ref. [@pdg].
The helicity amplitudes $H^{l,r}_{\lambda}$ ($\lambda = 0, \pm$ is the $K^*$ meson helicity state) have the following structure in terms of the meson transition form factors (see [@mns] for their definitions) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{helicity}
H^{l,r}_{\pm}&=&\bar C^{l,r}f(q^2)-
\frac{C_{7\gamma}}{\hat s}m_b(1-\hat r)B_0(q^2) \nonumber\\
&&\mp\phi^{1/2}\left (\bar C^{l,r}M^2_{B}g(q^2)-
\frac{C_{7\gamma}}{\hat s}m_b g_+(q^2)\right), \nonumber\\
H^{l,r}_0&=&-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\hat r\hat s}}
\left [ (1-\hat r-\hat s)\left (\bar C^{l,r}f(q^2)
-\frac{C_{7\gamma}(m_b)}{\hat s}m_b(1-\hat r)B_0(q^2)
\right )\right. \nonumber\\
&&+\left.\phi\left (\bar C^{l,r}M^2_B a_+(q^2)-
\frac{C_{7\gamma}(m_b)}{\hat s}m_b B_+(q^2)\right)\right],
\nonumber\\
\bar C^{l}&=&\frac12\left(C_{9V}^{eff}(q^2,m_b^2)-C_{10A}(m_b)\right), \qquad
\bar C^{r}=\frac12\left(C_{9V}^{eff}(q^2,m_b^2)+C_{10A}(m_b)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the superscripts $l,r$ in $H$ label the helicity structure of the corresponding leptonic current.
The representations (\[rate\]) and (\[helicity\]) allow one to obtain formulas in various interesting cases making appropriate substitutions. The form of such substitutions can be readily obtained from the form of the corresponding Effective Hamiltonian, viz.
i\. [**SL decays, like $B \to D^* \ell \nu_{\ell}$ , in the SM**]{}: the formula for the decay rate is obtained by substituting
$$C_{7\gamma}\to 0,\qquad\bar C^l\to 1,\qquad \bar C^r\to 0,\qquad
\frac{e^2}{8\pi^2}|V^*_{ts}V_{tb}|\to |V_{bc}|.$$
ii\. [**Rare decay $B\to K^*\nu\bar\nu$ in the SM**]{}:
$$C_{7\gamma}\to 0, \qquad
C_{9V}^{eff}\to \frac{X(x_t)}{\sin^2\theta_W}, \qquad
C_{10A}\to -\frac{X(x_t)}{\sin^2\theta_W}.$$
iii\. [**Rare SL decay $B\to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ in the LR models**]{}: if we consider the case of massless leptons and neglect the $s$-quark mass, then the left- and right-handed parts of both the leptonic and the quark currents do not mix with each other and the differential decay rate in the LR model, described by the effective Hamiltonian (\[heff\]) with the operator set including (\[lbasis\]) and (\[rbasis\]), can be obtained by substituting
$$\begin{aligned}
C_{7\gamma}g_+(q^2)&\to& (C^{L}_{7\gamma}+C^{R}_{7\gamma})g_+(q^2),\nonumber\\
C_{7\gamma}B_0(q^2)&\to& (C^{L}_{7\gamma}-C^{R}_{7\gamma})B_0(q^2),\nonumber\\
C_{7\gamma}B_+(q^2)&\to& (C^{L}_{7\gamma}-C^{R}_{7\gamma})B_+(q^2),\nonumber\\
C_{9V,10A}g(q^2)&\to& (C^{L}_{9V,10A}+C^{R}_{9V,10A})g(q^2),\nonumber\\
C_{9V,10A}f(q^2)&\to& (C^{L}_{9V,10A}-C^{R}_{9V,10A})f(q^2),\nonumber\\
C_{9V,10A}a_\pm(q^2)&\to& (C^{L}_{9V,10A}-C^{R}_{9V,10A})a_\pm(q^2). \end{aligned}$$
We are interested only in the nonresonant contribution to the decay rate (\[rate\]), since only the nonresonant part encodes the information on the Wilson coefficients. In this case all purely imaginary terms in eq. (\[rate\]) can be neglected.
The differential distributions of the produced $K^*$ mesons with definite helicity takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rh}
\frac{d\Gamma_\lambda}{dq^2}=
\frac{G^2_F}{96\pi^3}\left(\frac{e^2}{8\pi^2}|V^*_{ts}V_{tb}|\right)^2
\frac{\phi^{1/2}M_B}{2}\frac{q^2}{M_B^2}\left[
|H^l_\lambda|^2+|H^r_\lambda|^2 \right].\end{aligned}$$ For the transverse asymmetry defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{at}
A_T(q^2)=\frac{d\Gamma_-/dq^2-d\Gamma_+/dq^2}
{d\Gamma_-/dq^2 + d\Gamma_+/dq^2}\end{aligned}$$ one finds the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\label{at2}
A_T(q^2)=\frac{2\phi^{1/2} R_T(q^2)}{\phi|G(q^2)|^2+|F(q^2)|^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
R_T(q^2)&=&Re\left[\left(C^{eff}_{9V}(m_b,q^2)M_B g(q^2)-
\frac{2C_{7\gamma}(q^2)}{\hat s}\frac{m_b}{M_B}g_+(q^2)\right)
\right.\nonumber\\
&\times&\left.\left(C^{eff}_{9V}(m_b,q^2)\frac{f(q^2)}{M_B}-
\frac{2C_{7\gamma}(m_b,q^2)}{\hat s}\frac{m_b}{M_B}
(1-\hat r)B_0(q^2) \right)^*\right] \nonumber\\
&+&|C_{10A}|^2f(q^2)g(q^2)\end{aligned}$$ and the expressions for G and F can be read off from [@mns].
The angular distribution of the $K$ mesons produced in the subsequent decay $K^*\to K\pi$ in the $K^*$ rest frame has the form $$\label{ad}
\frac{d\Gamma}{d\cos \theta_V}\sim 1+\alpha\cos^2 \theta_V,$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha=\frac {\int\limits_{\hat s_{min}}^{\hat s_{max}}d\hat
s\phi^{\frac{1}{2}}\left (
\left (\frac{(1-\hat r-\hat s)^2}{4\hat r}-\hat s \right )|F(q^2)|^2
-\hat s\phi |G(q^2)|^2
+\frac{\phi^2}{4\hat r}|H_{+}(q^2)|^2-
\frac{\phi (\hat s-1+\hat r)}{2\hat r}R(q^2)\right )}
{\int\limits_{\hat s_{min}}^{\hat s_{max}}d\hat s\phi^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left ( \hat s\phi |G(q^2)|^2+\hat s|F(q^2)|^2 \right )},\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat s_{min}=4m_l^2/M_B^2$ and $\hat s_{max}=(M_B-M_{K^*})^2/M^2_B$.
Numerical analysis
==================
In this section we illustrate the possible specific effects which might be expected in the LR models due to the presence of the right-handed quark currents. In numerical calculations we use the form factors obtained within the GI-OGE model[@mns].
Notice that at large $q^2$ everything is determined by the Wilson coefficients $C_{9V}$ and $C_{10A}$ since they are much larger than $C_{7\gamma}$. This means that all models (SM, MSSM, LR) give more or less the same results for all observables since the deviations in $C_{9V}$ and $C_{10A}$ in all extentions of the SM are not large. On the contrary, at small $q^2$ a photon pole starts to dominate all observables and the $C_{7\gamma}$ effects are enhanced considerably. Since most of the new physics effects lead to deviations of $C_{7\gamma}$ from its SM value, different extentions of the SM might become distinguishable.
For an illustration of the RH currents influence, we take one of the variants of the LR model from [@lrrizzo], namely the extension called $V_L = V_R$. In this case the right-handed CKM matrix and $M_{W_R}$ are fixed and the freedom of the LR parameter space is reduced to the value of one parameter only, namely $\zeta_g$. The allowed range of $\zeta_g$ is constrained by the CLEO data [@cleo1; @cleo2] on rare radiative inclusive and exclusive $b \to s \gamma$ transitions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ibr}
Br(B\to X_s\gamma)=\frac{G^2_F\alpha^2_{em}m^5_b}{32\pi^4}|
V^{L*}_{ts}V^L_{tb}|^2\left (|C^L_{7\gamma}(m_b)|^2
+|C^R_{7\gamma}(m_b)|^2\right),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ebr}
Br(B\to K^*\gamma)=\frac{G^2_F\alpha^2_{em}}{32\pi^4}|
V^{L*}_{ts}V^L_{tb}|^2\left (|C^L_{7\gamma}(m_b)|^2
+|C^R_{7\gamma}(m_b)|^2\right)
m^2_b\frac{\left (M^2_B-M^2_{K^*} \right )^3}{M^3_B}
|g_+(0)|^2.\end{aligned}$$ One finds the allowed region to be $$\begin{aligned}
-0.02 \leq \zeta_g \leq 0.002.\end{aligned}$$ Fig. 1 shows the $A_{FB}$ and $P_L$ in the LR model. In the region of small $q^2$ the forward-backward asymmetry $A_{FB}$ and the lepton polarization asymmetry $P_L$ in MSSM and LR model might be different from the SM but the presence of the right-handed quark currents does not add any specific effects and one might expect in most favorable case $\zeta_g \simeq -0.02$ the same type of deviations from the SM within MSSM and LR models.
The angular distribution of the secondary $K$ in the cascade decay $B
\to K^* \ell^+ \ell^- \to K \pi \ell^+ \ell^-$ in the $K^*$ rest frame (see eq. (\[ad\])) turns out to be sensitive to the Wilson coefficients, as it is illustrated in Table 1. However, the character of the deviations from the SM is similar within the LR and MSSM. So $A_{FB}$, $P_L$ and the angular distribution of secondary $K$ mesons can probe the extentions of the SM, but they are not sensitive to the specific structure of such extentions.
SM LR
---------- ------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------
$R_{7\gamma} = 1$ $R_{7\gamma} = -4.2 \div -2.4$ $R_{7\gamma} = 0.4 \div 1.2$ $\zeta_g = -0.02 \div 0.002$
$\alpha$ 1.64 $0.45 \div 1.3$ $1.6 \div 2.0$ $0.7 \div 1.8$
: \[table:alpha\]Parameter of the angular distribution of the secondary $K$ produced in $B \to K^* \ell^+ \ell^- \to K \pi \ell^+ \ell^-$. When calculating $\alpha$ the regions of the resonances have been excluded.
One might expect that the helicity structure of the Effective Hamiltonian can affect the helicity distributions of the final $K^*$ mesons. In fact, the distributions of the produced $K^*$ in definite helicity states can be considerably affected. Fig. 2 shows the distributions of the right-handed (a) and the left-handed (b) $K^*$. One can see that the yield of the right-handed $K^*$ in the region of small $q^2$ might be remarkably increased in the LR models (see also [@mns3]). Such an increase of the right-handed $K^*$ mesons in comparison with the predictions of models having suppressed RH quark currents, like the SM or the MSSM, can provide a very specific behavior of the transverse asymmetry (\[at2\]), as it is shown clearly in Fig. 3. Thus we may conclude that any sizeable difference of $A_T(q^2)$ from unity in the region of small $q^2$ would signal the presence of the RH quark currents.
Notice that the results presented are not affected significantly by the uncertainties in the meson transition form factors: the asymmetyries are weakly sensitive to the subtle details of the form factor behavior (see the discussion in [@mns]) and the right-handed $K^*$ enhancement in the LR models far overwhelmes the uncertainties due to the model dependence of the form factors. Hence an experimental study of the transversely polarized $K^*$ mesons in rare $B \to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays might shed light on the possible presence of the RH currents and their strength.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} The authors are grateful to T. Rizzo for helpful comments on the LR models.
[99]{}
P. Cho, M. Misiak and D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{} (1996) 3329.
J. L. Hewett, J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{} (1997) 5549.
P. Cho, M. Misiak, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{} (1994) 5894.
T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{} (1994) 3303; e-print archive hep-ph/9802401.
D. Melikhov, N. Nikitin and S. Simula, e-print archive hep-ph/9803343, to appear in Phys. Lett. B.
D. Melikhov, N. Nikitin and S. Simula, Phys. Lett. B [**428**]{} (1998) 171.
B. Grinstein, M. B. Wise and M. J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. [**B319**]{} (1989) 271; A. Buras and M. Münz, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{} (1995) 186.
G. M. Asatrian and A. N. Ioannisian, Yad. Fiz. [**51**]{} (1990) 1350; Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{} (1996) 5642; G. Bhattacharyya and A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Lett. B [**357**]{} (1995) 119; G. Barenboim, J. Bernabeu and M. Raidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{} (1998) 4625.
D. Melikhov, N. Nikitin and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{} (1998) 6814.
K. Hagiwara, A. D. Martin and M. F. Wade, Nucl. Phys. B [**327**]{} (1989) 569; F. G. Gilman and R. L. Singleton, Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{} (1990) 142; J. G. Körner and G. A. Schuler, Z. Phys. C [**38**]{} (1988) 511; Z. Phys. C [**46**]{} (1990) 93.
Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{} (1996) 482.
C. S. Lim, T. Morozumi, Phys. Lett. B [**218**]{} (1989) 343; P.J. O’Donnell and H. K. K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{} (1991) 2067.
R. Ammar et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} (1993) 674 and CLEO CONF 96-05 (1996).
M. S. Alam et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{} (1995) 2885.
-- -- --
-- -- --
-- -- --
-- -- --
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An analogue of the Newton-Wigner position operator is defined for a massive neutral scalar field in de Sitter space. The one-particle subspace of the theory, consisting of positive-energy solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation selected by the Hadamard condition, is identified with an irreducible representation of de Sitter group. Postulates of localizability analogous to those written by Wightman for fields in Minkowski space are formulated on it, and a unique solution is shown to exist. Representations in both the principal and the complementary series are considered. A simple expression for the time-evolution of the operator Newton-Wigner is presented.'
author:
- 'N. Yokomizo'
- 'J. C. A. Barata'
title: Localizability in de Sitter space
---
Introduction
============
The question of the existence and usefulness of a notion of localization for quantum particles moving at relativistic speed has a long history [@newton-wigner; @wightman; @philips; @kaiser]. Although the idea of a position measurement is one of the most intuitive ideas of a quantum observable, there is no obvious mathematical counterpart to it in the relativistic domain. The conflict with intuition in such a fundamental subject is the main motivation to work on this problem. But there are also technical reasons for that. A quantum field theory is usually applied to the study of particle collision processes, so one needs to understand how to interpret the theory in terms of particles. The main question is how to assign probabilities for the detection of the produced particles in detectors placed at specific regions of space [@haag-swieca; @buchholz; @schroer; @araki], what amounts to defining a position probability distribution. Besides that, there is the very fact that classical particles do exist, i.e., that a classical limit of the underlying quantum theory exists which describes particles. A position operator is the natural tool to deal with this limit [@hepp; @mcl]. Now the current widespread interest in quantum effects in curved spacetimes, boosted by experimental and theoretical discoveries in cosmology, motivates the analysis of the problem of localizability in a more general context. In particular, the present accelerated expansion of the universe [@riess; @perlmutter] and the existence of an inflationary epoch in the very early universe [@weinberg; @liddle; @linde] suggest that there should be eras in the beginning of the universe and in the distant future when the geometry of the universe is approximately a patch of de Sitter space, what justifies our interest in this special geometry. Local effects of de Sitter geometry on particle dynamics have been investigated at the classical and quantum level [@moschella; @bros; @aldrovandi].
In flat Minkowski space, an early solution to the problem was provided by the work of Newton and Wigner [@newton-wigner], later reformulated in more rigorous terms by Wightman [@wightman]. It was proved that a natural set of postulates defines a unique position operator, at least for massive fields. But the operator found is frame-dependent, and alternative covariant notions of localizability were put forward since then [@philips; @kaiser]. The interpretation of these operators and the possibility of actually measuring them have been discussed in the context of Quantum Field Theory in terms of specific models of interaction between a detector and the quantum field (see [@unruh-wald; @marolf]). But if the particle moves in a curved spacetime, little is known. There are additional complications in the analysis, mainly due to the existence of multiple vacua. In fact, the concept of particle is not strictly necessary for Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetimes—the general theory can be formulated without introducing the notion of particles [@wald]. Only in special circumstances it still makes sense to speak of particles. In a flat Minkowski spacetime, for instance, that is certainly true. In the case of ultrastatic spacetimes, a notion of Newton-Wigner localization is available, as discussed in [@fulling]. And it is also natural that in regions where the curvature is small one should be able to speak of particle states—high-energy experiments are actually performed in a slightly curved space, and particles are observed. However, there is no clear specification of the necessary conditions for a particle interpretation to be available.
We have studied the case of a neutral massive scalar field in 2d de Sitter space, and have showed that a particle interpretation of this theory is possible. This problem was previously investigated exploring special decompositions of de Sitter group [@hannabuss] or an analogy with the Minkowski space case [@philips-wigner]. We have considered it in the context of the modern formulation of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetimes, as described in [@wald; @fulling], for instance. Our strategy was the following. The main difficulty for the definition of particle states in a general curved spacetime lies on the existence of several inequivalent Fock representations for the canonical commutation relations. Since there is no preferred Fock representation, the concept of a particle becomes ambiguous. In de Sitter space, however, it is possible (see [@allen]) to select a unique vacuum state—the Bunch-Davies vacuum—by requiring: (i) physical states to satisfy the Hadamard condition, which corresponds to the requirement that the averaged energy-stress tensor can be renormalized by a point-splitting prescription [@wald]; and (ii) the vacuum to be invariant under the action of de Sitter group [@allen; @BFH]. In this sense, there is a preferred Fock representation for massive free fields in de Sitter space. It is clear that the maximal symmetry of the de Sitter space is crucial for that.
There is an important remark that we should add here. In the Minkowski case, the notion of Newton-Wigner localization belongs to the realm of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, not exactly to Quantum Field Theory, and is implemented in a one-particle Hilbert space. In curved space-times, however, the choice of the adequate one-particle Hilbert space, even for free fields, is dictated by the interest of the quantum field theoretical model one wishes to implement. Hence, the possibility to define a reasonable localization concept is also related to the choice of representations for the canonical commutation relations and, therefore, is not an exclusively relativistic quantum mechanical question.
We discuss the canonical quantization of the scalar field in the Bunch–Davies representation in Section II. An important fact is that the one-particle subspace $\mathcal{H}$ of the Fock representation can be interpreted as an irreducible representation of de Sitter group, as a result of vacuum invariance. That allowed us to write localizability conditions on $\mathcal{H}$ analogous to those formulated on irreducible representations of the Poincaré group in [@newton-wigner; @wightman]. We describe these conditions in Section III, and prove that a unique solution exists at $t=0$. The position operator which satisfies these conditions is the natural analogue in de Sitter space of the Newton-Wigner position operator. These results are then compared with previous investigations of particle localization in de Sitter spacetime [@philips-wigner], and the time-evolution of the position operator is described, based on an analogy with the case of Minkowski spacetime. Perspectives on future works are discussed in Section IV.
The quantized field in spherical coordinates
============================================
The choice of a particular vacuum state and the associated Fock representation of the quantized scalar field theory in de Sitter space is equivalent to the choice of a decomposition of the space $\mathcal{S}$ of solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation with smooth Cauchy conditions as a direct sum $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}^+ \oplus \mathcal{S}^-$ of subspaces of positive and negative energy. In this section we construct the space $\mathcal{S}$ and describe the decomposition associated with the Bunch–Davies vacuum. Canonical quantization based on such a decomposition is then briefly discussed. In the last subsection, the one-particle subspace of the Fock representation is interpreted as an irreducible representation of de Sitter group, and explicit expressions for the generators of the group and discrete symmetries are written. We consider de Sitter radii and particle masses compatible with principal and with complementary series representations.
Normal modes
------------
We start our analysis describing in some detail the normal modes of the Klein-Gordon equation for the $2d$ de Sitter space. This is required for the process of cannonical quantization we will present later.
The simplest way of looking at the $2d$ de Sitter space $dS^2$ is to consider it a submanifold embedded in a 3d Minkowski space $M^3$. Choosing a metric $\eta_{ab} = \textrm{diag}(1,-1,-1)$ for $M^3$, one has $$dS^2 = \{{\mathbf{X}} \in M^3 \mid {\mathbf{X}}^2 = X^a X^b \eta_{ab} = - \alpha^2 \} \, ,$$ where $\alpha > 0$ is the de Sitter radius. The space so obtained is a hyperboloid, with topology $S^1 \times \mathbb{R}$. One may think of it as a spatial circle evolving in time. The symmetry group is the de Sitter group $O(2,\; 1)$, i.e., the isometries are Lorentz transformations in the ambient space. Changing to the so-called spherical coordinates, $$\begin{aligned}
X^0 & = \alpha \sinh(t/\alpha) \, , \\
X^1 & = \alpha \cosh(t/\alpha) \cos \theta \, , \\
X^2 & = \alpha \cosh(t/\alpha) \sin \theta \, ,\end{aligned}$$ the geometry of $dS^2$ is described by the induced Lorentzian metric tensor, with components: $$g_{00} = 1 \, , \quad g_{01} = 0 \, , \quad g_{11} = - \alpha^2 \cosh^2(t/ \alpha) \, .$$ The volume density is $\sqrt{-g} = \alpha \cosh(t/\alpha)$, and the D’Alembertian is $$\square = \partial_{tt} + \frac{1}{\alpha} \tanh(t/\alpha) \partial_t - \frac{1}{\alpha^2 \cosh^2(t/ \alpha)} \partial_{\theta \theta} \, .$$ The Klein-Gordon equation reads $$\left( \square - \frac{m^2 + \xi R}{\hbar^2} \right) \phi = 0 \, .
\label{eq:klein-gordon}$$ The scalar curvature is related to the de Sitter radius by $R = 2 / \alpha^2$. We put $\mu^2 = m^2 + \xi R$.
After separation of variables, the Klein-Gordon equation becomes $$\begin{gathered}
\psi''= - k^2 \psi \quad \Rightarrow \quad \psi_k(\theta) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}\textrm{e}^{i k \theta} \, , \quad k \in \mathbb{Z} \, , \\
T'' + \frac{1}{\alpha} \tanh(t/ \alpha) T' + \left( \frac{\mu^2}{\hbar^2} + \frac{k^2}{\alpha^2 \cosh^2(t/\alpha)} \right) T = 0 \, .\end{gathered}$$ In order to solve the time-dependence of these “angular momentum modes” described by the index $k$, put $x = i \sinh(t/\alpha)$, and get: $$(1 - x^2) \frac{d^2 T}{dx^2} - 2x \frac{dT}{dx} + \left[ - \frac{\alpha^2 \mu^2}{\hbar^2} - \frac{k^2}{1-x^2} \right] T = 0 \, .
\label{eq:time-eq-legendre}$$ This is an associated Legendre equation. The solutions are associated Legendre functions $P_\nu^k(x)$ and $Q_\nu^k(x)$, with $\nu(\nu + 1)=- \alpha^2 \mu^2 / \hbar^2$. The coefficient $\nu$ is given by $$\nu = \frac{- 1 \pm \sqrt{1- 4 \alpha^2 \mu^2 / \hbar^2}}{2} \, .
\label{eq:baskara-nu}$$ If $\mu^2$ is positive, then $\nu$ is either a real number in the interval $[-1,0]$ or a complex number with real part equals to $-1/2$ and some nonzero imaginary part. If $\mu^2 = 0$, then $\nu=0,\; 1$. If $\mu^2$ is negative, then $\nu$ may assume arbitrary real values.
Throughout this work we will restrict to the case $\mu^2 > 0$. The squared mass is always positive, so this restriction corresponds in fact to not allowing a large negative coupling with the scalar curvature. In this case, a nice pair of linearly independent solutions of is given by $$T^k_\nu\big(i \sinh(t /\alpha)\big) \, , \quad T^k_\nu\big(-i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) \, ,$$ where $T^k_\nu(z):=\textrm{e}^{\mp ik\pi / 2} P^k_\nu(z)$ for $\pm\mbox{Im}(z)>0$ is the Legendre function in ‘Ferrer’s notation’ [@snow]. The function $T^k_\nu(z)$ is analytic in the whole complex plane, except for two branching cuts on the real axis, one from $-\infty$ to $-1$ and another from $+1$ to $+\infty$. It doesn’t matter which root $\nu$ of is taken: both give the same function (that follows from the symmetry $T^k_\nu = T^k_{-\nu-1}$). The functions $T^k_\nu(z)$ have the property that $[T^k_\nu(i x)]^* = T^k_\nu(- i x)$, i.e., the linearly independent solutions are complex conjugate (see Appendix \[complex-conjugate-modes\]).
Thus, there is a set of normal modes of the Klein-Gordon equation in de Sitter space of the form: $$\begin{aligned}
u_k(t,\theta) & = \sqrt{\frac{\gamma_k}{2}} \, T^k_\nu \big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, , \nonumber \\
v_k(t,\theta) & = \sqrt{\frac{\gamma_k}{2}} \, T^k_\nu\big(-i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, ,
\label{eq:normal-modes}\end{aligned}$$ with $k \in \mathbb{Z}$, and where $\gamma_k := \Gamma(-\nu-k) \Gamma(\nu-k+1)$ are conveniently chosen normalization coefficients, which will be discussed latter. Here, $\Gamma$ is Euler’s gamma function.
Space of solutions and positive-energy modes {#space-S}
--------------------------------------------
The normal modes derived in the last section can be used for the construction of the space $\mathcal{S}$ of complex solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation in de Sitter space with smooth Cauchy conditions. It is the vector space formed by wavefunctions of the form: $$\phi(t,\theta) \; = \; \sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \big[ c_k u_k(t,\theta) + d_k v_k(t,\theta) \big] \, ,
\label{eq:solution-space}$$ with coefficients $c_k,\; d_k$ of rapid decay in $|k|$, such as $\sum|c_k| |k|^l < \infty, \forall l>0$, and similarly for $d_k$. In order to see that, let us first prove that the series converges absolutely and uniformly to a $C^2$-solution of the Klein-Gordon equation with smooth initial conditions. Consider the sum containing terms with $c_k$ first. From , one has at each fixed $t$ a Fourier series: $$\begin{aligned}
&C(t,\theta) := \sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} p_k \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\, ,
\label{eq:sum-C}\\
&p_k :=c_k \sqrt{\frac{\gamma_k}{2}} \,T^k_\nu \big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) \, . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The asymptotic behavior of the coefficients $p_k$ can be obtained from the large $k$ asymptotic representation of the Legendre functions $T_\nu^k$ given in Eq. VI.95b of [@snow]. One finds that $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \sqrt{\gamma_k} \, T^k_\nu\big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) \right| & \; = \; \left| \frac{\Gamma(-\nu-k)}{\Gamma( \nu-k+1)} \right|^{1/2} \left|\Gamma( \nu-k+1) T^k_\nu(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) \right| \\
\; & \; \simeq |k|^{-1/2} \, , \qquad \textrm{for large } k \textrm{ and }\forall t \; .\end{aligned}$$ Since the $c_k$ are of rapid decay, the series converges absolutely and uniformly in spacetime. Similar arguments can be used for the terms with coefficients $d_k$. Thus, the sum in Eq. is uniformly convergent. It also follows that $\phi(t,\theta)$ is continuous, since all terms in the uniformly convergent series are continuous. Consider now the derivatives $\partial_\theta^m \partial_t^n \phi$. A finite number $n$ of spatial derivatives changes the coefficients $p_k$ by a factor $(ik)^n$, and the time derivatives have the following form for large $k$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} T^k_\nu\big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) & \; \simeq \; \frac{-ik}{\alpha \cosh(t/\alpha)} T^k_\nu\big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) \, , \nonumber \\
\frac{d^2}{dt^2} T^k_\nu\big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) & \; \simeq \; \left[- \frac{ik}{\alpha^2} \frac{\sinh(t/\alpha)}{\cosh^2(t/\alpha)} - \frac{k^2}{\alpha^2 \cosh^2(t/\alpha)} \right] T^k_\nu\big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) \, ,
\label{eq:asymptotic-time-derivatives}\end{aligned}$$ thus changing the Fourier coefficients only polynomially in $k$, and in a uniform manner in $t$. But then, rapid decay of the $c_k$’s ensure uniform convergence of all second derivatives of . Again, all arguments can be repeated for the sum involving the $d_k$’s. It follows that $\phi(t,\theta)$ is $C^2$ and, by construction, a solution of the Klein-Gordon equation (derivatives can be applied inside the sum, and each term is a solution of the equation). Moreover, at each fixed $t=t_0$, the restriction $\phi(t_0,\theta)$ is a smooth function on the circle, since any number of spatial derivatives can be applied to . From Eq. , the same is true for $\dot{\phi}(t_0,\theta)$. We will therefore consider only smooth Cauchy data $\phi(0,\theta),\; \dot{\phi}(0,\theta)$. Finally, any smooth function on the circle has a Fourier series with rapidly decaying coefficients, so $\mathcal{S}$ contains all solutions with smooth initial coefficients.
The vector space of solutions $\mathcal{S}$ is equipped with an invariant Hermitian sesquilinear form: $${\left\langle f | g \right\rangle} = i a(t) \int_{S_t} \textrm{d}\theta (f^* \partial_t g - \partial_t f^* g) \, ,
\label{eq:inv-scalar-prod}$$ where $S_t$ is any spatial slice of constant time $t$, and $a(t): = \alpha \cosh(t/\alpha)$ is the corresponding scale factor –the radius of the circle $S_t$. Notice that ${\left\langle f^* | g^* \right\rangle}=-{\left\langle g | f \right\rangle}$. Our choice of the normalization coefficients $\gamma_k$ in Eq. ensures that the normal modes are orthonormal, $${\left\langle u_k | u_l \right\rangle} = \delta_{kl} \, , \qquad {\left\langle v_k | v_l \right\rangle} = - \delta_{kl} \, , \qquad {\left\langle u_k | v_l \right\rangle} = 0 \, .
\label{eq:uv-scalar-products}$$ Let us prove that. The fact that ${\left\langle u_k | v_l \right\rangle} = 0$ is a simple consequence of the definition of the invariant form together with the identity $[T^k_\nu(i x)]^* = T^k_\nu(- i x)$. For the modes $u_k$ (put now $y= \sinh(t/\alpha)$), $${\left\langle u_k | u_l \right\rangle} = - \delta_{kl} \frac{1}{2} |\gamma_k| \cosh^2(t/\alpha) \left[ T^k_\nu(- i y) \, T^{k \, \prime}_\nu(i y) + \textrm{c.c.} \right] \, .$$ Invoke now the identity (from [@snow]) $$(1-z^2) \left[ T^k_\nu(z) \, \frac{d}{dz} T^k_\nu(-z) - \frac{d}{dz} T^k_\nu(z) \, T^k_\nu(-z) \right] = \frac{2}{\gamma_k}
\label{eq:Tk-jacobian}$$ in order to get $${\left\langle u_k | u_l \right\rangle} = \delta_{kl} \frac{|\gamma_k|}{\gamma_k} \; .$$ Let us show that $\gamma_k$ is positive for any $k$. Consider first the case $k=0$. Then $$\frac{1}{\Gamma(-\nu) \Gamma(\nu +1)} = \frac{\sin[(\nu+1)\pi]}{\pi} \, ,$$ where $\nu$ is either a real number in the interval $(-1,\;0)$, or a complex number of the form $-1/2 +i \lambda$, $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$. In the first case, $\nu+1$ is in the interval $(0,\;1)$, so $\sin[(\nu+1)\pi]$ is positive. In the second case, $\sin[(\nu+1)\pi] = \cosh(\pi \lambda)$, positive too. For general $k$, first note that, for $k$ positive, $$\frac{1}{\gamma_k} \; =\; \frac{ \prod_{l=1}^k (-\nu - l) (\nu - l + 1)}{\Gamma(-\nu) \Gamma(\nu +1)}
\; = \; \frac{1}{\gamma_0} \prod_{l=1}^k(\alpha^2 \mu^2/\hbar^2 + l^2 -l)\, .$$ It is clear that the product is positive ($l^2 \geq l$ when $l$ is integer). A similar trick does the work for negative $k$. That completes the proof that ${\left\langle u_k | u_l \right\rangle} = \delta_{kl}$. For the case of the normal modes $v_k$, one can use the identity $$\sqrt{\gamma_k} \, T_\nu^k(z) = \sqrt{\gamma_{-k}} \, T_\nu^{-k}(z)
\label{eq:gammas-rel}$$ (which is proved using the inversion formula for gamma functions and Eq. ) to see that $v_k = u^*_{-k}$. Then the result obtained for the modes $u_k$ implies that ${\left\langle v_k | v_l \right\rangle} = - \delta_{kl}$.
In order to proceed to the canonical quantization of the scalar field $\phi(t,\theta)$, one needs to choose a special decomposition of the space of solutions $\mathcal{S}$ as a direct sum $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}^+ \oplus \mathcal{S}^-$, where $\mathcal{S}^+$ ($\mathcal{S}^-$) is interpreted as the space of positive (negative) energy solutions. The decomposition must be such that: (i) positive energy solutions have positive norm and (ii) the complex conjugate of a positive energy solution is a negative energy solution. From previous results, these conditions are satisfied if one picks a basis $\{u_k(t,\theta); k \in \mathbb{Z}\}$ for $\mathcal{S}^+$ and a basis $\{v_k(t,\theta); k \in \mathbb{Z}\}$ for $\mathcal{S}^-$. This is the energy-splitting decomposition that will be used in this work. There are alternative valid decompositions which, after canonical quantization, are associated with distinct choices of the vacuum state of the quantized theory. Our choice will lead to the so-called Bunch–Davies vacuum, in which we are interested due to its invariance under de Sitter group actions and its Hadamard property.
One-particle subspace and canonical quantization {#canonical-quantization}
------------------------------------------------
The Newton-Wigner (NW) position operator will be defined in the so-called “one-particle subspace” $\mathcal{H}$. This Hilbert space is defined as the completion of $\mathcal{S}^+$ in the scalar product defined by the sesquilinear form (which is positive when restricted to $\mathcal{S}^+$). The vectors $\phi \in \mathcal{H}$ are superpositions of positive-energy solutions, and can be represented explicitly as $$\phi(t,\theta) = \sum_k \phi_k u_k(t,\theta) \, , \qquad \sum_k |\phi_k|^2 = 1 \, , \qquad \phi_k \in \mathbb{C} \, .
\label{eq:mode-expansion}$$ The scalar product in $\mathcal{H}$ is simply ${\left\langle \phi | \psi \right\rangle} = \sum \phi_k^* \psi_k$. We are going to think of the one-particle subspace as describing the quantum dynamics of a single relativistic particle in de Sitter space, following the usual physical interpretation: $\phi(t,\theta)$ will be the spacetime representation of the wavefunction associated with the particle. Some problems with this interpretation might be expected—it has been repeatedly remarked that the concept of particle for quantum fields in curved spacetimes is not well-defined. Nevertheless, it is just as clear that there are situations where a particle-like behavior is evident. As remarked in [@fewster], particle physics experiments are actually performed in a curved spacetime, and we do see particle tracks in experiments. To understand how to deal with a quantum field theory in a curved spacetime under circumstances where a particle-like behavior is possible is one of the purposes of this paper.
After fixing the positive-energy modes of the classical field, canonical quantization in de Sitter space follows pretty much the same steps as in Minkowski space [@birrel-davies], as we now briefly describe. One considers the bosonic Fock space $\mathcal{F}$ built in the usual way from the one-particle state $\mathcal{H}$ as $\mathcal{F}:= \mathbb{C} \oplus_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(\mathcal{H}^{\otimes n}\right)_{s}$, where the index “$s$” indicates the symmetrization of the tensor products. Following the usual prescription, the quantized neutral massive scalar field, acting in $\mathcal{F}$, is expressed in the form $$\hat{\phi}(t,\theta) = \sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} (a_k u_k + a_k^* u_k^*) \, ,
\label{eq:mode-expansion-real}$$ where the $u_k$ are the chosen orthonormal positive energy modes, and the $a_k,\; a_k^*$ are annihilation and creation operators satisfying the commutation relations $$[a_k,\, a_l^*] = \delta_{kl} \, , \qquad [a_k,\, a_l] = [a_k^*,\, a_l^*] = 0 \, .$$ The vacuum ${| \Omega \rangle}$ is defined as the vector state annihilated by all annihilation operators, $a_k {| \Omega \rangle} = 0$, $\forall k$, and many-particle states are created by repeated application of creation operators to the vacuum.
It is a well known fact that the quantization of free fields in curved space times is non-unique, and different choices of positive energy decompositions may lead to unitarily inequivalent representations of the algebra of cannonical commutation relations. These different choices reflect different possible choices for the vacuum state.
Our particular choice of the previously defined positive energy modes $u_k$ in the expansion (\[eq:mode-expansion-real\]) corresponds to the choice of the so called “Bunch–Davies vacuum”. In order to establish this claim, we present an explicit calculation of the two-point function in Appendix \[two-point\], and compare it to the two-point function obtained in the original work of Bunch and Davies [@bunch-davies] (where flat coordinates were used), showing that both results agree. The choice of the Bunch–Davies vacuum is particularly relevant because of its previously mentioned relation to the Hadamard condition [@allen; @BFH].
Group action on the space of positive-energy solutions {#group-action}
------------------------------------------------------
The space $\mathcal{S}^+$ of positive-energy solutions was described in a given system of spherical coordinates $(t,\theta)$, but there is a whole family of systems $(t', \theta')$ related by isometries in the de Sitter group $O(2,\;1)$. We want to prove that the definition of $\mathcal{S}^+$ is coordinate-independent, i.e., that the subspace of positive-energy modes is invariant under the action of the group (what is equivalent to the invariance of the vacuum state in the quantized theory), as well as to find out how the group acts on these modes. That will lead to an interpretation of its completion $\mathcal{H}$ as an irreducible representation of de Sitter group.
Any element of $O(2,\; 1)$ is the product of an element of the restricted de Sitter group $O(2,\;1)_+^\uparrow$ of Lorentz transformations of determinant $1$ which do not reverse the direction of time, and possibly parity $\mathbf{P}$ and time reversal $\mathbf{T}$. There are three linearly independent generators in the algebra of $O(2,\;1)$, which may be taken as the infinitesimal boosts along the rectangular axes, $N_{10}$ and $N_{20}$, and the generator of rotations, $N_{12}$. The question is how these transformations act on the modes defined in Eq. . The case of rotations is quite simple. A transformation $U_{12}(\phi)= \exp(\phi N_{12})$ which rotates the space by an angle $\phi$ changes angles in spherical coordinates according to $\theta \mapsto \theta - \phi$, while the coordinate $t$ remains unaffected. The generator of rotations is $N_{12} = - \partial/ \partial \theta$. Its action on the basis vectors is just $N_{12} \, u_k = - i k \, u_k$, i.e., the basis $\{ u_k \}$ is that of the eigenvectors of the Hermitian operator $i N_{12}$.
Now consider the case of $N_{10}$. Since Lorentz transformations are naturally described in the flat coordinates of the ambient Minkowski space $M$, let us describe the modes $u_k$ in the same coordinates: $$u_k = \sqrt{\frac{ \gamma_k}{4 \pi}} \, T^k_\nu(- i X^0 / \alpha) \, \frac{(X^1 + i X^2)^k }{[\alpha^2 + (X^0)^2]^{k/2} } \, .$$ An infinitesimal Lorentz transformation along the axis $X^1$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
(X^0)' & = X^0 - \lambda X^1 \, , \\
(X^1)' & = X^1 - \lambda X^0 \, , \\
(X^2)' & = X^2 \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda$ is the infinitesimal parameter of the transformation (the transformation is Lorentz to first order in $\lambda$). Thus, the variation of $u_k$ is $$N_{10} \, u_k \; = \; X^1\frac{\partial u_k}{\partial X^0} + X^0 \frac{\partial u_k}{\partial X^1} \, .$$ A similar equation holds for boosts along the axis $X^2$. Evaluating the derivatives and using a few relations between Legendre functions from [@snow], one finds that the action of the generators of de Sitter group is $$\begin{aligned}
N_{12} u_k & = - i k u_k \, , \nonumber \\
N_{10} u_k & = \frac{i}{2} |(\nu+k)(\nu - k + 1)|^{1/2} \, u_{k-1} \nonumber \\
& \qquad + \frac{i}{2} |(\nu-k)(\nu + k + 1)|^{1/2} \, u_{k+1} \, , \label{eq:dS-algebra-H} \\
N_{20} u_k & = \frac{1}{2} |(\nu+k)(\nu - k + 1)|^{1/2} \, u_{k-1} \nonumber \\
& \qquad - \frac{1}{2} |(\nu-k)(\nu + k + 1)|^{1/2} \, u_{k+1} \, . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ These equations show that $\mathcal{H}$ is closed under the action of the infinitesimal generators. Hence, $\mathcal{H}$ is a representation space for $O(2,\;1)_+^\uparrow$, the action of a Lorentz transformation $L$ on a wavefunction $\phi(x) \in \mathcal{H}$ being given by $\phi(x) \mapsto \phi(L^{-1}x)$. The Casimir operator which characterizes the irreducible representations is $C= N_{12}^2 - N_{10}^2 - N_{20}^2$, and is easily verified to be $C = - \nu(\nu+1)=\alpha^2\mu^2/\hbar^2$ for the above expressions.
With our restriction to $\mu^2 > 0$, the index $\nu$ may be: (a) a real number in the interval $(-1,\;0)$; or (b) a complex number of the form $\nu=-1/2 + i \lambda$, with $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$. In the case (a), one has $0< C < 1/4$, what corresponds to a representation of de Sitter group in the so-called complementary series (the continuous representations $C_q^0$ in the exceptional interval $0 < q < 1/4$ in Bargmann’s work [@bargmann]). In the case (b), one has $C \geq 1/4$, what corresponds to principal series representations (continuous representations $C_q^0$ with $q \geq 1/4$).
Now let us introduce the discrete symmetries of parity $\mathbf{P}$ and time-reversal $\mathbf{T}$. We represent parity as the reversal of the axis $X^2$ in the ambient Minkowski space. Then parity just reverses the sign of the angular coordinate of a wavefunction in $\mathcal{H}$, $\mathbf{P} \phi(t,\theta) = \phi(t,-\theta)$. In particular, for the basis vectors $u_k$, one may use the identity in order to get $$\mathbf{P} u_k = u_{-k} \, .
\label{eq:parity-H}$$ The action of $\mathbf{T}$ has a peculiarity connected with the restriction to the space of positive-energy states. The geometrical realization of the transformation is the reversal of the time coordinate in the ambient Minkowski space. But this cannot be represented as $\phi(t,\theta) \mapsto \phi(-t,\theta)$, since the result is a negative-energy state. In order that the transformation is closed in $\mathcal{H}$, we take the anti-unitary representation $\mathbf{T} \phi(t,\theta) = \phi^*(-t,\theta)$. But then the action of the operator on modes $u_k$ is the same as that of parity, with the difference that the action is anti-linear, $$\mathbf{T} u_k = u_{-k} \qquad \textrm{(anti-linear)} \, .
\label{eq:time-reversal-H}$$
Newton-Wigner localization
==========================
Definition of the localization system {#sec:def-localization}
-------------------------------------
The notion of localization of relativistic particles in Minkowski space provided by the Newton-Wigner (NW) position operator was introduced in [@newton-wigner]. In that paper, a list of properties is postulated, which are assumed to hold for any reasonable relativistic position operator, and it is proved that there is a unique operator satisfying them. A more direct way to understand this position operator is described in [@haag]. Let us review the basic argument. Consider a massive scalar field in Minkowski space. The one-particle subspace of the theory consists of vectors $\phi(p) \in L^2(\mathbb{R}, dp/\omega(p))$, with $\omega(p) = \sqrt{p^2 + m^2}$, i.e., the scalar product is $${\left\langle \phi | \psi \right\rangle} = \int \frac{ \textrm{d}p}{\omega(p)} \phi^*(p) \psi(p) \, .$$ Now absorb a factor $\sqrt{\omega(p)}$ in each wavefunction: i.e., consider the unitary transformation $M_\omega: L^2(\mathbb{R}, dp/\omega(p))\to L^2(\mathbb{R}, dp)$, whose action is $\phi(p) \mapsto \phi_{NW}(p)=\phi(p)/\sqrt{\omega(p)}$. Then, introduce a unitary operator of time-evolution $U_t :L^2(\mathbb{R}, dp) \to L^2(\mathbb{R}, dp)$, represented by the transformation $\phi_{NW}(p) \mapsto (U_t \, \phi_{NW})(p) = \exp(- i \omega(p) t / \hbar) \phi_{NW}(p)$. Finally, Fourier transform the result in order to get a spatial representation, $$\phi_{NW}(t,x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \int \textrm{d}p \, \textrm{e}^{ipx/\hbar } \textrm{e}^{- i \omega(p) t/\hbar }\, \phi_{NW}(p) \, .$$ That gives the Newton-Wigner wavefunction. The probability density that the particle is detected at the point $x$ in time $t$ is $P(t,x)=|\phi_{NW}(t,x)|^2$. The position operator itself, at time $t$, is the multiplication operator in the spatial representation at the same time, $$(q_t \phi)_{NW}(t,x) = x \phi_{NW}(t,x) \, .$$
Some difficulties show up if one tries to repeat the same steps in the case of de Sitter space. First, there is no canonical definition of a momentum space representation. We overcome this problem by looking at the mode expansion as a convenient (for our purposes) de Sitter analogue of the Fourier transform. It is clear that a mode expansion is a coordinate dependent concept, therefore the resulting position operator will depend on the choice of coordinates. But, as well known, the Newton-Wigner operator is not a covariant object even in Minkowski space: there is a distinct operator associated with each reference frame. The problem found in Minkowski space is just carried over into de Sitter space, and we do not attempt to solve it here.
The second point is the absence of a time-translation isometry in $dS^2$, what makes the time-evolution of individual modes much more complicated than in Minkowski space. Two aspects are relevant here: there is no definite frequency $\omega_k$ associated with each mode, so that time-evolution in momentum space is not just multiplication by varying phases $\exp(-i \omega t / \hbar)$ as before; and the oscillation of the field goes on together with a damping of the field amplitude, forced by the expansion of the universe (for increasing $|t|$). We will see that these effects can be isolated: the damping factor will be analogous to the factor $\sqrt{\omega}$ absorbed in the definition of the Newton-Wigner wavefunction in the Minlowski case, while the oscillating phases will be responsible for the time-evolution of the position operator.
Let us now proceed to the definition of the de Sitter version of NW-localization. Later we will interpret the results drawing an analogy with the discussion above. We assume that a localization system in de Sitter space is:
I
: A family of unitary transformations $W_t:\mathcal{H} \to L^2(S^1)$, $\phi \mapsto \phi_{NW}(t,\theta)$, where $L^2(S^1)$ is the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions on the circle $S^1$;
II
: If $U_{12}(\alpha) \in \textrm{SO}(1,\;2)$ is a rotation by an angle $\alpha$, then $U_{12}(\alpha) \phi \mapsto \phi_{NW}(t,\theta-\alpha)$;
III
: $\mathbf{P} \phi \mapsto \phi_{NW}(t,-\theta)$, and $\mathbf{T} \phi \mapsto \phi_{NW}^*(- t,\theta)$;
IV
: In the large mass limit, one has $\phi_{NW}(t,\theta) \,\propto\, \phi(t,\theta)$.
Condition IV will be clarified below. As a regularity condition, we also assume that $W_t^{-1}:L^2(S^1) \to \mathcal{H}$ depends continuously on the mass $m$. Let us discuss the intuitive content of the Postulates above.
The Newton-Wigner wavefunction $\phi_{NW}(t,\theta)$ is interpreted, for each time $t$, as describing quantum amplitudes for finding the particle at position $\theta$. In other words, the probability of finding the particle in a Lebesgue measurable set $I$ is $P(I) = \int_I |\phi_{NW}(t,\theta)|^2 d\theta$. Postulate I corresponds to the basic requirement that such a probability distribution exists for each time $t$.
The second postulate is that the Newton-Wigner representation is well-behaved under rotations. A rotation in de Sitter group, when seen from the Newton-Wigner spatial representation, must rotate the probability amplitudes on the circle by the same angle. This condition can be reformulated as $W_t U_{12}(\varphi) W_t^* = R(\varphi)$, where $R$ is the operator of rotation for square-integrable functions on the circle.
Postulate III is the requirement that the discrete symmetries of parity and time-reversal act as geometrical transformations on the Newton-Wigner representations. The complex conjugation in the time-reversal condition is necessary because the image of an anti-unitary operator under a unitary equivalence must be anti-unitary too. A quantum symmetry is in general defined up to a phase, according to the celebrated Wigner’s theorem; we are assuming here that the phases are equal to $1$, avoiding complications with the possibility of a projective representation of the extended de Sitter group.
Finally, the Postulate IV is necessary in order to fix some remaining ambiguities in $W_t$, as we shall see. It is motivated by the following fact. In the large mass limit, the scalar product of one-particle states $\phi(t,\theta),\;\psi(t,\theta)$ reduces to $${\left\langle \phi | \psi \right\rangle} \; \simeq \; 2 \frac{\mu a(t)}{\hbar} \int_{S_t} d\theta \, \phi^*(t,\theta) \psi(t,\theta) \, ,
\label{eq:scalar-product-large-m}$$ i.e., it becomes the scalar product of $L^2$ functions on the circle. In this case, it is natural to interpret $|\phi(t,\theta)|^2$ directly as a probability distribution (up to the factor outside the integral). The postulate IV ensures that the Newton-Wigner distribution agrees with such an interpretation.
The consequences of the postulates can now be evaluated. Let us start with postulate II. For each $t$, a suitable basis for $L^2(S^1)$ is that composed of eigenvectors of the Hermitian generator of rotations. That is the same as describing the NW-wavefunction in its Fourier expanded form, $$\phi_{NW}(t,\theta) = \sum_k q_k(t) \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, , \qquad \sum_k |q_k(t)|^2= 1 \, ,$$ with $q_k \in \mathbb{C}$. Consider the vector $u_k \in \mathcal{H}$. The action of a rotation $U_{12}(\alpha)$ on it is to multiply the state by a phase, $U_{12}(\alpha) u_k = \exp(- i k \alpha) u_k$. Since $U_{12}$ is linear, the same must be true for its image in $L^2(S1)$: $$W_t\left( U_{12}(\alpha) u_k \right) = \textrm{e}^{- i k \alpha} W_t(u_k) \, ,$$ what implies $$R(\alpha) W_t(u_k) = \textrm{e}^{-i k \alpha} W_t(u_k) \, .
\label{eq:rot-covariance}$$ But then it must be $$W_t(u_k) = \textrm{e}^{- i \varphi_k(t)} \, \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, ,
\label{eq:condition-rotation}$$ where $\varphi_k(t)$ is some arbitrary phase. For, suppose the space $V$ of solutions $W_t(u_k)$ of Eq. has more than one dimension. Note that the action of the Hermitian generator $J$ of rotations in $V$ is multiplication by $k$. Then there would be at least two orthogonal vectors with the same eigenvalue $k$, what is impossible, since the eigenspaces of $J$ are non-degenerate. Therefore, $V$ is one-dimensional, the space of eigenvectors of $J$ with eigenvalue $k$. Because the transformation $W_t$ is unitary, and $u_k$ has norm $1$, there is just a phase freedom, what corresponds to Eq. .
The action of parity in $\mathcal{H}$ is given by Eq. . The first part of postulate III, when applied to the general form of the solution of postulate II described in Eq. , leads to $$W_t(u_k) = W_t(\mathbf{P} u_{-k}) = \textrm{e}^{- i \varphi_{-k}(t)} \, \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, .
\label{eq:condition-parity}$$ The action of time-reversal in $\mathcal{H}$ is given by Eq. . The second part of postulate III leads to $$W_t(u_k) = W_t(\mathbf{T} u_{-k}) = \textrm{e}^{i \varphi_{-k}(-t)} \, \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, ,
\label{eq:condition-time-reversal}$$ Put $s_k(t) := \textrm{e}^{- i\varphi_k(t)}$. Comparing Eqs. , and , one finds that $$s_k(t) = s_{-k}(t) \, , \qquad s_k(t) = s_k^*(-t) \, .
\label{eq:sign-ambiguity}$$ The form of the transformation $W_t$ is restricted, but not uniquely fixed by the axioms I–III. The varying phases must satisfy Eq. , but there remains a lot of freedom after these conditions are imposed. In the next section we describe the additional restrictions which follow from postulate IV at $t=0$, where a unique solution is obtained. Then we study the case of generic $t$, and suggest a natural solution based on an analogy to the case of Minkowski space.
The case of $t=0$
-----------------
At $t=0$, the identities in Eq. simplify to $s_k(0)=s_{-k}(0)=\pm 1$. Thus, the transformation $W_0$ determined by postulates I–III is given by: $$\phi(0,\theta) = \sum_k \phi_k \sqrt{\frac{\gamma_k}{2}} T_\nu^k(0) \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \mapsto \phi_{NW}(0,\theta) = \sum_k \phi_k \, s_k(0) \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, .
\label{eq:NW-time-0}$$ As we see, there is a sign ambiguity in each term of the above series, due to the presence of the factor $s_k(0)$.
This ambiguity was first pointed by Philips and Wigner in [@philips-wigner]. Below, we will discuss how these authors address this problem, but let us first show that our postulate IV fixes these ambiguities in a more natural way, leading to a unique solution for $W_0$.
From Eq. and the definition $\mu^2 = m^2+\xi R$, it follows that the large mass limit $m \to \infty$ corresponds to the limit $\lambda \to \infty$ in the index of the Legendre functions $\nu = -1/2 + \lambda i$. In order that the postulate IV is satisfied, it is necessary that $\phi_{NW}(0,\theta) = f(m) \phi(0,\theta)$ in Eq. , with some mass-dependent normalization factor $f(m)$. But from the asymptotic expression for the Legendre function in the large $\nu$ limit (see Eq. VI.(93a) in [@snow]), and using the Stirling approximation for Gamma functions, one gets $$\sqrt{\frac{\gamma_k}{2}} T_\nu^k(0) \; \simeq \; (-1)^k (2 \lambda)^{-1/2} \, .
\label{eq:large-mass-gamma}$$ The factor $(2 \lambda)^{-1/2}$ is just a mass-dependent normalization coefficient, as can be seen from Eq. with $a(0)=\alpha$, since $\lambda \to \alpha \mu / \hbar$ for large masses. Therefore, postulate IV implies that, up to an irrelevant overall sign, one has $$s_k(0) \; = \;(-1)^k \, .
\label{eq:sk}$$
The fact that the same choice is made for all masses $m$ is a consequence of the asumption that $W_0^{-1}$ is continuous with respect to the mass $m$. Since $s_k(0)=\pm 1$, it cannot change but discontinuously. Summing up: the transformation $W_0$ is completely determined by the postulates I-IV, being given by Eq. with $s_k(0)=(-1)^k$.
Heuristical discussion on the ambiguities of signs
--------------------------------------------------
Let us discuss some heuristical aspects of the position probability distribution we have found and the origin of the sign ambiguities occuring in the coefficients $s_k(0)$ before the postulate IV is used. As we shall now explain, the existence of the sign ambiguities is a consequence of the fact that the localization postulates I-III alone do not fix the localization in the one-particle space $\mathcal{H}$ relative to the localization in the Newton-Wigner representation space $L^2(S^1)$.
Consider a specific choice of the signs $s_k=\pm 1$. If these coefficients are changed according to $s_k \mapsto s_k^\prime = (-1)^k$, then the Newton-Wigner representation is rotated by an angle of $\pi$. Hence, part of the freedom in the choice of the $s_k$ is due to the possibility of applying a rotation of $\pi$. In fact, analizing the action of the map $W_0$ on a sufficiently large class of carefully chosen states, it is even possible to fix all sign ambiguities just by avoiding such antipodal reflections.
In order to see this, consider a simple example. Take a superposition of $k=-1,0,1$ states with $a_0=s_0$, $a_1=a_{-1}=s_1 /2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(0,\theta) & = &\sqrt{\frac{\gamma_0}{4\pi}} \, T_\nu^0(0) s_0 + \sqrt{\frac{\gamma_1}{4 \pi}} \, T_\nu^1(0) s_1 \cos \theta \;,
\label{eq:Localizacao-1}
\\
\phi_{NW}(0,\theta) & = &\frac{1 + \cos \theta}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, .
\label{eq:Localizacao-2}\end{aligned}$$ The Newton-Wigner wavefunction (\[eq:Localizacao-2\]) has a maximum at $\theta=0$ and decreases monotonically with increasing $|\theta|$, assuming the value zero at the antipodal point $\theta=\pi$. That is, it describes a particle more likely to be found in the region $|\theta|<\pi/2$ than in the antipodal related region. Let us now consider behavior of the corresponding one-particle state (\[eq:Localizacao-1\]). One has $$T_\nu^k(0)= \frac{(-1)^k 2^k \sqrt{\pi}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{\nu-k}{2}+1\right) \Gamma\left(\frac{-\nu-k+1}{2}\right)}
\label{eq:T-nu-zero}$$ and it can be proved that the product of $\Gamma$’s in the denominator is positive. Thus, the coefficients $T_\nu^k(0)$ have signs alternating in $k$, because of the factor $(-1)^k$. There are two distinct possibilities for the action of $W_0$: either $s_0=s_1$ or $s_0 \neq s_1$. If $s_0=s_1$, then the two terms in the r.h.s. of (\[eq:Localizacao-1\]) have different signs at $\theta=0$, and the same sign at $\theta=\pi$, and the wavefunction has higher amplitudes in the region $\pi/2 < |\theta|<\pi$, with its maximum at $\theta=\pi$. On the other hand, if $s_0 \neq s_1$, then $\phi(0,\theta)$ has its maximum at $\theta=0$, and higher amplitudes in the region $|\theta|<\pi/2$. The two choices are related by a rotation of $\pi$. Therefore, in order that the wavefunction $\phi(0,\theta)$ is concentrated at the same region as $\phi_{NW}(0,\theta)$, and not at the antipodal related region, one must choose $s_0 \neq s_1$.
The same argument can be adapted to states constructed by superpositions of states with $|k|=p,\; p+1$, allowing one to fix $s_{p+1}$ in terms of $s_p$. Notice that this argument works only for very special states: in a generic state $\phi$, distinct choices of $s_k(0)$ are related by more complicated transformations than simple rotations by $\pi$.
In any case, as we saw above, different choices of signs reflect on the localization of states in the one-particle space $\mathcal{H}$ relative to the Newton-Wigner representation spece $L^2(S^1)$. According to the usual interpretation of the localization operators and of the wavefunctions, it is natural to choose the signs in a way that the same interpretation of localization is found in both spaces: if the Newton-Wigner wavefunction is concentrated about some $\theta_0$, the corresponding one-particle state should be concentrated at the same region, and not at the antipodal point.
The choice $s_k(0)=(-1)^k$ can be obtained, alternatively, from a condition of “maximal localization” of position eigenstates. Consider a sequence of localized functions in the Newton-Wigner representation, $$\delta_{NW}^K(\theta) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \sum_{|k|<K} \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, , \quad K \in \mathbb{N} \, ,
\label{eq:delta-sequence}$$ which converges, for $K \to \infty$ (in a distributional sense), to the Dirac delta function $\delta_{NW}(\theta)$. Allowing for the sign freedom in the coefficients $s_k(0)$, these functions correspond to one-particle states of the form: $$\delta^{K}(0,\theta) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \sum_{|k|<K} s_k(0) \sqrt{\frac{\gamma_k}{2}} T_\nu^k(0) \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, ,
\label{eq:delta-sequence-st}$$ so that at $\theta=0$ one has: $$\delta^{K}(0,0) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{|k|<K} s_k(0) \sqrt{\frac{\gamma_k}{2}} T_\nu^k(0) \, .$$ As we saw from Eq. , we have $\textrm{sign}\,\big(T_\nu^k(0)\big) = (-1)^k$. Hence, the choice $s_k(0)=(-1)^k$ maximizes the value of $|\delta^{K}(0,0)|$, for all $K$. In other words, that is the choice which makes the localized state $\delta_{NW}(\theta)$ in the Newton-Wigner representation as concentrated as possible about $\theta=0$ in the spacetime representation at $t=0$. The notion of localizability contained in the transformation $W_0$ is associated with maximally localized wavefunctions being well-behaved under de Sitter group symmetries.
Comparison with Philips-Wigner states
-------------------------------------
An earlier discussion of localizability in de Sitter space was presented by Philips and Wigner in [@philips-wigner], and we would like to compare our results to theirs. A brief review of [@philips-wigner] is presented in Appendix \[sec:pw\], to which we refer for more details. The main result obtained in that paper was a description of (improper) states $\phi^{(\theta_0)}$ localized at position $\theta_0$ in $t=0$. Such states were described in terms of their Fourier coefficients in an explicit principal series representation of de Sitter group on a space $L^2(S^1)$ of square-integrable functions on the circle. We want to compare these with the localized states $\eta^{(\theta_0)}=\delta_{NW}(\theta-\theta_0)$ of our NW-representation in $t=0$, whose Fourier coefficients in the NW-representation are given by $\exp(- i k \theta_0)/\sqrt{2\pi}$. From Eqs. and , these localized states correspond to (improper) one-particle states in $\mathcal{H}$ of the form: $$\eta^{(\theta_0)}(t,\theta) = \sum_k \frac{(-1)^k}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \textrm{e}^{- i k \theta_0} \sqrt{\frac{\gamma_k}{2}} T_\nu^k\big(i \sinh (t/\alpha)\big) \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, ,
\label{eq:localized-states-spacetime}$$ that is, they have components $$\eta^{(\theta_0)}_k = \frac{(-1)^k}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \textrm{e}^{- i k \theta_0}
\label{eq:eta-localized-states}$$ in $\mathcal{H}$. We shall restrict in this section to representations of the principal series, on which the work [@philips-wigner] is based.
Let us start by discussing the relation between the representation of Sitter algebra in the space $\mathcal{H}$ of one-particle states described in Section \[group-action\] and the more traditional Bargmann’s representations used in [@philips-wigner]. The principal series Bargmann representation on $\mathcal{H}' := L^2(S^1)$ is briefly reviewed in Appendix \[sec:pw\]. Let $\{{| k \rangle}\}$ be the basis of $\mathcal{H}'$ composed of normalized eigenstates of the generator of rotations, ${| k \rangle} = \exp(i k \theta)/\sqrt{2 \pi}$. The action of de Sitter algebra in this basis is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
N_{12} {| k \rangle} & = - i k {| k \rangle} \, , \nonumber \\
N_{10} {| k \rangle} & = \frac{\nu + k}{2} {| k-1 \rangle} + \frac{\nu - k}{2} {| k+1 \rangle} \, , \label{eq:dS-algebra-pw}\\
N_{20} {| k \rangle} & = i \frac{\nu + k}{2} {| k-1 \rangle} - i \frac{\nu - k}{2} {| k+1 \rangle} \, , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $\nu = -1/2 + \lambda i$. These expressions are direct translations of Eqs. and , discussed in more detail in [@philips-wigner]. On the other hand, the representation of de Sitter algebra on $\mathcal{H}$ is described explicitly in Eq. . The principal series representations are those with $\nu = -1/2 + \lambda i$, $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$, in which case Eq. reduces to the simpler form: $$\begin{aligned}
N_{12} u_k & = - i k u_k \, , \nonumber \\
N_{10} u_k & = \frac{i}{2} |\nu+k| u_{k-1} + \frac{i}{2} |\nu-k| u_{k+1} \, , \label{eq:dS-algebra-H-ps} \\
N_{20} u_k & = - \frac{1}{2} |\nu+k| u_{k-1} + \frac{1}{2} |\nu-k| u_{k+1} \, . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Comparing the expressions in Eqs. and , it can be verified that a unitary equivalence $U_B^\dagger: \mathcal{H}' \to \mathcal{H}$ is given by ${| k \rangle} \mapsto \chi_k u_k$, where $\chi_k$ is a complex number defined by the recurrence relations: $$\chi_0 =1 \, , \qquad \chi_{k+1} = -i \frac{\nu+k+1}{|\nu+k+1|} \chi_k \, .$$ The last relation is equivalent to $$\chi_{k-1} = -i \frac{\nu-k+1}{|\nu-k+1|} \chi_k \, .$$ Hence, the coefficients can be written as ($k>0$): $$\chi_k = \chi_{-k} = (-i)^k \frac{\left(\frac{1}{2} + i \lambda \right) \left(\frac{3}{2} + i \lambda \right) \dots \left( k - \frac{1}{2} + i \lambda \right)}{\left|\left(\frac{1}{2} + i \lambda \right) \left(\frac{3}{2} + i \lambda \right) \dots \left( k - \frac{1}{2} + i \lambda \right)\right|} \, .
\label{eq:change-basis}$$ Now let $\mathcal{H}_{NW}^{(0)} := L^2(S^1)$ denote the space of Newton-Wigner wavefunctions at time $t=0$, and build the composition $U_B^{(0)} := U_B \circ W_0^\dagger$. This transformation maps a NW-wavefunction to the corresponding state in Bargmann’s representation. Choosing the basis $\big\{{| k \rangle} = \exp(i k \theta)/\sqrt{2 \pi}, \; k\in\mathbb{Z}\big\}$ for $\mathcal{H}_{NW}^{(0)}$, one has $W^\dagger_0 {| k \rangle}= (-1)^k u_k$. Therefore, a NW-wavefunction $\phi_{NW}(0,\theta) = \sum \phi_k {| k \rangle}$ corresponds to a vector $\phi_B(\theta)= \sum (-1)^k \chi_k^* \phi_k {| k \rangle}$ in Bargmann’s representation.
A Philips-Wigner state $\phi^{(\pi/2)}$ localized at $\theta = \pi/2$ has Fourier coefficients $\sqrt{2 \pi} l_k$ in $\mathcal{H}'$ given by the explicit formula displayed in Eq. . Such state can be mapped to $\mathcal{H}$ with the help of the unitary transformation $U_B^\dagger$. One finds that $U_B^\dagger \, \phi^{(\pi/2)}$ has coefficients $\phi_k^{(\pi/2)} = \sqrt{2 \pi} l_k \chi_k$ in $\mathcal{H}$. From Eq. and Eq. , it follows that $l_k \chi_k = i^k$. Now compare with our localized states. From Eq. , a NW-state $\eta^{(\pi/2)}$ localized at $\theta_0=\pi/2$ at $t=0$ has coefficients $\eta_k^{(\pi/2)} = i^k/\sqrt{2 \pi}$. Therefore, up to an irrelevant normalization factor, the localized states at $\theta = \pi /2$ are the same. Besides, both classes of states behave in the same way under rotations. So our definition of localized states allows one, for $t=0$, and with the restriction to the principal series, to recover the results of [@philips-wigner].
Therefore, working in a quite different setting, we have arrived at the same localized states as obtained in [@philips-wigner] in the context of group theory. We would like to discuss now the main differences and similarities between these approaches, and emphasize some technical simplifications and a conceptual clarification we believe our work brings to the discussion of localizability in de Sitter spacetime.
Compare with what happens in Minkowski space. The work of Newton and Wigner [@newton-wigner] was written in terms of distributions describing improper states localized at specific points. The results were latter reformulated by Wightman [@wightman] in terms of projectors $E(S)$ in a Hilbert space associated with observables describing the property of the particle being in a region $S$ of space. So the idea of localization at a point was replaced by localization in a finite region. The main advantage in doing this is that technical complications associated with the theory of distributions are avoided. In short, the approach of Wightman allowed the results of [@newton-wigner] to be derived in a rigourous manner in the simplest context of a Hilbert space of square-integrable functions. In de Sitter space, the work of Philips and Wigner follows the original idea of looking for localized states, while we have studied the analogue of Wightman’s localizability postulates, describing the probability $P(S)$ of detection of the particle in a finite, measurable region $S$ in terms of the norm of its state $\phi$ projected to a suitable subspace in the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, i.e., $P(S)=\int_S d\theta |\phi_{NW}(\theta)|^2=\|\chi_S \, \phi\|^2$, where $\chi_S$ is the projection operator which acts as the characteristic function of $S$ in the Newton-Wigner representation.
In Minkowski space, the approaches of [@newton-wigner] and [@wightman] are essentially equivalent: the conditions used by Wightman were direct translations of the original conditions on distributions. In de Sitter spacetime, however, there are important differences between our approach and that of [@philips-wigner]. Firstly, distinct sets of axioms are used: one of the axioms of [@philips-wigner] (Axiom c in Appendix \[sec:pw\]) is replaced in our approach by postulate IV. These conditions play similar roles in each approach, being required for the elimination of sign ambiguities encoded in the factors $s_k(0)=\pm 1$. However, the physical motivation of Axiom (c)—minimal disturbance of a localized state at $\theta_0$ under the action of boosts which leave the point $\theta_0$ invariant—is unclear. According to our previous discussion, the ambiguities can be fixed in a more natural way by a condition of ‘optimal localization’—that the probabilities should be as concentrated as possible about the wavefunction—and can be easily implemented requiring a reasonable large mass limit.
Moreover, there is a residual ambiguity in [@philips-wigner]. This is removed by requiring that the localized states have positive energy in the Minkowski space limit, what is done using a complicated process of contraction (roughly speaking, by taking the limit $\alpha\to\infty$) of Lie algebra representations of the de Sitter group. This step is not necessary in our approach. Such a simplification is due to the fact that negative energy states are not allowed here, the starting point being a space of positive-energy solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation. Importantly, we employ the Hadamard condition to select states with positive energy, making it unnecessary to check the sign of the energy of the localized states through a Minkowski space limit.
A second remark concerns the connection between representations of de Sitter group and wave equations in de Sitter space. As widely known, the irreducible representations of de Sitter group were classified by Bargmann in [@bargmann]. Yet, when one considers applications to quantum field theory, it is natural to ask for an interpretation of the representations in spaces of solutions of wave equations in de Sitter space. More than that, one wants to restrict to positive-energy solutions. Here we have used the Hadamard condition in order to select a suitable space of positive-energy solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation, and displayed such an interpretation for the principal and complementary series representations.
In doing so, we identified the one-particle subspace of the quantized massive scalar field theory with a particular irreducible representation of the de Sitter group. In an intuitive sense, that identification provides a spacetime representation for vectors in the more abstract (from a physicist’s perspective) Bargmann’s representations: it allows one to see these vectors as wavefunctions in de Sitter space. In particular, it becomes possible to determine how the localized states are spread in spacetime, i.e., Eq. (remember that relativistic localized states are not strictly localized, but “as localized as possible” states). This question could not be dealt with without a prescription for the choice of the positive-energy states, and was not investigated in [@philips-wigner].
In Minkowski space, if one wants to see how a localized state defined in momentum space looks like in spacetime, one just goes to configuration space, using the well-known transformation $\phi({\mathbf{p}}) \mapsto \phi({\mathbf{x}},t)$, the relativistic Fourier transform. The result is a Hankel function, with an exponential decay for large spatial distances [@newton-wigner]. Such a familiar transformation has no natural analogue in curved spacetimes. A Bargmann’s representation can be seen as a sort of ‘momentum representation’, but the transformation to configuration space—that of wavefunctions in de Sitter space—is not unique: it depends on the choice of a vacuum, or equivalently, of the positive-energy states. It is necessary to combine purely group theoretical results with the modern specification of positive-energy states given by the Hadamard condition in order to find the spacetime representation of states of interest.
Time-evolution of the Newton-Wigner wavefunction
------------------------------------------------
The postulates I–IV determine uniquely the form of the Newton-Wigner wavefunction at time $t=0$. They also impose restrictions on the time-evolution of the wavefunction, but do not fix it uniquely. In this section we discuss a solution of these conditions, suggested by an analogy with the definition of the position operator in Minkowski space discussed in the beginning of Section \[sec:def-localization\]. It is natural that in generalizing structures defined in Minkowski space to the context of curved spacetimes some non-uniqueness might be met with. Nevertheless, one would certainly like to restrict it as much as possible, and in de Sitter space there is the advantage of dealing with a maximally symmetric spacetime. We discuss later in this section the possibility of using the group symmetry operations in de Sitter space in order to fix the Newton-Wigner dynamics, but we will answer this question in the negative, at least for a simple implementation of these symmetries.
So, let us describe a solution of the time-evolution $W_t$ of the Newton-Wigner wavefunction. Keep in mind the discussion in Section \[sec:def-localization\]. From Eq. and the explicit form of the normal modes given in Eq. , a generic vector in $\mathcal{H}$ can be written as $$\phi(t,\theta) = \sum_k \phi_k \sqrt{\frac{\gamma_k}{2}} \, T^k_\nu\big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, ,
\label{eq:general-state}$$ with $\sum_k |\phi_k|^2 = 1$. The scalar product is given by Eq. , which reduces to ${\left\langle \phi | \psi \right\rangle} = \sum \phi_k^* \psi_k$ in this representation. Now, introduce $$N_k(t) := \frac{1}{\gamma_k \, \left| T^k_\nu\big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) \right|^2} \, ,$$ and $$\varphi_k(t) := - \arg \Bigl( T^k_\nu\big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) \Bigr)
\label{eq:time-evolution-phase}$$ and define a time-dependent unitary transformation $W_t$ given for each $t$ by $$\phi(t,\theta) \mapsto \phi_{NW}(t,\theta) = \sum_k \phi_k \textrm{e}^{- i \varphi_k(t)} \, \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, .
\label{eq:nw-rep}$$ Above, a factor $[2 N_k(t)]^{-1/2}$ is absorbed in each coefficient $\phi_k$, and a time-evolution $\exp[- i \varphi_k(t)]$ is associated with each mode. The analogy with the definition of the position operator in Minkowski space should be clear. The absorption of the factor $[2 N_k(t)]^{-1/2}$ is a consequence of postulates I–III; what is added is the choice of the phases $\varphi_k(t)$ prescribed by Eq. . Note that for $t=0$, it follows from Eq. and Eq. that $\exp(-i \varphi_k(0))=(-1)^k$. Substituting that in Eq. , we get the operator $W_0$ obtained in the previous section. Hence, we have the right transformation at $t=0$. Moreover, it is easy to check that the postulates I–IV are satisfied. It must be verified that $\textrm{e}^{-i \varphi_{k}(t)} = \textrm{e}^{-i \varphi_{-k}(t)}$ (parity), $\textrm{e}^{-i \varphi_k(t)} = \textrm{e}^{i \varphi_k(-t)}$ (time-reversal), and that the large mass limit is correct. That the parity condition is satisfied is a consequence of Eq. , which shows that $T_\nu^{-k}(z)$ and $T_\nu^k(z)$ are proportional, with a positive proportionality factor. The time-reversal condition is a consequence of the identity $\Big[T^k_\nu\big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big)\Big]^* = T^k_\nu\big(-i\sinh(t/\alpha)\big)$. And the large mass limit can be established using Eq. VI.(90) of [@snow]: $$P_\nu^\mu(z) \simeq \frac{\nu^{\mu-1/2}}{\sqrt{2 \pi}(z^2-1)^{1/4}} \left[ - \textrm{e}^{\pm i (\mu-1/2)\pi} \textrm{e}^{i(\nu+1/2)\omega} + \textrm{e}^{-i(\nu+1/2) \omega} \right] \, , \quad \textrm{ for } \nu_2 \to \pm \infty \, ,$$ where $\nu=\nu_1+i\nu_2$ and $z = \cos \omega$, together with the Stirling approximation for complex numbers with large imaginary part [@remmert], which gives $$\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}-k-\lambda i \right)\right| \simeq \sqrt{2 \pi} \lambda^{-k} \textrm{e}^{-\pi \lambda/2} \, ,$$ so that the analogue of Eq. is $$\sqrt{\frac{\gamma_k}{2}} T_\nu^k\big(i \sinh (t/\alpha)\big) \simeq (-1)^k (2 \lambda \cosh \big(t/\alpha)\big)^{-1/2} \textrm{e}^{-i \lambda t/\alpha}$$ for large $m$. The factor $\big(2 \lambda \cosh (t/\alpha)\big)^{1/2}$ is a mass-dependent normalization coefficient, from Eq. .
There is a simple physical interpretation for the prescribed choice of the phases $\varphi_k(t)$. The Newton-Wigner wavefunction at time $t$ is described in Eq. as a square-integrable function on a circle of radius $1$. Its squared value gives the probability of finding the particle in an infinitesimal interval of angles. But the actual spatial radius of the corresponding time slice is the scale factor $a(t) = \alpha \cosh (t/\alpha)$, so if one wants to get the probability density in the spatial slice itself, a factor of $\sqrt{a(t)}$ must be included, leading to $$\tilde{\phi}_{NW}(t,\theta) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha \cosh (t/\alpha)}} \sum_k \phi_k \textrm{e}^{- i \varphi_k(t)} \, \frac{\textrm{e}^{i k \theta}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, .$$ In this case, the transformation which defines $\tilde{\phi}_{NW}(t,\theta)$ involves the absorption of a factor $[2 \omega_k^{dS}(t)]^{-1/2}$, with $$\omega_k^{dS}(t) := \frac{1}{\gamma_k \left| T^k_\nu\big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big) \right|^2 \alpha \cosh(t/\alpha)} \, .
\label{eq:dispersion-relation}$$ There is an interesting relation between the derivative of the phases $\varphi_k(t)$ and the factors $\omega_k^{dS}(t)$. Pick Eq. and consider it on the imaginary axis, with $z= iy$. Divide it by $\left| T^k_\nu(- i y) \right|^2 = T^k_\nu(i y) \, T^k_\nu(- i y)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{- 2}{\gamma_k (1+y^2) \left| T^k_\nu(- i y) \right|^2} & = \left[ \frac{T^{k \, \prime}_\nu(-i y)}{T^k_\nu(- i y)} + \frac{T^{k \, \prime}_\nu(i y)}{T^k_\nu(i y)} \right] \nonumber \\
& = 2 \textrm{Re}\left[ \frac{T^{k \, \prime}_\nu(i y)}{T^k_\nu(i y)} \right] \, .
\label{eq:phases-derivative-aux}\end{aligned}$$ The last identity follows from the fact that the derivative of a Legendre function can be written as a (real) linear combination of Legendre functions, which are complex conjugated by the inversion $iy \to - iy$. Now, Eq. implies $$\varphi_k^\prime(t) = - \frac{1}{\alpha} \cosh(t/\alpha) \, \textrm{Re} \left[ \frac{T^{k \, \prime}_\nu\big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big)}{T^k_\nu\big(i \sinh(t/\alpha)\big)} \right] \, ,$$ what in turn, using Eq. and Eq. , leads to $$\varphi_k^\prime(t) = \omega_k^{dS}(t) \, .$$ Therefore, the dynamics described by Eq. corresponds to that generated by normal modes $k$ with a time-dependent energy $\omega_k^{dS}(t)$, with the time $t=0$ representation fixed by postulates I–IV. In other words, we are looking at Eq. as a time-dependent dispersion relation giving the energy of a mode $k$ as a function of time.
The solution we have found for the localizability postulates was written in a form valid both for the principal and complementary series, i.e. Eq. . But it must be noticed that for representations in the complementary series the normal modes $T_\nu^k\big(i\sinh(t/\alpha)\big)$ are purely real and not oscillatory, implying that the phases $\exp(-i\varphi_k(t))$ are constant. Therefore, the dynamics of the Newton-Wigner function in this case is trivial; there is no time-evolution. Notice that complementary series representations are associated with particle masses and de Sitter radii satisfying $4 \alpha^2 \mu^2 / \hbar^2 < 1$. This inequality essentially states that the Compton wavelength of the scalar particle is bigger than the radius of de Sitter spacetime. Under these circumstances the NW-wavefunction describing the position of the particle is not able to move, and the notion of localization is trivial. In the principal series representations, on the other hand, the Newton-Wigner function has a nontrivial dynamics, and the time-evolution of the distribution of probabilities might be used in order to study how wavepackets move.
It is a well-known fact that the Newton-Wigner operator displays acausal features in the propagation of wavepackets in Minkowski space, i.e. superluminal propagation is possible [@ruijsenaars], and the same phenomenon should be expected in the case of de Sitter spacetime. The central result of [@ruijsenaars] was a determination of upper bounds for the probability of detection of superluminal propagation. These depend on the experimental techniques available, but using some generous estimates of experimental parameters it was found in [@ruijsenaars] that the probability of detecting superluminal propagation in a single experiment is smaller than $10^{-10^8}$. It was also argued that a more carefull exam should reduce this bound considerably. It is natural to expect that curvature-dependent corrections to this result should be present in de Sitter spacetime, but given the order of magnitude of the effect, there shall be a considerable window in the space of parameters ($m$, $\alpha$, a typical time-scale $T$, etc) where acausal effects are negligible.
For particles in the principal series, the position operator should be useful for the study of the dynamics of relativistic particles in de Sitter spacetime in a semiclassical regime. One could prepare an initially localized wavepacket, and study how the probability density propagates and spreads. It is clear that the expansion of the universe will enforce an additional spreading in the dispersion of wavepackets compared to that in Minkowski space, so that a wavepacket resembling a localized particle will remain so only for a finite amount of time. But that is a general feature in the study of classical limits of quantum systems, true even for non-relativistic systems: typically a classical limit is approached only inside a finite interval of time, as discussed in the classical work [@hepp]. For how long the classical limit is reasonable, and how exactly the wavepackets spread is described by the time-evolution of the position probability distribution.
Finally, we should briefly mention that, following a suggestion made in [@philips-wigner], but not further developed there, we analysed the possibility of deriving the dynamics of the NW-wavefunction from the action of the de Sitter group on the NW-wavefunctions at time $t=0$, thus trying to remediate with boots and rotations the absence of time-translation isometries. However, our attempts led to incompatibilities with our more natural postulates I–III and we came to the conclusion that the implementation of this seemingly sound idea is actually quite subtle, perhaps impossible.
Perspectives
============
We have showed that a notion of localization exists for massive neutral scalar fields in de Sitter space compatible with the prescription for the choice of positive energy modes encoded in the Hadamard condition. In de Sitter space, this condition is equivalent to the choice of the Bunch–Davies vacuum as the “physical vacuum” among the family of $\alpha$-vacua. Therefore, we have proved that localizability is compatible with this choice of vacuum. A natural question arises whether other choices of vacuum are compatible or not with localizability. If they are not, that would be another argument in favor of the Bunch–Davies vacuum. We expect to investigate this problem in a future work.
Another direction of research is related to the problem of understanding the classical limit of quantum field theories in curved spacetimes. Following the general procedure for studying classical limits introduced by Hepp in [@hepp], we have proved in a previous work [@mcl] that the quantum theory of the free neutral massive scalar field in Minkowski space has two distinct kinds of classical limits: one of them describing a classical field theory, the other one a classical particle dynamics. The Newton-Wigner position operator is used in order to prove the existence of the latter. We expect that the same problem can be investigated in de Sitter space along similar lines, with the position probability distributions discussed herein playing the role of the Newton-Wigner operator.
We have considered particles with positive mass in the principal and complementary series of representations of de Sitter group. In the case of the complementary series, the position operator was found to be trivial, without dynamics. Hence, a nontrivial classical limit should exist only for representations in the principal series. Moreover, it has been recently discovered that it is also possible to formulate sensible free quantum fields in de Sitter space using representations with a negative mass, the so-called tachyonic fields of [@bros-2]. The question of the localizability of these fields was not treated here, and could be investigated in a future work.
This work was supported by FAPESP under Grant 2007/55450-0. NY thanks the Erwin Schrödinger Institute, Vienna, for support and hospitality during the program *“Quantum Field Theory on Curved Spacetimes and Curved Target Spaces”*. He also thanks U. Moschella for discussions during the initial stages of his studies of quantum fields in de Sitter spacetime. Both authors specially wish to thank the referees for important remarks on a previous version of this manuscript that led to considerable improvements in our results.
Proof of $[T^k_\nu(i y)]^* = T^k_\nu(- i y)$ {#complex-conjugate-modes}
============================================
The functions $T^k_\nu(z)$ are defined for $|z-1|<2$ in terms of hypergeometric functions by $$T^k_\nu(z) := \frac{ (1 - z^2)^{k/2} \Gamma(\nu + k +1)}{2^k \Gamma(k+1) \Gamma(\nu - k + 1)} \, f(z) \, ,
\label{eq:P-def-F}$$ with $$f(z) := F\left( -\nu + k, \nu + k + 1, k + 1; \frac{1-z}{2} \right) \, .$$
Let us see what happens to the function under complex conjugation. For $k \geq 0$, the hypergeometric function can be represented as a convergent power series in the radius $|z|<1$. The $(j+1)$-th term in the expansion of $f$ in powers of $(1-z)/2$ has a coefficient of the form $$\frac{\prod_{l=0}^j (-\nu + k + l) (\nu + k + 1 + l)}{\prod_{l=0}^j (k + 1 + l)} \, .$$ The denominator is real, so ignore it. Recall that $\nu$ is a root of the quadratic equation $\nu(\nu+1) = - \alpha^2 \mu^2$, so whenever $\nu(\nu + 1)$ makes an appearance, it is a real number. It follows that every factor in the product is real. Thus, the power function has real coefficients, and $[f(z)]^* = f(z^*)$.
Now, the gamma functions. The factor $\Gamma(k+1)$ is real. The part that matters is $$\frac{ \Gamma(\nu + k +1)}{\Gamma(\nu - k + 1)} = (\nu+k) (\nu+k-1) \cdots (\nu - k +2) (\nu - k +1) \, .$$ This can be rewritten as $$\prod_{l=0}^{k-1} (\nu + k - l) (\nu + 1- k +l) = \prod_{l=0}^{k-1} \, [ \nu (\nu + 1) - (k-l)^2 + (k-l)] \, ,$$ which is also real. Besides that, each factor in the product is a negative number: $\nu (\nu + 1) = - \alpha^2 \mu^2$, and $(k-l)^2 \geq (k-l)$, since $k-l$ is an integer. Therefore, the product is negative for odd $k$, and positive for even $k$. This result will be needed somewhere else.
Finally, take $z = iy$, $y \in \mathbb{R}$, and consider the factor $(1 - z^2)^{k/2}$. Here one must be careful. The functions $T_\mu^k$ are defined with square roots cut along distinct lines: the factor $\sqrt{1-z}$ is cut along $x>1$ on the real axis, while the factor $\sqrt{1+z}$ has a cut along $x<-1$. With these choices, $\sqrt{1-(ix)^2} = |1+iy|$. Then it follows that $\{[1 - (ix)^2]^{k/2}\}^* = [1 - (-ix)^2]^{k/2}$, so that $[T^k_\nu(i y)]^* = T^k_\nu((i y)^*) = T^k_\nu(- i y)$, at least in the radius $|z|<1$ and for $k \geq 0$.
In order to extend the result to the domain of $T^k_\nu$, introduce an auxiliary analytic function $[T^k_\nu(-x,y)]^*$. This function coincides with $T^k_\nu(- z)$ along the imaginary axis inside the radius $|z|<1$. Moreover, both functions are defined on the same domain: $T^k_\nu(z)$ is single-valued on a domain invariant both under inversion $z \to -z$, and inversion of the real part $(x,y) \to (-x,y)$. Hence, $[T^k_\nu(-x,y)]^* = T^k_\nu(- z)$. Restricting to the imaginary axis, $[T^k_\nu(i y)]^* = T^k_\nu(- iy)$. The result is extended to negative $k$ using the relation $$T_\nu^{-k}(z) = (-1)^k \frac{\Gamma(\nu - k + 1)}{\Gamma(\nu + k + 1)} T_\nu^{k}(z) \, .
\label{eq:invert-k}$$ It was already proved that the factor with the $\Gamma$’s is real.
Two-point function {#two-point}
==================
The two-point function, $G:= {\langle \Omega |}\phi(t,\theta),\phi(t', 0){| \Omega \rangle}$, is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
G & = \sum_k u_k(t,\theta) u_k^*(t',0) \\
& = \sum_k \frac{\Gamma(-\nu-k) \Gamma(\nu - k +1)}{4 \pi} \textrm{e}^{ik \theta} T^k_\nu(i y) T^k_\nu(- i y') \\
& = \frac{1}{4 |\sin \nu \pi|} \sum_k (-)^k \frac{\Gamma(\nu - k +1)}{\Gamma(\nu + k +1)} \textrm{e}^{ik \theta} T^k_\nu(i y) T^k_\nu(- i y') ,\end{aligned}$$ with $y = \sinh(t/\alpha)$. Call the sum in the last line $S$. Using , it can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
S & = \sum_{k=-\infty}^{0} \left[ \textrm{e}^{ik \theta} T^{-k}_\nu(i y) T^k_\nu(- i y') \right] - T_\nu(i y) T_\nu(- i y') \\
& \qquad + \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left[ \textrm{e}^{ik \theta} T^k_\nu(i y) T^{-k}_\nu(- i y') \right] \\
& = 2 \sum_{k=0}^\infty \cos(k\theta) T^k_\nu(i y) T^{-k}_\nu(- i y') - T_\nu(i y) T_\nu(- i y') \\
& = 2 \sum_{k=0}^\infty \epsilon_k \frac{\Gamma(\nu - k +1)}{\Gamma(\nu + k +1)} \cos(k(\pi - \theta)) T^k_\nu(i y) T^{k}_\nu(- i y') \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_k = 1 - \delta_{k0}/2$, i.e., $\epsilon_k$ is $1$ except for $k=0$, when it is $1/2$. There is a nice summation theorem for Legendre functions [@snow], $$P_\nu \left( z_1 z_2 + \sqrt{1-z_1^2} \sqrt{1-z_2^2} \cos \theta \right) \; = \;
2 \sum_{k=0}^\infty \epsilon_k \frac{\Gamma(\nu - k +1)}{\Gamma(\nu + k +1)} \cos(k\theta) T^k_\nu(z_1) T^{k}_\nu(z_2) \, ,$$ which leads to $$S = P_\nu \left( y y' - \sqrt{1-(iy)^2} \sqrt{1-(-iy')^2} \cos \theta \right) = P_\nu(Z) \, .$$ The argument in the function $P_\nu(Z)$ can be written in invariant form: $$\begin{aligned}
Z & = \sinh(t/\alpha) \sinh(t'/\alpha) - \cosh(t/\alpha) \cosh(t'/\alpha) \cos \theta \\
& = \alpha^{-2} X \cdot X' \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $X$ is the vector in the Minkowski space $M^3$ corresponding to the point $(t,\theta)$ in de Sitter space, while $X'$ corresponds to the point $(t', 0)$. Collecting the calculations, $$G = G(Z) = \frac{1}{4 |\sin(\nu \pi)|} P_\nu(Z) \, .$$ The Legendre function is singular at $Z = -1$, where a cut begins which extends along the real axis to $-\infty$. This value has a simple geometric interpretation. Recall that the causality relations on de Sitter hyperboloid are inherited from the Minkowski ambient space: two points $x,x'$ are space (light,time) related if their corresponding vectors are space (light,time)-like. In particular, light-like related vectors satisfy $(X-X')^2=0 \Rightarrow X \cdot X' = - \alpha^2$, so that $Z = -1$ in this case. In other words, the two-point function is singular on the light cone. This property is characteristic of the Bunch–Davies vacuum: any other choice of modes would lead to an additional singularity at the antipodal points of the light-cone. Besides that, one can write the Legendre function in terms of a hypergeometric function to get $$G(Z) = \frac{1}{4 |\sin(\nu \pi)|} \, F\left(\nu +1,-\nu, 1;\frac{1-Z}{2} \right) \, .$$ Compare with the original Bunch and Davies work [@bunch-davies]. In their notation, a coefficient $\mu$ is introduced: $$\mu = \sqrt{\frac{1}{4} - 2 \xi -m^2 \alpha^2} \; ,$$ in terms of which our $\nu$ becomes $\nu = -1/2 + \mu$. It is easy to check this relation. Our definition of $\nu$ can be rewritten using $R = - 2 / \alpha^2$ as $$\nu = - \frac{1}{2} \pm \sqrt{\frac{1}{4} - 2 \xi - m^2 \alpha^2} \, .$$ Moreover, $\sin(\nu \pi) = \sin((-1/2 + \mu) \pi) = (-1) \cos(\mu \pi)$, where $\mu \in (-1/2, 1/2)$ or is purely imaginary, so that $\cos(\mu \pi)$ is positive either way. Thus, $$G(Z) = \frac{1}{4} \sec(\mu \pi) \, F\left(\nu +1,-\nu, 1;\frac{1-Z}{2} \right) \, .$$ That is just the expression in Eq. (2.13) for the two-point function in [@bunch-davies].
Philips and Wigner localized states {#sec:pw}
===================================
Our work has a close relation with that of Philips and Wigner [@philips-wigner], and for the sake of the reader, we present now a brief review of their little known article. Their purpose was to investigate how the existence of localized states is related to the condition of positivity of the energy. But it was not known at that time how to define positive energy states in curved spaces, so in order to check the sign of the energy of a given state it was necessary to study the limit where the geometry of de Sitter approached that of Minkowski space, what was done invoking a contraction of the group representation. Although the problem remains unsolved in general, it is now known that, at least in the case of spacetimes with a compact Cauchy surface, the Hadamard condition is sufficient to fix the ambiguity in the choice of the positive energy solutions [@wald].
Let us describe the unitary representation of the de Sitter group used in [@philips-wigner]. We restrict to the case of $O(2,\;1)$ which is relevant here. Let $\mathcal{H}'$ be the set of square-integrable functions $\psi(\theta)$ on the unitary circle $S^1$ on the Euclidean plane $\mathbb{R}^2$. Extend these functions to the whole plane: $\psi(\theta) \mapsto f(\rho) \psi(\theta)$, where $\rho$ is the radius $\rho = \sqrt{(X^1)^2 + (X^2)^2}$, and $f(\rho)$ is a fixed function, smooth and square-integrable on the plane. Rotations are realized as rotations on the circle, i.e., $$N_{12} = - \partial/ \partial \theta \, ,
\label{eq:PW-rotations}$$ and infinitesimal boosts are represented by $$\begin{gathered}
N_{10} = - \sin \theta \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} + \nu \cos \theta \, , \nonumber \\
N_{20} = \cos \theta \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} + \nu \sin \theta \, ,
\label{eq:PW-boosts}\end{gathered}$$ where $\nu = -1/2 + i \lambda$. The generators can be integrated to give finite boosts and rotations, so that there are unitary operators $U(S)$ corresponding to each element $S$ of the restricted de Sitter group. The parity operator $\mathbf{P}$, understood as the representation of the geometric operation $p$ of reversing the axis $X^1$ in the ambient Minkowski space, must satisfy the group relations up to some projective factor, $$\mathbf{P} U(S) = \omega(S) U(pSp) \mathbf{P} \, ,$$ where $S$ is any Lorentz transformation in the restricted de Sitter group. But it can be proved that $\omega(S) = 1$, and that $$\mathbf{P} \psi(X^1,X^2) = \pm \psi(-X^1,X^2) \, ,$$ where the choice of the sign must be the same for all $\psi$. This choice is physically irrelevant, so just pick the sign $+1$. For the time-reversal operator $\mathbf{T}$, the group relations lead to essentially two possibilities, corresponding to a unitary $\mathbf{T}_u$ or an anti-unitary $\mathbf{T}_a$, given by $$\mathbf{T}_u \psi(X^1,X^2) = \pm \psi(-X^1, -X^2) \, ,$$ and $$\mathbf{T}_a \psi(\theta) = \int K(\theta - \theta') \psi^*(\theta') d\theta' \, ,
\label{eq:T-op}$$ where the kernel $K$ is given in Fourier expanded form by $$K(\theta - \theta') = \sum a_k \textrm{e}^{i k (\theta - \theta')} \, , \quad \frac{a_{k+1}}{a_k} = - \frac{\frac{1}{2} + k - i \lambda}{\frac{1}{2} + k + i \lambda} \, ,
\label{eq:T-op-coefficients}$$ with $a_0 = 1 / (2 \pi)$. The coefficients automatically satisfy $a_k = a_{-k}$. In order that $\mathbf{T}_a$ is uniquely defined, it is assumed that $\mathbf{T}^2 = 1$ (it could be $-1$), and that $\mathbf{T} \mathbf{P} = \mathbf{P} \mathbf{T}$ (there could be a phase difference).
The definition of the localized states is based on a set of three postulates, which represent the de Sitter version of the postulates of Newton and Wigner adopted in the case of Minkowski space [@newton-wigner]. The postulates are:
a
: A localized state is invariant under reflections that leave the point of localization invariant.
b
: A rotation applied to a localized state gives a new localized state –the point of localization is just rotated accordingly.
c
: A boost which keeps the point of localization invariant changes the state as little as possible.
The first result is that the postulates cannot be satisfied with a unitary time-reversal operator. Hence, the existence of localized states implies that $\mathbf{T}$ is anti-unitary –it must be the $\mathbf{T}_a$ defined in Eqs. , . In this case, the postulates are satisfied by two distinct sets of localized states.
Consider a state $\psi_1(\theta)$ localized at $\theta = \pi /2$ at $t=0$. It must be invariant under parity and time-reversal. Writing a Fourier expansion $$\psi_1(\theta) = \sum l_k \textrm{e}^{i k \theta} \, ,$$ invariance under parity implies $$\quad l_{-k} = (-1)^k l_k \, ,$$ while invariance under time-reversal leads to $$2 \pi a_k l_{-k}^* = l_k \, .$$ Combining these results, and using , it follows that $$\frac{l_{k+1}}{l_k} = \zeta_{k+1/2} \frac{\frac{1}{2} + k - i \lambda}{\left[ (\frac{1}{2} + k)^2 + \lambda^2 \right]^{1/2}} \, ,$$ where the $\zeta$’s are real numbers satisfying $$\zeta_{k+1/2} \zeta_{-k-1/2} = 1 \, .$$ Then condition (b), together with (c), which reduces here to minimal deformation under boosts along $X^1$, fixes $\zeta = 1$ or $\zeta = -1$. The first possibility is ruled out by looking what happens in the contraction of the de Sitter group representation to a representation of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group. The choice $\zeta = 1$ corresponds to a state of negative-energy in Minkowski space in this limit. So it must be $\zeta = -1$. The Fourier coefficients of $\psi_1$ are then completely determined, being given by ($k>0$), $$\begin{gathered}
l_k = (-1)^k \frac{\left(\frac{1}{2} - i \lambda \right) \left(\frac{3}{2} - i \lambda \right) \dots \left( k - \frac{1}{2} - i \lambda \right)}{\left|\left(\frac{1}{2} - i \lambda \right) \left(\frac{3}{2} - i \lambda \right) \dots \left( k - \frac{1}{2} - i \lambda \right) \right|} , \nonumber \\
l_0 = 1 \label{eq:pw-loc-coefficients} \\
l_{-k} = (-1)^k \frac{\left( - \frac{1}{2} + i \lambda \right) \left(- \frac{3}{2} + i \lambda \right) \dots \left(- k + \frac{1}{2} + i \lambda \right)}{\left|\left( - \frac{1}{2} + i \lambda \right) \left(- \frac{3}{2} + i \lambda \right) \dots \left(- k + \frac{1}{2} + i \lambda \right)\right|} \, . \nonumber\end{gathered}$$ States localized at other angles are obtained with the application of rotations.
It is curious that in this approach the condition (b) that localized states are well-behaved under rotations is not as important as its counterpart in Minkowski space. It is necessary to supplement it here with the auxiliary condition (c), which has a more obscure interpretation –it is not an invariance condition, nor a mapping of one localized state into another, corresponding to the geometrical action. What one would really like to require was that the boost kept the state invariant; since that is impossible, the condition is relaxed to that of minimal deformation. In our approach, this axiom is not necessary, and the axiom of covariance under rotations is restored to its central position.
[10]{}
T. D. Newton and E. P. Wigner, *“Localized states for elementary systems”*, Rev. Mod. Phys. **21**, 400 (1949).
A. S. Wightman, *“On the localizability of quantum mechanical systems”*, Rev. Mod. Phys. **34**, 845 (1962).
T. O. Philips, *“Lorentz invariant localized states”*, Phys. Rev. **136**, B893 (1964).
G. Kaiser, *“Phase-space approach to relativistic quantum mechanics II: Geometrical aspects”*, J. Math. Phys. **19**, 502 (1978).
R. Haag and J. A. Swieca, *“When does a quantum field theory describe particles?”*, Commun. Math. Phys. **1**, 308 (1965).
D. Buchholz and E. Wichmann, *“Causal independence and the energy level density of states in local quantum field theory”*, Commun. Math. Phys. **106**, 321 (1986).
B. Schroer, *“Localization and the interface between quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and quantum gravity I.”*, Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. **41**, 104 (2010).
H. Araki and R. Haag, *“Collision cross sections in terms of local observables”*, Commun. Math. Phys. **4**, 77 (1967).
K. Hepp, *“The classical limit of quantum mechanical correlation functions”*, Commun. Math. Phys. **35**, 265 (1974).
N. Yokomizo and J. C. A. Barata, *“Multiple classical limits in relativistic and nonrelativistic quantum mechanics”*, J. Math. Phys. **50**, 123512 (2009).
A. G. Riess *et al*, *“Observational evidence form Supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant”*, Astron. J. **116**, 1009 (1998).
S. Perlmutter et al., *“Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high redshiftsupernovae”*, Astrophys. J. **517**, 565 (1999).
S. Weinberg, *“Cosmology”*, (Oxford, 2008).
A. D. Linde, *“Particle physics and inflationary cosmology”*, (Harwood, 1990).
A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, *“Cosmological inflation and large-scale structure”*, (Cambridge, 2000).
S. Cacciatori, V. Gorini, A. Kamenshchik and U. Moschella, *“Conservation laws and scattering for de Sitter classical particles”*, Class. Quant. Grav. **25**, 075008 (2008).
J. Bros, H. Epstein and U. Moschella, *“Lifetime of a massive particle in a de Sitter universe”*, JCAP **0802**, 3 (2008).
R. Aldrovandi, J. P. Beltrán Almeida, and J. G. Pereira, *“Cosmological term and fundamental physics”*, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **13**, 2241 (2004),
W. G. Unruh and R. M. Wald, *“What happens when an accelerating observer detects a Rindler particle”*, Phys. Rev. D **29**, 1047 (1984).
D. Marolf and C. Rovelli, *“Relativistic quantum measurement”*, Phys. Rev. D **65**, 023510 (2002).
R. Wald, *“Quantum field theory in curved spacetime and black hole thermodynamics”*, (Chicago, 1994).
S. A. Fulling, *“Aspects of quantum field theory in curved space-time”*, (Cambridge, 1989).
K. C. Hannabuss, *“The localizability of particles in de Sitter space”*, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. **70** (1971) 283.
T. O. Philips and E. P. Wigner, *“de Sitter space and positive energy”*, in *“Group theory and its applications”*, ed. E. M. Loebl (Academic, 1968).
B. Allen, *“Vacuum states in de Sitter space”*, Phys. Rev. D**32** (1985) 3136.
R. Brunetti, K. Fredenhagen and S. Hollands, *“A remark on alpha-vacua for quantum field theories on de Sitter space”*, JHEP **0505**, 063 (2005).
C. Snow, *“Hypergeometric and Legendre functions with applications to integral equations and potential theory”*, N.B.S. Applied Math. Series [**19**]{} (U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1952).
N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, *“Quantum fields in curved space”*, (Cambridge, 1982).
T. S. Bunch and P. C. W. Davies, *“Quantum field theory in de Sitter space: renormalization by point-splitting”*, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A **360**, 117 (1978).
C. Fewster, *“Lectures on quantum field theory in curved spacetime”*, Lecture Note **39** (2008), Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.
V. Bargmann, *“Irreducible unitary representations of the Lorentz group”*, Ann. Math. **48**, 568 (1947).
R. Haag, *“Local quantum physics”*, (Springer, 1980).
R. Remmert, *“Classical topics in complex function theory”*, (Springer, 1998).
S. N. M. Ruijsenaars, *“On Newton-Wigner localization and superluminal propagation speeds”*, Ann. Phys. **137** (1981) 33.
J. Bros, H. Epstein and U. Moschella, *“Scalar tachyons in the de Sitter universe”*, Lett. Math. Phys. **93**, 203 (2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report on the observation of terahertz radiation induced photogalvanic currents in semiconductor heterostructures with one-dimensional lateral periodic potential. The potential is produced by etching a grating into the sample surface. The electric current response is well described by phenomenological theory including both the circular and linear photogalvanic effects. Experimental data demonstrate that the inversion asymmetry of the periodic lateral pattern can be varied by means of electron beam lithography to produce classical lateral ratchets. A novel microscopical mechanism for the polarization-dependent photogalvanic effects has been proposed to interpret the experimental findings. The photocurrent generation is based on the combined action of the lateral periodic potential and the modulated in-plane pumping. The latter modulation stems from near-field effects of the radiation propagating through the grating.'
author:
- |
P. Olbrich$^1$, E.L. Ivchenko$^2$, T. Feil$^1$, R. Ravash$^1$, S.D. Danilov$^1$, J. Allerdings$^1$, D. Weiss$^1$, and S.D. Ganichev$^{1}\footnote{e-mail:
[email protected]}$
title: |
Ratchet effects induced by terahertz radiation in heterostructures\
with a lateral periodic potential
---
Introduction
============
Nonequilibrium spatially-periodic noncentrosymmetric systems are able to transport particles in the absence of an average macroscopic force. The directed transport in such systems, generally known as the ratchet effect, has a long history and is relevant for different fields of physics [@reimann; @applphys; @nori; @kotthaus; @grifoni; @science; @samuelson; @grifoni2]. If this effect is induced by electro-magnetic radiation it is usually referred to as photogalvanic (or photovoltaic) effect, particularly if breaking of the spatial inversion symmetry is related to the microscopic structure of the system [@1; @2; @chepel; @3; @regensburg]. Blanter and Büttiker [@buttiker2; @buttiker] have shown that one of the possible realizations of the Seebeck ratchet can be a superlattice irradiated by light through a mask of the same period but phase shifted with respect to the superlattice. In the present work we have experimentally realized this idea with some modifications. The photocurrent has been observed in semiconductor heterostructures with a one-dimensional lateral periodic potential induced by etching a noncentrosymmetric grating into the sample cap layer. The in-plane modulation of the pump radiation appears hence not via a mask with periodic structures but due to the near-field effects of radiation propagating through the grating. This photothermal ratchet effect was predicted by Büttiker [@buttiker2] and is polarization independent under normal light incidence. In addition we have observed photocurrents sensitive to the plane of polarization of the linearly polarized terahertz (THz) radiation and to the helicity in case of circularly polarized photoexcitation. The theoretical analysis enables us to propose new mechanisms of the observed circular and linear photogalvanic effects which are related to the combined action of out-of-phase periodic potential and in-plane modulated pumping of the two-dimensional electron system.
Samples and experimental methods
================================
Here we study photocurrents in (001)-grown GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures with superimposed lateral grating having a period of 2.5 $\mu$m. The electronic micrograph are shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig2\]. The lateral gratings are prepared on molecular-beam epitaxy (100)-grown Si-$\delta$-doped n-type GaAs$/$Al$_{0.3}$Ga$_{0.7}$As quantum-well structures. The mobility $\mu$ and carrier density $n_s$ measured at 4.2 K in our single QW structure of 30 nm width are $\mu = 4.82 \times
10^6$ cm$^{2}$/Vs and $n_s = 1.7 \times 10^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$. Samples grown along $z
\parallel [100]$ were square shaped with sample edges of 5 mm length oriented along $[1{\bar 1}0]$ and $[110]$. To measure photocurrents, pairs of ohmic contacts were alloyed in the middle of sample edges. Gratings of 0.5 $\mu$m width and period 2.5 $\mu$m are obtained by electron beam lithography and subsequent reactive ion etching using SiCl$_4$. Care was taken not to etch through the two-dimensional electron gas. To get a large patterned area of about 1.4 mm$^2$, 64 squares, each 150$\mu$m $\times$ 150 $\mu$m, were stitched together. The one-dimensional gratings are oriented either along $\left\langle 010 \right\rangle$ (sample A) or close to $\left\langle 110\right\rangle$ (samples B and C) crystallographic directions. In the latter case the grating is slightly misaligned by a small angle of about 4$^{\circ}$ with respect to the crystallographic direction. While the cross section of grooves prepared close to the $\left\langle 110\right\rangle$ crystallographic direction is rather symmetric the shape of grooves prepared along $\left\langle 010 \right\rangle$ crystallographic direction is substantially asymmetric. The average depth on the right side of the groove is smaller than that on the left side. The reason for this might be attributed to the difference in the etching velocities along \[110\] and \[1$\bar{1}$0\] directions [@adachi; @adachi2].
For optical excitation we used pulsed molecular THz lasers with NH$_{3}$ as an active medium [@book]. Circularly and linearly polarized radiation pulses of about 100 ns duration with wavelength $\lambda$= 280 $\mu$m and power $P \simeq $ 2 kW were applied. The photocurrents were induced by indirect intrasubband (Drude-like) optical transitions in the lowest size-quantized subband. To measure polarization dependencies we used $\lambda$/4 plates for conversion of linear to circular polarization. The helicity is described by $P_{\rm circ}= \sin 2 \varphi$, where $\varphi$ is the angle between the initial plane of laser beam polarization $\bm{E}_l$ and the $c$-axis of the $\lambda$/4 plate. To investigate the photogalvanic effects we also used linearly polarized light. In the experiments the plane of polarization of the radiation, incident on the sample, was rotated by $\lambda/2$ plates. This enabled us to vary the azimuth angle $\alpha$ from $0^\circ$ to $180^\circ$ covering all possible orientations of the electric field vector in the interface plane. Radiation was applied at oblique incidence described by the angle of incidence $\theta_0$ varying from $-25^\circ$ to +25$^\circ$ (Fig. \[fig1\]) and at normal incidence (Fig. \[fig2\]). The current generated by THz-light in the unbiased samples was measured via the voltage drop across a 50 $\Omega$ load resistor in a closed-circuit configuration. The voltage was recorded with a storage oscilloscope.
![Circular photogalvanic current $J_{C} = [J(\varphi = 45^\circ) -
J(\varphi = 135^\circ)]/2$ as a function of angle of incidence $\theta_0$ measured in a GaAs$/$Al$_{0.3}$Ga$_{0.7}$. As reference QW sample without lateral structure. The current is measured in the direction normal to light propagation. Photocurrent is excited by radiation with wavelength $\lambda$ = 280 $\mu$m and power $P \approx 2$ kW. The inset (bottom, left) shows the dependence of the total photocurrent $J$ on angle $\varphi$ measured for angles of incidence $\theta_0 = \pm 35^\circ$. Two other insets (right panels) show, respectively, the experimental geometry and the quarter-wave plate which varies the radiation helicity according to $P_{\rm circ}=
\sin 2 \varphi$. Full lines are fits to the phenomenological theory for $C_{2v}$ symmetry relevant for (001)-grown unstructured III-V QWs and given by Eq. (\[jref\]), see [@10]. []{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1.eps){width="0.85\linewidth"}
In (001)-oriented unpatterned samples a signal is only detectable under oblique incidence. The photocurrent measured perpendicularly to the wave vector of the incident light is almost proportional to the helicity $P_{c}$ and reverses its direction when the polarization switches from left-handed to right-handed circular (see the inset panel of Fig. \[fig1\]). A photocurrent, but of substantially smaller magnitude, is also generated by applying linearly polarized radiation. In the whole temperature range from room temperature to 4.2 K and for excitation with both circularly as well as linearly polarized radiation the variation of the angle of incidence from $\theta_0$ to $-\theta_0$ changes the sign of the photocurrent $J$. This is shown in Fig. \[fig1\] for the circular photogalvanic effect (CPGE) obtained after $J_{C} = [J(\varphi = 45^\circ) - J(\varphi = 135^\circ)]/2$. For normal incidence the photocurrent vanishes. The photocurrent is well described by the phenomenological theory of the circular and linear photogalvanic effect obtained for the point group C$_{2v}$ which is relevant for this type of structures [@PRL01]. Theory yields for the dominating CPGE photocurrent $J_{\rm ref}$ of the unpatterned reference sample: $$\label{jref}
J_{\rm ref} = a_{\rm ref} \sin{\theta_0} \xi P_c \:,$$ where $a_{\rm ref}$ is a constant, $\xi = t_pt_s/t_0^2$, $t_p$ and $t_s$ are the Fresnel transmission coefficients for the $p$- and $s$-polarized light, respectively, and $t_0$ is the transmission coefficient under normal incidence. The corresponding fits of our data are shown in Fig. \[fig1\] by the full line and in the inset in Fig. \[fig1\] as dashed and dotted lines.
![Photocurrent measured as a function of the angle $\varphi$ at normal incidence ($\theta_0 = 0^\circ$) in sample A with the asymmetric lateral structure prepared along the \[010\] crystallographic axis. The current is measured at room temperature and T = 10 K, excited by the radiation with wavelength $\lambda$ = 280 $\mu$m and power $P \approx 2$ kW. Full line are fits to Eq. (\[phenom1\]) (see also Eq. (\[3phi\])). Left inset shows the experimental geometry, and central inset displays a micrograph of the grating. The ellipses on top illustrate the state of polarization for various angles $\varphi$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2.eps){width="0.95\linewidth"}
![Photocurrent measured as a function of the angle $\varphi$ at various angles of incidence ($\theta_0$) in sample A with an asymmetric lateral structure prepared along the \[010\] crystallographic axis. The data for $\theta_0 \neq 0$ are shifted by $+ 2.5$ $\mu$A for each $2.5^{\circ}$ step (positive $\theta_0$) and by $- 2.5$ $\mu$A for each $2.5^{\circ}$ step (negative $\theta_0$). The current is measured at room temperature, excited by radiation with wavelength $\lambda$ = 280 $\mu$m and power $P \approx 2$ kW. Full lines are fits to Eqs. (\[phenom1\]) (see also Eq. (\[3phi\])). The inset shows the experimental geometry. The ellipses on top illustrate the state of polarization for various angles $\varphi$. The data, periodic in $\pi$, are plotted from $\varphi = 0^{\circ}$ to $\varphi =
360^{\circ}$ to better visualize the features of interest. []{data-label="fig2wf"}](Fig2_waterfall_f.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The situation changes drastically for samples with grating. Now a photocurrent is also detected at normal incidence. The width of the photocurrent pulses is about 100 ns which corresponds to the THz laser pulse duration. In the patterned samples with the grooves oriented along $\left\langle 010 \right\rangle$ we observed that the magnitude of the photocurrent detected at normal incidence (Fig. \[fig2\]) is comparable and even larger than that obtained in the reference sample at large angles of incidence (Fig. \[fig1\]). Moreover the polarization behaviour has changed. Figure \[fig2\] shows ellipticity dependent measurements of sample A excited at normal incidence. The data can be well fitted by $$\label{phenom1}
J = a \sin 2\varphi + b \sin 4\varphi + c \cos 4\varphi + d\:.$$ Here, the parameters $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$ are phenomenological fitting parameters, described below. Figure \[fig2\] shows that the photon helicity dependent photocurrent caused by circular photogalvanic effect gives an essential contribution. Figure \[fig3\] displays the CPGE current as a function of the angle of incidence $\theta_0$ for sample A (open circles) and the unstructured reference sample (full circles). To extract the CPGE current from the total current we used the fact that the CPGE contribution, given by the term $a \sin 2\varphi$, changes its sign upon switching the helicity while all the other terms remain unchanged. Taking the difference of photocurrents of right and left handed radiation we get the CPGE current $J_{C}$. At oblique incidence, in the structured sample it consists of two contributions. The first one has the same origin as the one observed in the reference sample and is described by Eq. (\[jref\]). The second one is due to the lateral structure. The dependence of the CPGE photocurrent on the angle of incidence $\theta_0$ can be well fitted by $$\label{jrefcirc}
J_{C} = ( a_{\rm ref} \sin{\theta_0} + a \cos{\theta_0}) \xi \:.$$
![Circular photogalvanic current $J_{C} = [J(\varphi = 45^\circ) -
J(\varphi = 135^\circ)]/2$ measured as a function of the incidence angle $\theta_0$ in sample A with the asymmetric lateral structure along \[010\] crystallographic axis (full circles) and the unstructured reference QW sample (open circles). The current is measured in the direction normal to light propagation and excited by radiation with wavelength $\lambda$ = 280 $\mu$m and power $P \approx 2$ kW. Full and dashed lines are fits to Eqs. (\[jrefcirc\]), see also the term proportional to $P_c$ in Eq. (\[3phi\]), and (\[jref\]), respectively. Triangles show the $\theta_0$ dependence of the polarization-insensitive photocurrent together with the curve calculated according to $J = d \xi \cos{\theta_0}$ following from Eq. (\[1\]). The data are obtained from fitting the $\varphi$-dependence of the photocurrent $J$ taken at various incidence angles. Inset shows the experimental geometry used for sample A. []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig4.eps){width="0.85\linewidth"}
Now we turn to the photon helicity independent contributions to the photocurrent, denoted by coefficients $b$, $c$ and $d$ in Eq. (\[phenom1\]). These contributions we attribute to the linear photogalvanic effect (LPGE). The LPGE photocurrents can be generated by applying linearly polarized radiation. Figure \[fig4\] shows the dependence of the photocurrent on the azimuth angle describing the variation of the light’s electric field direction relative to the crystallographic direction \[110\]. We found that all data can be well fitted by $$\label{phenom2}
J = 2b \sin 2\alpha + 2c \cos 2\alpha + d - c\:.$$ We emphasize that $b$, $c$, and $d$ are the same fitting parameters used for the data shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. Figure \[fig3\] shows the dependence of the polarization independent contribution, proportional to the coefficient $d$, on the angle of incidence $\theta_0$. In this case the experimental data can be well fitted by $$\label{jd}
J = d \cos{\theta_0} \xi \:.$$ Figures \[fig2\] and \[fig4\] demonstrate that the dominant contribution to the photocurrent is polarization independent and can therefore be obtained by unpolarized radiation. In samples B and C with the grooves oriented along $\left\langle
110\right\rangle$ crystallographic directions we also detected a photocurrent at normal incidence having the same polarization dependences as sample A, Eqs. (\[phenom1\]) and (\[phenom2\]). However, the photocurrent measured in sample A is about an order of magnitude larger than in sample B and C. We ascribe this to the grooves profile being strongly asymmetric in sample A while nearly symmetric in samples B and C.
![Photocurrent $J$ measured as a function of the angle $\alpha$ under normal incidence at room temperature and T = 10 K in sample A with the asymmetric lateral structure along \[010\] crystallographic axis. Photocurrent is excited by linearly polarized radiation with wavelength $\lambda$ = 280 $\mu$m and power $P \approx 2$ kW. Full lines are fits to Eq. (\[phenom2\]), see also Eq. (\[3alpha\]). We used for fitting the same values of $b$, $c$ and $d$ as in the experiments with elliptically polarized radiation, see Fig. \[fig2\]. Left inset shows the experimental geometry, and right inset defines the angle $\alpha$. On top the arrows indicate the polarization corresponding to various values of $\protect\alpha$. []{data-label="fig4"}](Fig3.eps){width="0.85\linewidth"}
Phenomenological description
============================
In this section our theoretical analysis of the experimental data is based on the symmetry considerations of the phenomenological equations describing the photogalvanic effects (PGE) under study. Under normal incidence of the laser radiation on the sample the in-plane photocurrent is given by $$\label{1}
j_l = I \sum\limits_{m,n} \chi_{lmn} \{ e_m e^*_n \} + I
\gamma_{lz} P_c\:,$$ where $l,m,n$ are the in-plane coordinates, $\{ e_m e^*_n \} = ( e_m e^*_n + e_n e^*_m)/2$, $I$, ${\bm
e}$ and $P_c$ are the light intensity, polarization unit vector and degree of circular polarization. The third rank tensor $\chi_{lmn}$ describing the linear PGE is symmetrical with respect to the interchange of the second and third indices, and $\gamma_{lm}$ is a second-rank pseudotensor describing the circular PGE. The (001)-grown heterostructure has the point-group symmetry $F_{\rm
ref} =$ C$_{2v}$ which forbids in-plane photocurrents under normal incidence [@book] as it is confirmed by measurements performed on the reference samples.
![ Photocurrent $J$ measured as a function of the angle $\alpha$ at room temperature in sample A with the asymmetric lateral structure along \[010\] crystallographic axis. The data for $\theta_0 \neq 0$ are shifted by $+ 2.5$ $\mu$A for each $2.5^{\circ}$ step (positive $\theta_0$) and by $- 2.5$ $\mu$A for each $2.5^{\circ}$ step (negative $\theta_0$). The current is measured at room temperature, excited by radiation with wavelength $\lambda$ = 280 $\mu$m and power $P \approx 2$ kW. Full lines are fits to Eqs. (\[phenom1\]), see also Eq. (\[3alpha\]). The left inset shows the experimental geometry. The right inset displays the sample and the radiation electric field viewing from the source of radiation side.[]{data-label="fig2wfa"}](Fig3_waterfall_f.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The lateral superlattice can reduce the symmetry of the system. Let us denote the superimposed periodic lateral potential as $V({\bm \rho})$, where ${\bm \rho}$ is the two-dimensional radius-vector, and introduce the period $a$ and two in-plane axes $x$ and $y$ oriented, respectively, parallel and perpendicular to the direction of periodicity. Then, by definition, the lateral superlattice potential does not depend on $y$ and is a periodic function of $x$, namely, $ V(x + a) = V(x)$. One of the symmetry elements of this potential is the mirror reflection plane $\sigma_{y}$ perpendicular to the axis $y$. Its total point-group symmetry $F_{\rm SL}$ can be either C$_s$ if the function $V(x)$ is asymmetric or C$_{2v}$ if $V(x)$ is an even function with respect to a certain origin on the axis $x$. In the latter case, in addition to the identity element $e$ and the mirror plane $\sigma_{y}$, the point group contains the mirror plane $\sigma_{x} \perp x$ and the second-order rotation axis $C_2 \parallel z$.
The symmetry of the structured sample is determined by the direct product $F_{\rm ref} \times F_{\rm SL}$ of the point groups describing the symmetries of the reference heterostructure and lateral potential. If the potential $V(x)$ is symmetrical both groups $F_{\rm ref}$ and $F_{\rm SL}$ have a common element $C_2$ and the photocurrents under normal incidence are forbidden. This is obviously realized in the samples with the superlattice axes $x, y$ oriented in the $\langle 110 \rangle$ directions. Thus, the photocurrents can be induced under normal incidence only in the case of an asymmetrical potential $V(x)$. If the axes $x, y$ of this potential coincide with the axes \[1$\bar{1}$0\], \[110\], the symmetry of the system is C$_s$, Eq. (\[1\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
j_{x} &=& I [\chi_1 + \chi_2 (|e_{x}|^2 - |e_{y}|^2)]\:,\\
j_{y} &=& 2 I \chi_3 \{ e_{x} e^*_{y} \} + I \gamma P_c\:,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and is governed by four linearly independent coefficients. If the axes $x, y$ are rotated with respect to \[1$\bar{1}$0\], \[110\] by an angle different from multiples of $90^{\circ}$ the structured sample lacks any symmetry operations except for the identity and corresponds to the point group C$_1$. Phenomenologically, in this case each of the photocurrents component $j_{x}, j_{y}$ is a sum of a polarization-independent term and three terms proportional to $|e_{x}|^2 - |e_{y}|^2, \{ e_{x} e^*_{y}\}$ and $P_c$, and the normal-incidence PGE is described by eight independent coefficients.
Equations (\[2\]) describe the normal-incident photocurrent for any in-plane orientation of the axes $x, y$ if the microscopic asymmetry of an unstructured quantum well is ignored and only asymmetry of the lateral superlattice is taken into account. If the pair of contacts makes an angle of 45$^{\circ}$ with the axes $x$ and $y$ the normal-incidence photocurrent is an equal superposition of the currents $j_{x}$ and $j_{y}$. If the initial laser light is polarized along the line $l$ connecting the contacts then, for normal incidence, the dependence of the photocurrent component $j_l$ along this line on the orientation of the $\lambda/4$ and $\lambda/2$ plates is given by $$\label{3phi}
j_l( \varphi)/I = \gamma_l \sin{2 \varphi} + \frac{\chi_{3l}}{2} \sin{4 \varphi} +
\frac{\chi_{2l}}{2} \cos{4 \varphi} + \chi_{1l} + \frac{\chi_{2l}}{2}\:,$$ and $$\label{3alpha}
j_l(\alpha)/I = \chi_{3l} \sin{2 \alpha} + \chi_{2l} \cos{2 \alpha} + \chi_{1l}\:,$$ respectively. These equations agree with the experimental polarization dependences of the current $J \propto
j_l$ \[see Figs. \[fig2\], \[fig4\] and Eqs. (\[phenom1\]), (\[phenom2\])\] yielding $$\gamma_l = a, \,\,\, \,\,\, \,\,\, \frac{\chi_{3l}}{2} = b, \,\,\,\,\,\, \,\,\, \frac{\chi_{2l}}{2} = c,
\,\,\,\,\,\, \,\,\, \chi_{1l} = d - c \:.$$ The dependence of the photocurrent $j_l$ on the angle of incidence $\theta_0$ can be described by the factor $ \cos{\theta_0} \xi$. This also agrees with experimental observations which are well fitted by Eqs. (\[jd\]) and (\[jrefcirc\]), see Fig. \[fig3\] which shows the CPGE and LPGE contributions given by coefficients $a$ and $d$, respectively.
An additional mechanism of the asymmetry leading to the photocurrents can be related to the space-modulated intensity of the radiation exciting the structure. Such an inhomogeneous distribution of the electric field in structured samples with distance between the groove edges and QW layers of nanometer scale is expected due to near-field effects. In the THz range a local enhancement of electric fields in structures with subwavelength pattern has previously been observed in GaAs tunnelling Schottky barrier junctions ( for review see Chapter 2 in the book [@book]). In our samples, due to the near-field effects, the amplitude of a plane electromagnetic field penetrating through the superimposed grating becomes a periodic function of $x$ with the same period $a$. In the asymmetrical structure the potential $V(x_c)$ and the intensity $I(x_c)$ of the normally-incident radiation can be shifted relative to each other in phase. As a result, the product $I(x_c) (dV/dx_c)$ averaged over space as well as the coefficients $\chi_j$ in Eq. (\[2\]) are nonvanishing.
Microscopical model
===================
If the lateral superstructure is responsible for the PGE observed at normal incidence then one can ignore the initial symmetry C$_{2v}$ of the reference heterostructure, disregard mechanisms of PGE related to the lack of an inversion center in the unstructured sample and rely only on the symmetry of superstructure potential $V(x)$ and the in-plane intensity modulation. In this case one can apply Eqs. (\[2\]) for any orientation of the axes $x, y$ irrespectively to the crystallographic directions \[1$\bar{1}$0\], \[110\].
We have analyzed microscopic mechanisms of PGE by using the classical Boltzmann equation for the electron distribution function $f_{\bm k}$, namely, $$\label{4}
\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} + v_{\bm k,x}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x} + \frac{\bm F}{\hbar}
\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bm k}} \right)
f_{\bm k}(x) + Q^{(p)}_{\bm k} + Q^{(\varepsilon)}_k = 0\:.$$ Here the simplified notation $x$ is used for the coordinate $x$, ${\bm k}$ is the electron two-dimensional wave vector, ${\bm F}$ is a sum of the time-dependent electric-field force $$\label{4a}
e {\bm E}(t) = e ({\bm E}_0 {\rm e}^{- {\rm i} \omega t} +
{\bm E}^*_0 {\rm e}^{{\rm i} \omega t})$$ of the light wave and the static force $- dV(x)/dx$, $\omega$ is the light frequency, ${\bm v}_{\bm k} = \hbar {\bm k}/m^*$ is the electron velocity, $e$ and $m^*$ are the electron charge and effective mass, $Q^{(p)}_{\bm k}$ and $Q^{(\varepsilon)}_k$ are the collision terms responsible for the electron momentum and energy relaxation, respectively. The operator $Q^{(p)}_{\bm k}$ is taken in the simplest form $$\label{4b}
Q^{(p)}_{\bm k} = \frac{ f_{\bm k} - \langle f_{\bm k} \rangle }{\tau}\:,$$ where $\tau$ is the momentum relaxation time and the brackets mean averaging over the directions of ${\bm k}$. The operator $Q^{(\varepsilon)}_k$ acts on the distribution function averaged over the directions of ${\bm k}$ and depends only on the modulus $k = |{\bm k}|$. Equation (\[4\]) is valid for the weak and smooth potential satisfying the conditions $|V(x)| \ll
\varepsilon_e$ and $q_0 \equiv 2 \pi/a \ll k_e$, where $k_e$ and $\varepsilon_e$ are the typical electron wave vector and energy, and for the photon energy $\hbar \omega$ being much smaller than $\varepsilon_e$.
If the space modulation of the radiation intensity is ignored the photocurrent is obtained by solving Eq. (\[4\]) in the fifth order perturbation theory, namely, the second order in the amplitude of the light electric field ${\bm E}_0$ and the third order in the lateral potential $V(x)$ $$\label{5}
j_l = R_l |{\bm E}_0|^2 \overline{\left( \frac{dV}{dx}\right)^3}\equiv R_l
|{\bm E}_0|^2 \zeta (q_0 \tilde{V})^3\:.$$ Here $\tilde{V}^2$ is the dispersion $\overline{V(x)^2}$, the overline means averaging over space (without losing generality, we suppose $\overline{V(x)} = 0$), and $\zeta$ is a dimensionless measure of the potential asymmetry. For the simplest asymmetric potential $V_1 \cos{(q_0 x)} + V_2 \sin{(2q_0 x)}$ with $q_0=2\pi/a$, the parameter $\zeta$ equals $- 3 \sqrt{2} V_1^2
V_2/(V_1^2 + V_2^2)^{3/2}$ and $\tilde{V}^2 = (V_1^2 + V_2^2)/2$. The form of the coefficient $R_l$ in Eq. (\[5\]) depends on the radiation polarization, in accordance with Eq. (\[2\]), and the experimental conditions, particularly, on the relation between the light frequency $\omega$ and the momentum and energy relaxation times, $\tau$ and $\tau_{\varepsilon}$, respectively, as well as on the relation between the period $a$ and the electron free-path length $l_e$ and energy diffusion length $l_{\varepsilon}$.
Estimations for photogalvanic currents
======================================
[*Circular PGE*]{}. First of all, we present an estimation for the circular photocurrent described by the coefficient $\gamma$ in the second equation (\[2\]) for the non-degenerate electron gas in the limiting case $\tau_{\varepsilon}^{-1}, q_0 l_e, q_0
l_{\varepsilon} \ll \omega$: $$\label{7}
j_y = \gamma I \approx e \nu g \tau N \frac{\hbar k_e}{m^*} \left( \frac{q_0}{k_e}\right)^3
\frac{ \zeta \tilde{V}^3 }{k_B T (\hbar \omega)^2 }\:,$$ where $\nu = d \ln{\tau}/d \ln{\varepsilon}$, $g$ is the photon absorption probability rate per particle: $$\label{7a}
g = \frac{4 \pi e^2 }{m^*
c n_{\omega}} \frac{I}{\hbar \omega}
\frac{\tau}{1 + (\omega \tau)^2}\:.$$ The radiation intensity $I$ is related to the amplitude ${\bm
E}_0$ by $$I = \frac{c n_{\omega}}{2 \pi} (|E_{0x}|^2 + |E_{0y}|^2)\:,$$ $n_{\omega}$ is the refraction index and $c$ is the light velocity in vacuum. While deriving Eq. (\[7\]) we assumed $g$ to be $x$-independent.
[*Polarization-independent PGE*]{}. The photocurrent independent of polarization and proportional to the coefficient $\chi_1$ in Eq. (\[2\]) can be related to heating of free carriers by the electromagnetic wave. At high temperatures the conditions $l_e,
l_{\varepsilon} \ll a$ are fulfilled, and the kinetic equation (\[4\]) can be reduced to the macroscopic equations for the two-dimensional electron density $N(x)$, local nonequilibrium temperature $\Theta(x)$, current density $j_x$ and energy flux density $i_{\varepsilon,x}(x)$. In the continuity equation for the energy flux density the supplied and dissipated powers are taken in the form $$\label{WW}
W_{\varepsilon}^{({\rm in})} = \hbar \omega g N\:,\:W_{\varepsilon}^{({\rm out})} =
\frac{k_B(\Theta - T)}{\tau_{\varepsilon}}\ N\:,$$ where $\tau_{\varepsilon}$ is the energy relaxation time, $\Theta$ is the local electron temperature, $T$ is the equilibrium phonon temperature and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. In what follows we assume a moderate pump power resulting in a weak increase in the temperature, $\Theta - T \ll T$. Under the homogeneous optical excitation the macroscopical equations have the following solution $$k_B \Theta = k_B T + \hbar \omega g \tau_{\varepsilon}\:,\: N(x) = N_0 {\rm e}^{- V(x)/k_B \Theta}\:,$$ where $N_0$ is $x$-independent. For this solution both the electric current $j_x$ and the flux $i_{\varepsilon,x}$ are absent. However, a value of $j_x$ becomes nonzero with allowance for the generation rate $g$ to vary in space. Let this variation be described by $g(x) = g_0 + g^{(1)} \cos{(q_0 x + \varphi_g)}$. The steady-state inhomogeneous generation produces a permanent periodic electron temperature $$k_B \Theta(x) = k_B T + \tau_{\varepsilon} \hbar \omega g^{(1)} \cos{(q_0 x + \varphi_g)}$$ which is followed by a light-induced correction to the space-oscillating contribution to the electron density $$\delta N(x) = - \frac{N_0 \tau_{\varepsilon}}{k_B T} \hbar \omega g^{(1)} \cos{(q_0 x + \varphi_g)}\:.$$ The photocurrent is calculated as an average $$j_x = - \mu \overline{\frac{d V(x)}{dx} \delta N(x)}\:,$$ where $u$ is the mobility $e\tau/m^*$. For the lateral potential taken in the form $V(x) = V_1 \cos{(q_0 x + \varphi_V})$, the symmetry of the system is broken due to a phase shift between $V(x)$ and $\Theta(x)$. The result for $\chi_1$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chi1}
j_x = \chi_1 I &=& \mu N_0 q_0 V_1 \frac{\hbar \omega g^{(1)} \tau_{\varepsilon}}{2k_B T}\
\sin{(\varphi_g - \varphi_V)} \\&=& \mu N_0 \hbar q_0 \zeta' g_0 \frac{V_1}{2k_B T}
\omega \tau_{\varepsilon}
\:. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $\zeta' = (g^{(1)}/g_0)\sin{(\varphi_g - \varphi_V)}$ is the parameter of asymmetry related to the inhomogeneous photoexcitation. The model used to derive Eq. (\[chi1\]) is similar to the model considered in Refs. [@buttiker; @buttiker2] for a ratchet with sinusoidal potential and temperature and a relative phase lag between them. The difference is that here we assume $V_1 \ll k_B T$ while in Ref. [@buttiker2] the opposite case is considered. It should be noted that the nonequilibrium asymmetric systems with both a periodic potential $V(x)$ and a periodic temperature profile $T(x)$ are referred to as the Seebeck ratchets [@reimann].
It follows from Eqs. (\[7a\]) and (\[chi1\]) that microscopically the coefficient $\chi_1$ can be presented in the form $$\label{chi1mic}
\chi_1 = \frac{2 \pi e^2 }{\hbar c n_{\omega} } \zeta' \mu N_0 \frac{\hbar q_0}{m^*}
\frac{\tau \tau_{\varepsilon}}{1 + (\omega \tau)^2} \frac{V_1}{k_B T}\:.$$
[*Circular PGE under inhomogeneous excitation*]{}. Now we show that the polarization-dependent photocurrents and even the CPGE currents can as well be induced in a lateral superlattice with the out-of-phase periodic potential $V(x)$ and generation $g(x)$. The photocurrent in the $y$ direction is calculated according to $$\label{jy}
j_y = \frac{2 e^2 \tau}{m^*} {\rm Re} \{\overline{E_{0y}^*(x) \delta N_{\omega}(x)} \}
\:,$$ where $\delta N_{\omega}(x)$ is the amplitude of the electron density oscillation linear in the THz electric field $E_{0x}$. From the continuity equation $- {\rm i} \omega e \delta N_{\omega}
+ dj_{x,\omega}/dx = 0$ and the equation for the linear-response electric current contribution modulated in space $$j_{x,\omega} = - \frac{e^2 \tau N_0}{m^*} \frac{E_{0x}}{1 - {\rm i} \omega \tau} \frac{V(x)}{k_B T}$$ we find the amplitude $\delta N_{\omega}(x)$ and, finally, the circular photocurrent $$\label{circ2}
\gamma I = \mu N_0 \hbar q_0 \zeta' g_0 \frac{V_1}{4k_B T}
\:.$$ The coefficient $\gamma$ is given by $$\label{gammamic}
\gamma = \frac{\pi e^2 }{\hbar c n_{\omega} } \zeta' \mu N_0 \frac{\hbar q_0}{m^*}
\frac{\tau}{\omega (1 + \omega^2 \tau^2)} \frac{V_1}{k_B T}\:.$$
The generation of a steady-state electron flow along the $y$ axis sensitive to the circular polarization $P_c$ results from two phase shifts of the oscillation $\delta N(x,t)$, in space with respect to $V(x)$ by $\varphi_g - \varphi_V$ and in time with respect to $E_{x}(t)$ by $\arctan{(\omega \tau)}$. This current is smaller as compared with the polarization-independent current by a factor of $2 \omega \tau_{\varepsilon}$. This agrees with the experiment where the polarization-independent contribution is dominating. The ratio of the circular photocurrents (\[7\]) and (\[circ2\]) equals $(\zeta/\zeta')( q_0 \tilde{V}/k_e \hbar
\omega)^2 $. Due to the small parameter $(q_0/k_e)^2$ the contribution (\[circ2\]) is expected to exceed the alternative contribution (\[7\]). For the inhomogeneous photoexcitation, the coefficients $\chi_2$ and $\chi_3$ have the same order of magnitude $ \sim\gamma \omega \tau$.
Summary
=======
A new mechanism of circular and linear photogalvanic effects has been proposed and demonstrated experimentally. The lateral grating etched into the sample’s surface induces a periodical lateral potential acting on the two-dimensional electron gas. In addition, it modifies the normally-incident radiation causing its spatial modulation in plane of the electron gas. If the lateral structuring is asymmetrical the spatial modulations of the static lateral potential $V(x)$ and the radiation intensity $I(x)$ are relatively shifted relatively to each other. As a result the product of the static force $-
dV(x)/dx$ and the photothermal modulation of the electron density $\delta N(x)$ has a nonzero space average and, therefore, a homogeneous electric current is generated, an effect previously predicted by Blanter and Büttiker [@buttiker2]. In this paper we have proposed polarization-dependent photocurrents arising in the same system with broken symmetry due to the phase shift between periodic potential and periodic light field. These currents, in contrast to the polarization-independent photocurrent, are independent of the energy relaxation time, if $\omega \tau_{\varepsilon} \gg 1$, and controlled only by momentum relaxation time.
The financial support from the DFG and RFBR is gratefully acknowledged. E.L.I. thanks DFG for the Merkator professorship. We are grateful M.M. Voronov, V.V. Bel’kov, L.E. Golub and S.A. Tarasenko for fruitful discussions.
[99]{} P. Reimann, Phys. Rep. [**361**]{}, 57 (2002). H. Linke (ed.), *Ratchets and Brownian Motors: Basic Experiments and Applications*, special issue Appl. Phys. A: Mater. Sci. Process. A [**75**]{}, 167 (2002). P. Hänggi, F. Marchesoni, and F. Nori, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) [**14**]{}, 51 (2005). P. Reimann, M. Grifoni, and P. Hänggi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 10 (1997). A. Lorke, S. Wimmer, B. Jager, J.P. Kotthaus, W. Wegscheider, and M. Bichler, Physica B [**249-312**]{}, 312 (1998) H. Linke, T.E. Humphrey, A. Lofgren, A.O. Sushkov, R. Newbury, R.P. Taylor, and P. Omling, Science 286, 2314 (1999). A.M. Song, P. Omling, L. Samuelson, W. Seifert, and I. Shorubalko, H. Zirath, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**79**]{}, 1357 (2001). J.B. Majer, J. Peguiron, M. Grifoni, M. Tusveld, and J.E. Mooij, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 056802 (2003). L.I. Magarill, Physica E (Amsterdam) [**9**]{}, 652 (2001). M.V. Entin and L.I. Magarill, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 205206 (2006). A.D. Chepelianskii, Eur. Phys. J. B [**52**]{}, 389 (2006). A.D. Chepelianskii, M.V. Entin, L.I. Magarill, and D.L. Chepelyansky, Eur. Phys. J. B [**56**]{}, 323 (2007); cond-mat/0701128; Physica E (Amsterdam) [**40**]{}, 1264 (2008). W. Weber, L.E. Golub, S.N. Danilov, J. Karch, C. Reitmaier, B. Wittmann, V.V. Bel’kov, E.L. Ivchenko, Z.D. Kvon, N.Q. Vinh, A.F.G. van der Meer, B. Murdin, and S.D. Ganichev, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{} 245304 (2008). M. Büttiker and Y.M. Blanter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 4040 (1998). M. Büttiker, Z. Phys. B [**35**]{}, 177 (1979). E.L. Ivchenko, *Optical Spectroscopy of Semiconductor Nanostructures* (Alpha Science International, Harrow, UK, 2005). S. Adachi and K. Oe, J. Electrochem. Soc. [**130**]{}, 2427 (1983). S. Adachi, Jap. J. Appl. Phys. [**30**]{}, 1196 (1991). S.D. Ganichev and W. Prettl, *Intense Terahertz Excitation of Semiconductors* (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006). S.D. Ganichev, S.N. Danilov, J. Eroms, W. Wegscheider, D. Weiss, W. Prettl, and E. L. Ivchenko,, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4358 (2001). P.S. Kireev, [*Semiconductor physics*]{} (Mir Publishers, Moscow 1974).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An upper bound on degrees of elements of a minimal generating system for invariants of quivers of dimension $(2,\ldots,2)$ is established over a field of arbitrary characteristic and its precision is estimated. The proof is based on the reduction to the problem of description of maximal paths satisfying certain condition.'
author:
- |
A.A. Lopatin\
Omsk Branch of Institute of Mathematics, SBRAS,\
Pevtsova street, 13,\
Omsk 644099 Russia\
[email protected]\
http://www.iitam.omsk.net.ru/\~lopatin/\
title: 'Indecomposable invariants of quivers for dimension $(2,\ldots,2)$ and maximal paths, II'
---
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 13A50; 16G20; 05C38. Keywords: representations of quivers, invariants, oriented graphs, maximal paths.
Introduction {#section_intro}
============
We work over an infinite field $K$ of arbitrary characteristic ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)$. All vector spaces, algebras, and modules are over $K$ unless otherwise stated and all algebras are associative.
This paper is a completion of [@Lopatin_Comm3] and we use the same notations as in [@Lopatin_Comm3]. Let us recall some of them. A [*quiver*]{} ${\mathcal{Q}}=({\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}},{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}})$ is a finite oriented graph, where ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ is the set of vertices and ${\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ is the set of arrows. The notion of quiver was introduced by Gabriel in [@Gabriel_1972] as an effective mean for description of different problems of the linear algebra.
The head (the tail, respectively) of an arrow $a$ is denoted by $a'$ ($a''$, respectively). We say that $a=a_1\cdots a_s$ is a [*path*]{} in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ (where $a_1,\ldots,a_s\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$), if $a_1'=a_2'',\ldots, a_{s-1}'=a_s''$; and $a$ is a [*closed*]{} path in a vertex $v$, if $a$ is a path and $a_1''=a_s'=v$. The head of the path $a$ is $a'=a_s'$ and the tail of $a$ is $a''=a_1''$. Denote ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(a)}}=\{a_1'',a_1',\ldots,a_s'\}$, ${\mathop{{\rm arr}(a)}}=\{a_1,\ldots,a_s\}$, and $\deg(a)=s$. Given a closed path $a$ and $w\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$, we set $\deg_w(a)=\#\{i\,|\,a_i'=w,\,1\leq i\leq s\}$. A closed path $a$ is called [*primitive*]{} if $\deg_w(a)=1$ for all $w\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}(a)}}$. Denote by $m({\mathcal{Q}})$ the maximal degree of primitive closed paths in ${\mathcal{Q}}$. Closed paths $a_1,\ldots,a_s$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ are called [*incident*]{} if $a_1'=\cdots=a_s'$.
For a quiver ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and a [*dimension vector*]{} ${\boldsymbol{n}}=({\boldsymbol{n}}_{v}\,|\,v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}})$ denote by $I({\mathcal{Q}},{\boldsymbol{n}})$ the [*algebra of invariants*]{} of representations of ${\mathcal{Q}}$. The algebra $I({\mathcal{Q}},{\boldsymbol{n}})$ is embedded into the algebra of (commutative) polynomials $K[x_{ij}(a)\,|\,a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}},\ 1\leq i\leq {\boldsymbol{n}}_{a'},\,1\leq j\leq {\boldsymbol{n}}_{a''}]$. Denote by $X_{a}=(x_{ij}(a))$ the $n_{a'}\times n_{a''}$ [*generic*]{} matrix and by ${\sigma}_k(X)$ the $k$-th coefficient in the characteristic polynomial of an $n\times n$ matrix $X$, i.e., $$\det({\lambda}E-X)={\lambda}^n-{\sigma}_1(X){\lambda}^{n-1}+\cdots+(-1)^n{\sigma}_n(X).$$
\[theo\_Donkin\](Donkin [@Donkin_1994]) The $K$-algebra $I({\mathcal{Q}},{\boldsymbol{n}})$ is generated by ${\sigma}_k(X_{a_s}\cdots X_{a_1})$ for all closed paths $a=a_1\cdots a_s$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ (where $a_1,\ldots,a_s\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$) and $1\leq k\leq n_{a'}$.
Notice that $I({\mathcal{Q}},{\boldsymbol{n}})$ has a grading by degrees that is given by the formula: $\deg({\sigma}_k(X_{a_s}\cdots X_{a_1}))=ks$.
Investigation of $I({\mathcal{Q}},{\boldsymbol{n}})$ was originated from the partial case of a quiver with one vertex. Sibirskii [@Sibirskii_1968], Razmyslov [@Razmyslov_1974] and Procesi [@Procesi_1976] described generators and relations in the case of characteristic zero field. As about the case of arbitrary characteristic, the first step was performed by Donkin in [@Donkin_1992a], where he established generators. Relations between generators of $I({\mathcal{Q}},{\boldsymbol{n}})$ were established by Domokos [@Domokos_1998] in characteristic zero case and by Zubkov [@Zubkov_Fund_Math_2001] in arbitrary characteristic case. Theorem \[theo\_Donkin\] was generalized to the case of action of arbitrary classical linear groups in [@Lopatin_so_inv] using approach from [@LZ1].
By the Hilbert–Nagata Theorem on invariants, $I({\mathcal{Q}},{\boldsymbol{n}})$ is a finitely generated graded algebra. But the mentioned generating system is not finite. So it gives rise to the problem to find out a minimal (by inclusion) homogeneous system of generators (m.h.s.g.). Let $D({\mathcal{Q}},{\boldsymbol{n}})$ be the least upper bound for the degrees of elements of a m.h.s.g. of $I({\mathcal{Q}},{\boldsymbol{n}})$. Note that taking elements from Theorem \[theo\_Donkin\] of the degree less or equal to $D({\mathcal{Q}},{\boldsymbol{n}})$ we obtain the finite system of generators. A [*decomposable*]{} invariant is equal to a polynomial in elements of strictly lower degree. Obviously, $D({\mathcal{Q}},{\boldsymbol{n}})$ is equal to the highest degree of indecomposable invariants.
In [@Lopatin_Comm3] we established an upper bound on $D({\mathcal{Q}},{\boldsymbol{n}})$ for an arbitrary quiver ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{n}}=(2,2,\ldots,2)$. In this paper we improve essentially the mentioned upper bound and estimate its precision (see Theorem \[theo\_main\_invariants\] and Remark \[remark\_compare\]). Note that for a quiver with one vertex and ${\boldsymbol{n}}=(2)$ a m.h.s.g. was found in [@Sibirskii_1968], [@Procesi_1984], [@DKZ_2002]; in case ${\boldsymbol{n}}=(3)$ a m.h.s.g. was described in [@Lopatin_Comm1], [@Lopatin_Comm2] and a system of parameters for a quiver with three loops was found in [@Lopatin_Sib]. A m.h.s.g. for the algebra of semi-invariants of a quiver of dimension $(2,\ldots,2)$ was established in [@Lopatin_semi2]. References to other results on generating systems for invariants are given, for example, in [@Lopatin_Comm3].
Without loss of generality we can assume that ${\mathcal{Q}}$ is a [*strongly connected*]{} quiver, i.e., there exists a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ that contains all vertices of ${\mathcal{Q}}$ (for the details, see Section 1 of [@Lopatin_Comm3]).
For positive integers $n,d,m$ define $M(n,d,m)$ as follows:
1. if ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)=2$, then $$M(n,d,m)=\left\{ \begin{array}{rl}
2m,& \text{if } d=n=m\\
2m(d-n+\frac{1}{2}),& \text{if } d< n+2\left[\frac{n-1}{m}\right]\text{ and } n>m\geq2\\
m(d-n-1)+2n,& \text{otherwise}\\
\end{array} \right.;$$
2. if ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)\neq2$, then $$M(n,d,m)=\left\{ \begin{array}{rl}
2n,& \text{if } n=m\text{ and }d\in\{n,n+1\}\\
3n,& \text{otherwise}\\
\end{array} \right..$$
Here $[\alpha]$ stands for the greatest integer that does not exceed $\alpha$.
Denote by ${\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$ the set of all strongly connected quivers ${\mathcal{Q}}$ with $\#{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}=n$, $\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}=d$, and $m({\mathcal{Q}})=m$. A criterion when ${\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$ is not empty is given by Lemma \[lemma\_criterion\_for\_QuiverNull\]. For short, we write $D(n,d,m)$ for $\max\{D({\mathcal{Q}},(2,\ldots,2))\,|\,{\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)\}$. Our main result is the following theorem.
\[theo\_main\_invariants\] For ${\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)\neq\emptyset$ we have $D(n,d,m)\leq M(n,d,m)$. Moreover,
1. if ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)=2$, then $$D(n,d,m)\geq M(n,d,m)-m.$$
2. if ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)\neq2$, $d\geq n+2\left[\frac{n-1}{m}\right]+m$ or $n=m$, then $$D(n,d,m)= M(n,d,m).$$
As immediate corollary of this theorem we obtain that if ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$, then the algebra of invariants $I({\mathcal{Q}},({\delta}_1,\ldots,{\delta}_n))$ with ${\delta}_1,\ldots,{\delta}_n\leq 2$ is generated by elements of degree at most $M(n,d,m)$.
\[remark\_compare\] Let ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)=2$. In [@Lopatin_Comm3] we gave the following upper bound: $D(n,d,m)\leq md$ for ${\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)\neq\emptyset$. By Theorem \[theo\_main\_invariants\], for $m>2$ the deviation of this upper bound is
\[eq\_estimation\] md - D(n,d,m) n,d,
where we assume that $m$ is fixed and $n,d\to\infty$ in such a way that at each step ${\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)\neq\emptyset$. But the deviation of the upper bound from Theorem \[theo\_main\_invariants\] is less or equal to the constant $m$, i.e., $$0\leq M(n,d,m)-D(n,d,m)\leq m.$$
As in [@Lopatin_Comm3], for a quiver ${\mathcal{Q}}$ introduce an equivalence $\equiv$ on the set of all closed paths extended with an additional symbol $0$. For any paths $a,b$ such that $ab$ is a closed path and any incident closed paths $a_1,a_2,\ldots$ we define
1. $ab\equiv ba$;
2. $a_{{\sigma}(1)}\cdots a_{{\sigma}(t)}\equiv {\mathop{\rm{sgn }}}({\sigma})\,a_1\cdots a_t$, where $t\geq2$ and ${\sigma}\in
{\mathcal{S}}_t$;
3. $a_1^2a_2\equiv0$;
4. if ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)=2$, then $a_1^2\equiv0$; if ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)\neq2$, then $a_1a_2a_3a_4\equiv0$.
We write $M({\mathcal{Q}})$ for the maximal degree of a closed path $a$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ satisfying $a\not\equiv0$. The following lemma is Lemma 1.2 of [@Lopatin_Comm3], which was proved using [@Zubkov_Fund_Math_2001].
\[lemma\_reduction\] Let $a=a_1\cdots a_s$ be a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$, where $a_1,\ldots,a_s\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$. Then ${\mathop{\rm tr}}(X_{a_s}\cdots X_{a_1})\in I({\mathcal{Q}},(2,2,\ldots,2))$ is decomposable if and only if $a\equiv0$.
\[remark\_det\] Let $a=a_1\cdots a_s$ be a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$, where $a_1,\ldots,a_s\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$. If $q=\det(X_{a_s}\cdots X_{a_1})\in I({\mathcal{Q}},(2,\ldots,2))$ is indecomposable, then $a$ is a primitive closed path and $\deg(a)\leq m$. Thus, $\deg(q)\leq
M(n,d,m)$.
Section \[section\_auxiliary\] contains necessary definitions and results from [@Lopatin_Comm3]. If ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)\neq2$, then the upper bound on $M({\mathcal{Q}})$ is calculated in Lemma \[lemma\_char\_0\]; otherwise, we establish the upper bound on $M({\mathcal{Q}})$ in Theorems \[theo\_part3\] and \[theo\_part6\]. In Lemma \[lemma\_example\] we estimate a precision of the given upper bound. Taking into account Lemma \[lemma\_reduction\] and Remark \[remark\_det\] together with the fact that $I({\mathcal{Q}},(2,2,\ldots,2))$ is generated by indecomposable invariants, we complete the proof of Theorem \[theo\_main\_invariants\].
In Sections \[section\_part4\]–\[section\_part6\] we assume that ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)=2$. Sections \[section\_part4\], \[section\_part2\], and \[section\_part3\] are dedicated to the proof of Theorem \[theo\_part3\], which consists of two steps.
At first, we introduce the set of multidegrees ${\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$ with the property that if $h$ is a closed path and ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$, then $h\not\equiv0$ (see Section \[section\_part4\] and Remark \[remark\_inclusions\]). Moreover, Lemma \[lemma\_mdeg\] implies that ${\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$ is the maximal (by inclusion) set with the given property. In Theorem \[theo\_part4\] of Section \[section\_part4\] we give some upper bound on $|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|$ for ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$. Note that there can be a closed path $h\not\equiv0$ such that ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)\not\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$ (see Example \[ex\_proper\]).
During the second step we extract some information from the fact that $h\not\equiv0$ (see Lemma \[lemma\_partII\_main2\]). Then we find out a closed subpath $c$ in $h$ such that for two arrows $b_1,b_2$ of $c$ we have $\deg_{b_1}(h)=\deg_{b_2}(h)=1$ and some additional properties are valid (see Lemma \[lemma\_p26\]). The main idea of the proof of Theorem \[theo\_part3\] is to substitute $c$ with a loop in order to obtain a quiver ${\mathcal{G}}$ with $\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}<\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ and to use induction hypothesis. The main difficulty is that we can not claim that $c$ is a primitive closed path, thus we can not say that $\deg(c)\leq m$. To estimate $\deg(c)$ we apply Lemma \[lemma\_p28\].
Section \[section\_part6\] contains the proof of Theorem \[theo\_part6\]. In Section \[section\_example\] we consider some examples in order to prove Lemma \[lemma\_example\].
Auxiliary results {#section_auxiliary}
=================
Notations {#subsection_notations}
---------
For a path $a=a_1\cdots a_s$ in a quiver ${\mathcal{Q}}$, where $a_1,\ldots,a_s\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$, and $b\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$, $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$, we set
1. $\deg_b(a)=\#\{i\,|\,a_i=b,\,1\leq i\leq s\}$;
2. $\deg_v(a)=\max\{m_1,m_2\}$, where $m_1=\#\{i\,|\,a_i'=v,\,1\leq i\leq s\}$ and $m_2=\#\{i\,|\,a_i''=v,\,1\leq i\leq s\}$;
3. ${\mathop{\rm {deg}}^{o}_{v}(a)}=\#\{i\,|\,a_i'=v,\,1\leq i\leq s-1\}$.
Let ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{{\mathbb{N}} }^{\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}}$, where ${{\mathbb{N}} }$ stands for non-negative integers. Then the path $a$ is called [*${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-double*]{} if $a$ is a primitive closed path and ${\delta}_{a_i}\geq2$ for all $i$. The definition of [*strongly connected components*]{} of an arbitrary quiver ${\mathcal{G}}$ is well known (for example, see Section 1 of [@Lopatin_Comm3]). The following notions were defined in Section 5 of [@Lopatin_Comm3]:
1. the [*multidegree*]{} ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a)$ of a path $a$;
2. the [*empty path*]{} $1_v$ in a vertex $v$;
3. a [*subpath*]{} of a path $a$;
4. [*$h$-restriction*]{} of ${\mathcal{Q}}$ to $V$, where $V\subset{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ and $h$ is a path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ (see also Example 5.1 of [@Lopatin_Comm3]).
Denote by ${\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$ the set of all paths and empty paths in ${\mathcal{Q}}$. If we consider a path, then we assume that it is non-empty unless otherwise stated; if we write $a\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$, then we assume that a path $a$ can be empty.
Dealing with equivalences we use the following conventions. If we write $a\equiv b$, then we assume that $a$ and $b$ are closed paths in ${\mathcal{Q}}$. If we write $ab$ for paths $a$ and $b$, then we assume that $a'=b''$. To explain how we apply formulas to prove some equivalence $a\equiv b$ we split the word $a$ into parts using dots.
For closed paths $a,b$ we write $a\sim b$ if $a=c_1c_2$ and $b=c_2c_1$ for some $c_1,c_2\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$. For ${{\underline{{\delta}}} },{{\underline{\theta}} }\in{{\mathbb{N}} }^l$ we set ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\geq{{\underline{\theta}} }$ if and only if ${\delta}_i\geq \theta_i$ for all $i$ and define $|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|={\delta}_1+\cdots+{\delta}_l$.
Let $x_1,\ldots,x_s$ be all arrows in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ from $u$ to $v$, where $u,v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$. Then denote by ${\check{x}}$ any arrow from $x_1,\ldots,x_s$, by $\{{\check{x}}\}$ the set $\{x_1,\ldots,x_s\}$, and say that ${\check{x}}$ is an arrow from $u$ to $v$. Schematically, we depict arrows $x_1,\ldots,x_s$ as $$\vcenter{
\xymatrix@C=1cm@R=1cm{ {*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle u}}\ar@/^/@{->}[r]^{{\check{x}}} &{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle v}}\\
}}.$$ For a path $a$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ denote $\deg_{{\check{x}}}(a)=\sum_{i=1}^s\deg_{x_i}(a)$. As an example, an expression ${\check{x}}a_1\cdots{\check{x}}a_k$ stands for a path $x_{i_1}a_1\cdots
x_{i_k}a_k$ for some $1\leq i_j\leq s$ ($1\leq j\leq k$). Similarly, if $x_1,\ldots,x_s$ are loops in $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$, then ${\check{x}}^k$ stands for a closed path $x_{i_1}\cdots
x_{i_k}$ for some $i_1,\ldots,i_k$.
The next two lemmas are well known.
\[lemma\_mdeg\] Suppose ${\mathcal{Q}}$ is a strongly connected quiver and ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{{\mathbb{N}} }^{\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}}$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. There is a closed path $h$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ such that ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)={{\underline{{\delta}}} }$ and ${\mathop{{\rm arr}(h)}}={\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$; in particular, ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(h)}}={\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$.
2. We have ${\delta}_a\geq1$ for all $a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ and $\sum_{a'=v}{\delta}_a =
\sum_{a''=v}{\delta}_a$ for all $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$, where the sums range over all $a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ satisfying the given conditions.
We write ${\delta}(i,j)$ for the Kronecker symbol.
\[lemma\_criterion\_for\_QuiverNull\] For positive integers $n,d,m$ the set ${\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$ is not empty if and only if one of the following possibilities holds:
1. $n=m=1$;
2. $n\geq m\geq2$ and $d\geq n+l-{\delta}(0,r)$, where $n-1=l(m-1)+r$, $l\geq1$, and $0\leq r\leq m-2$.
\[lemma\_subquiver\] Suppose ${\mathcal{Q}}_1,{\mathcal{Q}}_2$ are strongly connected quivers and ${\mathcal{Q}}_1\subset{\mathcal{Q}}_2$. Then $$\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_2)}}-\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}\geq \#{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_2)}}-\#{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}+1.$$
For every $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_2)}}\backslash{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}$ there is an $a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_2)}}\backslash{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}$ with $a'=v$. There also exists a $b\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_2)}}\backslash{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}$ satisfying $b'\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}$. These remarks imply the required formula.
Basic equivalences {#subsection_basic}
------------------
\[lemma\_char\_0\] Suppose ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)\neq2$. If ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$, $h$ is a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$, and $h\not\equiv0$, then $\deg(h)\leq M(n,d,m)$.
We claim that $\deg(h)\leq 3n$. If $\deg(h)>3n$, then there is a vertex $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ such that $\deg_v(h)\geq 4$. Therefore, $h\equiv h_1\cdots h_4$ for some closed paths $h_1,\ldots,h_4$ in $v$. Thus $h\equiv0$ by the definition of the equivalence $\equiv$; a contradiction.
To complete the proof, it is enough to consider the case of $n=m$ and $d\in\{n,n+1\}$.
1\. If $d=n$, then ${\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}=\{a_1,\ldots,a_n\}$, where $a=a_1\cdots a_n$ is a primitive closed path. Then $h\equiv a^s$ for some $s>0$. If $s\geq3$, then $h\equiv0$; a contradiction. Thus $\deg(h)\leq 2n$. The case of $n=1$ and $d=n+1$ can be treated similarly.
2\. Let $n=m\geq2$ and $d=n+1$. In this case ${\mathcal{Q}}$ is $$\vcenter{
\xymatrix@=.5cm{ &{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle v_1}} \ar@/_/@{<-}[ld]_{a_n} \ar@/^/@{->}[rd]^{a_1} \ar@/^/@{->}[ddd]_{b}& \\
{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle v_n}} \ar@/_/@{..}[d] &&{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle v_2}} \ar@/^/@{..}[d]\\
{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle \quad\,}} \ar@/_/@{<-}[rd]_{a_{k}} &&{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle \quad\,}} \ar@/^/@{->}[ld]^{a_{k-1}}\\
&{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle v_k}} & \\
}},$$ where $1\leq k\leq n$. Denote $a=a_1\ldots a_n$ and $$c=\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
b, & k=1\\
ba_k\ldots a_n, & \text{otherwise}\\
\end{array}
\right..$$We have $h\equiv a^r c^s$ for some $r,s\geq0$. If $r=0$ or $s=0$, then $\deg(h)\leq 2n$ (see Part 1 of the lemma). Assume that $r,s>0$. If $r\geq2$ or $s\geq2$, then $h\equiv0$; a contradiction. Hence $\deg(h)=n+\deg{c}\leq 2n$.
In what follows we assume that ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)=2$ unless otherwise stated. We will use the following remark without references to it.
\[remark\_no\_change\] Suppose $f,h$ are closed paths in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and $b$ is a subpath of $f$. Let the equivalence $f\equiv h$ follows from the formulas of the form $a_{{\sigma}(1)}\cdots a_{{\sigma}(t)}\equiv
a_1\cdots a_t$, where $a_1,\ldots,a_t$ are closed paths in $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ satisfying ${\mathop{\rm {deg}}^{o}_{v}(b)}=0$, $t\geq2$, and ${\sigma}\in {\mathcal{S}}_t$. Then $b$ is also a subpath of $h$.
There following three lemmas are Lemmas 6.3, 6.8, and 6.9 of [@Lopatin_Comm3], respectively.
\[lemma\_L0\] Let $h$ be a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and $\{{\check{p}}\}$ be loops of ${\mathcal{Q}}$ in some $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$. Then $h\equiv {\check{p}}^kb$, where $k\geq0$, $b\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$, and $\deg_{{\check{p}}}(b)=0$.
Moreover, suppose $a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}(h)}}$ and $a'\neq a''$. If $a'=v$, then $h\equiv a
{\check{p}}^kb_0$; if $a''=v$, then $h\equiv {\check{p}}^kab_0$, where, as above, $\deg_{{\check{p}}}(b_0)=0$.
Suppose a quiver ${\mathcal{Q}}$ contains a path $a=a_1\cdots a_s$, where $a_1,\ldots,a_s\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ are pairwise different. Let $h$ be a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ such that $\deg_{a_i}(h)\geq2$ for all $i$ and there is a $b\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}(h)}}$ satisfying $b\neq a_i$ for all $i$.
\[lemma\_aaa\] Using the preceding notation we have $h\equiv a_1\cdots a_sf$ for some $f\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$. Moreover,
1. if $b'=a''_1$, then $h\equiv b\,a_1\cdots a_sf$ for some $f\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$;
2. if $b''=a'_s$, then $h\equiv a_1\cdots a_s\,bf$ for some $f\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$.
Let $a$ and $h$ be paths as above. For $1\leq i\leq s$ denote $v_i=a_i''$. We assume that the path $a$ is closed and primitive, $s\geq2$, $b'\neq b''$, and $b',b''\in\{v_2,v_k\}$ for some $k\in\{1,3,4,\ldots,s\}$. Schematically this is depicted as $$\vcenter{
\xymatrix@=.5cm{ &{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle v_2}} \ar@/_/@{<-}[ld]_{a_1} \ar@/^/@{->}[rd]^{a_2} \ar@/^/@{-}[ddd]_{b}& \\
{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle v_1}} \ar@/_/@{..}[d] &&{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle v_3}} \ar@/^/@{..}[d]\\
{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle \quad\,}} \ar@/_/@{<-}[rd]_{a_{k}} &&{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle \quad\,}} \ar@/^/@{->}[ld]^{a_{k-1}}\\
&{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle v_k}} & \\
}}.$$
\[lemma\_L4\] Using the preceding notation we have $h\equiv a_1a_2 f_1\, a_1a_2 f_2$ for some $f_1,f_2\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$.
\[lemma\_pA291\]Suppose ${\mathcal{Q}}$ is a quiver with $n$ vertices and $d$ arrows. Let $h$ be a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and $h\not\equiv0$. Then there exist pairwise different primitive closed paths $b_1,\ldots,b_r$, $c_1,\ldots,c_t$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$, where $r,t\geq0$ and $r+t\leq d-n+1$, such that $${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)=\sum_{i=1}^r {\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(b_i)+2\sum_{k=1}^t{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(c_k);$$ and there are pairwise different arrows $x_1,\ldots,x_r$, $y_1,\ldots,y_t$, $z_1,\ldots,z_t$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ satisfying
\[eq\_pA291\_1\] y\_j,z\_j\_[y\_j]{}(h)=\_[z\_j]{}(h)=2,
\[eq\_pA291\_new0\] x\_i\_[x\_i]{}(h)-2\_[k=1]{}\^t \_[x\_i]{}(c\_k)=1
for any $1\leq i\leq r$, $1\leq j\leq t$.
The statement of the lemma but the inequality $r+t\leq d-n+1$ follows from Lemma 6.10 [@Lopatin_Comm3]. Applying Lemma \[lemma\_subquiver\], we can assume that ${\mathcal{Q}}={\mathcal{Q}}_{{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}{h}}$.
Denote by ${\mathcal{G}}$ the quiver that is the union of closed paths $b_1,\ldots,b_r$, i.e., ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}})}}={\mathop{{\rm ver}(b_1)}}\cup\cdots\cup{\mathop{{\rm ver}(b_r)}}$ and ${\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}={\mathop{{\rm arr}(b_1)}}\cup\cdots\cup{\mathop{{\rm arr}(b_r)}}$. Let ${\mathcal{G}}_1,\ldots,{\mathcal{G}}_l$ be the strongly connected components of ${\mathcal{G}}$. We have ${\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}}_k)}}=\bigcup_{i\in I_k}{\mathop{{\rm arr}(b_i)}}$ for some $I_k\subset [1,r]$ and denote $\#I_k=r_k$ ($1\leq k\leq l$).
We assume that $k=1$. Consider an $i_1\in I_1$ and let ${\mathcal{Q}}_1$ be the quiver such that ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}={\mathop{{\rm ver}(b_{i_1})}}$ and ${\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}={\mathop{{\rm arr}(b_{i_1})}}$. If $\#I_1>1$, then there is an $i_2\in I_1\backslash\{i_1\}$ satisfying ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(b_{i_2})}}\cap{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}\neq\emptyset$. By part a), we have $x\not\in {\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}$ for some $x\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}(b_{i_2})}}$. Hence there is an $e_2\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}(b_{i_2})}}$ such that $e_2\not\in {\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}$ and $e'_2\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}$. We add the closed path $b_{i_2}$ to ${\mathcal{Q}}_1$ and obtain a new quiver ${\mathcal{Q}}_2$, i.e., ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_2)}}={\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}\cup {\mathop{{\rm ver}(b_{i_2})}}$ and ${\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_2)}}={\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_1)}}\cup {\mathop{{\rm arr}(b_{i_2})}}$. Then we repeat this procedure for ${\mathcal{Q}}_2$ and so on. Finally, we obtain ${\mathcal{Q}}_1,{\mathcal{Q}}_2,\ldots,{\mathcal{Q}}_{r_1}={\mathcal{G}}_1$ and pairwise different arrows $e_2,\ldots,e_{r_1}$ such that $e_j\in {\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_j)}}\backslash{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_{j-1})}}$ and $e'_j\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_{j-1})}}$ for any $2\leq j\leq r_1$. Then for the set $V_1=\{e'_2,\ldots,e'_{r_1}\}$ we have $\#\{a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}}_1)}}|\,a'\in V_1\}\geq \#V_1+(r_1-1)$. Since for every $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}}_1)}}\backslash V_1$ there is at least one arrow $a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}}_1)}}$ with $a'=v$, we have $$\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}}_1)}}\geq \#{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}}_1)}}+(r_1-1).$$ The similar formula holds for all $k$. It follows that
\[eq\_pA293\] \#\#+(r-l).
For the quiver ${\mathcal{Q}}_r={\mathcal{G}}$ there is a $j_1\in[1,t]$ satisfying ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_{j_1})}}\cap{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_r)}}\neq\emptyset$. We add $c_{j_1}$ to ${\mathcal{Q}}_r$ and denote the resulting quiver by ${\mathcal{Q}}_{r+1}$. By [(\[eq\_pA291\_1\])]{}, there exists a $g_1\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}(c_{j_1})}}$ such that $g_1\not\in {\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_r)}}$ and $g'_1\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_r)}}$. Moreover, if the number of strongly connected components of ${\mathcal{Q}}_{r+1}$ is less than the number of strongly connected components of ${\mathcal{Q}}_r$, then there also exists a $g_2\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}(c_{j_1})}}\backslash\{g_1\}$ such that $g_2\not\in {\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_r)}}$ and $g'_2\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_r)}}$. We repeat this procedure for ${\mathcal{Q}}_{r+1}$ and so on. Finally, we obtain quivers ${\mathcal{Q}}_r,{\mathcal{Q}}_{r+1},\ldots,{\mathcal{Q}}_{r+t}={\mathcal{Q}}$ and pairwise different arrows $g_1,\ldots,g_{t+l-1}$ of ${\mathcal{Q}}$ such that for the set $V=\{g'_1,\ldots,g'_{t+l-1}\}$ we have $$\#\{a\in {\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}\backslash{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}|\,a'\in V\}\geq \#V\backslash\!{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}})}}+(t+l-1).$$ Therefore $$\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}\backslash{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}\geq \#{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}\backslash{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}})}}+(t+l-1)$$ and [(\[eq\_pA293\])]{} completes the proof.
Sets of multidegrees {#section_part4}
====================
Suppose ${\mathcal{Q}}$ is a strongly connected quiver and ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)=2$.
The [*support*]{} of a non-zero vector ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{{\mathbb{N}} }^{\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}}$ with respect to ${\mathcal{Q}}$ is the subquiver ${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }}$ of ${\mathcal{Q}}$ such that ${\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }})}}=\{a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}\,|\,{\delta}_a\geq1\}$ and ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }})}}=\{a',a''\,|\,a\in {\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }})}}\}$. The following remark is extensively applied to established indecomposability of invariants.
\[remark\_inclusions\_new\] Let $h$ be a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$. If for any ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)$-double path $a$ we have that the support of ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a)$ is not strongly connected (and is not empty), then $h\not\equiv0$.
If $h$ satisfies the condition of the lemma and $h\equiv0$, then $h\equiv a^2f$ for some paths $a,f$. Thus the support of ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a)={\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(f)$ is strongly connected; a contradiction.
For a non-zero vector ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{{\mathbb{N}} }^{\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}}$ we say that
1. ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$ is [*indecomposable*]{} (with respect to ${\mathcal{Q}}$) if its support is strongly connected;
2. ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$ is [*decomposable*]{} (with respect to ${\mathcal{Q}}$) if its support is not strongly connected but is the disjoint union of strongly connected quivers.
Observe that ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$ can be neither decomposable nor indecomposable. We say that ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }={{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(1)}+\cdots+{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(r)}$ is the [*decomposition*]{} of ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$ with respect to ${\mathcal{Q}}$ if ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(1)},\ldots,{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(r)}\in
{{\mathbb{N}} }^{\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}}$ are non-zero vectors and ${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(1)}},\ldots,{\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(r)}}$ are pairwise different strongly connected components of ${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }}$. Obviously, if ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$ is indecomposable, then $r=1$; and if ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$ is decomposable, then $r\geq2$. Introduce the following sets:
1. the set ${\Omega_1}({\mathcal{Q}})$ consists of all ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)$, where $h$ ranges over closed paths in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ with ${\mathop{{\rm arr}(h)}}={\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$;
2. the set ${\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$ consists of such ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_1}({\mathcal{Q}})$ that for every ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-double path $a$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ we have ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a)$ is decomposable with respect to ${\mathcal{Q}}$;
3. the set ${\Omega_3}({\mathcal{Q}})$ consists of such ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_1}({\mathcal{Q}})$ that there is no ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-double path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$;
4. the set ${\Omega}({\mathcal{Q}})$ consists of such ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)\in{\Omega_1}({\mathcal{Q}})$ that $h$ is a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and $h\not\equiv0$.
For every vector ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_1}({\mathcal{Q}})$ there exists its decomposition with respect to ${\mathcal{Q}}$ that consists of one summand. Moreover, by Lemma \[lemma\_mdeg\], for every ${{\underline{\theta}} }\in{\Omega_1}({\mathcal{Q}})$ with ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }-{{\underline{\theta}} }\geq0$ there also exists a decomposition of ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }-{{\underline{\theta}} }$ with respect to ${\mathcal{Q}}$.
\[remark\_inclusions\] We have the following inclusions: ${\Omega_3}({\mathcal{Q}})\subset {\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})\subset
{\Omega}({\mathcal{Q}})\subset {\Omega_1}({\mathcal{Q}})$.
The inclusion ${\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})\subset {\Omega}({\mathcal{Q}})$ follows from Remark \[remark\_inclusions\_new\]. The remaining inclusions are trivial.
\[ex\_proper\] Let $h_1=czczxyba$, $h_2=czcbyzxa$ be closed paths in the quiver ${\mathcal{Q}}$ $$\vcenter{
\xymatrix@C=1.3cm@R=1.3cm{ &{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle v}} \ar@/^/@{->}[ld]_{a} \ar@/_/@{<-}[ld]_{x}
\ar@/^/@{->}[rd]^{y} \ar@/_/@{<-}[rd]^{b}& \\
{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle u}} \ar@/^/@{->}[rr]^{c} \ar@/_/@{<-}[rr]^{z} &&{*+[o][F-]{\scriptscriptstyle w}} }}$$ Then $h_1\equiv0$, $h_2\not\equiv0$, and ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h_1)={\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h_2)\in{\Omega}({\mathcal{Q}})\backslash{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$.
\[lemma\_part4\_main0\] If ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$ and ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_3}({\mathcal{Q}})$, then $|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|\leq m(d-n+1)$.
By definition, ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }={\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)$ for some closed path $h$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$. The definition of ${\Omega_3}({\mathcal{Q}})$ shows that $h\not\equiv0$. Then Lemma \[lemma\_pA291\] implies $\deg(h)\leq m(r+2t)$ and $r+t\leq d-n+1$. Since $t=0$, the proof is completed.
[**Definition (of a ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-complete chain).**]{} A [*chain of paths*]{} $A=(a_1,\ldots,a_t)$ is an ordered sequence of primitive closed paths satisfying ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_i)}}\cap {\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_j)}}=\emptyset$, if $|i-j|>1$; and ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_i)}}\cap
{\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_j)}}\neq\emptyset$, otherwise. Given ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$, the chain of paths $A$ is called [*${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-complete*]{} if the following holds.
1. The paths $a_1,\ldots,a_t$ are ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-double paths.
2. For ${{\underline{\theta}} }={{\underline{{\delta}}} }-2\sum_{i=1}^t{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a_i)$ we have ${{\underline{\theta}} }\geq0$ and $|{{\underline{\theta}} }|>0$.
3. There is a (unique) decomposition ${{\underline{\theta}} }={{\underline{\theta}} }^{(1)}+\cdots+{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(r)}$ with respect to ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and this decomposition satisfies
1. $r\geq2$ and ${{\underline{\theta}} }^{(i)}\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(i)}})$ for all $i$;
2. if $t\geq2$, then $r=2$ and we have ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(i)}})}} \cap {\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_j)}}\neq\emptyset$ iff $i=j=1$ or $i=2,\,j=t$.
If there is no ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-double path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$, then $A=\emptyset$ is called a [*${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-complete*]{} chain. Schematically a ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-complete chain $A$ is depicted on Figure \[pic1\] for $t=1$ and on Figure \[pic2\] for $t\geq2$, where circles stand for closed paths and rectangles stand for subquivers of ${\mathcal{Q}}$: $$\begin{picture}(100,110)
\put(-80,70){
\put(0,0){\circle{30}\put(-3,-3){$a_1$}}\put(25,20){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-20,-15){\line(1,0){20}}\put(0,-15){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(-20,15){\line(1,0){20}}\put(0,15){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(-20,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(-20,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(20,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(20,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\end{picture}}\put(-5,-4){${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(1)}}$}}\put(-20,-25){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-15,-20){\line(1,0){15}}\put(0,-20){\line(1,0){15}}
\put(-15,20){\line(1,0){15}}\put(0,20){\line(1,0){15}}
\put(-15,-20){\line(0,1){20}}\put(-15,0){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(15,-20){\line(0,1){20}}\put(15,0){\line(0,1){20}}
\end{picture}}\put(-11,-10){${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(r)}}$}}\put(20,-20){\circle*{2}}\put(25,-15){\circle*{2}}\put(15,-25){\circle*{2}}\put(-10,-65){{\refstepcounter{thepic}Figure~\arabic{thepic}.}\label{pic1}}}\put(130,70){
\put(0,0){\circle*{2}}\put(7,0){\circle*{2}}\put(-7,0){\circle*{2}}\put(-30,0){\circle{30}\put(-3,-3){$a_1$}}\put(30,0){\circle{30}\put(-3,-3){$a_t$}}\put(-60,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-20,-15){\line(1,0){20}}\put(0,-15){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(-20,15){\line(1,0){20}}\put(0,15){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(-20,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(-20,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(20,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(20,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\end{picture}}\put(-15,-4){${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(1)}}$}}\put(60,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-20,-15){\line(1,0){20}}\put(0,-15){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(-20,15){\line(1,0){20}}\put(0,15){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(-20,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(-20,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(20,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(20,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\end{picture}}\put(-5,-4){${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(2)}}$}}\put(-20,-65){{\refstepcounter{thepic}Figure~\arabic{thepic}.}\label{pic2}}}\end{picture}$$
\[lemma\_complete\_chain\] For every ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$ there exists a ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-complete chain $A=(a_1,\ldots,a_t)$.
If there is no ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-double path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$, then $A=\emptyset$ is a ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-complete chain; otherwise, let $a_1$ be a ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-double path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$. Consider the decomposition ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a_1)={{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(1)}+\cdots+{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(r)}$ with respect to ${\mathcal{Q}}$. Since ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$, we have $r\geq2$. If ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(i)}\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(i)}})$ for all $i$, then $A=\{a_1\}$ is a ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-complete chain. Thus without loss of generality we can assume that ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(2)}\not\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(2)}})$, i.e., there exists a ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(2)}$-double path $a_2$ such that ${{\underline{\theta}} }={{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(2)}-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a_2)$ is indecomposable. But ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a_2)$ is decomposable, since ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$. Hence we obtain ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_1)}}\cap {\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_2)}}\neq\emptyset$ and ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_1)}}\cap {\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }})}}=\emptyset$ (see the picture). $$\begin{picture}(0,100)
\put(0,-15){\put(-115,70){
\put(0,0){\circle{30}\put(-3,-3){$a_1$}}\put(25,20){\circle{20}\put(-4,-3){$a_2$}}\put(-25,20){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-20,-15){\line(1,0){20}}\put(0,-15){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(-20,15){\line(1,0){20}}\put(0,15){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(-20,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(-20,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(20,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(20,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\end{picture}}\put(-13,-4){${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(1)}}$}}\put(45,20){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-40,-15){\line(1,0){40}}\put(0,-15){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(-40,15){\line(1,0){40}}\put(0,15){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(-40,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(-40,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(40,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(40,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\end{picture}}\put(15,-4){${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(2)}}$}}\put(-20,-25){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-15,-20){\line(1,0){15}}\put(0,-20){\line(1,0){15}}
\put(-15,20){\line(1,0){15}}\put(0,20){\line(1,0){15}}
\put(-15,-20){\line(0,1){20}}\put(-15,0){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(15,-20){\line(0,1){20}}\put(15,0){\line(0,1){20}}
\end{picture}}\put(-11,-10){${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(r)}}$}}\put(20,-20){\circle*{2}}\put(25,-15){\circle*{2}}\put(15,-25){\circle*{2}}}\put(85,70){
\put(0,0){\circle{30}\put(-3,-3){$a_1$}}\put(18,20){\circle{30}\put(-4,-3){$a_2$}}\put(-25,20){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-20,-15){\line(1,0){20}}\put(0,-15){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(-20,15){\line(1,0){20}}\put(0,15){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(-20,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(-20,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(20,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(20,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\end{picture}}\put(-13,-4){${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(1)}}$}}\put(48,20){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-20,-15){\line(1,0){20}}\put(0,-15){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(-20,15){\line(1,0){20}}\put(0,15){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(-20,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(-20,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(20,-15){\line(0,1){15}}\put(20,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\end{picture}}\put(2,-4){${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }}$}}\put(-20,-25){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-15,-20){\line(1,0){15}}\put(0,-20){\line(1,0){15}}
\put(-15,20){\line(1,0){15}}\put(0,20){\line(1,0){15}}
\put(-15,-20){\line(0,1){20}}\put(-15,0){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(15,-20){\line(0,1){20}}\put(15,0){\line(0,1){20}}
\end{picture}}\put(-11,-10){${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(r)}}$}}\put(20,-20){\circle*{2}}\put(25,-15){\circle*{2}}\put(15,-25){\circle*{2}}}\put(0,67){$\Rightarrow$}\put(160,65){.}}\end{picture}$$
If $r\geq3$, then we consider $a_2$ instead of $a_1$ and obtain that ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a_2)={{\underline{\theta}} }'+{{\underline{\theta}} }$ is the decomposition of ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a_2)$, where ${{\underline{\theta}} }'={{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(1)}+{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(3)}+\cdots+{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(r)}+2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a_1)$ is indecomposable. Thus without loss of generality we can assume that $r=2$.
We have the decomposition ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a_1)-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a_2)={{\underline{\theta}} }^{(1)}+{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(2)}$, where ${{\underline{\theta}} }^{(1)}={{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(1)}$ and ${{\underline{\theta}} }^{(2)}={{\underline{\theta}} }$. Then we consider ${{\underline{\theta}} }^{(1)}$ and ${{\underline{\theta}} }^{(2)}$ in the same way as we has considered ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(2)}$; and so on. Finally, we obtain a ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-complete chain.
[**Definition (of a ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-tree).**]{} For ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{{\mathbb{N}} }^{\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}}$ a triple $({\mathcal{T}},{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)},A_v\,|\,v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}})$ is called a [*${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-tree*]{} if the following holds:
1. ${\mathcal{T}}$ is an oriented rooted tree, i.e., there is no closed path in ${\mathcal{T}}$, there is a unique $v_0\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}$ with $a'\neq v_0$ for all $a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{T}})}}$, and for each other vertex $v$ of ${\mathcal{T}}$ there is a unique $a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{T}})}}$ with $a'= v$. The vertex $v_0$ is called the [*root*]{} and a vertex $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}$ with $v\neq a''$ for all $a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{T}})}}$ is called a [*leaf*]{}.
2. Suppose $v\in {\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}$, then
1. ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)}\in{{\mathbb{N}} }^{\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}}$ and ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v_0)}={{\underline{{\delta}}} }$;
2. $A_v=(a_1,\ldots,a_t)$ is a ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)}$-complete chain;
3. if $A_v\neq\emptyset$, then ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }-2\sum_{i=1}^t{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a_i)={{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(b_1')}+\cdots+{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(b_r')}$ is the decomposition with respect to ${\mathcal{Q}}$, where $b_1,\ldots,b_r$ are all arrows of ${\mathcal{T}}$ whose tails are equal to $v$; otherwise $v$ is a leaf.
In particular, the conditions that $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}$ is a leaf, $A_v=\emptyset$, and ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)}\in{\Omega_3}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)}})$ are equivalent. Note that $\#{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}=1$ iff ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_3}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }})$. By Lemma \[lemma\_complete\_chain\], there exists a ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-tree for every ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$. Observe that for different $u,v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}$ and closed paths $a\in A_u$, $b\in A_v$ we have $a\neq b$.
\[lemma\_pA26\_8\]Suppose ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})\backslash{\Omega_3}({\mathcal{Q}})$ and $({\mathcal{T}},{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)},A_v\,|\,v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}})$ is a [*${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-tree*]{}. Denote $l=\#\{v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}\,|\,v\text{ is not a leaf}\,\}$ and define a set $A=\{a\,|\,a\in
A_v\text{ for some }v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}\}$. Then there are pairwise different $c_1,\ldots,c_{l_1}\in A$ such that $A\backslash \{c_1,\ldots,c_{l_1}\}=B_1\sqcup \cdots
\sqcup B_{l_2}$ is a disjoint union, where $B_1,\ldots,B_{l_2}$ are some chains of paths, $0\leq l_1<l$, and $1\leq l_2\leq l$.
We assume that $i=1$. Suppose $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}$ is not a leaf, $A_v=(a_1,\ldots,a_t)$, and $b_1,\ldots,b_r$ are arrows of ${\mathcal{T}}$ whose tails are equal to $v$. If $t=1$ and there is a $1\leq j\leq r$ such that $A_{b'_j}\neq\emptyset$, then we define $c_i=a_1$, assign $b'_j$ to $c_i$, and increase $i$ by one.
If $t\geq2$, then $r=2$ by the definition of a complete chain. If we also have $A_{b'_1}\neq\emptyset$, then we define $c_i=a_1$, assign $b'_1$ to $c_i$, and increase $i$ by one. If $A_{b'_2}\neq\emptyset$, then we define $c_i=a_t$, assign $b'_2$ to $c_i$, and increase $i$ by one.
Repeat this procedure for all vertices of ${\mathcal{T}}$ that are not leaves and obtain a set of pairwise different closed paths $C=\{c_1,\ldots,c_{l_1}\}$. Since we have defined an injection $C\to\{v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}\,|\,v\text{ is neither a leaf nor the root}\}$, the inequality $l_1< l$ holds. The claim of the lemma follows from the construction.
\[lemma\_pA26\_9\]Suppose ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$ and $A=(a_1,\ldots,a_t)$ is a chain of paths such that for ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }=2\sum_{i=1}^t{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a_i)$ we have ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_1}({\mathcal{Q}})$ and $t\geq1$. Then $|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|-mt-n_0\leq n$, where $$n_0=\left\{\begin{array}{rl}
0,& \text{if }t=1\\
\#{\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_1)}}\cap{\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_2)}},& \text{if }t=2\\
\#{\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_2)}}\cup\cdots\cup{\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_{t-1})}},& \text{if }t\geq3\\
\end{array}
\right.$$
If $t=1$, then $\deg(a_1)=n$ and $m=n$. Thus $|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|-mt-n_0=n$.
If $t\geq2$, then $\frac{1}{2}|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|\leq n+n_0$. Therefore $|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|-mt-n_0=\sum_{i=1}^t(\deg(a_i)-m)+(\frac{1}{2}|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|-n_0)\leq n$, since $\deg(a_i)\leq m$.
\[lemma\_pA26\_10\]Suppose ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$, ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$, $A=(a_1,\ldots,a_t)\neq\emptyset$ is a ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-complete chain, and ${{\underline{\theta}} }={{\underline{{\delta}}} }-2\sum_{i=1}^t{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a_i)$. Let ${{\underline{\theta}} }={{\underline{\theta}} }^{(1)}+\cdots+{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(r)}$ be the decomposition with respect to ${\mathcal{Q}}$. We define $k=n-\#{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }})}}$ and assume that $$|{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(j)}|\leq m(d_j-n_j)+n_j+\rho_j$$ for any $1\leq j\leq r$, where $d_j=\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(j)}})}}$, $n_j=\#{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(j)}})}}$, and $\rho_j\in{{\mathbb{Z}} }$. Then $$|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|\leq m(d-n)+n+\sum_{j=1}^r \rho_j+\rho,$$ where $\rho=2\sum_{i=1}^t\deg(a_i)-m(t+1)-k$.
We define a quiver ${\mathcal{G}}$ by ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}})}}={\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ and ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}})}}={\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_{\theta})}}$. Let ${\mathcal{G}}_1,\ldots,{\mathcal{G}}_{l}$ be all strongly connected components of ${\mathcal{G}}$. Then $l=k+r$ and for any $1\leq i\leq k+r$ there is an arrow $b$ in ${\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}\backslash{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }})}}$ such that $b'\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}}_i)}}$. Moreover, for any $1\leq i\leq t-1$ there are at least two arrows in ${\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}\backslash{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }})}}$ whose heads are in ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_i)}}\cap{\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_{i+1})}}$ and every vertex from ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_i)}}\cap{\mathop{{\rm ver}(a_{i+1})}}$ is a strongly connected component of ${\mathcal{G}}$. These two remarks imply that $$d\geq \sum_{j=1}^r d_j+(k+r)+(t-1).$$ Since $r\geq2$, we have $\sum_{j=1}^r d_j \leq d-k-t-1$ and $\sum_{j=1}^r n_j=n-k$. Clearly, $$|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|\leq m\sum_{j=1}^r d_j +(1-m) \sum_{j=1}^r n_j+\sum_{j=1}^r \rho_j+
2\sum_{i=1}^t\deg(a_i),$$ and the above formulas complete the proof.
\[theo\_part4\]Suppose ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$ is a quiver and ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$. Then $|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|\leq m(d-n-1)+2n$.
If ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_3}({\mathcal{Q}})$, then the required formula follows from Lemma \[lemma\_part4\_main0\].
Suppose ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\not\in{\Omega_3}({\mathcal{Q}})$ and $({\mathcal{T}},{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)},A_v\,|\,v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}})$ is a ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }$-tree. Define the set $I=\{v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}\,|\,v\text{ is not a leaf}\,\}$. For $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}$ denote $m_v=m({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)}})\leq m$, $n_v=\#{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)}})}}$, and $d_v=\#{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)}})}}$. If $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}\backslash I$, then ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)}\in{\Omega_3}({\mathcal{Q}})$ and Lemma \[lemma\_part4\_main0\] together with the inequalities $m_v\leq m\leq n$ and $n_v\leq d_v$ implies
\[eq1\_theo\_part4\] |[ ]{}\^[(v)]{}|m\_v(d\_v-n\_v)+m\_vm(d\_v-n\_v)+n\_v.
For $v\in I$ let $A_v=(a_{v1},\ldots,a_{vt_v})$. We define ${{\underline{\theta}} }^{(v)}={{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)}-2\sum_{i=1}^{t_v}{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a_{vi})$ and $k_v=n_v-\#{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(v)}})}}$. By [(\[eq1\_theo\_part4\])]{}, we can apply Lemma \[lemma\_pA26\_10\] to all vertices of $I$ starting from elements of the set $\{v\in I\,|\,a'\text{ is a leaf for every
}a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{T}})}}\text{ with }a''=v\}$. Hence we obtain $$|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|\leq m(d-n)+n+\rho,$$ where $\rho=\sum_{v\in I}\rho_v$ and $\rho_v=2\sum_{i=1}^{t_v}\deg(a_{vi}) -
m(t_v+1)-k_v$.
We consider closed paths $c_1,\ldots,c_{l_1}$ from Lemma \[lemma\_pA26\_8\], where $l_1\leq\#I-1$. For every $v\in I$ we define $J_v\subset[1,t_v]$ by the equality $C_v=A_v\backslash\{c_1,\ldots,c_{l_1}\}=\{a_{vi}\}_{i\in J_v}$ and denote $I_0=\{v\in
I\,|\,C_v\neq\emptyset\}$. Therefore, $$\rho=\left(2\sum_{v\in I_0}\sum_{i\in J_v} \deg(a_{vi}) - m(t + \#I) - \sum_{v\in I} k_v\right) + 2\sum_{i=1}^{l_1}\deg(c_i),$$ where $t$ stands for $\sum_{v\in I}t_v=l_1 + \sum_{v\in I_0}\#J_v$. Since $\deg(c_i)\leq
m$ and $l_1-\#I\leq -1$, we have $$\rho\leq \sum_{v\in I_0}\left(2\sum_{i\in J_v}\deg(a_{vi}) - m\#J_v - k_v\right) - m.$$ For all $v\in I_0$ define $n_{v0}$ for the chain of paths $C_v$ in the same way as we have defined $n_0$ in Lemma \[lemma\_pA26\_9\] and let $s_v$ be the number of vertices in $C_v$. Lemma \[lemma\_pA26\_9\] together with the inequality $-k_v\leq -n_{v0}$ implies $\rho\leq \sum_{v\in I_0}s_v - m$. Since there is no $u\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ that belongs to $C_{v_1}$ and $C_{v_2}$ for different $v_1,v_2\in I_0$, we have $\sum_{v\in I_0}s_v\leq
n$ and $\rho\leq n-m$.
Properties of a closed path $h$ with $h\not\equiv0$ {#section_part2}
===================================================
In this section ${\mathcal{Q}}$ is a strongly connected quiver and ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)=2$. Let $a=a_1\cdots a_s$ be a primitive closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and $v_1=a_1'',\ldots,v_s=a_s''$, where $a_1,\ldots,a_s\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ and $s\geq2$. Suppose $h$ is a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$.
[**Definition (of good subpaths).**]{} A subpath $b$ in $h$ is called [*good*]{}, if
1. $b',b''\in\{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}$;
2. ${\mathop{\rm {deg}}^{o}_{v_i}(b)}=0$ for all $i$;
3. $b\neq a_i$ for all $i$.
Suppose $h\sim b_1g_1b_2g_2$, where $b_1,b_2$ are good subpaths in $h$ and $g_1,g_2$ are paths in ${\mathcal{Q}}$. Then we say that $b_1$ and $b_2$ are [*different*]{} subpaths in $h$.
If we change part $c)$ of the definition of a good path into
1. $b\neq a_i$ for every $i$ satisfying $\deg_{a_i}(h)\leq2$,
then we obtain the definition of a [*semi-good*]{} subpath $b$ in $h$.
[**Definition (of good components).**]{} A subset $I\subset\{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}$ is called a [*good component*]{} with respect to $h$, if the following conditions are valid:
1. For every good subpath $b$ in $h$ we have $b'\in I$ if and only if $b''\in I$.
2. There is a good subpath $b$ in $h$ such that $b'\in I$.
3. The set $I$ is a minimal (by inclusion) subset of $\{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}$ that satisfies $a)$ and $b)$.
Taking semi-good subpaths instead of good subpaths in the above definition, we obtain the definition of a [*semi-good component*]{}.
Let $I_1,\ldots,I_r$ be all good components with respect to $h$. Obviously,
\[eq\_good\_comp\_dec\] {v\_1,…,v\_s}=I\_0I\_1I\_r
for some $I_0\subset \{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}$. Formula [(\[eq\_good\_comp\_dec\])]{} is called the [*decomposition into good components*]{} with respect to $h$ and $I_0$ is called the [*null component*]{} with respect to $h$.
In what follows we assume that $\deg_{a_i}(h)=2$ for all $i$ unless otherwise stated.
\[lemma\_good\_components\]1. For every good subpath $b$ in $h$ we have $b'\not\in I_0$ and $b''\not\in I_0$.
2\. For all $u,w\in I_j$, where $j>0$, there are pairwise different good subpaths $b_1,\ldots,b_l$ in $h$ such that $b_1\cdots b_l$ is a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$, $b_1''=u$, and $b_k'=w$ for some $k$ with $1\leq k\leq l$.
Part 1 follows from the definition. Let ${\mathcal{G}}$ be the $h$-restriction of ${\mathcal{Q}}$ to the vertices $v_1,\ldots,v_s$ (see Section \[subsection\_notations\] for the definition). We consider $h$ as a path in ${\mathcal{G}}$ and define ${{\underline{\theta}} }\in{{\mathbb{N}} }^{{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}}$ as ${{\underline{\theta}} }={\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a)$. Since $\deg_{a_i}(h)=2$ for all $i$, it is not difficult to see that for the decomposition ${{\underline{\theta}} }={{\underline{\theta}} }^{(1)}+\cdots+{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(r)}$ with respect to ${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }}$ we have ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(j)}})}}=I_j$ for any $1\leq j\leq r$. To conclude the proof, we apply Lemma \[lemma\_mdeg\] to ${{\underline{\theta}} }^{(j)}$ and ${\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{\theta}} }^{(j)}}$.
\[lemma\_p14\]If $h\not\equiv a^2\!f$ for all $f\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$, then the number of good components with respect to $h$ is equal or greater than two.
Let $r$ be the number of good components and ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }={\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)$. If $r=0$, then $${\delta}_b= \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
0,&\text{if } b\neq a_i \text{ for all } i\\
2,&\text{otherwise }\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ for $b\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$. Hence $h\sim a^2$ and we have a contradiction.
Suppose $r=1$. If $v_i\in I_0$, then $h\sim a_{i-1}a_if_1 a_{i-1}a_if_2$ for some paths $f_1,f_2$ that do not contain $a_{i-1}$ and $a_i$. Substitute a new arrow $a_{s+1}$ for the path $a_{i-1}a_i$. Repeat this procedure for all elements of $I_0$. Thus we can assume that $I_0=\emptyset$ and $I=\{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}$ is the only good component.
If $s=1$, then Lemma \[lemma\_L0\] implies a contradiction. Otherwise, we consider the $h$-restriction of ${\mathcal{Q}}$ to $v_1,\ldots,v_s$, remove arrows $a_1,\ldots,a_s$ from this restriction, and denote the resulting quiver by ${\mathcal{G}}$. Let ${\mathcal{T}}$ be a spanning tree for ${\mathcal{G}}$, i.e.,
1. ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}=\{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}$ and ${\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{T}})}}\subset{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}$;
2. If we consider ${\mathcal{T}}$ as a graph without orientation, then it is a tree.
Consider a leaf $v_i$ of ${\mathcal{T}}$ together with the unique arrow $b\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{T}})}}$ satisfying $v_i\in\{b',b''\}$. Then the condition of Lemma \[lemma\_L4\] is true and we have $h\equiv a_{i-1}a_i f_1\, a_{i-1}a_i f_2$ for some $f_1,f_2\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$. We remove the vertex $v_i$ and the arrow $b$ from ${\mathcal{T}}$ and denote the resulting quiver by ${\mathcal{T}}_1$. As above, we consider some leaf of ${\mathcal{T}}_1$, apply Lemma \[lemma\_L4\], and so on. Finally, we obtain $h\equiv af_1af_2\equiv a^2f_1f_2$ for some paths $f_1,f_2\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$; a contradiction.
\[lemma\_predl\_p16\]Suppose $\{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}=I_0\sqcup I_1\sqcup\cdots\sqcup I_r$ is the decomposition into good components with respect to $h$, $r\geq2$, and $V\subset\{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}\backslash I_1$. Let $b,c,e$ be pairwise different good subpaths in $h$ such that
1. $b'\in I_1$ and $c',e'\in V$;
2. $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}(b)}}\cap{\mathop{{\rm ver}(c)}}\cap{\mathop{{\rm ver}(e)}}$ for some $v$.
Then there exists a closed path $h_0$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ such that $h_0\equiv h$ and $$\{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}=I_0\sqcup{\overline{I}}_1\sqcup \bigsqcup_{k\in D} I_k\sqcup J_1\sqcup\cdots\sqcup J_l$$ is the decomposition into good components with respect to $h_0$, where $l\geq0$ and $D=\{2,\ldots,r\}\backslash\{i,j\}$ for $c'\in I_i$, $e'\in I_j$. Moreover, $\#{\overline{I}}_1>\#I_1$.
We have $b=b_1b_2$, $c=c_1c_2$, and $e=e_1e_2$ for some paths $b_i,c_i,e_i$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ ($i=1,2$) with $b_1'=c_1'=e_1'=v$. There are two possibilities:
**1.** If $h\sim b_2 f_1 c_1 \cdot c_2 f_2 e_1 \cdot e_2 f_3 b_1$ for some $f_1,f_2,f_3\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$, then we define $h_0=b_2 f_1 c_1 \cdot e_2 f_3 b_1 \cdot c_2
f_2 e_1$ and we have $h_0\equiv h$. Let $S_0$ and $S$ be the sets of good subpaths in $h_0$ and $h$, respectively. Then $S_0=(S\cup\{b_1c_2,c_1e_2,e_1b_2\})\backslash
\{b,c,e\}$. Clearly, $I_k$ is a good component with respect to $h_0$, where $2\leq k\leq
r$ and $k\neq i,j$, and $I_0$ is the null component with respect to $h_0$. By part 2 of Lemma \[lemma\_good\_components\], the set $I_1$ and the vertices $c'$ and $e''$ belong to one and the same good component with respect to $h_0$, which we denote by ${\overline{I}}_1$. Thus $\#{\overline{I}}_1>\# I_1$ and the claim is proven.
**2.** If $h\sim b_2 f_1 e_1 \cdot e_2 f_2 c_1 \cdot c_2 f_3 b_1$ for some $f_1,f_2,f_3\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$, then the proof is analogous.
\[lemma\_partII\_main\]Suppose $h\not\equiv a^2\!f$ for all $f\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$. Then there exists a closed path $h_0$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and a good component $I$ with respect to $h_0$ such that $h_0\equiv h$ and if good subpaths $b,c$ in $h_0$ and $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ satisfy the following condition:
\[eq\_lemma\_partII\_main\] b’I, c’I,v,
then
1. $b$ is the unique good subpath in $h_0$ satisfying [(\[eq\_lemma\_partII\_main\])]{}, i.e., $h_0\sim bf_0$, where $f_0$ do not contain a good subpath $b_1$ with $b_1'\in I$ and $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}(b_1)}}$;
2. $\deg_v(b)=1$.
The proof consists of two parts. At first we find $h_0$ and $I$ that satisfy condition a), then we change $h_0$ to make condition b) valid.
**a)** For a good component $I$ with respect to $h$ and $V\subset\{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}\backslash I$, we write $I>V$ if the condition of Lemma \[lemma\_predl\_p16\] does not hold for $I_1=I$ and $V$.
Suppose $\{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}=I_0\sqcup I_1\sqcup \cdots \sqcup I_r$ is the decomposition into good components with respect to $h$. If $I_1\not>I_2\sqcup\cdots\sqcup I_r$, then Lemma \[lemma\_predl\_p16\] implies that there is an $h^{(0)}\equiv h$ such that $\#{\overline{I}}_1>\#I_1$ for a good component ${\overline{I}}_1$ with respect to $h^{(0)}$. Repeat this procedure for ${\overline{I}}_1$ and so on. Finally, we obtain $h_1\equiv h$ such that $I_{11},\ldots,I_{1r_1}$ are all good components with respect to $h_1$ and $I_{11}>I_{12}\sqcup\cdots\sqcup I_{1r_1}$. Note that $r_1\geq2$ by Lemma \[lemma\_p14\].
If $I_{12}\not>I_{13}\sqcup\cdots\sqcup I_{1r_1}$, then we act as above; and so on. Finally, we obtain $h_l\equiv h$ such that $I_{l1},\ldots,I_{lr_l}$ are all good components with respect to $h_l$ and $I_{ii}>I_{i,i+1}\sqcup\cdots\sqcup I_{ir_l}$ for any $1\leq i< r_l$. Then condition a) holds for $h_0=h_l$ and $I=I_{lr_l}$.
**b)** Consider $h_0$ and $I$ that have been constructed in part a) of the proof. Suppose $b,c$ are good subpaths with respect to $h_0$, $b'\in I$, $c'\not\in I$, and $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$. If $\deg_v(b)\geq2$, then $b=b_1qb_2$ for some paths $b_1,q,b_2$ satisfying $q'=q''=v$ and $\deg_v(b_1b_2)=0$. Assume that $c=c_1c_2$ for paths $c_1,c_2$ with $c_1'=c_2''=v$ and $h\sim bf_1c f_2$ for some paths $f_1,f_2$. Then $$h_0\sim b_2 f_1 c_1\cdot c_2 f_2 b_1\cdot q\equiv c_2 f_2 b_1\cdot b_2 f_1 c_1\cdot q,$$ and we define $h_1=c_2 f_2 b_1\cdot b_2 f_1 c_1\cdot q$. Let $S_1$ and $S_0$ be the sets of good subpaths in $h_1$ and $h_0$, respectively. Then $S_1=(S_0\cup\{b_1b_2,c_1qc_2\})\backslash \{b,c\}$. It is not difficult to see that every good component with respect to $h_1$ is a good component with respect to $h_0$ and vice versa. Moreover, condition a) remains valid for $h_1$.
If condition b) of the lemma does not hold for $h_1$ and some paths $b$ and $c$, then we repeat the above procedure for $h_1$; and so on. Denote by $k$ the sum $\sum\deg{b}$ that ranges over all $b\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ with $b'\in I$. After each step of the procedure $k$ is diminished by a positive number. Hence we finally obtain $h_0$ that satisfies conditions a) and b).
Now we assume that $h$ is a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ with $\deg_{a_i}(h)\geq2$ for all $i$.
\[lemma\_partII\_main2\] Suppose $h\not\equiv a^2\!f$ for all $f\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$. Then there exists a closed path $h_0$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and a semi-good component $I$ with respect to $h_0$ such that $h_0\equiv h$ and if good subpaths $b,c$ in $h_0$ and $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$ satisfy [(\[eq\_lemma\_partII\_main\])]{} then conditions a) and b) of Lemma \[lemma\_partII\_main\] are valid.
Suppose $h\sim a_ic_1\cdots a_ic_l$ for some $1\leq i\leq s$, where $l=\deg_{a_i}(h)\geq3$. Then we add a new arrow $b_i$ to ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and define $b_i'=a_i'$, $b_i''=a_i''$. Moreover, we substitute $a_ic_1a_ic_2b_ic_3\cdots b_ic_l$ for $h$. After performing this procedure for all $i$ we obtain a strongly connected quiver ${\mathcal{G}}$ and a closed path $h_1$ in ${\mathcal{G}}$ satisfying $\deg_{a_i}(h_i)=2$ for all $i$. Lemma \[lemma\_partII\_main\] completes the proof.
The main upper bound {#section_part3}
====================
Suppose ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$ is a quiver and ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)=2$. The set ${\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$ has been defined in Section \[section\_part4\]. This section is dedicated to the proof of the following theorem.
\[theo\_part3\] If $h\not\equiv0$ is a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$, then $\deg(h)\leq m(d-n-1)+2n$.
\[lemma\_p26\]Suppose $h$ is a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ such that $h\not\equiv0$ and ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)\not\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$. Then $h\equiv cf$, where $f$ and $c=c_1b_1c_2b_2c_3$ are closed paths in ${\mathcal{Q}}$, paths $c_1,c_2,c_3$ can be empty, $b_1,b_2\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$, and the following conditions hold:
1. $\deg_{b_1}(h)=\deg_{b_2}(h)=1$;
2. ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_1)}}\cap {\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_2)}}=\emptyset$, ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_2)}}\cap {\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_3)}}=\emptyset$, and ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_1)}}\cap {\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_3)}}=c''_1=c'_3=v_0$. Schematically, this condition is depicted as$$\begin{picture}(100,30)
\put(20,15){\put(0,0){\vector(3,2){30}}\put(8,13){$\scriptstyle c_1$}\put(30,-20){\vector(-3,2){30}}\put(8,-15){$\scriptstyle c_3$}\put(30,20){\vector(2,-1){20}}\put(40,18){$\scriptstyle b_1$}\put(50,-10){\vector(-2,-1){20}}\put(40,-22){$\scriptstyle b_2$}\put(50,10){\vector(0,-1){20}}\put(54,-2){$\scriptstyle c_2$}\put(-8,-2){$\scriptstyle v_0$}}\end{picture}$$
3. for all $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}(c)}}$ with $\deg_v(c)\geq2$ we have $\deg_v(c)=\deg_v(h)$. In particular, $\deg_{v_0}(c)=1$;
4. for all $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_2)}}$ we have $\deg_v(h)>\deg_v(c)=1$.
Since ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)\not\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$, there is a ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)$-double path $a$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ such that ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}({\mathcal{Q}})-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a)$ is indecomposable. We apply Lemma \[lemma\_partII\_main2\] to $h$ and $a$ to obtain a closed path $h_0$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and a semi-good component $I$ satisfying the conditions from Lemma \[lemma\_partII\_main2\]. Without loss of generality we can assume that $h=h_0$. In what follows, all good subpaths in $h$ will be considered with respect to $a$. Define the subset $$V\subset{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}\backslash{\mathop{{\rm ver}(a)}}$$ that contains $v$ if and only if there is a good subpath $e$ in $h$ such that $e'\not\in I$ and $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}(e)}}$. Since ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}({\mathcal{Q}})-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a)$ is indecomposable, there is a good subpath $b=b_1\cdots b_l$ in $h$ satisfying $b'\in I$ and ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(b)}}\cap V\neq\emptyset$, where $b_1,\ldots,b_l\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$. Since $b''_1\not\in V$ and $b'_l\not\in V$, we can define $$i=\min\{1\leq k\leq l\,|\,b'_k\in V\}\text{ and }j=\min\{i< k\leq l\,|\,b'_k\not\in V\}.$$ Let $\deg_{b_i}(h)>1$, then there is a good subpath $e$ in $h$ with $b_i\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}(e)}}$ and $h\sim b f_1 e f_2$ for some $f_1,f_2\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$ because $\deg_{b'_i}(b)=1$ by Lemma \[lemma\_partII\_main2\]. If $e'\in I$, then we obtain a contradiction to Lemma \[lemma\_partII\_main2\]. If $e'\not\in I$, then $b''_i\in V$; a contradiction. Therefore, $\deg_{b_i}(h)=1$ and, similarly, $\deg_{b_j}(h)=1$.
If ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(b_1\cdots b_{i-1})}}\cap{\mathop{{\rm ver}(b_{j+1}\cdots b_{l})}}\neq\emptyset$, then $h\sim c f$ for $c=c_1b_ic_2b_jc_3$ satisfying part b) of the lemma, where $f$ is a path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$, $c_2=b_{i+1}\cdots b_{j-1}\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$, and $c_1,c_3\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$ are subpaths in $b_1\cdots b_{i-1}$, $b_{j+1}\cdots b_{l}$, respectively. Moreover, we can assume that $\deg_{v_0}(c_1)=\deg_{v_0}(c_3)=1$.
If ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(b_1\cdots b_{i-1})}}\cap{\mathop{{\rm ver}(b_{j+1}\cdots b_{l})}}=\emptyset$, then, taking into account Lemma \[lemma\_aaa\], we have $h\equiv c f$, where $c$ satisfies the same conditions as above and $f$ is a path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$.
If there is a $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_1)}}$ such that $\deg_v(h)>\deg_v(c_1)\geq2$, then $c_1=e_1e_2e_3$, where $e_1,e_2,e_3\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$, $e_2'=e_2''=v$, and $\deg_v(e_1)=\deg_v(e_3)=1$. We have $h\sim e_1\cdot e_2\cdot e_3b_ic_2b_jc_3 f_1 \cdot
p\cdot f_2$ for some $f_1,f_2\in{\mathop{\rm path}}({\mathcal{Q}})$ and $p'=p''=v$. Thus $h\equiv e_1\cdot e_3b_ic_2b_jc_3 f_1\cdot e_2\cdot p\cdot f_2$ and we change notations by putting $c=e_1e_3b_ic_2b_jc_3$. We repeat this procedure for all vertices of $c_1,c_2,c_3$ and obtain that part c) of the lemma holds.
Since ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_2)}}\subset V$, part d) of the lemma is a consequence of part c).
We assume that $h\equiv cf\not\equiv0$ is a closed path from Lemma \[lemma\_p26\], where $c=c_1b_1c_2b_2c_3$. Define sets $$S_{arr}=\{a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}(c_3c_1)}}\,|\,\deg_a(h)=\deg_a(c)\},$$ $$S_{ver}=\{v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_3c_1)}}\,|\,\deg_v(h)=\deg_v(c)\}.$$ In this section we will use the next remark.
1. Since $f$ is not an empty path, we have $v_0\not\in S_{ver}$.
2. For all $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_i)}}$, $a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}(c_i)}}$ the equalities $\deg_v(c)=\deg_v(c_i)$, $\deg_a(c)=\deg_a(c_i)$ hold ($i=1,2,3$).
\[lemma\_p27\]For all $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_3c_1)}}$, $a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}(c_3c_1)}}$ we have
1. if $a'\in S_{ver}$ or $a''\in S_{ver}$, then $a\in S_{arr}$;
2. if $a'\not\in S_{ver}$ or $a''\not\in S_{ver}$, then $\deg_a(c)=1$;
3. if $v\not\in S_{ver}$, then $\deg_v(c)=1$.
Part a) is trivial. Part c) follows from part c) of Lemma \[lemma\_p26\]. If $a'\not\in S_{ver}$, then $\deg_{a'}(c)=1$ by part c); hence $\deg_a(c)=1$ and part b) is proven.
The following lemma will help us to perform the induction step in the proof of Theorem \[theo\_part3\].
\[lemma\_p28\]We assume that for every strongly connected quiver ${\mathcal{G}}$ with $\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}<d$ the assertion of Theorem \[theo\_part3\] is valid. Then $\deg(c)\leq
m(\#S_{arr}-\#S_{ver}+1)+2\#S_{ver}$.
Let $\#S_{ver}=\emptyset$. Then $c$ is a primitive closed path by parts c) and d) of Lemma \[lemma\_p26\]. Hence $\deg(c)\leq m$.
Let $\#S_{ver}\geq1$. Using the fact that $v_0\not\in S_{ver}$ and part b) of Lemma \[lemma\_p26\] we obtain
\[eq\_p28\_star1\] S\_[ver]{}=S\_[ver]{}\^1S\_[ver]{}\^3 S\_[arr]{}=S\_[arr]{}\^1S\_[arr]{}\^3
for $S_{arr}^1=S_{arr}\cap{\mathop{{\rm arr}(c_1)}}$, $S_{arr}^3=S_{arr}\cap{\mathop{{\rm arr}(c_3)}}$, $S_{ver}^1=S_{ver}\cap{\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_1)}}$, and $S_{ver}^3=S_{ver}\cap{\mathop{{\rm ver}(c_3)}}$.
Suppose $\#S_{ver}^1\geq1$. We assume that $c_1=x_1\cdots x_s$ for $x_1,\ldots,x_s\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$, where for $i\neq j$ we can have $x_i=x_j$. We define $p=\min\{1\leq k\leq s\,|\,x_k'\in S_{ver}^1\}$ and $q=\max\{1\leq k\leq s\,|\,x_k'\in
S_{ver}^1\}$. Then $c_1=e_1e_2e_3$, where paths $e_1=x_1\cdots x_p$, $e_2=x_{p+1}\cdots
x_q$, and $e_3=x_{q+1}\cdots x_s$ can be empty. We claim that
\[eq\_p28\_star2\] (e\_2)m(\#S\_[arr]{}\^1-\#S\_[ver]{}\^1)+2\#S\_[ver]{}\^1.
To prove the claim we consider the $e_2$-restriction of ${\mathcal{Q}}$ to $S_{ver}^1$, add a new arrow $z$ from $e_2'$ to $e_2''$, and denote the resulting quiver by ${\mathcal{G}}$. In other words, ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}})}}=S_{ver}^1$ and $a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}$ has one of the following types:
1. $a=\widetilde{x_i}$, where $1\leq i\leq s$ and $x'_i,x''_i\in S_{ver}^1$;
2. $a=\widetilde{x_i\cdots x_j}$ for $1\leq i<j\leq s$, where $x''_i,x'_j\in
S_{ver}$ and $x'_i,\ldots,x'_{j-1}\not\in S_{ver}$;
3. $a=z$.
Note that for an arrow $a=\widetilde{x_i}$ of type 1 we have $x_i\in S_{arr}$ by part a) of Lemma \[lemma\_p27\] and we say that $x_i$ is assigned to $a$. Similarly, for an arrow $a=\widetilde{x_i\cdots x_j}$ of type 2 we have $x_i,x_j\in S_{arr}$ and we say that $x_i,x_j$ are assigned to $a$; moreover,
1. $\deg_{x_k}(e_2)=1$ for any $i\leq k\leq j$ (see part b) of Lemma \[lemma\_p27\]).
2. $\deg_{x'_k}(c)=\deg_{x'_k}(e_2)=1$ for any $i\leq k\leq j-1$ (see part c) of Lemma \[lemma\_p27\]). In particular, $x_i\cdots x_j$ is either a primitive closed path or it is a subpath of $c$ without self-intersections; thus, $\deg(x_i\cdots x_j)\leq m$.
Let $y$ be the unique path in ${\mathcal{G}}$ that corresponds to the path $e_2$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$. The quiver ${\mathcal{G}}$ is strongly connected, since $yz$ is a closed path in ${\mathcal{G}}$ that contains all arrows and all vertices of ${\mathcal{G}}$. Moreover, we have $yz\not\equiv0$, since $\deg_a(y)=1$ for every arrow $a$ of type 2, $\deg_z(y)=0$, and $h\not\equiv0$.
For every arrow $a$ of type 1 there is an arrow from $S_{arr}^1$ that is assigned to $a$; and for every arrow $b$ of type 2 there are two arrows from $S_{arr}^1$ that are assigned to $b$. But the arrow $x_p\in S_{arr}^1$ is not assigned to any arrow of ${\mathcal{G}}$. Therefore, $$\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}-1\leq \#S_{arr}^1-l-1,$$ where $l$ stands for the number of arrows of type 2. Since $b_1,b_2\not\in S_{arr}^1$, it follows that $\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}\leq \#S_{arr}^1 <{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}=d$. Applying Theorem \[theo\_part3\] to ${\mathcal{G}}$, we obtain $$\deg(yz)\leq m({\mathcal{G}})(\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}-\#{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}})}})+2\#{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}})}}.$$ It is not difficult to see that $m({\mathcal{G}})\leq m$. Thus $$\deg(y)\leq m(\#S_{arr}^1-\#S_{ver}^1-l)+2\#S_{ver}^1 - 1.$$ By property b) of paths of type 2, we have $$\deg(e_2)\leq \deg(y)+l(m-1).$$ The last two formulas conclude the proof of [(\[eq\_p28\_star2\])]{}.
If $\#S_{ver}^3\geq1$, then we rewrite $c_3$ in a form $c_3=g_1g_2g_3$ in the same way as we have done for $c_1=e_1e_2e_3$. Then the proof of the formula
\[eq\_p30\_star9\] (g\_2)m(\#S\_[arr]{}\^3-\#S\_[ver]{}\^3)+2\#S\_[ver]{}\^3
is similar to the proof of [(\[eq\_p28\_star2\])]{}.
Suppose $S_{ver}^1\neq\emptyset$ and $S_{ver}^3\neq\emptyset$. Then $$\deg(c)=\deg(c_1b_1c_2b_2c_3)=\deg(e_2)+\deg(g_2)+\deg(f_1)+\deg(f_2),$$ where $f_1=g_3e_1$ and $f_2=e_3b_1c_2b_2g_1$. Parts c) and d) of Lemma \[lemma\_p26\] imply that
1. for every $v\in ({\mathop{{\rm ver}(f_1)}}\cup{\mathop{{\rm ver}(f_2)}})\backslash\{f'_1,f''_1,f'_2,f''_2\}$ we have $\deg_v(c)=1$;
2. $({\mathop{{\rm ver}(f_1)}}\cup{\mathop{{\rm ver}(f_2)}}) \cap
({\mathop{{\rm ver}(e_2)}}\cup{\mathop{{\rm ver}(g_2)}})=\{f'_1,f''_1,f'_2,f''_2\}$.
It follows that there are paths $d_1,d_2$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ such that $f_1d_1f_2d_2$ is a primitive closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$. In particular, $\deg(f_1)+\deg(f_2)\leq m$. Formulas [(\[eq\_p28\_star2\])]{} and [(\[eq\_p30\_star9\])]{} conclude the proof of the lemma.
The cases $S_{ver}^1\neq\emptyset,S_{ver}^3=\emptyset$ and $S_{ver}^1=\emptyset,S_{ver}^3\neq\emptyset$ can be treated in the similar fashion. If $S_{ver}^1=\emptyset$ and $S_{ver}^3=\emptyset$, then $S_{ver}=\emptyset$; a contradiction.
Suppose ${\mathcal{Q}}_{{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n_0,d_0,m_0)$ for some $n_0,d_0,m_0$. We assume that the theorem is proven for the case ${\mathcal{Q}}={\mathcal{Q}}_{{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)}$. Then we have $\deg(h)\leq
m_0(d_0-n_0-1)+2n_0$. Lemma \[lemma\_subquiver\] implies $$\deg(h)\leq m(d_0-n_0)+2n_0-m_0\leq m(d-n-1)+2n-m_0$$ and we obtain the required upper bound. Therefore, without loss of generality we can assume that ${\mathcal{Q}}={\mathcal{Q}}_{{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)}$.
We prove the theorem by induction on $\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$.
**Induction base.** If $\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}=1$, then ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}=\{v\}$ and the only arrow of ${\mathcal{Q}}$ is a loop in $v$. Then $\deg(h)=1$ and the required upper bound on $\deg(h)$ holds.
**Induction step.** If ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$, then see Theorem \[theo\_part4\]; otherwise we apply Lemma \[lemma\_p26\] to $h$ and obtain $h\equiv cf$, where $f$ and $c=c_1b_1c_2b_2c_3$ are closed paths in some vertex $v_0$. By Lemma \[lemma\_p28\], we have
\[eq\_p32\_1\] (c)m(\#S\_[arr]{}-\#S\_[ver]{}+1)+2\#S\_[ver]{}.
We define the quiver ${\mathcal{G}}$ by ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}})}}=\{v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}\,|\,\deg_v(h)>\deg_v(c)\}$ and ${\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}=\{a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}\,|\,\deg_a(h)>\deg_a(c)\}\bigcup \{x\}$, where $x$ is a new loop in the vertex $v_0$. Then $xf$ is a closed path in ${\mathcal{G}}$ that contains all vertices and arrows of ${\mathcal{G}}$. In particular, ${\mathcal{G}}$ is a strongly connected quiver and ${\mathcal{G}}={\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(xf)}$. Since $cf\not\equiv0$, we have $xf\not\equiv0$. By parts a) and d) of Lemma \[lemma\_p26\], we have $\#{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}\leq d-\#S_{arr}-1$ and ${\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}})}}=n-\#S_{ver}$. Applying induction hypothesis to the closed path $xf$ in ${\mathcal{G}}$ and using the inequalities ${\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{G}})}}>{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{G}})}}$ and $m({\mathcal{G}})\leq m$, we obtain $$\deg(xf)\leq m(d-n-1)+2n-m(\#S_{arr}-\#S_{ver}+1)-2\#S_{ver}.$$ Formula [(\[eq\_p32\_1\])]{} implies the required upper bound on $\deg(h)$.
The upper bound for the case of small $d$ {#section_part6}
=========================================
Assume that ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)=2$. The following lemma is a stronger version of Lemma \[lemma\_pA291\].
\[lemma\_pA292\_pA293\]Suppose ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$. Then using the notation of Lemma \[lemma\_pA291\] we have $r\geq1$.
Suppose $r=0$. Then ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)=2\sum_{j=1}^t{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(c_j)$, where $t\geq1$, and we have two possibilities.
**1.** Let ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)\not\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$. Then there exists a primitive closed path $a=a_1\cdots a_s$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ ($a_1,\ldots,a_s\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$) such that ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)-2{\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(a)$ is indecomposable and $\deg_{a_i}(h)\geq2$ for all $i$. It is not difficult to see that ${\mathop{{\rm ver}(a)}}=I\sqcup J$, where
1. $\deg_v(h)=2$ for all $v\in I$;
2. for every $u,v\in J$ with $u\neq v$ there is a path $g$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ from $u$ to $v$; moreover, for every $e\in {\mathop{{\rm arr}(g)}}$ we have $\deg_{e}(h)\geq2$, if $e\not\in
{\mathop{{\rm arr}(a)}}$; and $\deg_{e}(h)\geq4$, if $e\in {\mathop{{\rm arr}(a)}}$. Lemma \[lemma\_aaa\] implies that $h\equiv gf$ for some path $f$.
If $s>1$, then, applying Lemma \[lemma\_L4\], we have $h\equiv a_1a_2f_1a_1a_2f_2\equiv
a_1a_2a_3f_3a_1a_2a_3f_4\equiv\cdots\equiv a f_{2s-3} a f_{2s-2}$ for some paths $f_1,\ldots,f_{2s-2}$. Lemma \[lemma\_L0\] gives $h\equiv0$ for $s\geq1$; a contradiction.
**2.** If ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$, then we consider a ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)$-tree $({\mathcal{T}},{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)},A_v\,|\,v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}})$ constructed in Section \[section\_part4\]. For a leaf $v\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{T}})}}$ we have ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)}\in{\Omega_3}({\mathcal{Q}}_{{{\underline{{\delta}}} }^{(v)}})$; a contradiction.
\[theo\_part6\] Suppose ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$, $h$ is a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$, and $h\not\equiv0$. Then $\deg(h)\leq 2m(d-n)+m$.
Using the notation of Lemma \[lemma\_pA291\] we have $\deg{h}\leq m(r+2t)$ and $r+t\leq
d-n+1$. Lemma \[lemma\_pA292\_pA293\] implies $$r+2t\leq 2r-1+2t\leq 2(d-n)+1$$ and we obtain the required upper bound.
Examples {#section_example}
========
\[lemma\_example\] Suppose ${\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)\neq\emptyset$. Then there is a ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$ and a closed path $h$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ such that $h\not\equiv0$ and
1. $\deg(h)\geq M(n,d,m)-m$, if ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)=2$;
2. $\deg(h)= M(n,d,m)$, if ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)\neq2$, $d\geq
n+2\left[\frac{n-1}{m}\right]+m$ or $n=m$;
where the definition of $M(n,d,m)$ was given in Section \[section\_intro\].
Suppose ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)=2$.
**a)** If $m=1$, then $n=1$. For the quiver ${\mathcal{Q}}$ with one vertex $v$ and loops $a_1,\ldots,a_d$ in $v$ we have $h=a_1\cdots a_d\not\equiv0$ and $\deg(h)=d$.
**b)** If $m\geq2$ and $n=m$, then we consider the quiver ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m):$ $$\begin{picture}(0,80)
\put(-45,35){\put(0,0){\vector(2,3){20}}\put(20,-30){\vector(-2,3){20}}\put(70,30){\vector(2,-3){20}}\put(90,0){\vector(-2,-3){20}}\put(45,-30){\put(0,0){\circle*{1}}\put(7,0){\circle*{1}}\put(-7,0){\circle*{1}}}\put(15,30){\xymatrix@C=1.65cm@R=1cm{ \ar@/^/@{->}[r]^{a_1} \ar@/_/@{->}[r]_{a_t}&\\
}}\put(44,30){\put(0,0){\circle*{1}}\put(0,2){\circle*{1}}\put(0,-2){\circle*{1}}}\put(100,-1){,}\put(-10,15){$\scriptstyle b_{n-1}$}\put(-10,-19){$\scriptstyle b_{n-2}$}\put(83,15){$\scriptstyle b_1$}\put(83,-19){$\scriptstyle b_2$}}\end{picture}$$where $t=d-n+1\geq1$. For $h=a_1b\cdots a_tb$, where $b=b_1\cdots b_{n-1}$, we have $\deg(h)=tn$ and $h\not\equiv0$.
**c)** We assume that $d\geq n+2\left[\frac{n-1}{m}\right]$ and $n>m\geq 2$. Then $n-1=lm+r$ for $l=\left[\frac{n-1}{m}\right]\geq1$ and $0\leq r\leq m-1$. Consider the quiver ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$: $$\begin{picture}(0,70)
\put(-160,30){
\put(0,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(80,0){\vector(-4,3){40} \put(13,15){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,30){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-14){$\scriptstyle s$}} \put(40,-8){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-13){$\scriptstyle s$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(-4,3){40}\put(3,10){$\scriptstyle t$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(4,3){40} \put(-17,10){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,4){\circle*{1}}\put(40,0){\circle*{1}}\put(40,-4){\circle*{1}}\put(-10,31){
{\xymatrix@C=1.3cm@R=0.9cm{ & \ar@/^/@{<-}[ld] \ar@/_/@{<-}[ld] \\\\}}}\put(19,16){\put(2,-2){\circle*{1}}\put(0,0){\circle*{1}}\put(-2,2){\circle*{1}}}\put(11,22){$\scriptstyle 1$}\put(25,4){$\scriptstyle 1$}\put(-6,-2){$\scriptstyle u$}\put(39,32){$\scriptstyle v$}\end{picture}}}\put(80,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(0,0){\vector(4,3){40} \put(-27,15){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(80,0){\vector(-4,3){40} \put(13,15){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,30){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-14){$\scriptstyle 4$}}\put(40,-8){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-13){$\scriptstyle 4$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(-4,3){40}\put(3,10){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(4,3){40} \put(-17,10){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,4){\circle*{1}}\put(40,0){\circle*{1}}\put(40,-4){\circle*{1}}\end{picture}}}\put(200,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(0,0){\vector(4,3){40} \put(-27,15){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(80,0){\vector(-4,3){40} \put(13,15){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,30){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-14){$\scriptstyle 4$}}\put(40,-8){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-13){$\scriptstyle 4$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(-4,3){40}\put(3,10){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(4,3){40} \put(-17,10){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,4){\circle*{1}}\put(40,0){\circle*{1}}\put(40,-4){\circle*{1}}\end{picture}}}\put(280,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(0,0){\vector(4,3){40} \put(-27,15){$\scriptstyle 1$}}\put(40,30){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-14){$\scriptstyle 1$}}\put(40,-8){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-13){$\scriptstyle 1$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(-4,3){40}\put(3,10){$\scriptstyle 1$}}\put(40,4){\circle*{1}}\put(40,0){\circle*{1}}\put(40,-4){\circle*{1}}\end{picture}}}\put(180,0){\put(0,0){\circle*{2}}\put(10,0){\circle*{2}}\put(-10,0){\circle*{2}}}\put(340,-1){,}}\end{picture}$$ where there are $t=d-n-2l+1\geq1$ arrows from $u$ to $v$, the right primitive closed path contains $r+1$ arrows, any other primitive closed path contains $m$ arrows, and $s=t+2$. Define ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_1}({\mathcal{Q}})$ in such a way that if a number $k$ is assigned to an arrow $a\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$, then ${\delta}_a=k$. Since ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$, there is a closed path $h$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ with ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)={{\underline{{\delta}}} }$ and $h\not\equiv0$ by Remark \[remark\_inclusions\]. It is not difficult to see that $\deg(h)=|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|=m(d-n-1)+2n-(r+1)$.
**d)** We assume that $d< n+2\left[\frac{n-1}{m}\right]$ and $n>m\geq 2$. As above, we have $n-1=lm+r$ for $l\geq1$ and $0\leq r\leq m-1$. Consider the quiver ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$: $$\begin{picture}(0,85)
\put(-210,50){
\put(0,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(0,0){\vector(1,1){30}}\put(60,0){\vector(-1,1){30}}\put(30,30){\vector(0,-1){22}}\put(30,-8){\vector(0,-1){22}}\put(30,-30){\vector(-1,1){30}}\put(30,-30){\vector(1,1){30}}\put(30,4){\circle*{1}}\put(30,0){\circle*{1}}\put(30,-4){\circle*{1}}\end{picture}}}\put(90,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(0,0){\vector(1,1){30}}\put(60,0){\vector(-1,1){30}}\put(30,30){\vector(0,-1){22}}\put(30,-8){\vector(0,-1){22}}\put(30,-30){\vector(-1,1){30}}\put(30,-30){\vector(1,1){30}}\put(30,4){\circle*{1}}\put(30,0){\circle*{1}}\put(30,-4){\circle*{1}}\end{picture}}}\put(75,0){\put(0,0){\circle*{2}}\put(7,0){\circle*{2}}\put(-7,0){\circle*{2}}}\put(150,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(0,0){\vector(2,1){60}}\put(120,0){\vector(-2,1){60}}\put(60,30){\vector(0,-1){22}}\put(60,-8){\vector(0,-1){22}}\put(60,-30){\vector(-2,1){20}}\put(20,-10){\vector(-2,1){20}}\put(30,-15){\put(0,0){\circle*{1}}\put(4,-2){\circle*{1}}\put(-4,2){\circle*{1}}}\put(60,-30){\vector(2,1){20}}\put(100,-10){\vector(2,1){20}}\put(90,-15){\put(0,0){\circle*{1}}\put(4,2){\circle*{1}}\put(-4,-2){\circle*{1}}}\put(60,4){\circle*{1}}\put(60,0){\circle*{1}}\put(60,-4){\circle*{1}}\put(59,32){$\scriptstyle v_1$}\put(63,8){$\scriptstyle v_2$}\put(63,-12){$\scriptstyle v_{t-1}$}\put(59,-36){$\scriptstyle v_t$}\end{picture}}}\put(270,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-5,0){\xymatrix@C=1.75cm@R=2cm{ \ar@/^/@{->}[r]&\\
\\
}}\put(50,0){\vector(-1,-2){10}}\put(10,-20){\vector(-1,2){10}}\put(25,-20){\put(0,0){\circle*{1}}\put(4,0){\circle*{1}}\put(-4,0){\circle*{1}}}\end{picture}}}\put(350,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-5,0){\xymatrix@C=1.75cm@R=2cm{ \ar@/^/@{->}[r]&\\
\\
}}\put(50,0){\vector(-1,-2){10}}\put(10,-20){\vector(-1,2){10}}\put(25,-20){\put(0,0){\circle*{1}}\put(4,0){\circle*{1}}\put(-4,0){\circle*{1}}}\end{picture}}}\put(335,0){\put(0,0){\circle*{2}}\put(7,0){\circle*{2}}\put(-7,0){\circle*{2}}}\put(410,-1){,}\put(17,-33){$\underbrace{\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad}_{i\,{\rm times}}$}\put(270,-33){$\underbrace{\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad}_{j\,{\rm times}}$}}\end{picture}$$ where every primitive closed path contains $m$ arrows, $i,j\geq0$, $1\leq t< m$, and $$\begin{array}{ccl}
n&=&m(i+j+2)-j-t,\\
d&=&m(i+j+2)+2i-t+1.\\
\end{array}$$ It is not difficult to see that there exist $i,j,t$ satisfying the given conditions. We define ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_2}({\mathcal{Q}})$ in a similar way as in part c). Hence $|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|=2m(2i+j+1)$ and $M(n,d,m)-|{{\underline{{\delta}}} }|=m$.
**e)** Suppose ${\mathop{\rm char}}(K)\neq2$ and the condition from part 2) of the lemma holds.
If $m=1$, then we construct the required $h$ similarly to part a).
If $n=m\geq 2$, then we consider the quiver from part b). We set $h=a_1 b a_1 b$ if $d\in\{n,n+1\}$ and $h=a_1 b a_2 b a_3 b$ if $d>n+1$. Obviously, $\deg(h)=M(n,d,m)$ and $h\not\equiv0$.
Let $n>m\geq2$. We define $l$ and $r$ in the same way as in part c) and consider the quiver ${\mathcal{Q}}\in{\mathcal{Q}}(n,d,m)$: $$\begin{picture}(0,80)
\put(-160,40){
\put(0,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(0,0){\vector(4,3){40} \put(-27,15){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(80,0){\vector(-4,3){40} \put(13,15){$\scriptstyle 1$}}\put(40,30){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-14){$\scriptstyle 3$}}\put(40,-8){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-13){$\scriptstyle 3$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(-4,3){40}\put(3,10){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(4,3){40} \put(-17,10){$\scriptstyle 1$}}\put(40,4){\circle*{1}}\put(40,0){\circle*{1}}\put(40,-4){\circle*{1}}\end{picture}}}\put(80,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(0,0){\vector(4,3){40} \put(-27,15){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(80,0){\vector(-4,3){40} \put(13,15){$\scriptstyle 1$}}\put(40,30){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-14){$\scriptstyle 3$}}\put(40,-8){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-13){$\scriptstyle 3$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(-4,3){40}\put(3,10){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(4,3){40} \put(-17,10){$\scriptstyle 1$}}\put(40,4){\circle*{1}}\put(40,0){\circle*{1}}\put(40,-4){\circle*{1}}\end{picture}}}\put(200,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(0,0){\vector(4,3){40} \put(-27,15){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(80,0){\vector(-4,3){40} \put(13,15){$\scriptstyle 1$}}\put(40,30){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-14){$\scriptstyle 3$}}\put(40,-8){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-13){$\scriptstyle 3$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(-4,3){40}\put(3,10){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(4,3){40} \put(-17,10){$\scriptstyle 1$}}\put(40,4){\circle*{1}}\put(40,0){\circle*{1}}\put(40,-4){\circle*{1}}\end{picture}}}\put(280,0){{\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(0,0){\vector(4,3){40} \put(-27,15){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,30){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-14){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,-8){\vector(0,-1){22} \put(3,-13){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,-30){\vector(-4,3){40}\put(3,10){$\scriptstyle 2$}}\put(40,4){\circle*{1}}\put(40,0){\circle*{1}}\put(40,-4){\circle*{1}}\end{picture}}}\put(180,0){\put(0,0){\circle*{2}}\put(10,0){\circle*{2}}\put(-10,0){\circle*{2}}}\put(322,30){$\scriptstyle v_1$}\put(322,6){$\scriptstyle v_2$}\put(322,-9){$\scriptstyle v_{r-1}$}\put(322,-34){$\scriptstyle v_{r}$}\put(-6,0){$\scriptstyle u$}\put(20,-12){$\scriptstyle e$}\put(55,8){$\scriptstyle f$}\put(350,-1){.}}\end{picture}$$ Here we assume that we have not depicted some loops in ${\mathcal{Q}}$. Namely, for $s=d-n-2l-r-1\geq0$ there are loops $a$, $b_1,\ldots,b_{s}$ in the vertex $u$ and loops $c_1,\ldots,c_{r}$ in vertices $v_1,\ldots,v_{r}$, respectively. We assign number $1$ to loops $a$, $c_1,\ldots, c_{r}$ and number $0$ to $b_1,\ldots, b_{s}$. Define ${{\underline{{\delta}}} }\in{\Omega_1}({\mathcal{Q}})$ in such a way that if a number $k$ is assigned to an arrow $x\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$, then ${\delta}_x=k$. Let $h$ be a closed path in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ with ${\mathop{\rm mdeg}}(h)={{\underline{{\delta}}} }$. Since $\deg_w(h)=3$ for all $w\in{\mathop{{\rm ver}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$, we have $\deg(h)=3n$. Lemma \[lemma\_indecomposable\] (see below) completes the proof.
Given a closed path $a=a_1\cdots a_s$ in ${\mathcal{Q}}$, where $a_i\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}})}}$, we write ${\mathop{\rm tr}}(X_a)$ for ${\mathop{\rm tr}}(X_{a_s}\cdots X_{a_1})$.
\[lemma\_indecomposable\] Using notation from part e) of the proof of Lemma \[lemma\_example\], we have $h\not\equiv0$.
Since the construction of ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and $h$ depend on $l$, we write ${\mathcal{Q}}_l$ for ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and $h_l$ for $h$ ($l\geq1$).
Assume that $h_l\equiv0$. By Lemma \[lemma\_reduction\], ${\mathop{\rm tr}}(X_{h_l})\equiv0$. Denote $I=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1& 0 \\
0& -1\\
\end{array}
\right)$ and $J=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0& 1 \\
-1& 0\\
\end{array}
\right)$. We set $X_a=I$, $X_e=J$, and $X_g=E$ for every arrow $g\not\in\{a,e,f\}$ from the left rhombus of ${\mathcal{Q}}_l$. Since ${\mathop{\rm tr}}(I)={\mathop{\rm tr}}(J)={\mathop{\rm tr}}(IJ)=0$, it is not difficult to see that ${\mathop{\rm tr}}(X_{h_{l-1}})\equiv0$ in $I({\mathcal{Q}}_{l-1},(2,\ldots,2))$, where $h_0$ is defined below. Repeating this procedure, we obtain that ${\mathop{\rm tr}}(X_{h_0})\equiv0$ in $I({\mathcal{Q}}_0,(2,\ldots,2))$ for $$h_0=x_1 y_1 \cdots x_{r+1} y_{r+1}\cdot x_1 \cdots x_{r+1},$$ where $x_1,\ldots,x_{r+1}\in{\mathop{{\rm arr}({\mathcal{Q}}_0)}}$, $x_1\cdots x_{r+1}$ is a closed primitive path in ${\mathcal{Q}}_0$, $y_i$ is a loop in $x_i'$ ($1\leq i\leq r+1$). For $j=1,2$ we denote $$z_{ij}=\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
y_i,& \text{if } j=1 \\
1_{x_i'},& \text{otherwise}\\
\end{array}
\right..$$ Since for all $\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_{r+1}\in {\mathcal{S}}_2$ $$x_1 z_{1,\pi_1(1)} \cdots x_{r+1} z_{r+1,\pi_{r+1}(1)}\cdot
x_1 z_{1,\pi_1(2)} \cdots x_{r+1} z_{r+1,\pi_{r+1}(2)} \equiv {\mathop{\rm{sgn }}}(\pi_1)\cdots {\mathop{\rm{sgn }}}(\pi_{r+1}) h_0,$$ we obtain that $h_0\not\equiv0$. Lemma \[lemma\_reduction\] implies a contradiction.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} This paper was supported by RFFI 10-01-00383a.
[99]{} M. Domokos, [*Invariants of quivers and wreath products*]{}, Comm. Algebra [**26**]{} (1998), 2807–2819.
M. Domokos, S.G. Kuzmin, A.N. Zubkov, [*Rings of matrix invariants in positive characteristic*]{}, J. Pure Appl. Algebra [**176**]{} (2002), 61–80. S. Donkin, [*Invariants of several matrices*]{}, Invent. Math. [**110**]{} (1992), 389–401.
S. Donkin, [*Polynomial invariants of representations of quivers*]{}, Comment. Math. Helvetici [**69**]{} (1994), 137–141.
P. Gabriel, [*Unzerlegbare Darstellungen I*]{}, Manuscr. Math. [**6**]{} (1972), 71–103.
A.A. Lopatin, [*The invariant ring of triples of $3\times 3$ matrices over a field of arbitrary characteristic*]{}, Sibirsk. Mat. Zh. [**45**]{} (2004), No. 3, 624–633 (Russian). English translation: Siberian Mathematical Journal [**45**]{} (2004), No. 3, 513–521.
A.A. Lopatin, [*The algebra of invariants of $3\times 3$ matrices over a field of arbitrary characteristic*]{}, Comm. Algebra [**32**]{} (2004), No. 7, 2863–2883.
A.A. Lopatin, [*Relatively free algebras with the identity $x^3=0$*]{}, Comm. Algebra [**33**]{} (2005), No. 10, 3583–3605.
A.A. Lopatin, A.N. Zubkov, [*Semi-invariants of mixed representations of quivers*]{}, Transform. Groups [**12**]{} (2007), N2, 341–369.
A.A. Lopatin, [*Invariants of quivers under the action of classical groups*]{}, J. Algebra [**321**]{} (2009), 1079–1106.
A.A. Lopatin, [*Indecomposable invariants of quivers for dimension $(2,\ldots,2)$ and maximal paths*]{}, to appear in Comm. Algebra, arXiv: 0704.2411.
A.A. Lopatin, [*Minimal generating set for semi-invariants of quivers of dimension two*]{}, submitted, arXiv: 1004.3083.
C. Procesi, [*The invariant theory of $n\times n$ matrices*]{}, Adv. Math. [**19**]{} (1976), 306–381.
C. Procesi, [*Computing with $2\times 2$ matrices*]{}, J. Algebra [**87**]{} (1984), 342–359.
Yu.P. Razmyslov, [*Trace identities of full matrix algebras over a field of characteristic $0$*]{}, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. [**38**]{} (1974), No. 4, 723–756 (Russian).
K.S. Sibirskii, [*Algebraic invariants of a system of matrices*]{}, Sibirsk. Mat. Zh. [**9**]{} (1968), No. 1, 152–164 (Russian).
A.N. Zubkov, [*The Razmyslov-Procesi theorem for quiver representations*]{}, Fundam. Prikl. Mat. [**7**]{} (2001), No. 2, 387–421 (Russian).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'O. Raukunen'
- 'E. Valtonen'
- 'R. Vainio'
bibliography:
- 'oajraubib.bib'
date: 'Received <date> / Accepted <date>'
title: 'Iron-rich solar particle events measured by SOHO/ERNE during two solar cycles'
---
Introduction {#sect_intro}
============
The earliest observations of solar energetic particle (SEP) events were obtained with ionization chambers [@forbush1946a]. These events, known today as ground-level enhancement (GLE) events, were presumed to be caused by solar flares. In a comprehensive review of radio observations, @wild1963a suggested that the fast-drift type III radio bursts were produced by flare-accelerated outward streaming electrons, whereas slow-drift type II bursts were produced by electrons accelerated by shock waves that might also accelerate protons. This idea of two different physical mechanisms of SEP acceleration that contribute to the two classes of solar particle events, namely impulsive and gradual events, has been widely accepted [e.g., @reames2013a]. In the two-class paradigm, particle acceleration in impulsive flares has been associated with resonant wave-particle interactions [e.g., @fisk1978a; @temerin1992a; @miller1993a; @zhang1995a; @paesold2003a], stochastic acceleration by plasma waves or turbulence [e.g., @mobius1980a; @mobius1982a; @petrosian2004a; @liu2004a; @liu2006a], or magnetic reconnection [e.g., @drake2009a], but none of the theories have been able to provide a complete description of the observed properties of impulsive events. Gradual events, on the other hand, are commonly described by diffusive acceleration at shock waves driven by coronal mass ejections (CMEs) [e.g., @cane1995a; @cliver1999a]. Impulsive events typically have durations of a few hours, low fluences, and compact spatial scales, compared to the duration of several days, higher fluences, and extensive spatial scales of gradual events [e.g., @kahler1992a; @reames1999a; @reames2013a].
A key feature in distinguishing the two classes of solar particle events has been the differences in their energetic particle composition. In general, impulsive events are considered to be electron rich, to have / ratios enhanced by a factor of up to $10^{4}$ , and Fe/O ratios enhanced by up to a factor of 10 compared to coronal values [e.g., @reames1985a; @reames1988a]. Gradual events, on the other hand, have an energetic particle composition similar to that of the corona or solar wind [e.g., @meyer1985a]. Early measurements of heavy ion charge states showed that the mean ionic charge states in impulsive events were significantly higher than in gradual events [e.g., @klecker1984a; @luhn1987a]. More recent studies at extended energy ranges have revealed a more complex picture: ion charge states in impulsive events are highly energy dependent, with $Q_{Fe}$ increasing by as much as six charge units between \~0.1–0.5 MeV [@difabio2008a]. In gradual events the mean charge states at low energies are similar to those of the solar wind, but show high variability at higher energies [e.g., @klecker2006a and references therein].
In reality, the separation of the two classes is not clear: residual suprathermal ions from impulsive events may contribute to the seed material accelerated by CME-driven shock waves, resulting in intermediate values for / or heavy element abundances [e.g., @mason1999a; @torsti2002a; @kocharov2002a; @kocharov2003a; @tylka2005a]. As a different explanation for the intermediate abundances, @cane2003a [@cane2006a] have argued in favor of a direct flare component or a combination of direct flare particles and the shock acceleration of these particles during large SEP events.
The current solar cycle, cycle 24, has shown a considerably lower overall activity level than the previous cycle 23. This has also left clear imprints on the SEP events. For example, GLEs have shown a dramatic decrease in number from 16 in cycle 23 to only one in cycle 24 [@gopalswamy2013a][^1]. In this paper we compare the number and properties of iron-rich SEP events for the two solar cycles. A preliminary analysis was performed in @raukunen2015a. The structure of this paper is as follows: in Sect. \[sect\_obs\] we present an overview of the observations we used, in Sect. \[sect\_daily\_int\] we study the daily heavy ion intensities and intensity ratios during the previous and the current solar cycle, in Sect. \[sect\_event\_sel\] we select a list of SEP events that contain enhancements in Fe, in Sects. \[sect\_flares\] and \[sect\_prop\_heavy\] we study the solar event associations and properties of heavy ions in the selected events, and in Sect. \[sect\_concl\] we summarize the results and present the conclusions of the study. Appendix \[sect\_stattest\] includes technical details about the fitting and statistical testing.
Observations {#sect_obs}
============
The particle observations were made with the Energetic and Relativistic Nuclei and Electron (ERNE) instrument onboard the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) [@torsti1995a; @valtonen1997a]. ERNE consists of two particle detectors, the Low Energy Detector (LED) and High Energy Detector (HED). Our analysis was made in the energy range of 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$, which is measured by LED. It has a geometric factor of $0.260$–$0.915$ cm$^2$sr, depending on particle energy and species. As SOHO was launched on 2 December 1995 and is still operational, the observation period extends from the end of solar cycle 22 well into the current solar cycle 24. There have been some breaks in the observations, most notably from 25 June 1998 to 9 October 1998, from 21 December 1998 to 8 February 1999, and from 9 December 2012 to 8 February 2013. These, along with all the shorter breaks, have been taken into account in the following analysis.
As an example of the ERNE/LED long-term heavy ion data, the bottom panel of Fig. \[intensity\_vs\_time\] shows the annual average intensities of 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$ C, O, and Fe for 1996–2015. The top panel shows the annual intensity ratios Fe/C and Fe/O for the same time period. The shape of the intensity profiles reflects the solar activity level. The values marked with arrows for 2007 are one-count upper limits because no Fe ions were detected during the year by the instrument in the 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$ energy range. The annual Fe/C and Fe/O ratios show fairly stable if slightly declining trends during the active years 1997–2006 and 2011–2014. During the years of low solar activity, the ratios Fe/C and Fe/O have average values of approximately $0.05$ and $0.005$, respectively, which are much lower than the value for Fe/O in the corona ($0.186$, measured at $1.4 \cdot 10^6$ K [@feldman2003a]), for example, or the values for Fe/O in the slow and fast solar wind ($0.120$ and $0.092$, measured at 1 keV and 2 keV, respectively [@vonsteiger2000a]).
We here compare the properties of heavy ions in solar cycles 23 and 24. The start times and the times of the solar activity maxima are presented in Table \[cycle\_times\]. We defined the start of the cycle as the middle of the month with the lowest monthly sunspot number during the corresponding minimum. Both November and December 2008 had the same sunspot number, therefore the start of cycle 24 was defined as 1 December 2008. Similarly, the time of maximum of the cycle was defined as the middle of the month with the highest monthly sunspot number. Cycles 23 and 24 were both double-peaked, and the maximum sunspot numbers were reached during the first peak of cycle 23 and the second peak of cycle 24. The sunspot data we used was the NOAA smoothed monthly international sunspot number [^2].
Solar cycle Min / Max Date SSN
------------- ------------- -------------- ---------
23 Min 1996–May–15 $8.0$
23 Max 2000–Apr–15 $120.8$
24 Min 2008–Dec–1 $1.7$
24 Max 2014–Apr–15 $81.9$
24 End of obs. 2015–June–30 …
: Solar cycle data.[]{data-label="cycle_times"}
Results and discussion {#sect_results}
======================
{width="17cm"}
We started our investigation by inspecting daily average intensities of iron, carbon, and oxygen in the energy range 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$. The results are presented in Sect. \[sect\_daily\_int\]. We then selected Fe-rich days with a clearly higher Fe/(C+O) ratio than the average value measured for gradual solar particle events. From the selected days we identified separate Fe-rich SEP events. These results are discussed in Sect. \[sect\_event\_sel\]. In Sect. \[sect\_flares\] we present properties of the solar events associated with the identified SEP events. Section \[sect\_prop\_heavy\] is devoted to a detailed study of the event-integrated intensities of individual heavy elements during solar cycles 23 and 24.
Daily intensities {#sect_daily_int}
-----------------
Figures \[led\_scatter\]a and b show the daily average intensities of 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$ Fe versus the daily average intensities of 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$ C and O, respectively. Solar cycle 23 is shown in red and cycle 24 in blue; this coloring format is used throughout the paper. In both figures, days with fewer than two detected counts of either of the corresponding ion species are omitted. In units of intensity, the two counts correspond to about $2.6\cdot10^{-6}$ cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$(MeVn$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$, $2.8 \cdot 10^{-6}$ cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$(MeVn$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$ and $3.8\cdot 10^{-6}$ cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$(MeVn$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$ for C, O, and Fe, respectively. The red and blue lines are linear fits in log-log scales for cycles 23 and 24. The slopes of the fits are shown, as well as a test statistic $t$ calculated from the difference of the slopes. The $p$-values in Figs. \[led\_scatter\]a and b are the results of the t-tests, representing the probabilities that the test statistic would be equal to or higher than $t$ if the samples were drawn randomly from a common distribution. The difference of slopes for cycles 23 and 24 is statistically significant within the 95% confidence limit in both Figs. \[led\_scatter\]a and b, which means that the cycles have been significantly different considering these elements. Details on the fitting and the calculation of the test statistic are given in Appendix \[sect\_stattest\]. The overall number of days with at least two counts of both ion species in Fig. \[led\_scatter\]a is 502; 380 during solar cycle 23 and 122 during solar cycle 24. These correspond to rates of 30.3 a$^{-1}$ for cycle 23 (duration of 12.6 years) and 18.5 a$^{-1}$ for cycle 24 (observed duration of 6.6 years until the end of June 2015). In Fig. \[led\_scatter\]b the number of days is 511; 390 during cycle 23 and 121 during cycle 24, corresponding to rates of and for cycles 23 and 24, respectively.
Figure \[led\_distributions\]a shows the cumulative distributions of daily average intensities of 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$ C (bottom panel), O (middle panel), and Fe (top panel) for solar cycles 23 and 24. Again, days with fewer than two counts of the corresponding ion species are omitted. This omission does not affect the shape of the distributions. All distributions were normalized to account for the amount of time SOHO/ERNE has been offline during the period in consideration. In addition, the distributions of solar cycle 23 were divided by the ratio $t_{SC23}/t_{SC24}$, where $t_{SC23}$ is the length of solar cycle 23 and $t_{SC24}$ is the length of solar cycle 24 up to June 30, 2015. The distributions were fit with double power-law functions with the breakpoint as one of the fitting parameters, and the breakpoint intensities are given in the figure. It should be noted that the data ranges used for the fitting vary between the fits; the bump in the lowest intensities of O was omitted, as was the drop in the highest intensities for all distributions except for cycle 23 O. The distributions of cycle 24 decrease more quickly than those of cycle 23 when the intensity increases, reflecting the lower solar activity, that is, the smaller number of SEP events with higher intensities. The difference of the logarithms of the power-law breakpoints were tested with t-tests similarly to Fig. \[led\_scatter\], and the probability values from the tests are shown in the figure. The difference is significant within the 95% confidence limit for all of the elements C, O, and Fe.
{width="17cm"}
Figure \[led\_distributions\]b shows the distributions of daily average 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$ intensity ratios Fe/C (bottom panel), Fe/O (middle panel), and Fe/(C+O) (top panel). The distributions were normalized in the same way as the intensity distributions in Fig. \[led\_distributions\]a. In each panel, a dashed line indicates the corresponding average values in gradual events measured at 5-12 MeV n$^{-1}$ [@reames1995a]. The solid line in the top panel shows the value in gradual events multiplied by two; this value is used as the criterion to select Fe-rich events in Sect. \[sect\_event\_sel\]. The distributions for solar cycle 24 are significantly lower than for cycle 23, mainly because of the lower number of days with two or more counts of Fe. The distributions reflect the bimodal shape reported in earlier surveys [e.g., @reames1988a],that is, they indicate two distinct populations of particles. The peaks of the populations with the lower values of Fe/O and Fe/(C+O) are close to the average gradual values divided by two. The corresponding peak for Fe/C is close to the gradual value divided by three. We explored the statistical validity of the observed two-peak structure by changing the binning of the data and found that it is a persistent feature of the distributions.
The daily averages in Fig. \[led\_distributions\]b suggest that cycle 23 was dominated by gradual events, whereas the number of gradual and impulsive events has been roughly equal during cycle 24. However, when we consider complete SEP events instead of just daily averages, the impulsive event population is lacking in cycle 24. This is discussed in more detail in Sect. \[sect\_flares\]. When we study daily average values like in Fig. \[led\_distributions\]b, we need to bear in mind that impulsive events have short durations, which meansthat more than one impulsive event may occur during one day. Furthermore, large gradual events have durations of several days, thus the same event may be sampled several times. Therefore the daily averages cannot be used too literally to deduce information about the number of actual SEP events, as the values attributed to gradual events are grossly overrepresented.
{width="17cm"}
Selection of iron-rich SEP events {#sect_event_sel}
---------------------------------
We wished to compare the two solar cycles with respect to the properties of SEP events with enhanced abundances of heavy elements, therefore we used the following two criteria to search for Fe-rich events: 1) The daily counts of C, O and Fe must each be two or more, and 2) the ratio of Fe/(C+O) must be higher than $0.183$, which is twice the corresponding value of gradual solar particle events in the 5–12 MeV n$^{-1}$ range as reported in @reames1995a. There were 126 days that fulfilled the criteria, 96 of them during solar cycle 23 and 30 during cycle 24. Figure \[imp\_days\_per\_year\] shows the number of days with Fe-enhancement for each year (green bars), with normalizations for the time SOHO/ERNE has been offline during each year (light green bars). The smoothed monthly international sunspot number is shown for comparison. The number of days with Fe-enhancement seems to roughly follow the mean sunspot number (an indicator of the overall solar activity), but there are also large deviations. For example, there were fewer days with Fe-enhancement during 1999, 2001, 2003, 2012, and 2014 than would have been expected from the activity level.
Figure \[imp\_days\_per\_cycle\]a shows the number of days with Fe-enhancement in units of a$^{-1}$ for the two cycles, divided into periods before and after the cycle maximum, with similar normalizations as in Fig. \[imp\_days\_per\_year\]. From this figure it is clear that the two solar cycles are different considering the heavy elements. The number of days per year with Fe-enhanced solar activity during the declining phase of the current cycle is about one third of what it was during the previous cycle at the corresponding time, while during the rising phases of the cycles the rates are roughly equal. In comparison, Fig. \[imp\_days\_per\_cycle\]b shows the ratio of days with Fe-enhancement (Fe/(C+O) $>0.183$) to all days with heavy ion activity (any value of Fe/(C+O) with at least two counts of each species recorded per day) during the rising and declining cycle phases. This figure shows that the portion of days with Fe-enhanced activity has been considerably smaller during the current cycle than in the previous cycle. It is interesting to note that the rising phases of both the previous and the current solar cycle had about twice as large a proportion of days with Fe-enhanced activity than the declining phases, and in this respect the cycles have been similar. The declining phase of cycle 24 is still ongoing, and the situation is thus subject to change with the detection or non-detection of Fe-enriched solar activity.
To study complete SEP events instead of regarding each day as a separate event, we made a visual scan of the SOHO/ERNE proton data and used previous catalogs of SEP events [@cane2010a; @vainio2013a] to associate the Fe-enriched days with SEP events. In addition, we used the NOAA GOES flare database [^3] and SOHO/LASCO CME catalog[^4] to obtain flare and CME associations for each event. In the end, we identified 86 events with one or more days with Fe enrichment; 65 of them occurred during solar cycle 23 and 21 during cycle 24. The event list with full details is presented in Table \[event\_list\].
The onset times for many of the events were taken from the SEPServer catalog [@vainio2013a], where the onset times were determined with the Poisson-CUSUM-method described in @huttunenheikinmaa2005a using $55$–$80$ MeV protons. After the publication of @vainio2013a, the catalog[^5] has been extended to cover the time period until the end of 2014. As several small events were not seen in that energy range and thus were not included in the catalog, we used the same method but with $12.6$–$13.8$ MeV protons to calculate the onset times. The ending times of the events were defined as when the one-hour average $12.6$–$13.8$ MeV proton intensity drops below five times the background level, or in the cases of multiple successive events, one minute before the starting time of the following event. During the observation period, the $12.6$–$13.8$ MeV proton background changed between \~$1 \cdot 10^{-4}$ cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$MeV$^{-1}$ in 2002 and \~$2 \cdot 10^{-4}$ cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$MeV$^{-1}$ in 2009. In some events the intensity rises above five times the background for only a short period of time or not at all; in these cases we used an event duration of 12 hours.
The selection criteria mean that the events on the whole are not necessarily Fe-rich, but they include at least one day with Fe-enhancement. In some large events the Fe-enhancement occurs only during the first day of the event, for example in event 37 in Table \[event\_list\] (4 November 2001), which lasted for over 12 days. This event was also mentioned by @cane2003a as an example of the type of event where the intensity-time profiles have two peaks: one close to the time of the associated flare, with relatively high Fe/O and the other during the shock passage, with low Fe/O. For some large, multi-day events, the Fe-enhancement occurs later on in the event, for example in event 52 (22 October 2003), which was associated with an eastern (N03E17) M-class flare. In this event the proton intensities rise slowly, and peak more than 24 hours after the onset, and the Fe-enhancement occurs during and after the peak intensities. In some cases it is also possible that the enhancement is caused by another smaller Fe-rich event occurring simultaneously in the background of the larger event, without causing a discernible rise in the proton intensities.
{width="17cm"}
{width="17cm"}
{width="17cm"}
{width="17cm"}
Properties of associated flares and CMEs {#sect_flares}
----------------------------------------
Figure \[fec\_vs\_solar\_event\] investigates the possible relationships between the event-averaged 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$ Fe/C ratio and the properties of the associated solar flare and CME. There are different numbers of points in each panel because not all the solar event associations were found for all the events. Events with a statistical uncertainty higher than 50% are excluded from Fig. \[fec\_vs\_solar\_event\] and the following analysis. In this study we chose to use Fe/C instead of the more commonly used Fe/O because C is more probably fully ionized than O; therefore Fe and C have maximally different Q/M values and their ratio is expected to exhibit the strongest effects of heavy ion enhancement.
Figure \[fec\_vs\_solar\_event\]a presents the Fe/C ratio versus the longitude of the associated flare. Events of solar cycle 23 with the highest Fe/C values are associated with flares at longitudes with good magnetic connection to Earth, but this behavior is not observed for events occurring during cycle 24. In fact, the two events with the highest values of Fe/C of cycle 24 (events 73 and 75) are associated with flares at N22E63 and S14W83, respectively, and especially the first is quite far from the well-connected region. The mean longitudes and their standard deviations of the associated flares are $+40 \pm 33$ for cycle 23 and $+21 \pm 48$ for cycle 24. It is also important to note that all Fe/C values for cycle 24 in the figure are below $1.2$, whereas there are many events of cycle 23 with higher Fe/C values.
In Fig. \[fec\_vs\_solar\_event\]b the Fe/C ratio is plotted versus the peak X-ray flux. Except for the lack of high values of Fe/C for cycle 24, there is no significant difference between the cycles. The same applies to Fig. \[fec\_vs\_solar\_event\]c, where the Fe/C ratio is plotted against the speed of the associated CME; both sets of events are distributed similarly. Figure \[fec\_vs\_solar\_event\]d shows the Fe/C ratio versus the width of the associated CME. Here the event populations are different: 82% (14 out of 17) of the CMEs of cycle 24 in the figure are halo CMEs, compared with 50% for cycle 23. The mean CME widths and standard deviations of the events occurring in cycles 23 and 24 are ($243 \pm 126$) degrees and ($314 \pm 104$) degrees, respectively. Recently, @gopalswamy2014a [@gopalswamy2015a] compared the properties of CMEs in cycles 23 and 24 and found that both the width of the non-halo CMEs and the fraction of halo CMEs have been significantly higher during solar cycle 24 than during cycle 23. They suggested that the anomalous widening of the CMEs in cycle 24 is a result of the diminished total pressure in the heliosphere.
From Figs. \[fec\_vs\_solar\_event\]a–d it is clear that there is a population with Fe/C > 1 among the events of cycle 23 that is almost completely lacking from the events of cycle 24. These events seem to be associated with flares with good magnetic connection and relatively low X-ray peak flux, and with relatively slow and narrow CMEs. These characteristics indicate that they are impulsive events. All but one of the events of cycle 23 in Fig. \[fec\_vs\_solar\_event\]a with Fe/C > 1 have rather short flare durations (shorter than an hour), giving further indication of the impulsive nature of these events, which are absent during cycle 24.
Properties of heavy ions {#sect_prop_heavy}
------------------------
Figure \[x\_vs\_c\] shows the event-averaged 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$ intensities of N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Ar, Ca, and Fe plotted versus the event-averaged 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$ intensity of C. Each panel is shown in a similar format as in Fig. \[led\_scatter\]. As in Fig. \[fec\_vs\_solar\_event\], events with a statistical uncertainty higher than 50% are excluded from this and the following figures and analyses. Linear fits on log-log scales were performed for the data. The statistical significance of the differences between the slopes of the fits for cycles 23 and 24 were tested with a t-test. At a 95% confidence level the differences were significant for N, O, Mg, and Si, but not for other elements, even though the differences were quite large for elements heavier than Si. It should also be noted that even though the differences are not statistically significant separately, they are all in the same direction, namely the slopes for cycle 24 are smaller for each ion species. Thus, the probability is very low that all the differences, although not all significant separately at a 95% confidence level, occur by chance.
The relation between the proton fluence and the relative abundances of heavy ions is studied in Fig. \[xc\_vs\_p\]. The ratios were normalized to corresponding values in gradual events as reported in @reames1995a. Proton fluence is taken here as an indicator of the event size. Figure \[xc\_vs\_p\] clearly shows that the ratio X/C decreases as the event size increases and that the decrease is stronger for heavier elements X. Even though the difference of slopes of the fits is statistically significant for only N/C and S/C, the populations are clearly different for Ne/C, Ar/C, Ca/C, and Fe/C. It is also worth noting that the events with the lowest proton fluences seem to be lacking from cycle 24 populations, again indicating the impulsive nature of the lacking events.
Figure \[xo\_vs\_fec\] shows the event-averaged abundance ratios of C, N, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Ar, Ca, and Fe to O versus the ratio of Fe to C. Again, the ratios were normalized to gradual values. On average, the slopes of the fits become steeper when moving from C/O towards Fe/O. Similar results of fractionation have been reported before, for example, for X/C vs. Fe/C [@reames1994a] at MeV n$^{-1}$ and for X/O vs. Fe/C [@mason2004a] at 320–450 keV n$^{-1}$. Events of cycle 23 do not exhibit this behavior as regularly as events of cycle 24. Ne/O, with a steeper-than-expected slope for both solar cycles, is an exception; it is also the only case where the difference of slopes between the solar cycles is statistically significant. In addition, Fe/C values for cycle 23 seem to be evenly distributed in log(Fe/C), as also noted by @mason2004a at lower energies. This is not true for Fe/C values for cycle 24, most of which are found at about $1.5$–4 times the gradual value.
--------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------------
Element All Cycle Cycle Gradual LSEP Corona
Events 23 24 Events Events ($1.4 \cdot 10^6$K)
C $=1.000$ $=1.000$ $=1.000$ $=1.00\pm0.03$ $=1.00\pm0.05$ $=1.00$
N $0.303\pm0.014$ $0.299\pm0.017$ $0.315\pm0.022$ $0.27\pm0.01$ $0.33\pm0.01$ $0.25$
O $2.062\pm0.080$ $2.127\pm0.098$ $1.864\pm0.118$ $2.15\pm0.05$ $2.77\pm0.11$ $2.04$
Ne $0.541\pm0.068$ $0.591\pm0.086$ $0.371\pm0.037$ $0.33\pm0.01$ $0.42\pm0.02$ $0.39$
Mg $0.521\pm0.044$ $0.552\pm0.054$ $0.422\pm0.046$ $0.42\pm0.01$ $0.63\pm0.03$ $0.46$
Si $0.422\pm0.036$ $0.461\pm0.044$ $0.304\pm0.052$ $0.33\pm0.01$ $0.65\pm0.04$ $0.44$
S $0.075\pm0.010$ $0.085\pm0.012$ $0.050\pm0.013$ $0.07\pm0.00$ $0.16\pm0.01$ $0.06$
Ar $0.008\pm0.003$ $0.010\pm0.004$ $0.001\pm0.001$ $0.01\pm0.00$ … $0.01$
Ca $0.044\pm0.010$ $0.048\pm0.011$ $0.029\pm0.020$ $0.02\pm0.00$ $0.06\pm0.01$ $0.03$
Fe $1.104\pm0.166$ $1.283\pm0.222$ $0.630\pm0.080$ $0.23\pm0.01$ $1.12\pm0.14$ $0.38$
--------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------------
Finally, Table \[abundances\] presents the unweighted mean abundances of various ions (relative to C) in the Fe-rich events in this study for all events (Col. 2) and separately for solar cycles 23 and 24 (Cols. 3 and 4, respectively). The uncertainties are calculated as the standard error of the mean. Values for gradual events [@reames1995a], large solar energetic particle (LSEP) events [@desai2006a], and quiet corona [@feldman2003a] are given as a comparison. This table shows that the mean abundances of the heavy ions from O to Fe in the Fe-rich events of cycle 24 are significantly lower than in cycle 23. For example, the average abundance of Fe in the Fe-rich events of cycle 24 is less than half of what it was in cycle 23. Still, compared to gradual events or the coronal values, the abundance of Fe in cycle 24 was clearly enhanced. The mean abundances of all Fe-rich events in this survey were between the values of gradual events and LSEP events at least to within the error limits, except for Ne, which had a higher value than either of the compared populations.
Summary and conclusions {#sect_concl}
=======================
We surveyed the heavy ion data measured by SOHO/ERNE from the beginning of solar cycle 23 until the end of June 2015, that is, well beyond the maximum of solar cycle 24. The long observation period allowed us to study and compare the properties of heavy ions in SEP events during the two solar cycles. We used the energy range of 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$ and were restricted to average daily intensities of $2.6\cdot10^{-6}$ cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$(MeVn$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$, $2.8 \cdot 10^{-6}$ cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$(MeVn$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$ and $3.8\cdot 10^{-6}$ cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$(MeVn$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$ for carbon, oxygen, and iron, respectively. These intensities correspond to two or more counts per day recorded by the instrument in the energy range 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$.
The number of days per year averaged over solar cycle with C, O, and Fe intensities above the thresholds given above were significantly higher (by a factor of $\geq$ 1.6) during cycle 23 than in cycle 24. When presenting the Fe intensities as functions of C or O intensities, the populations in cycles 23 and 24 behaved differently. During cycle 23, much higher C, O, and in particular Fe daily average intensities were recorded than in cycle 24 (Fig. \[led\_scatter\]). Linear fits in log-log scales of Fe intensity as a function of C or O intensity gave steeper slopes (at 95% confidence levels) for cycle 23 than for cycle 24. These results were the first indications of the reduced efficiency of solar particle acceleration in cycle 24.
The normalized number of days for carbon and oxygen at low cumulative daily average intensities were approximately equal during cycles 23 and 24, but days with higher intensities ($\geq$ 10$^{-3}$ cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$(MeVn$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$) occurred much less frequently during cycle 24 (Fig. \[led\_distributions\]). The difference for Fe between the cycles was clear at all intensities, with a lower normalized number of days in cycle 24. When fitting the distributions with double power laws, the breakpoints for all three elements were at lower intensities during cycle 24 and the distributions in cycle 23 extended to considerably higher maximum intensities. The latter was particularly true for iron. The fewer days with high C and O intensities in cycle 24 again indicate a weaker overall acceleration efficiency of SEPs. The complete absence of days with high Fe intensities ($\geq 8 \cdot 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$(MeVn$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$) seems to imply that the processes responsible for impulsive acceleration in particular are weaker during cycle 24. The bimodal distributions of Fe/(C+O) and Fe/O ratios show, however, that there are days with both gradual and impulsive SEP events during cycle 24 as well, although fewer than in cycle 23.
The number of Fe-enhanced days, defined as Fe/(C+O) $>0.183$, was much higher during cycle 23 and there was a clear difference between the rising and declining phases of the two cycles, with the largest number of Fe-enhanced days in the declining phase of cycle 23 (Fig. \[imp\_days\_per\_cycle\]a). When calculating the portion of Fe-enhanced days from all days with C, O, and Fe intensities above the thresholds (i.e., with any value of the Fe/(C+O) ratio and with at least two counts of each species recorded per day), both cycles had about twice as large portions of Fe-enhanced days in the rising phase than in the declining phase. Thus, although during the declining phase of cycle 23 there was a significantly larger number of days with C, O, and Fe detected than the rising phase, relatively few of these were Fe-enhanced. From comparing the cycles, we found the portions of Fe-enhanced days in both rising and declining phases of cycle 23 to be about twice larger than during cycle 24 at corresponding times (Fig. \[imp\_days\_per\_cycle\]b). This may be due to the significantly lower number of M- and X-class flares in cycle 24.
When identifying complete SEP events instead of individual days, 86 SEP events with Fe enrichment were found (Table \[event\_list\]). Of these, 65 occurred in cycle 23 and 21 in cycle 24. For the identified Fe-rich SEP events, we investigated the dependence of the Fe/C ratios on the flare longitude, X-ray flare peak flux, CME speed, and CME width (Fig. \[fec\_vs\_solar\_event\]). While the events of cycle 23 with highest Fe/C ratios were associated with flares at western longitudes, this was not observed during cycle 24, which had a much flatter flare longitude distribution. In this respect, cycle 23 events obeyed the expected behavior of Fe-rich impulsive SEP events originating from magnetically well-connected regions. In cycle 24, however, particles of Fe-rich events seem to have had easier access from distant longitudes to field lines connecting to Earth. No differences were observed between the cycles in the Fe/C ratio dependence on X-ray flare peak flux or CME speed. With respect to the CME widths, the SEP populations of the two cycles were different. In cycle 24, 82% of the Fe-rich SEP events for which a CME association was found were associated with halo CMEs. The corresponding portion in cycle 23 was only 50%. This may be related to the generally more frequent appearance of halo CMEs during cycle 24, presumably because of the diminished total pressure in the heliosphere [@gopalswamy2015a]. Associations of eastern Fe-rich events with rapidly expanding CMEs may also explain the access of particles to field lines connecting to Earth.
The population of events with Fe/C $>1$, which was present during cycle 23, was completely lacking during cycle 24 (Fig. \[fec\_vs\_solar\_event\]). The characteristics of these events during cycle 23 implied that they were impulsive events. The absence of these events in cycle 24 may be due to a reduced particle acceleration efficiency or to a different or less abundant seed particle populations. The latter may be related to a decrease in the efficiency of plasma fractionation processes due to low level of solar activity [@landi2015a].
The behavior of intensities of N, O, Mg, and Si vs. the intensity of C was found to be different during cycles 23 and 24. With 95% confidence levels, the slopes of the log-log fits for these elements were steeper during cycle 23 (Fig. \[x\_vs\_c\]). This is caused by the presence of large SEP events with high intensities of various elements in cycle 23, which were not present in cycle 24. This indicates a lower efficiency in the shock acceleration in cycle 24 that might be due to reduced turbulence in the low corona and in interplanetary space.
With increasing proton fluences of the events, the event-averaged X/C ratios were decreasing, and the decrease was stronger for heavier elements (Fig. \[xc\_vs\_p\]). No systematic statistically significant difference between the cycles was found, therefore we cannot reliably estimate whether there has been a change between the cycles in the efficiency of an A/Q-dependent acceleration process, for instance. For several elements, however, the populations during the two cycles were clearly different, and the events with the lowest proton fluences were lacking from the cycle 24 populations.
The event-averaged abundance ratios of X/O vs. Fe/C were found to generally increase and the slopes of the linear fits in log-log scales became steeper when moving from C/O toward Fe/O (Fig. \[xo\_vs\_fec\]). This was true for both cycles, and there was no statistically significant difference in the slopes between the cycles, excluding Ne/O, which had a steeper slope during cycle 23, and had a steeper slope than expected from the systematics of the other elements during cycle 24 as well. The values of Fe/C during cycle 23 were evenly distributed on a logarithmic scale, while during cycle 24 the ratio distribution was more restricted closer to the coronal value.
The mean abundances of heavy ions from O to Fe in Fe-rich SEP events were found to be significantly lower for cycle 24 than for cycle 23 (Table \[abundances\]). Compared to gradual SEP events or to coronal values, however, the abundance of Fe in these events was found to be clearly enhanced even during cycle 24.
Overall, we found that the properties of heavy ions in solar energetic particle events reflect the reduced solar activity and possibly the weaker magnetic field strength during solar cycle 24. There were fewer solar particle events with Fe intensities exceeding our threshold value in the energy range 5–15 MeV n$^{-1}$ during solar cycle 24 than during cycle 23. Furthermore, in general the average heavy ion abundances of cycle 24 events were lower than during cycle 23. Our results indicate lower efficiencies of solar particle acceleration processes in both large SEP events and weaker impulsive events during cycle 24 and possibly differences in the composition and abundance of seed particles between the two cycles.
We gratefully acknowledge the use of data made available at the GSFC and NOAA STP online services. The CME catalog is generated and maintained at the CDAW Data Center by NASA and The Catholic University of America in cooperation with the Naval Research Laboratory. SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA. O. R. wishes to thank the Vilho, Yrjö and Kalle Väisälä foundation for financial support. We thank the referee, Eberhard Möbius, for valuable comments, which improved the manuscript significantly.
[cccc ccccc cccc]{}
\
& & & &\
(r)[2-4]{} (lr)[5-9]{} (l)[10-12]{} ID & Date & Time & Dur. & Start & Max. & End & Pos. & Class & Start & Width & Speed & Fe/C\
& & & (h) & & & & & & & (deg) & (kms$^{-1}$) &\
\
& & & &\
(r)[2-4]{} (lr)[5-9]{} (l)[10-12]{} ID & Date & Time & Dur. & Start & Max. & End & Pos. & Class & Start & Width & Speed & Fe/C\
& & & (h) & & & & & & & (deg) & (kms$^{-1}$) &\
1 & 1997–Nov–4 & 06:41 & 54 & 05:52 & 05:58 & 06:02 & S14W33 & X2.1 & 06:10 & 360 & 785 & $0.98\pm0.09$\
2 & 1997–Nov–6 & 12:37 & 178 & 11:49 & 11:55 & 12:01 & S18W63 & X9.4 & 12:10 & 360 & 1556 & $1.12\pm0.04$\
3 & 1998–May–2 & 14:10 & 90 & 13:31 & 13:42 & 13:51 & S15W15 & X1.1 & 14:06 & 360 & 938 & $2.00\pm0.30$\
4 & 1998–May–6 & 08:29 & 68 & 07:58 & 08:09 & 08:20 & S11W65 & X2.7 & 08:29 & 190 & 1099 & $0.86\pm0.09$\
5 & 1998–May–9 & 04:32 & 128 & 03:04 & 03:40 & 03:55 & S,W100 & M7.7 & 03:35 & 178 & 2331 & $0.52\pm0.10$\
6 & 1998–May–27 & 14:48 & 47 & 13:30 & 13:35 & 14:50 & N18W58 & C7.5 & 13:45 & 268 & 878 & $0.53\pm0.31$\
7 & 1998–Oct–18 & 22:22 & 55 & …& …& …& N,W120 & …& dg & dg & dg & $0.90\pm0.40$\
8 & 1998–Nov–14 & 06:16 & 10 & …& …& …& N,W120 & …& dg & dg & dg & $1.73\pm0.24$\
9 & 1999–May–27 & 11:16 & 129 & 11:36 & 11:43 & 11:54 & S30E78 & C4.5 & 11:06 & 360 & 1691 & $0.42\pm0.34$\
10 & 1999–Jun–4 & 15:46 & 153 & 06:52 & 07:03 & 07:11 & N17W69 & M3.9 & 07:27 & 150 & 2230 & $0.17\pm0.02$\
11 & 1999–Dec–28 & 02:58 & 51 & 00:39 & 00:48 & 00:52 & N20W56 & M4.5 & 00:54 & 82 & 672 & $1.35\pm0.54$\
12 & 2000–Feb–18 & 09:57 & 103 & …& …& …& N,W120 & …& 09:54 & 118 & 890 & $3.70\pm3.10$\
13 & 2000–Mar–8 & 01:31 & 12 & 16:01 & 16:07 & 16:13 & S22E77 & M1.2 & 16:30 & 108 & 644 & $1.46\pm1.03$\
14 & 2000–May–1 & 11:29 & 12 & 10:16 & 10:27 & 10:34 & N20W54 & M1.1 & 10:54 & 54 & 1360 & $2.52\pm0.63$\
15 & 2000–May–4 & 12:40 & 33 & 10:57 & 11:08 & 11:14 & S20W90 & M6.8 & 11:26 & 170 & 1404 & $1.97\pm1.50$\
16 & 2000–Jun–4 & 13:06 & 47 & 06:24 & 06:30 & 06:34 & N21E45 & C3.1 & 07:31 & 17 & 597 & $1.47\pm1.47$\
17 & 2000–Jun–10 & 17:26 & 124 & 16:40 & 17:02 & 17:19 & N22W40 & M5.2 & 17:08 & 360 & 1108 & $1.54\pm0.31$\
18 & 2000–Jun–15 & 21:00 & 33 & 19:38 & 19:57 & 20:19 & N20W62 & M1.8 & 20:06 & 116 & 1081 & $0.92\pm0.53$\
19 & 2000–Jun–18 & 02:29 & 56 & 01:52 & 01:59 & 02:03 & N23W85 & X1.0 & 02:10 & 132 & 629 & $0.26\pm0.14$\
20 & 2000–Jun–23 & 15:06 & 39 & 14:18 & 14:31 & 14:46 & N23W72 & M3.0 & 14:54 & 198 & 847 & $1.25\pm0.70$\
21 & 2000–Jul–11 & 01:00 & 82 & 21:05 & 21:42 & 22:27 & N18E49 & M5.7 & 21:50 & 289 & 1352 & $0.19\pm0.07$\
22 & 2000–Jul–14 & 10:37 & & 10:03 & 10:24 & 10:43 & N22W07 & X5.7 & 10:54 & 360 & 1674 & $0.40\pm0.01$\
23 & 2000–Aug–12 & 11:25 & 106 & 09:45 & 09:56 & 10:09 & S17W79 & M1.1 & 10:35 & 168 & 662 & $0.52\pm0.18$\
24 & 2000–Sep–19 & 12:08 & 128 & 08:06 & 08:26 & 08:42 & N14W46 & M5.1 & 08:50 & 76 & 766 & $0.54\pm0.31$\
25 & 2000–Oct–16 & 07:39 & 150 & 06:40 & 07:28 & 09:11 & N,W95 & M2.5 & 07:27 & 360 & 1336 & $1.02\pm0.14$\
26 & 2000–Oct–25 & 12:40 & 102 & 08:45 & 11:25 & 15:21 & S,W120 & C4.0 & 08:26 & 360 & 770 & $0.50\pm0.11$\
27 & 2000–Oct–30 & 12:47 & 12 & … & …& …& …& …& dg & dg & dg & $2.21\pm2.02$\
28 & 2000–Nov–24 & 05:43 & 115 & 04:55 & 05:02 & 05:08 & N22W03 & X2.0 & 05:30 & 360 & 1289 & $0.20\pm0.01$\
29 & 2001–Jan–28 & 16:58 & 199 & 15:40 & 16:00 & 16:24 & S04W59 & M1.5 & 15:54 & 360 & 916 & $0.67\pm0.11$\
30 & 2001–Mar–10 & 07:39 & 72 & 04:00 & 04:05 & 04:07 & N27W42 & M6.7 & 04:26 & 81 & 819 & $0.34\pm0.22$\
31 & 2001–Mar–29 & 11:49 & 97 & 09:57 & 10:15 & 10:32 & N16W12 & X1.7 & 10:26 & 360 & 942 & $0.54\pm0.05$\
32 & 2001–Apr–2 & 12:24 & 10 & 10:58 & 11:36 & 12:05 & N16W62 & X1.1 & 11:26 & 80 & 992 & $1.24\pm0.64$\
33 & 2001–Apr–12 & 11:01 & 63 & 09:36 & 10:28 & 10:49 & S19W43 & X2.0 & 10:31 & 360 & 1184 & $0.34\pm0.04$\
34 & 2001–Apr–15 & 14:05 & 61 & 13:19 & 13:50 & 13:55 & S20W84 & X14.4 & 14:06 & 167 & 1199 & $0.52\pm0.02$\
35 & 2001–Sep–11 & 04:14 & 45 & 00:49 & 01:11 & 01:23 & …& M2.6 & 01:55 & 78 & 304 & $2.33\pm1.12$\
36 & 2001–Oct–22 & 15:51 & 227 & 14:27 & 15:08 & 15:31 & S21E18 & M6.7 & 15:06 & 360 & 1336 & $0.41\pm0.10$\
37 & 2001–Nov–4 & 16:45 & 304 & 16:03 & 16:20 & 16:57 & N06W18 & X1.0 & 16:35 & 360 & 1810 & $0.25\pm0.01$\
38 & 2002–Jan–27 & 13:38 & 134 & …& …& …& N,W120 & …& 12:30 & 360 & 1136 & $0.80\pm0.38$\
39 & 2002–Feb–20 & 05:58 & 109 & 05:52 & 06:12 & 06:16 & N12W72 & M5.1 & 06:30 & 360 & 952 & $1.27\pm0.20$\
40 & 2002–Apr–14 & 10:15 & 69 & 07:28 & 07:39 & 07:44 & N19W57 & C9.6 & 07:50 & 76 & 757 & $0.80\pm0.38$\
41 & 2002–May–30 & 06:39 & 51 & 04:24 & 05:32 & 06:13 & N,W100 & M1.3 & 05:06 & 144 & 1625 & $1.10\pm0.84$\
42 & 2002–Jul–19 & 07:17 & 70 & 23:08 & 23:17 & 23:23 & …& C8.2 & 01:32 & 85 & 654 & $0.21\pm0.06$\
43 & 2002–Aug–3 & 23:13 & 33 & 18:59 & 19:07 & 19:11 & S16W76 & X1.0 & 19:32 & 138 & 1150 & $1.45\pm0.21$\
44 & 2002–Aug–5 & 07:58 & 85 & 04:21 & 05:17 & 05:33 & S10W43 & C4.8 & 07:32 & 43 & 689 & $3.53\pm0.73$\
45 & 2002–Aug–18 & 22:10 & 35 & 21:12 & 21:25 & 21:37 & S12W19 & M2.2 & 21:54 & 140 & 682 & $4.35\pm0.42$\
46 & 2002–Aug–20 & 08:46 & 42 & 08:22 & 08:26 & 08:30 & S10W38 & M3.4 & 08:54 & 122 & 1099 & $7.05\pm0.50$\
47 & 2002–Aug–22 & 02:30 & 47 & 01:47 & 01:57 & 02:05 & S07W62 & M5.4 & 02:06 & 360 & 998 & $2.29\pm0.36$\
48 & 2002–Oct–30 & 04:03 & 240 & 02:53 & 02:58 & 03:11 & N30W66 & C3.6 & 05:50 & 100 & 339 & $0.34\pm0.09$\
49 & 2002–Nov–26 & 19:09 & 92 & 18:26 & 18:35 & 18:39 & N26W87 & C3.6 & … & …& …& $0.87\pm0.80$\
50 & 2003–May–31 & 02:56 & 74 & 02:13 & 02:24 & 02:40 & S07W65 & M9.3 & 02:30 & 360 & 1835 & $0.34\pm0.09$\
51 & 2003–Aug–19 & 09:02 & 36 & 07:38 & 07:59 & 08:01 & S12W64 & M2.0 & 08:30 & 35 & 412 & $0.29\pm0.18$\
52 & 2003–Oct–22 & 17:40 & 96 & 15:57 & 16:01 & 16:04 & N03E17 & M1.2 & 16:30 & 23 & 1040 & $0.80\pm0.16$\
53 & 2004–Jul–22 & 17:33 & 71 & 07:41 & 07:59 & 08:08 & N04E10 & C5.3 & 08:30 & 132 & 899 & $1.38\pm0.22$\
54 & 2004–Oct–30 & 07:58 & 7 & 06:08 & 06:18 & 06:22 & N13W22 & M4.2 & 06:54 & 360 & 422 & $2.14\pm1.38$\
55 & 2004–Oct–30 & 14:43 & 3 & 11:38 & 11:46 & 11:50 & N13W25 & X1.2 & 12:30 & 360 & 427 & $2.19\pm1.16$\
56 & 2004–Oct–30 & 18:01 & 36 & 16:18 & 16:33 & 16:37 & N13W28 & M5.9 & 16:54 & 360 & 690 & $1.42\pm0.37$\
57 & 2004–Nov–1 & 06:15 & 155 & 03:04 & 03:22 & 03:26 & N12W49 & M1.1 & 03:54 & 192 & 459 & $0.20\pm0.06$\
58 & 2005–Jan–15 & 23:35 & 289 & 22:25 & 23:02 & 23:31 & N15W05 & X2.6 & 23:07 & 360 & 2861 & $0.21\pm0.00$\
59 & 2005–May–6 & 02:57 & 11 & 03:05 & 03:14 & 03:21 & S04W71 & C9.3 & 03:30 & 109 & 1120 & $6.54\pm2.41$\
60 & 2005–May–6 & 14:06 & 70 & 11:11 & 11:28 & 11:35 & S04W76 & M1.3 & 11:54 & 129 & 1144 & $0.52\pm0.09$\
61 & 2005–Jun–16 & 20:35 & 134 & 20:01 & 20:22 & 20:42 & N09W85 & M4.0 & dg & dg & dg & $0.71\pm0.29$\
62 & 2005–Aug–29 & 14:28 & 65 & …& …& …& S,W120 & …& 10:54 & 360 & 1600 & $0.31\pm0.17$\
63 & 2006–Nov–21 & 20:36 & 12 & …& …& …& S,W120 & …& dg & dg & dg & $2.95\pm2.55$\
64 & 2006–Dec–13 & 02:59 & 35 & 02:14 & 02:40 & 02:57 & S06W23 & X3.4 & 02:54 & 360 & 1774 & $1.06\pm0.03$\
65 & 2006–Dec–14 & 23:08 & 206 & 21:07 & 22:15 & 22:26 & S07W46 & X1.5 & 22:30 & 360 & 1042 & $0.90\pm0.22$\
66 & 2010–Jun–12 & 02:43 & 68 & 00:30 & 00:57 & 01:02 & N23W43 & M2.0 & 01:32 & 119 & 486 & $0.52\pm0.25$\
67 & 2010–Sep–1 & 01:28 & 23 & 21:50 & 21:53 & 21:56 & …& B1.8 & 21:17 & 360 & 1304 & $5.19\pm4.16$\
68 & 2011–Mar–21 & 03:27 & 137 & … & …& …& …& …& 02:24 & 360 & 1341 & $0.53\pm0.11$\
69 & 2011–Jun–5 & 05:10 & 50 & 02:11 & 02:14 & 02:17 & …& B3.5 & 03:00 & 27 & 573 & $0.87\pm0.22$\
70 & 2011–Jun–7 & 07:36 & 80 & 06:16 & 06:41 & 06:59 & S21W54 & M2.5 & 06:49 & 360 & 1255 & $0.60\pm0.11$\
71 & 2011–Aug–4 & 04:40 & 110 & 03:41 & 03:57 & 04:04 & N19W36 & M9.3 & 04:12 & 360 & 1315 & $0.46\pm0.02$\
72 & 2011–Aug–9 & 08:22 & 122 & 07:48 & 08:05 & 08:08 & N17W69 & X6.9 & 08:12 & 360 & 1610 & $0.69\pm0.15$\
73 & 2011–Nov–3 & 23:39 & 155 & 20:16 & 20:27 & 20:32 & N22E63 & X1.9 & 23:30 & 360 & 991 & $1.10\pm0.49$\
74 & 2012–Mar–13 & 17:53 & 173 & 17:12 & 17:41 & 18:25 & N19W59 & M7.9 & 17:36 & 360 & 1884 & $0.23\pm0.02$\
75 & 2012–Jul–8 & 23:59 & 89 & 16:23 & 16:32 & 16:42 & S14W83 & M6.9 & 16:54 & 157 & 1495 & $1.12\pm0.52$\
76 & 2012–Sep–28 & 06:31 & 129 & 23:36 & 23:57 & 00:34 & N06W37 & C3.7 & 00:12 & 360 & 947 & $0.57\pm0.15$\
77 & 2013–Apr–11 & 08:10 & 106 & 06:55 & 07:16 & 07:29 & N09E12 & M6.5 & 07:24 & 360 & 861 & $0.96\pm0.13$\
78 & 2013–May–13 & 12:56 & 40 & 01:53 & 02:17 & 02:32 & N11E89 & X1.7 & 02:00 & 360 & 1270 & $1.48\pm1.21$\
79 & 2013–May–22 & 13:47 & 227 & 13:08 & 13:32 & 14:08 & S18W15 & M5.0 & 13:26 & 360 & 1466 & $0.09\pm0.00$\
80 & 2013–Jun–28 & 05:48 & 46 & 01:36 & 01:59 & 02:28 & S16E14 & C4.4 & 02:00 & 360 & 1037 & $0.27\pm0.21$\
81 & 2013–Oct–25 & 13:49 & 64 & 07:53 & 08:01 & 08:09 & S08E73 & X1.7 & 08:12 & 360 & 587 & $0.63\pm0.31$\
82 & 2013–Oct–28 & 06:19 & 12 & 01:41 & 02:03 & 02:12 & N04W66 & X1.0 & 02:24 & 360 & 695 & $1.01\pm0.36$\
83 & 2013–Oct–28 & 18:49 & 16 & 15:07 & 15:15 & 15:21 & S08E28 & M4.4 & 15:36 & 360 & 812 & $0.92\pm0.24$\
84 & 2014–Apr–18 & 13:42 & 157 & 12:31 & 13:03 & 13:20 & S20W34 & M7.3 & 13:26 & 360 & 1203 & $0.29\pm0.03$\
85 & 2014–May–7 & 19:15 & 33 & 16:07 & 16:29 & 17:03 & N15E50 & M1.2 & 16:24 & 360 & 923 & $0.74\pm0.64$\
86 & 2014–Sep–10 & 19:28 & 104 & 17:21 & 17:45 & 18:20 & N14E02 & X1.6 & 18:00 & 360 & 1267 & $0.12\pm0.02$\
Statistical testing of the linear fits {#sect_stattest}
======================================
The linear fits in this paper were calculated with the procedure `fitexy` for Interactive Data Language (IDL). The procedure is a part of the widely used IDL Astronomy User’s Library[^6]. The procedure calculates a linear least-squares approximation taking into account errors in both variables, $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$, by minimizing the quantity $$\label{chi}
\chi^2 = \displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\frac{(y_i-a-bx_i)^2}{\sigma_{yi}^2+b^2\sigma_{xi}^2},$$ where $a$ is the intercept and $b$ the slope of the resulting fit. In addition to $\chi^2$, $a,$ and $b$, the procedure calculates the error estimates $\sigma_a$ and $\sigma_b$ for the fit parameters.
We wish to test whether the difference of two slopes of linear fits is statistically significant. This can be achieved using the Student t-test with the statistic $$t = \frac{b_1 - b_2}{\sqrt{\sigma_{b_1}^2 + \sigma_{b_2}^2}},$$ where $b_1$ and $b_2$ are the slopes of the two fits and $\sigma_{b_1}$ and $\sigma_{b_2}$ their errors. When the scatter of the data is large compared to the error limits of the data points, the fit is ”poor”, that is, $\chi^2$ is large, although a linear model can still be the correct model. In this case, the error estimates of the fit parameters are not meaningful. To achieve a ”good” fit and meaningful parameter error estimates, the error limits in both x and y directions are enlarged by multiplying them with such a number that the fitting procedure yields a reduced chi-square $\chi_{\mathrm{red}}^2 = 1$. Equation \[chi\] shows that the multiplying factor is equal to the square root of the reduced chi-square of the fit with the original error estimates. This method was used for all of the statistical testing of fit parameters in this paper.
[^1]: In addition, one SEP event has led to a counting-rate increase of two neutron monitors at the south pole [@thakur2014a], but this is not included in the official list of GLEs (<http://gle.oulu.fi/>) because the event did not produce statistically significant increases in other stations
[^2]: Available online at\
<http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/>
[^3]: Available online at\
<ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/x-rays/goes/>
[^4]: Available online at <http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME_list/>
[^5]: Available online at <http://server.sepserver.eu/>
[^6]: Available online at http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The string inspired tachyon field can serve as a candidate of dark energy. Its equation of state parameter $w$ varies from $0$ to $-1$. In case of tachyon field potential $V(\phi)\to 0$ slower(faster) than $1/\phi^2$ at infinity, dark energy(dark matter) is a late time attractor. We investigate the tachyon dark energy models under the assumption that $w$ is close to $-1$. We find that all the models exhibit unique behavior around the present epoch which is exactly same as that of the thawing quintessence.'
address: 'Centre of Theoretical Physics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi-110025, India'
author:
- 'Amna Ali[^1], M. Sami[^2] and A.A. Sen[^3]'
title: 'The transient and the late time attractor tachyon dark energy: Can we distinguish it from quintessence ?'
---
Introduction
============
One of the most challenging problems of modern cosmology is associated with late time acceleration of universe which is supported by observations of complementary nature. According to the standard lore, an exotic perfect barotropic fluid with large negative pressure dubbed [*dark energy*]{} can account for repulsive effect causing acceleration[@review1; @review2; @review3]. The simplest example of dark energy is provided by cosmological constant $\Lambda$. The model is consistent with observation but is plagued with difficult theoretical issues. The field theoretic understanding of $\Lambda$ is far from being satisfactory and its small numerical values gives rise to problems of [*fine tuning*]{} and [*coincidence*]{}. A variety of scalar field models including quintessence, tachyons, phantoms and K-essence has been investigated in the recent years to address the problem[@review2; @Paul; @Kes]. These models have some advantage over the cosmological constant: (i) They can mimic cosmological constant at the present epoch and can give rise to other observed values of the equation of state parameter $w$ (recent data indicate that $w$ lies in a narrow strip around $w=w_{\Lambda}=-1$ and is consistent with being below this value). (ii) They can alleviate the fine tuning and coincidence problems.
The scalar field model, which is the simplest generalization of cosmological constant, is one with a linear potential [@linear]. This model starts with a cosmological constant like behaviour where the scalar field is frozen initially due to Hubble damping. Later on, it starts rolling, but because the potential has no minimum, it leads to a collapsing universe in future. Hence universe in this model, has a finite history.
The more complicated scalar field models can broadly be classified into two categories. Models in which scalar field mimics the background (radiation/matter) being subdominant for most of the evolution history. Only at late times it becomes dominant and accounts for the late time acceleration. Such a solution is referred to as [*tracker*]{}. In this case $w({\phi}) \simeq w_b$ ($w_b=0, 1/3$) before the transition from matter like regime or [*scaling regime*]{} to accelerated expansion. Tracker models are independent of initial conditions used for field evolution but do require the tuning of the slope of the scalar field potential. During the scaling regime the field energy density is of the same order of magnitude as the background energy density.
In second class of models, trackers are absent. Hence at early times, the field gets locked ($w({\phi})=-1$) due to large Hubble damping and waits for the matter energy density to become comparable to field energy density which is made to happen at late times. The field then begins to evolve towards larger values of $w({\phi})$ starting from $w({\phi})=-1$. In this case, for a viable cosmic evolution, one chooses $\rho_{\phi} \sim \rho_{\Lambda}$ during the locking regime which requires the tuning of initial conditions of the field. The two classes of scalar fields are called Freezing and Thawing models.
In case of standard scalar field (quintessence), there is a variety of models which possess tracker solutions. In case of tachyon field[@s1; @as1] (motivated by string theory), there exists no solution which can mimic scaling matter/radiation regime[@samicop; @samiothers; @allthat; @Paddy; @staro; @Bagla; @AF; @AL; @GZ]. These models necessarily belong to the class of thawing models. Tachyon models do admit scaling solution in presence of a hypothetical barotropic fluid with negative equation of state. Tachyon fields can be classified by the asymptotic behavior of their potentials for large values of the field: (i) $V(\phi) \to 0$ faster than $1/\phi^2$ for $\phi \to \infty$. In this case dark matter like solution is a late time attractor. Dark energy may arise in this case as a transient phenomenon. (ii) $V(\phi) \to 0$ slower than $1/\phi^2$ for $\phi \to \infty$ ; these models give rise to dark energy as late time attractor. The two classes are separated by $
V(\phi)\sim 1/\phi^2$ which is scaling potential with $w({\phi})=const$.
Since observationally, the equation of state parameter of dark energy is very close to one, we can use this information to simplify the dynamics. In case of thawing quintessence and phantom field, it allows to obtain a generic expression for $w$ which represents the entire class of quintessence and phantom models[@sen1; @sen2]. In this paper we apply the same technique to tachyon field which belongs to the class of thawing models. With the current state of observation, we address the issue of distinguishing the tachyon dark energy from the case of quintessence.
Dynamics of tachyon field
=========================
In what follows we shall be interested in the cosmological dynamics of tachyon field which is specified by the Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) type of action given by
$$\mathcal{S}=\int {
-V(\phi)\sqrt{1-\epsilon\partial^\mu\phi\partial_\mu\phi}}\sqrt{-g} d^4x
\label{Taction1}$$
where on phenomenological grounds, we shall consider a wider class of potentials satisfying the restriction that $V(\phi) \to 0$ as $\phi \to \infty$. The parameter $\epsilon = \pm 1$ where the plus sign corresponds to the normal tachyon field which is non-phantom whereas with minus sign, one can model phantom type tachyon fields phenomenologically. In FRW background, the pressure and energy density of $\phi$ are given by $$p_{\phi}=-V(\phi)\sqrt{1-\epsilon\dot{\phi}^2}$$ $$\rho_{\phi}=\frac{V(\phi)}{\sqrt{1-\epsilon\dot{\phi}^2}}$$ The equation of motion which follows from (\[Taction1\]) is $$\ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi}(1-\epsilon\dot{\phi}^2)+\epsilon\frac{V'}{V}(1-\epsilon\dot{\phi}^2)=0$$ where $H$ is the Hubble parameter $$H^2=\frac{\rho_{\phi}+\rho_b}{3}$$ The evolution equation can be cast in the following autonomous form for the convenient use $$\begin{aligned}
&& x'=-(1-\epsilon x^2)(3x-\sqrt{3}\epsilon\lambda y)\\
&& y'=\frac{y}{2}\left[-\sqrt{3} \lambda x
y-\frac{3(\gamma_{b}-\epsilon x^2)y^2}{\sqrt{1-\epsilon x^2}}+3\gamma_{b}\right] \\
&&\lambda'=-\sqrt{3}\lambda^2 xy(\Gamma-\frac{3}{2})\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
x=\dot{\phi},
~y=\frac{\sqrt{V(\phi)}}{\sqrt{3}H},~\lambda=-\frac{V_{\phi}}{V^{\frac{3}{2}}},~\Gamma=V\frac{V_{\phi\phi}}{V_{\phi}^2}
\label{Gamma1}\end{aligned}$$ where prime denotes the derivative with respect to $\ln(a)$. Here $\gamma_{b}$ is defined as $p_{b}=(\gamma_{b}-1)\rho_{b}$ for the background field. In our subsequent calculations, we shall assume a non-relativistic matter for our background field for which $\gamma_{b} =1 $.
An important remark on the autonomous system is in order. Let us consider the inverse power law type potential $V(\phi)=V_0 \phi^{n}$ $(n<0)$. Eq.(\[Gamma1\]) tells us that $\Gamma>3/2$ if $n<-2$ allowing $\lambda$ to increase monotonously for large values of the field. In this case $\dot{\phi} \to 1$ or $w \to 0$ where as $w$ approaches the de-Sitter limit for $n>-2$ ($\Gamma<3/2$). These two classes of tachyon potentials are separated by the inverse square potential with constant $\lambda$ ($\Gamma=3/2$) which provides the analog of scaling potential in case of tachyon. However, there is major difference that in the present case, the field can only mimic a hypothetical fluid with negative equation of state leading to accelerated expansion. Unfortunately, the mass scale in the potential turns out be larger than the Planck mass. The class of potentials designated by $ -2<n<0$ is free from this problem and gives rise to dark energy as late time attractor of dynamics.
{width="80mm"}
In the analysis to follow, it will be convenient to use the following quantities $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\phi}=\frac{y^2}{\sqrt{1-\epsilon x^2}},~~\gamma_{\phi}=\epsilon(1+w)=\epsilon^{2}\dot{\phi}^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $w= {p_{\phi}\over{\rho_{\phi}}}$ is the equation of state for the tachyon field. One can now express the autonomous equations through them: $$\gamma_{\phi}'=-6\gamma_{\phi}(1-\epsilon\gamma_{\phi})+2\sqrt{3\gamma_{\phi}\Omega_{\phi}}\lambda(1-\epsilon\gamma_{\phi})^\frac{5}{4}$$ $$\Omega_{\phi}'=3\Omega_{\phi}(1-\epsilon\gamma_{\phi})(1-\Omega_{\phi})$$ $$\lambda'=-\epsilon\sqrt{3\gamma_{\phi}\Omega_{\phi}}\lambda^2(1-\epsilon\gamma_{\phi})^\frac{1}{4}(\Gamma-\frac{3}{2})$$ The first two equations can be combined into one by a change of variable from $a \to \Omega_{\phi}$ $$\frac{d\gamma_{\phi}}{d\Omega_{\phi}}=\frac{\gamma_{\phi}'}{\Omega_{\phi}'}=
\frac{-2\gamma_{\phi}(1-\epsilon\gamma_{\phi})}{\Omega_{\phi}(1-\Omega_{\phi})(1-\epsilon\gamma_{\phi})}+
\frac{2\sqrt{3\gamma_{\phi}\Omega_{\phi}}\lambda(1-\epsilon\gamma_{\phi})^\frac{5}{4}}{3\Omega_{\phi}(1-\Omega_{\phi})(1-\epsilon\gamma_{\phi})}
\label{Impeq}$$
Late time evolution
-------------------
From Eq.(\[Impeq\]), one can see that for non-phantom and phantom cases, i.e $\epsilon = \pm 1$, the equation is completely different and hence one expects to have different evolutions for $\gamma_{\phi}(\Omega_{\phi})$ for non-phantom and phantom cases.
{width="80mm"}
But we are interested in the investigations of cosmological dynamics around the present epoch where $\gamma_{\phi}<<1$. Secondly, in our case $w({\phi})$ improves slightly beginning from the locking regime, thereby, telling us that the slope of the potential does not change appreciably. This implies that the potential is very flat around the present epoch such that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{V}\left(\frac{V_{,\phi}}{V}\right)^2<<1,~~\frac{V_{\phi\phi}}{V^2}<<1
\label{slowroll}\end{aligned}$$
{width="80mm"}
In case of field domination regime, the two conditions in Eq.(\[slowroll\]) define the slow roll parameters which allows to neglect the $\ddot{\phi}$ term in equation of motion for $\phi$. In the present context, unlike the case of inflation, the evolution of field begins in the matter dominated regime and even today, the contribution of matter is not negligible. The traditional slow roll parameters can not be connected to the conditions on slope and curvature of potential which essentially requires that Hubble expansion is determined by the field energy density alone. Thus the slow roll parameters are not that useful in case of late time acceleration, though, Eq.(\[slowroll\]) can still be helpful.
{width="80mm"}
In view of the aforesaid, we can drop all the terms of order higher than $\gamma_{\phi}$ in Eq.(\[Impeq\])and assume that the slope of the potential is constant, $\lambda=\lambda_{0}$. These follow from the two slow-roll conditions (15) as we shall show later. Evolution equation then simplifies to $$\frac{d\gamma_{\phi}}{d\Omega_{\phi}}=\frac{-2\gamma_{\phi}}{\Omega_{\phi}(1-\Omega_{\phi})}+
\frac{2\lambda_{0}}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{\gamma_{\phi}^\frac{1}{2}}{(1-\Omega_{\phi})\sqrt{\Omega_{\phi}}}
\label{ImpeqL}$$ Let us note that Eq.(\[ImpeqL\]) is same as its counter part in case of quintessence though the full Eq.(\[Impeq\]) is different. The difference between tachyon and quintessence dynamics is represented by terms of higher order than $\gamma_{\phi}$. Thus if we restrict our investigation of dark energy dynamics very close to cosmological constant behavior, we can not distinguish tachyon dark energy from quintessence. Also equation (16) is independent of $\epsilon$. Hence $(1+w)$ for non-phantom case and $-(1+w)$ for phantom case, have exactly similar evolution around cosmological constant.
Eq.(\[ImpeqL\]) can be transformed into a linear differential equation with the change of variable $s^2=\gamma_{\phi}$, we have boundary condition $\gamma_{\phi}=0$ at $\Omega_{\phi} =0$. The resulting solution expressed in terms of $w(\phi)$\
$$\begin{aligned}
1+w=\epsilon\frac{\lambda_{0}^2}{3}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Omega_{\phi}}}-(\frac{1}{\Omega_{\phi}}-1)tanh^{-1}\sqrt{\Omega_{\phi}}\right]^2\nonumber\\
=\epsilon\frac{\lambda_{0}^2}{3}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Omega_{\phi}}}-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{\Omega_{\phi}}-1)ln(\frac{1+
\sqrt{\Omega_{\phi}}}{1-\sqrt{\Omega_{\phi}}})\right]^2 \label{wOmega}\end{aligned}$$
Under the approximation $\gamma_{\phi}<<1$ which is justified about the present epoch, all the tachyon models follow a general track irrespective of the particular field potential. One can see from (17) that $1+w \sim O(\lambda^2)$. Hence the first slow roll condition ($\lambda <<1$) ensures that $1+w <<1$. We can quantify our second assumption that the slope of the potential does not change appreciably during the evolution as $\lambda^{'}/\lambda << 1$. Noting that $\gamma \sim \lambda^{2}$ and also $\gamma <<1$, one can then use eqn (13) to write $${V^{''}\over{V^{2}}} - {3\over{2}}{V^{'2}\over{V^{3}}} << 1;$$ together with the first slow-roll condition, this ensures the second slow-roll condition to be satisfied. We also show in figure 5, the actual behavior of $\lambda$ for different potentials for non-phantom case. This also shows $\lambda$ is constant during the entire evolution for all practical purposes. One can also arrives the same behavior for phantom case. In figure 1 and figure 3, we show the our analytical approximation for $w(\Omega_{\phi})$ in comparison with the numerical solutions of the exact equations for different potentials with different initial values for $\lambda$ for non-phantom and phantom cases. They show that our approximation works reasonably well as long as $\lambda_{0}$ is small, i.e as long as the slow-roll conditions are satisfied.
Next, we can use eqn (12) to solve for $\Omega_{\phi}(a)$ to determine $w(a)$. assuming $\gamma_{\phi} <<1$, this gives $$\Omega_{\phi} = \left[1+(\Omega_{\phi0}^{-1} -1)a^{-3}\right]^{-1}\label{Omega},$$ where $\Omega_{\phi0}$ is the present day value of $\Omega_{\phi}$. Equation (17) and (19) gives the complete behavior for the equation of state $w(a)$ for tachyon fields with potentials satisfying the slow-roll conditions (15). One can also express the parameter $\lambda_{0}$ in terms of the present day value $w_{0}$ of the equation of state which is quite straightforward. This behaviours are shown in figure 2 and figure 4 for non-phantom and phantom cases.
Similar to the case of thawing quintessence, non-phantom tachyon models are restricted to a part of the $w'-w$ plane. To specify the the limits, let us define a parameter $X$ $$\begin{aligned}
X=-\frac{\ddot{\phi}}{H\dot{\phi}w}\nonumber =-\frac{w'}{2w(1+w)}
\to w'=-2Xw(1+w)\end{aligned}$$ Since the Hubble parameter is determined by matter dominated regime in the beginning of evolution, we find that $X=-3/2w\leq 3/2$ as $w\geq -1$ which leads to the upper limit, $w'<3(1+w)$. The lower bound on $w'$ is estimated numerically (demanding that at present $\Omega_{\phi} <=0.8$) as, $ w'>-.8(1+w)$ giving rise to the permissible region of $w'$-$w$ plane $$-0.8(1+w)<w'<3(1+w).$$
{width="80mm"}
In figure 3 we have shown this permissible region together with the actual behavior for different potentials.
{width="80mm"}
Observational Constraint
========================
The solution given by Eqs.(\[wOmega\]) $\&$ (\[Omega\]) for the equation of state parameter $w$ versus the scale factor $a$ for tachyon field under slow-roll conditions is exactly similar to that for a canonical scalar field as obtained earlier in [@sen1; @sen2]. They have also constrained the two parameters $w_{0}$ and $\Omega_{\phi0}$ of the model using the SNLS (Supernva Legacy Survey)[@snls] and BAO data[@bao]. At present, we have the Union08 compilation of the SnIa data which contains around 307 data points[@kowalski]. This is world’s published first heterogeneous SN data set containing large sample of data from SNLS, Essence survey, high redshift supernova data from Hubble Space telescope as well as several small data sets. We use this data set together with the BAO data from SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey)[@bao]. The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ contour intervals for our model have been shown in figure 4. From the figure, it is clear that one can not distinguish cosmological constant with a thawing dark energy models with present data although the phantom dark energy models are preferred.
{width="80mm"}
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have examined the DBI system with a phenomenologically motivated class of run away potentials. In general, the the tachyon dynamics crucially depends upon the asymptotic behavior of the potential $V(\phi)$ at large values of $\phi$. The inverse square potential gives rise to constant equation of state which is determined by the slope of the potential, $w=-1+\lambda^2/2$. We analysed the class of tachyon potentials with dark energy and dark matter as late time attractors. Models in which $V(\phi)$ decrease faster than $\phi^{-2}$ can give rise to transient dark energy near the top of the potential and then mimic dark matter as late time attractor. Since $\rho_{\phi}$ for tachyon field scales slower than matter, its energy density for a viable cosmic evolution should be fixed around $\rho_{\Lambda}$ at earlier epochs allowing the field to freeze due to large Hubble damping. Thus all the three classes of tachyon models belong to thawing type. The data available at present allows to carry out investigations around the present epoch with $\gamma_{\phi}<<1$. As soon as $\rho_{\phi}$ becomes, comparable to matter density, field begins evolve. The equation of state improves slightly starting from $w(\phi)=-1$. Hence, the slope of the potential does not change appreciably which we confirmed numerically. In the limit of small adiabatic index of $\phi$ assuming $\lambda$ to be constant, we have shown that the resulting evolution equations are same as in case of quintessence which can be solved analytically. Our simulation shows that the approximation is very close to the numerical results for $\lambda<1$ around the present epoch. Deviations are possible in the far future. We therefore conclude that tachyon dynamics is difficult to distinguish from quintessence at least in the near future. We also extended our analysis to the case of phantom tachyon. Again in the region of interest, we find that phantom tachyon model is difficult to distinguish from the ordinary phantom field. We also constrained the parameters $w_{0}$ and $\Omega_{\phi0}$ for our model using the latest supernovae data along with baryon acoustic oscillation BAO data. Our analysis shows some preference for phantom energy.
The fact that all the scalar field dark energy models have a unique equation of state as long as they are in the slow-roll regime, makes a strong case for the $w(a)$ given by equations (17) and (19). It does not matter whether the scalar field has a canonical or non-canonical kinetic term. It is also the same for non-phantom or phantom scalar fields. We hope that this equation of state behaviour for the dark energy will be considered seriously while fitting with the observational data coming from future experiments.
Acknowledgemnet
===============
AAS acknowledges the financial support provided by the University Grants Commission, Govt. Of India, through the major research project grant (Grant No: 33-28/2007(SR)).
[99]{} V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **9**, 373 (2000); S. M. Carroll, arXiv:astro-ph/0004075; T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept. **380**, 235(2003); P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. **75**, 559 (2003); E. V. Linder, arXiv:astro-ph/0511197; 1753(2006)\[hep-th/0603057\]; L. Perivolaropoulos, astro-ph/0601014; N. Straumann, arXiv:gr-qc/0311083.
E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys., [D15]{} , 1753(2006)\[hep-th/0603057\].
E. V. Linder, astro-ph/0704.2064; J. Frieman, M. Turner and D. Huterer, arXiv:0803.0982; Robert R. Caldwell and Marc Kamionkowski,arXiv:0903.0866; A. Silvestri and Mark Trodden, arXiv:0904.0024.
I. Zlatev, L. M. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 896 (1999); P. J. Steinhardt, L. M. Wang and I. Zlatev, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 123504 (1999); L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 043511 (2000).
C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4438 (2000); Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 103510 (2001); T. Chiba, T. Okabe and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 023511 (2000).
R. Kallosh, J. Kratochvil, A. Linde, E. Linder and M. Shmakova, JCAP [**0310**]{}, 015 (2003); R. Kallosh, J. Kratochvil, A. Linde, E. Linder and M. Shmakova, JCAP [**0412**]{}, 006 (2004); P. P. Avelino, C. J. A. P . Martins, and J. C. R. E. Oliveira Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 083506 (2004); P. P. Avelino Phys. Lett. B. [**611**]{}, 15 (2005).
A. Sen, JHEP [**0204**]{}, 048 (2002); JHEP [**0207**]{}, 065 (2002); Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**17**]{}, 1797 (2002); arXiv: hep-th/0312153.
A. Sen, JHEP [**9910**]{}, 008 (1999); M. R. Garousi, Nucl. Phys. B[**584**]{}, 284 (2000); Nucl. Phys. B [**647**]{}, 117 (2002); JHEP [**0305**]{}, 058 (2003); E. A. Bergshoeff, M. de Roo, T. C. de Wit, E. Eyras, S. Panda, JHEP [**0005**]{}, 009 (2000); J. Kluson, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 126003 (2000); D. Kutasov and V. Niarchos, Nucl. Phys. B [**666**]{}, 56 (2003). E. J. Copeland, M. R. Garousi, M. Sami , S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. [**D71**]{}, 043003 (2005)\[hep-th/0411192\]. S. Tsujikawa and M. Sami, Phys. Lett. [**B603**]{}, 113(2004)\[hep-th/0409212\]; M. Sami, N. Savchenko and A. Toporensky, Phys. Rev. [**D70**]{}, 123528(2004)\[hep-th/0408140\]. L. P. Chimento, Monica Forte, G. M. Kremer and M. O. Ribas, 0809.1919 \[gr-qc\]; W. Chakraborty, Ujjal Debnath, e-Print: arXiv:0804.4801; I.Ya. Aref’eva and A.S. Koshelev, JHEP 0809:068,2008\[0804.3570\]; Zong-Kuan Guo and Nobuyoshi Ohta, JCAP 0804:035,2008; M.R. Setare, Phys. Lett. [**B653**]{}, 116(2007); Z. Keresztes, L.A. Gergely, V. Gorini, U. Moschella, A.Yu. Kamenshchik, arXiv:0901.2292. T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 021301 (2002). G. N. Felder, Lev Kofman and A. Starobinsky,JHEP [**0209**]{},026(2002)\[hep-th/0208019\]
J. S. Bagla, H. K. Jassal and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 063504 (2003).
L. R. W. Abramo and F. Finelli, Phys. Lett. B [**575**]{} (2003) 165.
J. M. Aguirregabiria and R. Lazkoz, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 123502 (2004).
Z. K. Guo and Y. Z. Zhang, JCAP [**0408**]{}, 010 (2004).
R. J. Scherrer and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 083515 (2008).
R. J. Scherrer and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 067303 (2008).
T. Davis et.al, Astrophys. J. [**666**]{}, 716 (2007).
D. J. Eisenstein et.al, Astrophys. J. [**633**]{}, 560 (2005).
M. Kowalski et.al, Astrophys. J. [**686**]{}, 749 (2008).
[^1]: email:[email protected]
[^2]: email:[email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.